| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2008 10:24:21 PM · #1 |
... a slider voting scale like this. Allowing voters the option to vote down to the 1/10 of a point.
[thumb]676144[/thumb]
I know there are times (a lot) I think a photo does not deserve X score so I have to lower or raise it to the next whole point while I feel it may not deserve that low or high of a score as well. For example this would give the voter an option to give a photo a score of say 6.4 instead of having to either give the photo a 6 (lower than they wanted to score it) or a 7 (higher than they wanted to score it).
Just a though! now lets hear your thoughs... no dead horses please :P
Scott |
|
|
|
05/04/2008 10:52:18 PM · #2 |
| When I find myself wanting to do this sort of finer grained control, It is because I am subconsciously restricting the scores to the expected DPC score, rather than my own evaluation. |
|
|
|
05/04/2008 10:56:44 PM · #3 |
i really like this idea, i hope it gets put into place.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2008 10:57:29 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
When I find myself wanting to do this sort of finer grained control, It is because I am subconsciously restricting the scores to the expected DPC score, rather than my own evaluation. |
+1
|
|
|
|
05/04/2008 11:00:05 PM · #5 |
| If you truely use the entire 1-10 scale, accually giveing out 1's and 10's frequently, I find that the divisions are small enough to evaluate every photograph. |
|
|
|
05/04/2008 11:27:55 PM · #6 |
Please dont take this as a personal attack. Its just my feeling that if you can tell the difference between a 5.9 and a 6, then you likely dont need DPC. You are either one of the greatest photographers in the world and could judge Ansel Adams or your very Anal and take this thing way too seriously.
Matt
Edited to make the reference more "photography related" then art.
Message edited by author 2008-05-04 23:40:32. |
|
|
|
05/04/2008 11:37:45 PM · #7 |
Well you could always vote on the curve :D
|
|
|
|
05/04/2008 11:54:04 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Please dont take this as a personal attack. Its just my feeling that if you can tell the difference between a 5.9 and a 6, then you likely dont need DPC. You are either one of the greatest photographers in the world and could judge Ansel Adams or your very Anal and take this thing way too seriously.
Matt
Edited to make the reference more "photography related" then art. |
 MattO, I respect your opinion but believe you are looking at it from a different angle. No â I canât critique a photograph so precise to judge it to a 10th of a point but where this would help is after you have finished your first round of voting and all those photographs are sitting in clusters of 1 through 10, if you vote the full scale.
I donât know if anyone else is like me but I canât stand to see 20+ photos grouped in one cluster. Say â 20 photos all voted 6. And knowing a few in that same cluster that I like more than the others but not as much as the ones in the 7 cluster where another 15 or 20 photographs sit.
This would allow me to take those 20 pictures in the cluster and align them based on how I view them. Now photograph âAâ is rated a 6.5 and photograph âBâ is rated a 6.7 and photograph âCâ is rated a 6.3 because I like photograph âBâ better than âAâ and âAâ better than âCâ.
Now do you see how it could work?
Message edited by author 2008-05-04 23:56:20. |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 12:03:22 AM · #9 |
I can see where you're coming from but think that would over complicate matters. People have a hard enough time with only 10 choices, never mind 100.
Being able to score separately on things like composition, exposure, impact or something similar I think would be far easier than trying to make smaller pigeon holes for images.
i.e.
Let's say image A your score 10 for exposure, 5 for composition and 3 for impact (18/3) = 6
and image B your score is 6 for exposure, 8 for composition and 8 for impact (22/3) = 7.3 rounded
Let the website figure out any decimal points.
===================
However, on a challenge with more than 400 entries, either system would take way too much time for most people.
Message edited by author 2008-05-05 00:03:46. |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 02:32:10 AM · #10 |
| I would vote for it if it's effect was real-time so I could sit here and slide it back and forth and drive those update-addicts nuts! ;-) |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 04:54:18 AM · #11 |
There is a fairly well respected argument that you shouldn't give more than 7 options to choose between.
I don't see how keyboard voting would work with the slider.
I don't see any changes taking place to alter the voting scale because it wouldn't be backward compatible with the previous challenges, and maintaining the structural integrity of the site seems to be an important principal - see people quitting, but their old images having to remain.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2008 05:20:18 AM · #12 |
OK, that's funny.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I would vote for it if it's effect was real-time so I could sit here and slide it back and forth and drive those update-addicts nuts! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
05/05/2008 08:49:11 AM · #13 |
It might be interesting to have some sort of a "fine tune" option such as this slider that only became available after you had voted 100% of the entries...
In other words, referring to SDW's "can't stand to have 20 images with the same score" scenario, this would allow further fine-tuning of the votes AFTER you'd voted on all the images, and could meaningfully compare them with each other within their groups. I have the gut feeling that this slider thing would be totally counter-productive on first-pass voting, but I can see it coming into its own on second-pass, contemplative voting.
R. |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 09:17:22 AM · #14 |
Scott, I understand the impulse behind your suggestion, but I think if you gave me the option of fine tuning it would take far too much of my time.
With the voting method we have now, I can look at all my 6 votes and yes, there will be some I like better than others. What usually happens is I end up bumping some up. This in turn causes me to bump up some some 7s to 8s, and on up the line. Everybody wins! ;-) |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 11:18:05 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I can see where you're coming from but think that would over complicate matters. People have a hard enough time with only 10 choices, never mind 100.
Being able to score separately on things like composition, exposure, impact or something similar I think would be far easier than trying to make smaller pigeon holes for images.
i.e.
Let's say image A your score 10 for exposure, 5 for composition and 3 for impact (18/3) = 6
and image B your score is 6 for exposure, 8 for composition and 8 for impact (22/3) = 7.3 rounded
Let the website figure out any decimal points.
===================
However, on a challenge with more than 400 entries, either system would take way too much time for most people. |
A long long time ago the site USEFILM had a 5 category 1-7 rating for each category on each photo. You could see a average for each category (Lighting, Composition, appeal, etc) and the overall rating of the photo was the average of the 5. One could easily see where they lacked or excelled. For learning purposes, one could see where they needed work even without comments. In a learning/competitive environment it was a great accessment of technique and curb appeal. Due to whining (got to take care of the squeaky wheels) they ditched that system for the "Rate my Girlfriend/Boyfriend" 1-10 voting system like we have here and is seen all over the internet.
As you pointed out rating on a system like that here would not work as it is time consuming and beyond that this community is just too broad a place with varying skillsets and "Artistic" medium backgrounds. For example: There are some here that can not tell the difference from Out of Focus and Intentional soft focus...
I would love to find a site like that (again)...but until that time I think I have to play along with the Rate my GF/BF style voting...
Adding 1/10th of point will only change the numbers a little.
Message edited by author 2008-05-05 11:18:52. |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 11:42:36 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It might be interesting to have some sort of a "fine tune" option such as this slider that only became available after you had voted 100% of the entries...
In other words, referring to SDW's "can't stand to have 20 images with the same score" scenario, this would allow further fine-tuning of the votes AFTER you'd voted on all the images, and could meaningfully compare them with each other within their groups. I have the gut feeling that this slider thing would be totally counter-productive on first-pass voting, but I can see it coming into its own on second-pass, contemplative voting.
R. |
I like this idea for sure! |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 12:14:01 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It might be interesting to have some sort of a "fine tune" option such as this slider that only became available after you had voted 100% of the entries...
In other words, referring to SDW's "can't stand to have 20 images with the same score" scenario, this would allow further fine-tuning of the votes AFTER you'd voted on all the images, and could meaningfully compare them with each other within their groups. I have the gut feeling that this slider thing would be totally counter-productive on first-pass voting, but I can see it coming into its own on second-pass, contemplative voting.
R. |
I like this idea for sure! |
yes, Robert said in a few words what took me many to try to say. This is exactly what I would like to see. |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 12:21:32 PM · #18 |
| Sure would wreak havoc on the spread sheet trackers. :-P |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 12:48:52 PM · #19 |
As pointed out by several posters, there's not much of a benefit to do this (because the final outcome of voting would be almost unaffected), and there are downsides. Probably the single biggest downside would be on the site statistics end. Moving from integer votes to floating point votes would be a major change, and statistics calculations would certainly be affected.
As pointed out, it would also greatly complicate keypad voting. |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 12:51:32 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sure would wreak havoc on the spread sheet trackers. :-P |
LOL! I'd be one of those.
If not a scoring system that goes down to the 10th of a point what about:
Scoring to the 5ths of a pt. (ie= 5.0000 - 5.2000 - 5.4000 - 5.6000 - 5.8000 - 6.000 etc...)
Last but not least even this method would work for me:
Scoring to the 1/2 pt. (ie= 5.000 - 5.5000 - 6.0000 - 6.5000 - 7.000 - 7.5000 etc..)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 09:14:22 AM EDT.
