| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2010 06:30:57 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
someone has their voting pattern analysis programme very wrong. |
How have you guys determined this without actually seeing the pattern? This one would be REALLY hard to attribute to coincidence. |
Oh, you're quite right, Shannon - it isn't coincidence. It is, however, a case of a particular aesthetic and/or style. That does NOT mean that Don knows the photograph or artist in advance, and to say that he cannot vote those shots high is essentially saying he cannot, by DPC standards, "like" that particular aesthetic or style. I don't think that's the result the investigation was after. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:44:48 PM · #102 |
as a long-time member in good standing, I demand to see the details of the algorithm by which some of our best members have been accused of cheating. If we are not given this opportunity promptly, or if the flaw in the algorithm to which I alluded in my previous message, is indeed found but the results of the investigation which it prompted are not reversed, I am going to leave DPC and encourage others do the same.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 18:45:10. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:44:54 PM · #103 |
If Don knows which photos are mine, who told him? And why didn't that person get a warning or suspension? I'm using all my fingers and things aren't adding up...
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:45:44 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by LevT:
as a long-time member in good standing, I demand to see the details of the algorithm by which some of our best members have been accused of cheating. |
Originally posted by langdon:
Most of the "investigation" was done manually as to avoid "false positives," and as such was an extremely time consuming endeavor. |
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 18:46:48. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:48:07 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by LevT:
as a long-time member in good standing, I demand to see the details of the algorithm by which some of our best members have been accused of cheating. |
Originally posted by langdon:
Most of the "investigation" was done manually as to avoid "false positives," and as such was an extremely time consuming endeavor. |
|
there still has to be some set of objective criteria... I would think. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:48:13 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by LevT:
as a long-time member in good standing, I demand to see the details of the algorithm by which some of our best members have been accused of cheating. If we are not given this opportunity promptly, or if the flaw in the algorithm to which I alluded in my previous message, is indeed found but the results of the investigation which it prompted are not reversed, I am going to leave DPC and encourage others do the same. |
If this is, indeed, a witch hunt to eliminate those members who consistently vote out of the norm, and is not an AF joke, I will cancel my membership... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:49:10 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... I'm just used to trusting Don ... |
So, if there are two people with similar voting numbers, and one get suspended but "our trustworthy friend" does not, how many nanoseconds would it be before SC was tarred and feathered for playing favorites?
Note that there can be a difference between "cheating" and "unfair voting." |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:50:32 PM · #108 |
Accusations of malfeasance aren't necessary. Either Don is an ingenious liar, or the vote analysis was flawed in some cases. My bet's on the latter.
At a point when membership is falling and sniping within it is acute, this development seems rather ill-timed, however well-intentioned it is. Maintaining voting integrity is important, as is maintaining the trust and good will of the members. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:50:42 PM · #109 |
If anyone is interested in a noob's opinion ...(here it comes anyway).
I thought that the scale of voting goes from 1 for a bad photo, to 10 for a good one. I'm starting to get the impression that if you really like an image, giving it a 10 is going to flag you for cheating. I don't like that feeling. It almost seems like you could change the range from 4 to 7 from what I've seen.
Jeepers, the "cheaters" in question aren't giving out votes of 11 or 12 are they? If they feel an image is worth a 10, let 'em vote 10! Besides, I think there are plenty of "1" voters out there to keep it all "fair" in the end.
(humbly stepping off of soap box) |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:54:19 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
If this is, indeed, a witch hunt to eliminate those members who consistently vote out of the norm, and is not an AF joke, I will cancel my membership... |
I can't see how that would be, especially given how well the Fine Art challenge went down - if anything, 'out of the norm' seems to be closer to the centre of things than has been the case since I've been here.
I think, we either don't have a full picture or a 'thought-to-be-fair' set of criteria has been applied uniformly across all voters with some people effectively becoming collateral damage of the chosen system. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:57:38 PM · #111 |
Having been here for 7 years and having cast in excess of 83,000 votes I find this all quite disturbing. To find out that people on here whom I had the greatest respect for have manipulated the voting is a very sad day for me and no doubt for many other users here.
I trust  langdon and the SC 100% and they have my utmost respect and support in continuing to make DPC a place where people who try to beat the system will be found out.
This is indeed a very black day for DPC and I am not certain if this site will ever be quite the same again.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:59:00 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by LevT:
as a long-time member in good standing, I demand to see the details of the algorithm by which some of our best members have been accused of cheating. If we are not given this opportunity promptly, or if the flaw in the algorithm to which I alluded in my previous message, is indeed found but the results of the investigation which it prompted are not reversed, I am going to leave DPC and encourage others do the same. |
If this is, indeed, a witch hunt to eliminate those members who consistently vote out of the norm, and is not an AF joke, I will cancel my membership... |
I don't (want to) think it is a witch hunt. I think it is a well-intentioned but ill-conceived attempt to weed out cheaters based on statistics. You know, they say there are lies, big lies, and statistics. If all photographers produced identically distributed sets of random photos and all honest voters had the same voting preferences, then the results would be fairly accurate. But life is a lot more complicated than that. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:59:16 PM · #113 |
I guess any of us with non-mainstream tastes will tend to vote higher on non-mainstream images, which by definition will be a minority of images by a minority of photographers. So those of us with non-mainstream tastes are more susceptible to the "algorithm" the longer we continue to vote. It seems doubtful that any such voting influenced outcomes in the ribbon category.
So, is an honest attempt by the SC to find colluding cheaters also inadvertently scooping up those on the fringe simply for their taste in photography? If this is so, a modification to the "algorithm" is in order: perhaps a collective review by the SC on votes that could be simply directed at a common style or type of imagery, rather than a specific photographer. And, in the cases where this is possibly the situation, confirm no net meaningful effect in the voting outcome overall, and with-hold the sanctions (keep a "watch list" if you must).
As a form of protest, we can with-hold all voting on any challenges, I suppose. I really need to consider the usefulness of this site if contributors like  posthumous can be banned for consistently liking the work of contributors like pointandshoot.
Do we dare not vote on images, styles, genres of photography that we like? Do we dare not enter images of potentially recognizable style, content, or genre for fear that those who consistently enjoy our work will be banned?
I guess one thing to do is stop voting entirely, but acknowledge and recognize those images we do like in a new "SUPPRESSED BY THE ALGORITHM" thread.
Of course, the other thing to do is Vote With Our Feet. The Nattering Nabobs Of Negativity have become increasingly noisy of late, clamoring, as they do, for Conformity, Rigidity, and Enforcement. It is an objective fact for me that this place has become more work than fun, more negative than positive, and the time I have been spending here has already dropped an order of magnitude over the past year. Maybe a new place is needed, with less static and noise. What's the frequency, Kenneth?
But seriously, say it with me now: "Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. ????"
DPC: it may be time to stick a swastika on it and call it Done.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 19:05:27. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:04:47 PM · #114 |
Is it just me? Or does it seem that the same people who either participated in or defended the "Abstract Club" in this thread for their little stunt in the Product challenge are the same ones here that are "disgusted, appalled, disturbed, sad, wronged, disappointed, surprised at who's involved, and threatening to leave"?
Funny, when others felt the same about that little clique, using the exact same words they were called "childish, narrow, whiney," and told to "get over it, move on, get a life, don't take things so seriously" for taking issue with what they did.
The irony is overwhelming.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:06:03 PM · #115 |
DPC has been through this before, it will survive just fine. Anyone remember Rikki from back in 2006? I can think of a few other users who were asked to leave due to rigged voting and ghost accounts during my years here.
Originally posted by Sevlow:
This is indeed a very black day for DPC and I am not certain if this site will ever be quite the same again. |
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:07:37 PM · #116 |
Why can't the voter's identity be known ?
The photographer is identified after voting is over ,why should the voter remain unknown?
Seems to ME to be the only fair thing to do.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:07:59 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by LevT:
as a long-time member in good standing, I demand to see the details of the algorithm by which some of our best members have been accused of cheating. If we are not given this opportunity promptly, or if the flaw in the algorithm to which I alluded in my previous message, is indeed found but the results of the investigation which it prompted are not reversed, I am going to leave DPC and encourage others do the same. |
If this is, indeed, a witch hunt to eliminate those members who consistently vote out of the norm, and is not an AF joke, I will cancel my membership... |
What they said. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:08:03 PM · #118 |
| Thanks SC/Langdon for taking the time to do this. It is greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:08:12 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
someone has their voting pattern analysis programme very wrong. |
How have you guys determined this without actually seeing the pattern? This one would be REALLY hard to attribute to coincidence. |
How about a review of the SC's work and results by a panel of members, let's say 7. I get the sense that many of members want a second opinion. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:09:16 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by bryanbrazil:
DPC has been through this before, it will survive just fine. Anyone remember Rikki from back in 2006? I can think of a few other users who were asked to leave due to rigged voting and ghost accounts during my years here.
Originally posted by Sevlow:
This is indeed a very black day for DPC and I am not certain if this site will ever be quite the same again. |
|
Oh yeh I remember that and a lot more! Just this seems worse to me somehow
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:09:17 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Is it just me? Or does it seem that the same people who either participated in or defended the "Abstract Club" in this thread for their little stunt in the Product challenge are the same ones here that are "disgusted, appalled, disturbed, sad, wronged, disappointed, surprised at who's involved, and threatening to leave"?
Funny, when others felt the same about that little clique, using the exact same words they were called "childish, narrow, whiney," and told to "get over it, move on, get a life, don't take things so seriously" for taking issue with what they did.
The irony is overwhelming. |
Any how many votes did you cast while knowing the photog after you ID'd the image with a favorite? |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:11:59 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Is it just me? Or does it seem that the same people who either participated in or defended the "Abstract Club" in this thread for their little stunt in the Product challenge are the same ones here that are "disgusted, appalled, disturbed, sad, wronged, disappointed, surprised at who's involved, and threatening to leave"?
Funny, when others felt the same about that little clique, using the exact same words they were called "childish, narrow, whiney," and told to "get over it, move on, get a life, don't take things so seriously" for taking issue with what they did.
The irony is overwhelming. |
Where's the irony? We're the people that KNOW Don, we're the people who LIKE the sort of work he likes. He's not the only one that gives high marks to that kind of photography. Of course we're upset. Anyway, plenty of the "questioners" in here had nothing to do with that "little stunt", as you call it. LevT comes to mind. Sevlow. Chromeydome. There are others.
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:13:34 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Is it just me? Or does it seem that the same people who either participated in or defended the "Abstract Club" in this thread for their little stunt in the Product challenge are the same ones here that are "disgusted, appalled, disturbed, sad, wronged, disappointed, surprised at who's involved, and threatening to leave"?
Funny, when others felt the same about that little clique, using the exact same words they were called "childish, narrow, whiney," and told to "get over it, move on, get a life, don't take things so seriously" for taking issue with what they did.
The irony is overwhelming. |
Where's the irony? We're the people that KNOW Don, we're the people who LIKE the sort of work he likes. He's not the only one that gives high marks to that kind of photography. Of course we're upset. Anyway, plenty of the "questioners" in here had nothing to do with that "little stunt", as you call it. LevT comes to mind. Sevlow. Chromeydome. There are others.
R. |
We few. We Happy Few..... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:13:38 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Is it just me? Or does it seem that the same people who either participated in or defended the "Abstract Club" in this thread for their little stunt in the Product challenge are the same ones here that are "disgusted, appalled, disturbed, sad, wronged, disappointed, surprised at who's involved, and threatening to leave"?
Funny, when others felt the same about that little clique, using the exact same words they were called "childish, narrow, whiney," and told to "get over it, move on, get a life, don't take things so seriously" for taking issue with what they did.
The irony is overwhelming. |
Any how many votes did you cast while knowing the photog after you ID'd the image with a favorite? |
Several, and none of them were 1's. I don't give out 1 votes, ever. It is not agaist the rules to vote on images when you know who the photograper is, as long as you vote honestly. If you must know, the abstract entries in the Product challenge got 3s and 4s from me.
Nice try though. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:16:29 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
It is an objective fact for me that this place has become more work than fun, more negative than positive |
i agree.. there's too much 'passion' going on here
can we just convert this to a star trek thread instead (like the abstract catalog thread).. or maybe star wars perhaps?? |
|
