| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2007 12:45:59 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I don't think we can make people vote more than already is, but, what we should think about is that how to make voted images lesser than already is; so people already voting hundreds a week would better justify most images (I think that's what I mean here)
So, here is another idea... Free study should stay in voting 3 weeks. Each week last 150 images that are scored low could be dropped totally (or some percentage can be worked out, like 1/3 images dropped out)... and last week voting there will be only about 200 photos left (or only 1/3 left)... people might be more interested in last finalists and vote on them...
Would that be fair? or no?
(I may just become stupider here with that suggestion) |
I proposed something similar over a year ago, a tiered voting system where the field was cut to, say, the top 50% or 33% or whatever after 3 days of voting. Went over like a lead balloon...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:48:00 AM · #102 |
 Bear_Music, great minds think alike ;) |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:50:58 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I don't think we can make people vote more than already is, but, what we should think about is that how to make voted images lesser than already is; so people already voting hundreds a week would better justify most images (I think that's what I mean here)
So, here is another idea... Free study should stay in voting 3 weeks. Each week last 150 images that are scored low could be dropped totally (or some percentage can be worked out, like 1/3 images dropped out)... and last week voting there will be only about 200 photos left (or only 1/3 left)... people might be more interested in last finalists and vote on them...
Would that be fair? or no?
(I may just become stupider here with that suggestion) |
I do have a few questions relating to this proposal, since I vote on all images in every challenge:
1. Do you not foresee the very distinct possibility that some very good images would be dropped simply because of lack of voting in the first week;
2. What would compel people to vote in the first week if they know that the votes that really matter would occur only in the last week;
3. If I vote on each of the entries in a current challenge having 450 entries, I dole out a total of 450 votes, whereas under your proposal I would have to vote 450 + 300 + 150 for a whopping total of 900 votes by the end of the challenge... a bit much in my estimation.
I am amenable to changes... but not to something like this I'm afraid.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 00:52:04. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:51:56 AM · #104 |
If the problem is that many entries are not interesting to vote on, wouldn't it make sense for those people to wait until someone else had done all the work of weeding out the "not quite so good" entries?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:52:50 AM · #105 |
I bet you could very easily double the number of votes cast in a large challenge by not allowing thumbnails to be viewed unless you have voted on the image. I think cherry picking is probably prominent in large challenges and there are photos that people want to vote on and ones they don't care about voting on. I think the viewers want to see the photos even if they aren't going to vote on them, and the thumbnails are providing that opportunity.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:53:39 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by L2:
If the problem is that many entries are not interesting to vote on, wouldn't it make sense for those people to wait until someone else had done all the work of weeding out the "not quite so good" entries? |
That would assume that we all share the same views on images... which I would seriously doubt. Besides, I much prefer doing my own "weeding out".
Ray |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:54:36 AM · #107 |
RayEthier, I don't know man... I mean if people voting (not you of course) %20 percent of 550 photos, what's the difference I would ask. and only for a week.
I am not saying "kick the weak, carry the big", but that suggestion could bring out  L2's point, last images will be much better and people would vote more on them.. more than %20 I hope
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:59:58 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I don't think we can make people vote more than already is, but, what we should think about is that how to make voted images lesser than already is; so people already voting hundreds a week would better justify most images (I think that's what I mean here)
So, here is another idea... Free study should stay in voting 3 weeks. Each week last 150 images that are scored low could be dropped totally (or some percentage can be worked out, like 1/3 images dropped out)... and last week voting there will be only about 200 photos left (or only 1/3 left)... people might be more interested in last finalists and vote on them...
Would that be fair? or no?
(I may just become stupider here with that suggestion) |
I proposed something similar over a year ago, a tiered voting system where the field was cut to, say, the top 50% or 33% or whatever after 3 days of voting. Went over like a lead balloon...
R. |
Robert I remember this being brought up a while back and thought it was a good idea. But this discussion just like many more are hit with the proverbial "beat the horse to death" post. Weeks, months, and even years later it brought up again. Because of that little phrase I feel it has caused a lot of people to be shut-up because they know that others are going to scorn them. What happens is we never have a good discussion on the matter and it gets to the point it is at now.
I believe when SC or Admins see a post of concern that users or the SC feels should be addressed, there should be a survey posted. Like the DPL survey, post a survey to see what the site could do to avoid issues like we are having now.
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 01:01:25. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 01:03:21 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by L2:
Voting started to decline about the same time as we enacted the splitting up of the Open Challenges, so fragmentation has not proven a viable solution to this problem. |
That was so long ago! DPC has changed in so many ways, that some ancient piece of history probably has little impact on the truth today.
Surely it would be a good idea to find out how the majority of members feel about this, and what better way than a poll? |
Except, it's not really ancient history, as the decline has been noticed this week. |
I'm curious about this decline. Are we talking about votes/challenge or total vote cast in the week? With all the challenges in one week the ratio may be a bit lower but I'm guessing the overall vote total is normal. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 01:17:48 AM · #110 |
| How about if you let registered users vote too! just vote. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 01:20:06 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
2. What would compel people to vote in the first week if they know that the votes that really matter would occur only in the last week; |
What compels people to vote now ? The same thing would apply. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:48:04 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
1. Do you not foresee the very distinct possibility that some very good images would be dropped simply because of lack of voting in the first week;
2. What would compel people to vote in the first week if they know that the votes that really matter would occur only in the last week;
3. If I vote on each of the entries in a current challenge having 450 entries, I dole out a total of 450 votes, whereas under your proposal I would have to vote 450 + 300 + 150 for a whopping total of 900 votes by the end of the challenge... a bit much in my estimation.
I am amenable to changes... but not to something like this I'm afraid.
Ray |
That's where the tiered voting system comes in: it still only lasts a week, but the average over the first few days determines if you "make the cut". If you don't make the cut, your score after 3 days becomes that image's score in the stats. I think it very unlikely that any potential ribbon-winning entries would not make the cut, frankly. And you wouldn't have to vote twice, either: if you can rack 'em all up in the first 3 days, then you are done with voting regardless.
But I do believe that a significant number of people would come on board in the last 4 days to do some serious voting if the images had been pruned down to "the best and the brightest" for them already.
I really DO think it is worth consideration. We see so many people mentioning in the forums that they wish they didn't have to wade through so much junk to find the really interesting and original images. I think this is reality, and the tiered voting proposal addresses it.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 05:07:22 AM · #113 |
| As one who enters a lot of "junque" (and fine junque it may be in my mind), I think this would discourage everyone who finishes in the bottom 50% from ever entering challenges at all. I pretty much know after the first couple of days that I haven't made the cut. I suppose I can be happy with scoring ending there, but I will also have lost interest in the rest of the challenge for those that "made the cut". Why should I bother? I'm already history.... I'm on to the next one. Those that are "still in the running" can fight it out at that point. You could, conceivably, actually lower the number of votes this way. Just another point of view to consider. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 05:37:04 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
I wouldnt mind seeing a quarterly FS. |
I like having a FS every month. There's always some shot that didn't work it's way into a challenge theme that I really like. The FS is perfect for that IMO. |
I think that's exactly the problem with the FS: people use it as a garbage can for anything they can not use in a challenge. Some pretty nice pictures in that garbage can, I admit. But how does it fit with the concept of a 'challenge'?
To me, the fun of DPC is having to shoot for a theme within a time frame, not just uploading my prettiest picture of the current month. Likewise, I think it's much more fun voting on themed challenges than on unthemed ones, despite the high quality of the latter.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 05:57:48 AM · #115 |
Some good discussion and suggestions in this thread (too). Although I'm a little baffled why this subject is being carried on in two different places - the other: Encourage people to vote - ideas. I know this No More Free Study Challenges thread was the original one (well not counting the myriad in DPC history), but perhaps pooling efforts and ideas would be more productive... here, or there, but one or the other.
Unless of course this one is purely about eliminating the Free Studies.. but seems to have 'evolved'. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 08:37:11 AM · #116 |
I assume each of us has a certain amount of time they are willing to spend on voting. Splitting up challenges or changing the voting procedure (with a first filtering round or whatever) won't change anything about this.
The only solution I see is less entries in a challenge -> more votes/comments per image. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 08:50:54 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I assume each of us has a certain amount of time they are willing to spend on voting. Splitting up challenges or changing the voting procedure (with a first filtering round or whatever) won't change anything about this.
The only solution I see is less entries in a challenge -> more votes/comments per image. |
This is exactly my thinking. Changing voting time would not change anything. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 09:49:38 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
1. Do you not foresee the very distinct possibility that some very good images would be dropped simply because of lack of voting in the first week;
2. What would compel people to vote in the first week if they know that the votes that really matter would occur only in the last week;
3. If I vote on each of the entries in a current challenge having 450 entries, I dole out a total of 450 votes, whereas under your proposal I would have to vote 450 + 300 + 150 for a whopping total of 900 votes by the end of the challenge... a bit much in my estimation.
I am amenable to changes... but not to something like this I'm afraid.
Ray |
That's where the tiered voting system comes in: it still only lasts a week, but the average over the first few days determines if you "make the cut". If you don't make the cut, your score after 3 days becomes that image's score in the stats. I think it very unlikely that any potential ribbon-winning entries would not make the cut, frankly. And you wouldn't have to vote twice, either: if you can rack 'em all up in the first 3 days, then you are done with voting regardless.
But I do believe that a significant number of people would come on board in the last 4 days to do some serious voting if the images had been pruned down to "the best and the brightest" for them already.
I really DO think it is worth consideration. We see so many people mentioning in the forums that they wish they didn't have to wade through so much junk to find the really interesting and original images. I think this is reality, and the tiered voting proposal addresses it.
R. |
It could be that I am totally misunderstanding this proposal, but from my perspective there is:
1. A very distinct possibility that some very good images could fall off the map since not all images look great when viewed solely via the thumbnail and it could be argued that is how some individual pre-determine which images they wish to vote for.
2. I don't believe I would want to limit my vote to the initial voting phase, but would much rather continue with the process... a sort of wanting to see if my horses came in scenario, and as such I would definitely have to vote a lot more than I do now.
3. It is also conceivable that some might opt out of voting in the first two phaseĆ¢s altogether, a process which could possibly skew the outcome, or have a negative impact on the desired results.
As I indicated previously, I am certainly amenable to changes, and would readily support this proposal on a trial basis to see if it addresses the issue, but I still have a great deal of reservation as to how well it will work, and whether nor not it will truly increase voting.
Ray
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:35:56 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
As one who enters a lot of "junque" (and fine junque it may be in my mind), I think this would discourage everyone who finishes in the bottom 50% from ever entering challenges at all. I pretty much know after the first couple of days that I haven't made the cut. I suppose I can be happy with scoring ending there, but I will also have lost interest in the rest of the challenge for those that "made the cut". Why should I bother? I'm already history.... I'm on to the next one. Those that are "still in the running" can fight it out at that point. You could, conceivably, actually lower the number of votes this way. Just another point of view to consider. |
You already know this after the first couple of days anyway, right? So what has changed? You still get a score, you still get a placement in the challenge, you just end up with fewer votes than before.
Once a challenge is in the voting stage, there's no active "fighting it out" anymore. So what has changed?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:39:05 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I assume each of us has a certain amount of time they are willing to spend on voting. Splitting up challenges or changing the voting procedure (with a first filtering round or whatever) won't change anything about this.
The only solution I see is less entries in a challenge -> more votes/comments per image. |
It's not a "first filtering round". A certain percentage of entries are dropped off the voting page after after a few days, and the rest of the voting period is devoted to the images that are scoring best. Those that have less time to vote, can wait until the field has been cut, then chime in on the reduced field.
End result: a less-intimidating number of images to vote on fro, say, dial-up users and those who are time-challenged, but NO restrictions on size of field...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:49:02 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It could be that I am totally misunderstanding this proposal, but from my perspective there is:
1. A very distinct possibility that some very good images could fall off the map since not all images look great when viewed solely via the thumbnail and it could be argued that is how some individual pre-determine which images they wish to vote for. |
I don't think that many people do that, proportionally. I don't see this happening. It's my experience that my images receive at least 75% of their final votes in the first few days, and I can predict within .1 my final score after the first 3 days. I believe this proposal will bring in MORE votes on the top-scoring images overall, which is what we're after; more participation.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
2. I don't believe I would want to limit my vote to the initial voting phase, but would much rather continue with the process... a sort of wanting to see if my horses came in scenario, and as such I would definitely have to vote a lot more than I do now. |
You apparently aren't understanding: all your votes always count. There are not two phases of voting. If you vote all the images in the first 3 days, you will have registered a vote on every image, and every vote will count. If you spread your voting out over the entire week, then at the end of the week you'll be voting only on images that made the cut, is the only difference. There is not "two phases" of voting.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
3. It is also conceivable that some might opt out of voting in the first two phaseĆ¢s altogether, a process which could possibly skew the outcome, or have a negative impact on the desired results. |
I presume you mean "the first phase", meaning that some will wait until the cut is made to start voting? Yes, that's the idea. These are the people that don't vote the whole challenge anyway, and it concentrates their votes into a smaller group. It IS going to have some effect on how the "missed the cut" group is scored in the end, but I don't think, statistically, it is going to make a difference.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
As I indicated previously, I am certainly amenable to changes, and would readily support this proposal on a trial basis to see if it addresses the issue, but I still have a great deal of reservation as to how well it will work, and whether nor not it will truly increase voting. |
Yup, that's what I'd like to see also.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:50:38 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I assume each of us has a certain amount of time they are willing to spend on voting. Splitting up challenges or changing the voting procedure (with a first filtering round or whatever) won't change anything about this.
The only solution I see is less entries in a challenge -> more votes/comments per image. |
It's not a "first filtering round". A certain percentage of entries are dropped off the voting page after after a few days, and the rest of the voting period is devoted to the images that are scoring best. Those that have less time to vote, can wait until the field has been cut, then chime in on the reduced field.
End result: a less-intimidating number of images to vote on fro, say, dial-up users and those who are time-challenged, but NO restrictions on size of field...
R. |
I see issues with that kind of system, first we would not all get to vote on all of the images unless we vote early, second why would anyone vote early and have to see all the images....:). |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:56:24 AM · #123 |
In October, I posted the following charts for SC review. I think that this thread is a great place to post them for general review. I believe they *need* to be seen by the community, and FWIW, they are constructed completely from publicly available data. These charts cover all DPC challenges through the 3rd quarter of 2007. Descriptions of what's on the chart are in the details area.
My take-away from this is that we *do* have a problem with decreased voter participation. We do need some fresh ideas as to how to encourage voting. We can't force people to vote, we need to *encourage* it. I personally like the ideas related to voter recognition, though like Alan I may be biased ;-)
I don't think that breaking up large challenges will do anything to increase the total number of votes cast... the breaking up of the Open Challenges certainly did not.
Member Challenges:
    
Open Challenges:
     [/quote] |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:56:30 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I see issues with that kind of system, first we would not all get to vote on all of the images unless we vote early, second why would anyone vote early and have to see all the images....:). |
You have the option of viewing/voting on them all. That hasn't changed. The system is designed to cull the field and encourage those who do NOT vote because fields are too large/too watered down with simply average images. We've heard from a number of them in this thread.
It's worth a try, anyway, to see how it works out. In the real world, most competitions have a screening process for entries that takes place before the voting ever begins.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:58:14 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[quote=RayEthier]
It could be that I am totally misunderstanding this proposal...
[quote=Bear_Music]Yup, that's what I'd like to see also.
R. |
Thanks for the explanation Robert... I'm in the bus now :O)
Ray |
|
