| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2009 02:38:25 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think that the Oobie awards really help recognize images that don't fit the typical mold. |
Speaking of which, does anyone know what happened to these? It seems like they petered out. Unless I just overlooked the threads, I haven't seen any oobie's given out for quite some time. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 03:24:45 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think that the Oobie awards really help recognize images that don't fit the typical mold. |
Speaking of which, does anyone know what happened to these? It seems like they petered out. Unless I just overlooked the threads, I haven't seen any oobie's given out for quite some time. |
I think they kinda became redundant when the Posthumous awards thread took off? The Oobies were the *original*, but now there's a number of flavors being dispensed.
R. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 03:26:43 PM · #28 |
| Too bad. I keep hoping one of my shots is bizarre enough to earn one. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 03:44:28 PM · #29 |
I'm pretty sure the OOBIEs and YAPPIEs come to life when enough nominations are made. As Karen (krnodil) said over in that thread, "If I get enough nominations, I'll then move the noms off to voting." Without nominations there's no one to give awards to!
OOBIE and YAPPIE Nominations Thread |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 09:47:16 AM · #30 |
Since this thread is about weighting scores, I won't start a new one. I suggest this site implements a weighting system like the one that's on slashdot where it's called meta moderation. Meta moderation is a way to control that the vote given is a fair vote. Members will be shown 10 random votes, and is asked if the vote given is fair or unfair. The person who gave that vote is moderated and his/her future votes will be weighted based on the fairness of the previous votes. This method shouldn't put too much load on the server, but it will take some time to get enough fairness votes for each user.
A different and more direct approach is to weight the vote against all other votes on the same picture. This will put more load on the server as you have to recalculate everything for each vote (not just make an average). |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 09:56:00 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by hanserik:
... and is asked if the vote given is fair or unfair. ... |
Fair according to whose standards? Sounds highly subjective to me and a bit elitist. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 10:14:21 AM · #32 |
Fair according to your own standard. There sholdn't be any other way.
Oh, and another thing I forgot: Your weighting will not be known to anyone, not even yourself. It's only used by the system and not displayed anywhere. It's not supposed to be something you can brag about or use as leverage in the forums...
Message edited by author 2009-06-02 10:14:47. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 10:23:43 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by hanserik:
Fair according to your own standard. There sholdn't be any other way. ... |
Ummm...well isn't that how DPC handles voting now? Everyone has their own standard, and if applied to all entries in a challenge it all balances out. Yes? |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 10:30:20 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To my mind, a more interesting approach would be the institution of occasional, *juried* challenges, where a jury is picked to specific criteria related to the challenge.
R. |
I was going to suggest this before I read your post. Now I doubt this will happen, but how would the jury be chosen? I would think trying to choose a jury for every challenge would become a nightmare and certainly lead to more controversy. But what about a jury rotating members in and out?
To make it fun, perhaps the jury could be randomly chosen (from those wishing to be a part of it) and every week one leaves and another joins. As this happens, the diversity of the group would change and hopefully reduce "shooting for the masses". I'm sure there would still be the bias towards what we see now, but imagine if a few out the box thinkers were on the jury at the same time.
I've considered trying to setup a side competition with something like this but just don't have the time. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 10:37:44 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To my mind, a more interesting approach would be the institution of occasional, *juried* challenges, where a jury is picked to specific criteria related to the challenge.
R. |
I was going to suggest this before I read your post. Now I doubt this will happen, but how would the jury be chosen? I would think trying to choose a jury for every challenge would become a nightmare and certainly lead to more controversy. But what about a jury rotating members in and out?
To make it fun, perhaps the jury could be randomly chosen (from those wishing to be a part of it) and every week one leaves and another joins. As this happens, the diversity of the group would change and hopefully reduce "shooting for the masses". I'm sure there would still be the bias towards what we see now, but imagine if a few out the box thinkers were on the jury at the same time.
I've considered trying to setup a side competition with something like this but just don't have the time. |
The key word was "occasional"... For certain specific challenges, the community could agree on specific jurors (using some sort of nomination/confirmation process) that they feel are "expert" in that particular genre. I might possibly, for example, be tagged as a juror for a landscape challenge, but I wouldn't think anyone would be interested in me as a juror for a street photography challenge.
I'd expect the regular voting would still be in place, incidentally, and the ribbons would go to the popular winners, as per usual. The interesting part would be to see how the jury of "serious" street photographers (for example) rank the images as compared to how the community as a whole ranked them. It is possible that an interesting, even educational/informative, dialogue might arise from this comparison.
R. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 10:43:41 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Ummm...well isn't that how DPC handles voting now? Everyone has their own standard, and if applied to all entries in a challenge it all balances out. Yes? |
Yes, in a perfect world. If everyone voted truthfully there wouldn't be a need for a weighting system. Personally, I don't think that the user with an 1.3906 voting avarage is voting truthfully.
A weighting system is designed to reduce the impact of trolls. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 11:12:39 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by hanserik:
Personally, I don't think that the user with an 1.3906 voting average is voting truthfully. |
Why do you say that? How can you derive what "truth" is for any hypothetical individual?
Hypothetically, "Voter X" might be a person who thinks, say, that the "only valid artistic statement" is one that flies in the face of all artistic and commercial conventions, and s/he might be fighting a lonely battle to make his/her voice heard in what s/he perceives as the aesthetic wasteland of DPC by giving extremely low scores to virtually all entries except the rare few that absolutely refuse to cater to the established tastes of the viewers/voters that make up this community.
Now, personally, I think this is a little ridiculous; there are better places on the internet to indulge one's obsessions with defying tradition in photography. But I wouldn't call that voter "untruthful", see? "Voter X" is just operating from a radically different perspective than the rest of us.
 Ubique, one of our outlier intellects, once posted a detailed explanation of why MOST of the images he votes on get 3 or less, and it seemed perfectly sound to me :-)
R. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 11:14:11 AM · #38 |
In my opinion DPC is a general public appeals site. It trains you how to create a photo that is appealing to the majority of the public.
This doesn't invalidate those unique out of the box shots that are excellent, but those only appeal to certain types of people.
I have had some really artistic and neat photos in my challenges that have done terribly. Why? because they only appealed to me and some others. The majority of the public didnt like it. Does it mean it was a bad photo? no. I have had some respected individuals in the photography industry give me some great comments on some of my work that is unique that has done terribly on here.
So take it for what it is and learn.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:03:02 PM · #39 |
Why are we worried about trolls again?
Is there any evidence that people actually do this enough to make a difference, or that they do anything but lower the average score as a whole? |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 02:19:54 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The interesting part would be to see how the jury of "serious" street photographers
R. |
Do "serious" street photographers still exist? Wouldn't they still be stuck in the film world with their M4's,M5's, and B&W film? Wouldn't they puke having to look at digital B&W representations on a screen? I'd like to see this tried if for no other reason than to see if our marginalized street photogs do as well as they think. Give us a list Bear. How do we entice them?
|
|
|
|
06/02/2009 02:30:24 PM · #41 |
I have a major issue with 'street photography' constantly being looked at and referred to as if it's some kind of elite, uber-photography that should be looked at as the end-all and be-all of all photography.
Well, it irks me any time any genre is abused like that, but this site seems to hold street photography (and photographers) on a level that is simply reaching ridiculous levels.
IMO.
Of course. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 06:59:59 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why do you say that? How can you derive what "truth" is for any hypothetical individual?
Hypothetically, "Voter X" might be a person who thinks, say, that the "only valid artistic statement" is one that flies in the face of all artistic and commercial conventions, and s/he might be fighting a lonely battle to make his/her voice heard in what s/he perceives as the aesthetic wasteland of DPC by giving extremely low scores to virtually all entries except the rare few that absolutely refuse to cater to the established tastes of the viewers/voters that make up this community.
Now, personally, I think this is a little ridiculous; there are better places on the internet to indulge one's obsessions with defying tradition in photography. But I wouldn't call that voter "untruthful", see? "Voter X" is just operating from a radically different perspective than the rest of us.
|
I think that "Voter X" would either leave this site with all it's worthless pictures, or be very vocal in the forums explaining what the "correct" picture should look like. Unless the goal is to vote down pictures. That is why I think that "Voter X" with the 1.3256 average is not voting truthfully. Ofcourse I could be wrong, "Voter X" may think that 1 is the best score.
Meta moderating works on slashdot, I think it would work here aswell.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Ubique, one of our outlier intellects, once posted a detailed explanation of why MOST of the images he votes on get 3 or less, and it seemed perfectly sound to me :-) |
Yes, I remember that thread, and I have to admit that I had to read his reasonings a couple of times... |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 07:06:08 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by hanserik:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Ubique, one of our outlier intellects, once posted a detailed explanation of why MOST of the images he votes on get 3 or less, and it seemed perfectly sound to me :-) |
Yes, I remember that thread, and I have to admit that I had to read his reasonings a couple of times... |
The main point is, he reasoned. Whether you agreed with it or not, it was a reasoned position.
R. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 07:31:58 PM · #44 |
What if it wasn't reasoned at all? Sorry, I mean to say, what if the reasoned position led to a random system. What if someone decided that aesthetic distinctions are meaningless and entirely down to chance accidents of history and evolution and so simply used a random number generator to vote?
One could argue that such a person would not want to spend time voting on a site like this, but what if they did? Personally, I don't care at all how anyone votes, provided it's not malicious, and even then I wouldn't think it important enough to bother with; what would everyone else's attitude be? |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 08:25:41 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
What if it wasn't reasoned at all? Sorry, I mean to say, what if the reasoned position led to a random system. What if someone decided that aesthetic distinctions are meaningless and entirely down to chance accidents of history and evolution and so simply used a random number generator to vote?
One could argue that such a person would not want to spend time voting on a site like this, but what if they did? Personally, I don't care at all how anyone votes, provided it's not malicious, and even then I wouldn't think it important enough to bother with; what would everyone else's attitude be? |
scratches head
What if 'What if' arguments weren't worth the data used to compile them ;D |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 08:32:40 PM · #46 |
| I'm pretty sure if we 'weight' the voters enough by average score, challenges entered, likes, dislikes, hair colour, favourite food etc etc then we would ensure everybody scores that magical 5.5 average :) |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 08:42:03 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
I'm pretty sure if we 'weight' the voters enough by average score, challenges entered, likes, dislikes, hair colour, favourite food etc etc then we would ensure everybody scores that magical 5.5 average :) |
I want my score to be weighted by how many times an hour I click on 'update'.
ETA: actually, that would probably be a number too large to compute. Make it how many times a microsecond.
Message edited by author 2009-06-02 20:42:50. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 08:45:23 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
I'm pretty sure if we 'weight' the voters enough by average score, challenges entered, likes, dislikes, hair colour, favourite food etc etc then we would ensure everybody scores that magical 5.5 average :) |
I want my score to be weighted by how many times an hour I click on 'update'. |
sure, but, the first and last 10 updates per minute will be removed as will the updates from work, whilst your drinking tea (or coffee) etc etc ;) |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 10:41:17 PM · #49 |
Weighting is an interesting thought, but we're not dealing with bowling here. What goes on here is way too subjective. We get enough voters that a few hundredths of a point in the averages are what separate photos. I continue to be baffled why photos I vote 'low' end up winning and Those I vote 10's are often far down on the list...
So if you did weight, what would the handicap be? :) |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 10:46:26 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by johnmcboston:
Weighting is an interesting thought, but we're not dealing with bowling here. What goes on here is way too subjective. We get enough voters that a few hundredths of a point in the averages are what separate photos. I continue to be baffled why photos I vote 'low' end up winning and Those I vote 10's are often far down on the list...
So if you did weight, what would the handicap be? :) |
Not that kind of weighting; the idea is that the closer your votes come to the final score, consistently, the more your vote is weighted, basically; so people who vote "weirdly" (like almost all low votes and a few really high votes, whatever) have less influence on the final score than people who consistently vote "normally". Personally, I think that's an outrageously bad idea, but it's something other sites do, apparently.
R. |
|
