| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/21/2009 09:22:19 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Steef:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by alans_world:
This is kinda like getting married and the first thing the wife wants to do is adjust some of your bad habits, hunh. I joined DPC because I like itâ€Â¦Ã¢€Â¦Ã¢€Â¦.The way it is! |
You like people tactical voting? |
if a shame section was ever implemented, i'd leave this site in 2 seconds. sure, you might not miss my mediocre photographs, but some of the better people might leave too. low votes happen. i just accept them and move on.
i feel like something like this would be like a 1984 style regime at the site. big brother is watching your votes. ;) |
I think people are getting two different issues confused.
1. If someone's votes are scrubbed, it's not because they voted low, it's because their low voting patterns are suspect (purposely trying to lower other people's scores). If that's the case, then if their votes are scrubbed multiple times, I don't think they belong on the site. This is one type of person.
2. People who give low votes for photos that, they think, deserve it. Those are the people we would love comments from. These people are taking the time to view, consider, and vote, and just happen to give 1s and 2s to people. The only reason that people are requesting comments are because they believe there's a reason why the vote was so low. If you think it's trite and overdone and so sick of that type of shot--tell us. For a photo to warrant a 1 or a 2 in someone's mind, it must affect you very strongly (in the negative way, of course) so why not say why?
People are grouping the vote cheaters with the low voters, which isn't fair.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:22:43 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by Steef:
i feel like something like this would be like a 1984 style regime at the site. big brother is watching your votes. ;) |
They are watching your votes why do you think some get scrubbed? |
i don't know what "they" do. i'm pretty sure there's an algorithm in place that can quickly find anomolies in voting and take action with little to no human interaction. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:25:06 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Steef:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by Steef:
i feel like something like this would be like a 1984 style regime at the site. big brother is watching your votes. ;) |
They are watching your votes why do you think some get scrubbed? |
i don't know what "they" do. i'm pretty sure there's an algorithm in place that can quickly find anomolies in voting and take action with little to no human interaction. |
I have an email from SC that says that continual violators are suspended or banned so they do keep a watch by individual.
The issue here is that 2 mins after they are banned they are at liberty to open a new account |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:29:27 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
People are grouping the vote cheaters with the low voters, which isn't fair. |
Of course it is absolutely fine to vote using the whole scale and I don't think anyone would argue with that.
What I object to is people who vote 1 across all the images with the exception of a 10 for one pic and they do so as fast as it takes the screen to post the next image.
As far as I'm concerned these are the type of people I would wish to leave. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:31:58 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I have an email from SC that says that continual violators are suspended or banned so they do keep a watch by individual.
The issue here is that 2 mins after they are banned they are at liberty to open a new account |
[ominous voice]They have ways of tracking that too.[/ominous voice] |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:32:58 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I have an email from SC that says that continual violators are suspended or banned so they do keep a watch by individual.
The issue here is that 2 mins after they are banned they are at liberty to open a new account |
[ominous voice]They have ways of tracking that too.[/ominous voice] |
IP tracking isn't sufficient i suspect, Rose kept returning over and over again
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 09:33:18. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:34:49 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I have an email from SC that says that continual violators are suspended or banned so they do keep a watch by individual.
The issue here is that 2 mins after they are banned they are at liberty to open a new account |
[ominous voice]They have ways of tracking that too.[/ominous voice] |
IP tracking isn't sufficient i suspect, Rose kept returning over and over again |
And they keep catching her, over and over again. What would you have them do? If they publicly humiliate them, how is this going to stop them from opening a new account? |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:39:51 AM · #133 |
i still don't understand why any of this is an issue. let me explain how i think the process works, and hopefully someone can correct it if i'm wrong:
1) troll votes all 1's with the exception of a single vote of 10
2) the scrubber removes those votes and flags the user
3) users flagged several times are investigated and punished when applicable
4) troll creates new account
5) [ominous voice]they are identified through certain ways[/ominous voice] (thanks eqsite)
6) troll is banned
is that essentially correct?
i think i heard about this rose person before, but from what i understand, each time she created a new account she was removed |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:44:14 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I have an email from SC that says that continual violators are suspended or banned so they do keep a watch by individual.
The issue here is that 2 mins after they are banned they are at liberty to open a new account |
[ominous voice]They have ways of tracking that too.[/ominous voice] |
IP tracking isn't sufficient i suspect, Rose kept returning over and over again |
And they keep catching her, over and over again. What would you have them do? If they publicly humiliate them, how is this going to stop them from opening a new account? |
Yes after she had taken ribbons from legitimate members who weren't banned.
Of course eveyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice it, that's just one of the very good things about these forums.
Personally I'm just not very good at the whole "oh well it's just one of those things I can't affect so I'll just accept it attitude."
|
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:44:28 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I think people are getting two different issues confused.
1. If someone's votes are scrubbed, it's not because they voted low, it's because their low voting patterns are suspect (purposely trying to lower other people's scores). If that's the case, then if their votes are scrubbed multiple times, I don't think they belong on the site. This is one type of person.
2. People who give low votes for photos that, they think, deserve it. Those are the people we would love comments from. These people are taking the time to view, consider, and vote, and just happen to give 1s and 2s to people. The only reason that people are requesting comments are because they believe there's a reason why the vote was so low. If you think it's trite and overdone and so sick of that type of shot--tell us. For a photo to warrant a 1 or a 2 in someone's mind, it must affect you very strongly (in the negative way, of course) so why not say why?
People are grouping the vote cheaters with the low voters, which isn't fair. |
But the title of the thread is Avoiding Trolls Suggestion, and there is an implicit under-current that any vote of 1-3/4 on a photo that averages higher is a 'troll' vote. I just don't buy that. I give out a share of 1-3 votes, and those votes are considered. Sometimes my view of a photo doesn't meld with the majority. I only tend to comment on about a third of those votes - for a variety of reasons: time constraints; lack of anything constructive; the suspicion that the photographer is deliberately going for the brown; threads in the forums saying, if you can't say something nice, don't say it all; reaction to emails from disgruntled comment receivers.
I have just received two low votes, a 2 and a 3 (I surmise) on an otherwise highish scoring entry - do I believe they are from trolls? No, I suspect that they are from voters who believe my photo to be trite and meaningless - and I have some sympathy with them! |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:45:20 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by Steef:
i think i heard about this rose person before, but from what i understand, each time she created a new account she was removed |
Only after she had entered challenges and won ribbons |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:47:30 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I think people are getting two different issues confused.
1. If someone's votes are scrubbed, it's not because they voted low, it's because their low voting patterns are suspect (purposely trying to lower other people's scores). If that's the case, then if their votes are scrubbed multiple times, I don't think they belong on the site. This is one type of person.
2. People who give low votes for photos that, they think, deserve it. Those are the people we would love comments from. These people are taking the time to view, consider, and vote, and just happen to give 1s and 2s to people. The only reason that people are requesting comments are because they believe there's a reason why the vote was so low. If you think it's trite and overdone and so sick of that type of shot--tell us. For a photo to warrant a 1 or a 2 in someone's mind, it must affect you very strongly (in the negative way, of course) so why not say why?
People are grouping the vote cheaters with the low voters, which isn't fair. |
But the title of the thread is Avoiding Trolls Suggestion, and there is an implicit under-current that any vote of 1-3/4 on a photo that averages higher is a 'troll' vote. I just don't buy that. I give out a share of 1-3 votes, and those votes are considered. Sometimes my view of a photo doesn't meld with the majority. I only tend to comment on about a third of those votes - for a variety of reasons: time constraints; lack of anything constructive; the suspicion that the photographer is deliberately going for the brown; threads in the forums saying, if you can't say something nice, don't say it all; reaction to emails from disgruntled comment receivers.
I have just received two low votes, a 2 and a 3 (I surmise) on an otherwise highish scoring entry - do I believe they are from trolls? No, I suspect that they are from voters who believe my photo to be trite and meaningless - and I have some sympathy with them! |
I'm saying that if this site see fit to scrub a persons votes then you can safely assume the voting practice was abnomal/unfair |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:51:02 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I'm saying that if this site see fit to scrub a persons votes then you can safely assume the voting practice was abnomal/unfair |
Yes, but as soon as you start to assume any intent behind that, you are making a conceptual leap based on incomplete information. If someone is tagged for doing this repeatedly, then the SC steps in and investigates that and takes appropriate measures. People have already complained about their votes being scrubbed unfairly -- imagine the uproar if their identities were made public based on an algorithm.
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 09:51:28. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:54:44 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I'm saying that if this site see fit to scrub a persons votes then you can safely assume the voting practice was abnomal/unfair |
Yes, but as soon as you start to assume any intent behind that, you are making a conceptual leap based on incomplete information. If someone is tagged for doing this repeatedly, then the SC steps in and investigates that and takes appropriate measures. People have already complained about their votes being scrubbed unfairly -- imagine the uproar if their identities were made public based on an algorithm. |
Yes I accept your point here and I agree that a knee jerk reaction could be unfair and potentially damaging to someone who is wrongfully named. Fair point.
So perhaps it should be that following a vote scrub there is a period of time for the member to appeal. If SC still maintain the scrub is valid then name |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 09:58:44 AM · #140 |
| Lutchenko, i would like to say that although i disagree with your idea, i do appreciate the fact that you're trying to come up with ideas to improve the site for all of us who follow the rules and truly enjoy participating here. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:01:47 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by Steef:
Lutchenko, i would like to say that although i disagree with your idea, i do appreciate the fact that you're trying to come up with ideas to improve the site for all of us who follow the rules and truly enjoy participating here. |
Just suggestions for debate eh lol
I appreciate your comment
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 10:03:15. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:04:08 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by Steef:
Lutchenko, i would like to say that although i disagree with your idea, i do appreciate the fact that you're trying to come up with ideas to improve the site for all of us who follow the rules and truly enjoy participating here. |
Agreed.
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Yes I accept your point here and I agree that a knee jerk reaction could be unfair and potentially damaging to someone who is wrongfully named. Fair point.
So perhaps it should be that following a vote scrub there is a period of time for the member to appeal. If SC still maintain the scrub is valid then name |
I'm personally not in favor of a "one strike and you're outed" approach because I'd be concerned about mistakes. There's already plenty of threads about unfair DQ's and split SC decisions. I think the current method of identifying a pattern of bad behavior and then acting on it makes more sense. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:07:35 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by Steef:
i think i heard about this rose person before, but from what i understand, each time she created a new account she was removed |
Only after she had entered challenges and won ribbons |
1. Ok, first of all, Rose wasn't banned for voting practices. (This is still a sore spot with me, because I thought that she was a good friend. During the time we overlapped, I didn't see any of the reasons for which she was banned. However, I understand there was a very full, not so pleasant history of which I knew nothing.) Regardless of all of that -- she was banned, and she did find ways of coming back. But it wasn't for voting practices.
2. I don't consider a single low vote a troll (well, maybe I do). But when the majority of people with high scores, who are posting their scores, all get hit with 2s... then I call them trolls. I realize that not everyone's tastes are the same. But do all of those photos really deserves 2s? |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:08:20 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Steef:
Lutchenko, i would like to say that although i disagree with your idea, i do appreciate the fact that you're trying to come up with ideas to improve the site for all of us who follow the rules and truly enjoy participating here. |
Agreed.
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Yes I accept your point here and I agree that a knee jerk reaction could be unfair and potentially damaging to someone who is wrongfully named. Fair point.
So perhaps it should be that following a vote scrub there is a period of time for the member to appeal. If SC still maintain the scrub is valid then name |
I'm personally not in favor of a "one strike and you're outed" approach because I'd be concerned about mistakes. There's already plenty of threads about unfair DQ's and split SC decisions. I think the current method of identifying a pattern of bad behavior and then acting on it makes more sense. |
That's fair enough, just thought I'd throw the idea in the ring |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:14:54 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
2. I don't consider a single low vote a troll (well, maybe I do). But when the majority of people with high scores, who are posting their scores, all get hit with 2s... then I call them trolls. I realize that not everyone's tastes are the same. But do all of those photos really deserves 2s? |
i hope you don't mind i snipped a bit from your post.
those photos don't deserve 2's at all. but there is a process to remove them in place that takes care of it. i understand it can be frustrating when you're updating your score and it takes a huge drop, especially if you're working with a great score, but it's just the nature of the beast. i'd rather my score jump a little bit during rollover, but i'm kind of an "expect the worst and be happy when it turns out better" kind of person |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:32:39 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
2. People who give low votes for photos that, they think, deserve it. Those are the people we would love comments from. These people are taking the time to view, consider, and vote, and just happen to give 1s and 2s to people. The only reason that people are requesting comments are because they believe there's a reason why the vote was so low. If you think it's trite and overdone and so sick of that type of shot--tell us. For a photo to warrant a 1 or a 2 in someone's mind, it must affect you very strongly (in the negative way, of course) so why not say why? |
This is the part I don't understand.
Let me see if I can explain: not a challenge goes by when I don't look at the winners and think "Geeze, how can that image take a ribbon? Come ON people! There's at least half a dozen images further down the line that are more creative/interesting/better executed/amusing/whatever and better deserve a ribbon!"
Admit it, this is true for all of you. And it is, of course, both the glory and the frustration of DPC, that all of us, as individuals, speak our piece with our votes and all of us, collectively, identify champions week after week.
Now I, individually, don't really appreciate "formula work" very much at all, albeit this is the sort of work that wins the most ribbons by far. I don't as a rule care for shiny apples splashing in liquids, to name just one example. It's certainly true I've done my own formula work in quest of ribbons (see my many sunsets and skiff shots), but it's equally true I've done and entered all sorts of quirky, even quixotic images. But regardless, it just so happens that when *I* see formula work I downgrade it a couple points unless it's exceptionally outstanding in some way. I mostly reserve my high votes for images that reach me on an emotional level. But, while I don't personally go as low as 3's or 1's for these images that don't "touch" me, if they are technically well done, I have no problem with people who do. The recently-departed-again Ubique comes to mind.
But what I absolutely DO Have a problem with is the idea that IF it suits me to give a very low vote THEN I am in any way obligated to explain why. This really bothers me for a fundamental reason: it means that my voting is no longer anonymous. And I believe that when voting stops being anonymous it becomes distorted. Plain and simple.
Besides that, another aspect of these discussions drives me a little batty: where's the hue-and-cry to have people explain their high votes? Seriously, people, what gives? I see just as many anomalous high scores as low scores. Not that it would ever occur to me to demand explanations for these, but...
Aw heck... Just leave it ALONE, OK?
R.
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 10:34:12. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:52:11 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by vawendy:
2. People who give low votes for photos that, they think, deserve it. Those are the people we would love comments from. These people are taking the time to view, consider, and vote, and just happen to give 1s and 2s to people. The only reason that people are requesting comments are because they believe there's a reason why the vote was so low. If you think it's trite and overdone and so sick of that type of shot--tell us. For a photo to warrant a 1 or a 2 in someone's mind, it must affect you very strongly (in the negative way, of course) so why not say why? |
This is the part I don't understand.
Let me see if I can explain: not a challenge goes by when I don't look at the winners and think "Geeze, how can that image take a ribbon? Come ON people! There's at least half a dozen images further down the line that are more creative/interesting/better executed/amusing/whatever and better deserve a ribbon!"
Admit it, this is true for all of you. And it is, of course, both the glory and the frustration of DPC, that all of us, as individuals, speak our piece with our votes and all of us, collectively, identify champions week after week.
Now I, individually, don't really appreciate "formula work" very much at all, albeit this is the sort of work that wins the most ribbons by far. I don't as a rule care for shiny apples splashing in liquids, to name just one example. It's certainly true I've done my own formula work in quest of ribbons (see my many sunsets and skiff shots), but it's equally true I've done and entered all sorts of quirky, even quixotic images. But regardless, it just so happens that when *I* see formula work I downgrade it a couple points unless it's exceptionally outstanding in some way. I mostly reserve my high votes for images that reach me on an emotional level. But, while I don't personally go as low as 3's or 1's for these images that don't "touch" me, if they are technically well done, I have no problem with people who do. The recently-departed-again Ubique comes to mind.
But what I absolutely DO Have a problem with is the idea that IF it suits me to give a very low vote THEN I am in any way obligated to explain why. This really bothers me for a fundamental reason: it means that my voting is no longer anonymous. And I believe that when voting stops being anonymous it becomes distorted. Plain and simple.
Besides that, another aspect of these discussions drives me a little batty: where's the hue-and-cry to have people explain their high votes? Seriously, people, what gives? I see just as many anomalous high scores as low scores. Not that it would ever occur to me to demand explanations for these, but...
Aw heck... Just leave it ALONE, OK?
R. |
Actually, it's good that we don't leave it alone, because, surprisingly enough, it helps people understand. After 7 months here (has it really been that long?) I'm finally figuring things out. And while I still get irritated with a 2, I'm getting used to them.
People's biggest problem, imo, is they want a feeling of fair play. I'm also getting to the point where I'll dock a point or 2 for photos that are direct copies of what we've seen before. If you're going to take someone's idea, at least change it up and make it your own. But I can't give it a 1, because it still is a well done photo. Maybe in another year, that will change as well, but my sense of fair play kicks in.
Anyway, I know that this whole thread is useless--nothing is going to change because of it. But it does help people who are trying to understand get a little more insight into people's though processes. Although, if they'd just comment on the photos, we wouldn't need insight :P |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:22:15 AM · #148 |
| i wouldn't say it's useless. it helped me pass some really boring time sitting in training ;) |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:34:08 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Although, if they'd just comment on the photos, we wouldn't need insight :P |
I wish that it were that simple Wendy... I agree with you 99.9% of the time, but truth be told, no matter what, people dislike getting a low score and even if a comment is given I would be willing to bet that the photographer receiving it will still find a reason to complain when all is said and done..
But, since this reason alone seems to be the ALL ENDING to the troll issue, then I purpose that from this point forward, for every 1 2 or 3 I give, I will also give a comment.. NOW, my comment may simply be, this just didn't work for me, or, I can't see how this meets the challenge or something along those lines and I don't want to hear one single complaint that my comment "BOO HOO, IT DIDN'T HELP ME"... I've clearly stated, the reason I don't comment sometimes is because I have no way of helping the person who submitted this image.. But, I'll see if this experient works.. Not that I think only one person will make a difference but we gotta start somewhere.. :-) |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:36:13 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Although, if they'd just comment on the photos, we wouldn't need insight :P |
I wish that it were that simple Wendy... I agree with you 99.9% of the time, but truth be told, no matter what, people dislike getting a low score and even if a comment is given I would be willing to bet that the photographer receiving it will still find a reason to complain when all is said and done..
But, since this reason alone seems to be the ALL ENDING to the troll issue, then I purpose that from this point forward, for every 1 2 or 3 I give, I will also give a comment.. NOW, my comment may simply be, this just didn't work for me, or, I can't see how this meets the challenge or something along those lines and I don't want to hear one single complaint that my comment "BOO HOO, IT DIDN'T HELP ME"... I've clearly stated, the reason I don't comment sometimes is because I have no way of helping the person who submitted this image.. But, I'll see if this experient works.. Not that I think only one person will make a difference but we gotta start somewhere.. :-) |
as a scientist, i like the idea of experimentation but i think you'll find that the people who desire those comments are far outweighed by those who don't |
|
