| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2003 01:44:40 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
You must have a lot of time on your hands is all I can say. |
That's what computers are there for - to speed up boring repetitious tasks like working out exactly what vote that last Philistine gave me which dropped my score by 0.2! Ah, Excel is fun!
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 04:13:50 AM · #27 |
Perhaps there should be a three strikes and out policy?
If a voter votes a 1 or 2 for any of the ribbon-winning shots more than three times then he/she is evicted from the site and exposed in a public 'name and shame' forum post, which would elaborate on the reasons why these people may be devoid of good taste.
Their name and address should also be published to enable DPC vigilantes to deal with them as they see fit. Sound fair? ;) |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 04:51:52 AM · #28 |
I worry about this 'voting pattern calculation' for example, in some recent challenges I feel the overall quality of image has fallen since I first joined DPC in March. In one challenge, there must have been 10-20 out of focus images (no I am not talking about the soft focus challenge ;) And for me, there is no excuse for an OOF shot. Every camera can focus, but not every photographer can be bothered to shoot the subject enough times or manual focus to make sure they get it right.
For that I often gives 1's and 2's (and when I also submit such crap I too expect to get bashed - Nostalgia was a mistake by me //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=36947)
One OOF shot I commented on even brought a reply from the photographer saying sharpness was not important in his/her criteria when taking a photograph! Am I the only one who thinks OOF photography is not so good?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 07:14:38 AM · #29 |
I totally agree with MK's first post. I can only imagine how much junk I'd receive and inquiries into why I gave a photo a 3 or a 4, or even a 1 for that matter. I can see it's frustrating to get a 1 or what not, but it's not the end of the world. I strongly feel that good images finish on top.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 07:28:57 AM · #30 |
| I can't speak for who ever voted on you, and I have no clue what image is your, but for myself, if the image had any real form of money in it what so ever I voted it very low no matter how good the shot was because it stated right in the challenge requriements. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 07:36:05 AM · #31 |
Of course it can work the other way. I would like to know why some people give a 10 to a photograph that, for instance, comes last in a challenge!!
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:22:09 AM · #32 |
Another site that is similar to DPC addresses this issue with the concept of "voting karma". And voting anonymity is still maintained. You can read a description of it here.
Basically, "the level of karma you have is automatically determined by your personal voting habits. It drops when you deliberately give an image what you don't think it deserves. It raises when you rate all the images in a contest fairly."
Your karma also increases for voting on more images in a contest.
The section on "deviation" explains another way in which your voting karma is computed.
Which says "this is not a system of punishment and reward, nor is it a judgement of your personal tastes. It's merely a way to measure your ability to discern actual image quality, and allows plenty of room for your individual tastes to come into play without damaging your karma. It maximizes the effects that consistantly fair and observant voters have on an entry's average, and minimizes the effects that 'quirky' or downright dishonest voters can have."
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 08:27:16. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:28:35 AM · #33 |
But doesn't something like voting karma cause people to vote how they think other's will instead of their own personal opinion of the image??
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:34:36 AM · #34 |
I've talked to one of the jurors over there and they say the system works extremely well.
If you read the details, your vote just has to be within +/-3 of the final weighted score for your karma to increase. So if the final score is 7.4, then anyone who voted within 4.4 - 10 is deemed to be voting fairly and their karma goes up (until it reaches some maximum). Anybody who voted below 4.4 would have their voting karma reduced -- and the higher the deviation the more the karma reduction (so somebody who voted a 1 is dinged more than somebody who voted a 3).
That also means that average images (those that score in the middle of the pack, near 5.5) have a very wide scoring region -- from 2.5 to 8.5. Which is plenty of room for "individual voter expression". In those cases, users who voted 1, 2 (dishonest voters) or 9, 10 (friend of the photographer) would have karma reductions, everyone else would increase their voting karma.
To quote their rules: "Trust us. It works."
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 08:52:33. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:35:45 AM · #35 |
then, that is a neat idea.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:45:36 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
...Which says "this is not a system of punishment and reward, nor is it a judgement of your personal tastes. It's merely a way to measure your ability to discern actual image quality, and allows plenty of room for your individual tastes to come into play without damaging your karma. It maximizes the effects that consistantly fair and observant voters have on an entry's average, and minimizes the effects that 'quirky' or downright dishonest voters can have." |
EddyG, this sums it up nicely. While there are no absolutes; i.e., a standard for voting isn't a hard and fast law, there's common sense and fairness. Karma implies that there's a price to pay for "'quirky or downright dishonest" votes, or what I characterize as frivolous. ...Not a 'personal' price, but one that lessens the impact or effect of such quirkiness. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 09:35:16 AM · #37 |
from someone who gets there share of one's- and most likely deservedly so, the voting imo should remain as anonymous as possible. I agree with a previous post that there should be 3 or more categories to vote on- three scales.
1. technical merit 1-10
2. Creativity 1-10
3. overall appeal/meeting challenge criteria 1-10.
that might help balance out the scores so that a "1" would occur less b/c the judge would most likely admit technical merit or appropriate challenge material , but could give a zinger on the "creativity" or the like.
Lets worry about good photos and creativity instead of micro managing the contest. I get pleaseure from my own shots even if they stink. I think the odd shots and such add to the flavor of the site, and as long as they are not boring snapshots, they don't detract- even if I get alot of "1's" The people with all the ribbons are like the yankees - high budget, high talent, always winning, etc. But perhaps there is room for an expansion team to capture the title...
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 09:37:15. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 09:40:28 AM · #38 |
I don't think any kind of voter 'correction' system will ever be in place here at DPC. we pay the price for our freedom with occasional extreme votes but at the same time we get an honest reaction and, since the results are averages, the rankings still give an accurate picture of the results.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 09:45:25 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
If you read the details, your vote just has to be within +/-3 of the final weighted score for your karma to increase. So if the final score is 7.4, then anyone who voted within 4.4 - 10 is deemed to be voting fairly and their karma goes up (until it reaches some maximum). Anybody who voted below 4.4 would have their voting karma reduced -- and the higher the deviation the more the karma reduction (so somebody who voted a 1 is dinged more than somebody who voted a 3).
|
I'd rather the contest/challenge portion be on the photography end, not the voting end.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:00:58 AM · #40 |
Forget the spiteful 1-voting zeros - they're losers.
And, veering of subject a bit, I think we should forget clinicising the voting criteria. What is technical ability without aesthetics? What is good DOF without a good focal point?
When was the last time you gave a photograph (outside of DPC) this kind of dissection? I certainly wouldn't hang a photograph that was technically accomplished but was ugly. An image should generate a response based on its whole, conjured up by the imagination behind it, or it will have failed no matter how closely the photographer stuck to the rule book.
Once past the point of assessing the challenge relevance I simply evaluate whether the image is appealing to me - and to what degree, whether well lit, emotive, well planned, dynamic or whatever. Photography's an artform not an examination board.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:10:42 AM · #41 |
I'm not familiar with Worth1000 but have heard a few negative comments about it. I wonder if a system which marks you as a "dishonest voter" if you stray by more than a set amount from the average of other voters really "works extremely well"? Works extremely well at what? Rounding voters up into a herd like cattle?
You can show as much "individual voter expression" as you want to, just don't go too far away from what the rest of us think, or else you would have karma deductions. And if your votes are within line, judged by this arbitray standard and automatically applied by a computer program, you are rewarded with a karma increase.
Is the expression of one's taste in photography an area where it is desirable to have software enforced conformity?
Duh.....
Let's try to get along without karma. Please. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:12:49 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
but at the same time we get an honest reaction |
I don't quite believe the voting can be described as "honest", since anybody with a submission in the challenge can see their current score, which I believe has at least some effect on voting. I've suggested in the past that your score be hidden until you click an "I've finalized my votes" button. You could still comment after that, but not change any of your scores. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:15:09 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
If you read the details, your vote just has to be within +/-3 of the final weighted score for your karma to increase. |
So....
if I had voted a 10 for the 2nd and 3rd place in the Surprise challenge and 10 for the 4th and 5th in the Scents, I'd lose karma?
I suspect that this rule would encourage voters to stick to a more limited range of between 3 and 8, thus avoiding the risk of their karma suffering. Then, what would be the point of having a 10-point system?
In the past few challenges, scoring a 10 for the the following would lose me karma for;
2nd place in propaganda
4th place in book titles
2nd place in literalisms
3rd place in scared places and
2nd place in still life
I'd be frightened to award a 10 to anything.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:23:09 AM · #44 |
| First time I have heard that proposal EddyG. I think it's a good one. Please pursue it in your Site Council discussions. It would be a move in the direction of more "honest" results. Another idea that I think would move us in that direction would be to make the comments anonymous, or hidden, until voting closes. It's been in the forums several times and I hope the Site Council will not forget about it if they decide to make changes. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:25:03 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Is the expression of one's taste in photography an area where it is desirable to have software enforced conformity? |
The system described is intended to make people think about more than just "subject matter" (things like "image quality", "creativity", etc.) when they decide on their vote. Just because "your taste" in photography means that you'd never hang that picture on your wall so you're going to give a photo a "1" doesn't mean that it is a bad picture and deserving of that "1". A "1" should be used for pictures of a "black bear at midnight", completely out of focus, etc. (Look at the last place entry in "Surprise!". It still garnered a 3.971 vote.) My understanding of the idea of "karma" is to encourage voters to think about the picture a little more than "I hate the subject matter in this photo so I'm giving it a 1."
It also has the side benefit of reducing the impact of friends voting 10's on friends images, and dishonest voters giving excellent photos 1's just to lower their score. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:30:37 AM · #46 |
| Does artistic freedom only apply to the photographer ? When I judge a photograph (the whole idea of voting) shouldn't I have the same freedom to decide what the photo means to me. I am from Chicago and we have a wonderful Art Museum. If I had to rate some of the painting they would get a low score (even lower if they didn't meet the theme). I think this site does reward creativity, but pictures that press the boundaries will usually be voted very high and very low. This is to be expected because boundaries by defintiion are what is accepted by the majority. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:33:18 AM · #47 |
I never understand why the idea that other people might radically disagree with your point of view is considered a bad thing and should be smoothed out as much as possible.
There are plenty of entirely valid reasons that entered pictures are given 1s. People shouldn't have to be penalised for having an opinion. Otherwise, why bother voting at all - give everyone a score of 5 and pick a winner at random.
Some valid reasons: the picture is terrible, the picture doesn't meet the challenge, the picture is trite, boring and unoriginal. Technical flaws are so apparent as to ruin the image.
These are the usual reasons that personally at least I hand out 1s.
There have been quite a few winning images that could easily fall under that particular criteria too.
I'm sure others that hand out 1s have entirely different criteria - and that is good. Some sort of enforced group think karma system is about as abhorent as saying you only get to vote for a choice of one candidate in a government election.
Edit: just had a quick look back - there have been several top 3 placed images that I've voted 1's on. Am I suddenly an irresponsible troll voter ? Should I be removed ?
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 10:36:57. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:33:37 AM · #48 |
Unfortunately all that would happen is that people would stop voting on a photograph and start guessing how other people will vote. Scores will tend to gravitate towards the centre as people won't want to be seen as being 'wrong'
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:33:52 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
if I had voted a 10 for the 2nd and 3rd place in the Surprise challenge and 10 for the 4th and 5th in the Scents, I'd lose karma? |
Given that the 2nd place in Surprise was a 6.986 and the karma window would be 3.986 to 9.986 and the fact that 10 - 9.986 = 0.014, I hardly think your karma would have been affected in a noticeable fashion. I stated that the higher the deviation, the larger the karma adjustment. A deviation of 0.014 is miniscule. The deviations for the other images you mention would be 0.368, 0.049, and 0.132.
Even if you did lose a point or two of karma on those shots (for the system I described, voting karma ranges from 0 to 175, with 100 being "normal" for users who are not new), you would more than likely gain those points back from your other votes.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 10:38:26 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Koriyama:
if I had voted a 10 for the 2nd and 3rd place in the Surprise challenge and 10 for the 4th and 5th in the Scents, I'd lose karma? |
Given that the 2nd place in Surprise was a 6.986 and the karma window would be 3.986 to 9.986 and the fact that 10 - 9.986 = 0.014, I hardly think your karma would have been affected in a noticeable fashion. I stated that the higher the deviation, the larger the karma adjustment. A deviation of 0.014 is miniscule. The deviations for the other images you mention would be 0.368, 0.049, and 0.132.
Even if you did lose a point or two of karma on those shots (for the system I described, voting karma ranges from 0 to 175, with 100 being "normal" for users who are not new), you would more than likely gain those points back from your other votes. |
Can I ask what would you think would be the value of such a system ?
All I can see that it does is reward you for voting the same way everyone else does, and tries to diminish the opinion of anyone that doesn't agree with the popular vote. Is there something else ? |
|
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: 06/09/2025 04:40:00 PM EDT.
