| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 11:26:12 AM · #376 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
It always warms the heart (and stokes the ego) of a critic to know that he consistently recognizes genius.
|
I almost had to weep. So why didn't you vote accordingly? j/k
No offense,  pointandshoot, but I can hardly believe you are the only genius here (if there's any) and post is the only one having found out. I rather believe post votes unusual stuff (no matter if it has artistic merits) up and the regular, hard worked for shot down. After all, he is entitled to his opinion as is anyone else and by voting that way consistently hasn't broken a rule. My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:28:02 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by h2:
Originally posted by posthumous:
It always warms the heart (and stokes the ego) of a critic to know that he consistently recognizes genius.
|
I almost had to weep. So why didn't you vote accordingly? j/k
No offense, pointandshoot, but I can hardly believe you are the only genius here (if there's any) and post is the only one having found out. I rather believe post votes unusual stuff (no matter if it has artistic merits) up and the regular, hard worked for shot down. After all, he is entitled to his opinion as is anyone else and by voting that way consistently hasn't broken a rule. My 2 cents. |
Thank you, Oliver, for being able to see past a difference in esthetics. I appreciate that. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:35:44 AM · #378 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
I thought the "manual" part of this weeding-out process was intended to go beyond stats and eliminate the "false positives". |
Like he said. How about it? Is someone on SC going to acknowledge that Posthumous (possibly among others) was perhaps wrongly besmirched? Is pride a factor in not doing so? Is it the same kind of pride that is causing others to quit the site? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:40:32 AM · #379 |
As my current job is nowhere so exiting as being an SC, I am now boldly presenting myself as replacement for the current SC. (Yes, all of them). As I also beleive that all the rules are flawed, I shall be replacing it with my own set (quite a short list, each having the effect that any picture by moi will be the BLUE). As I do not like any of the current members, I will strike about with my banning thingy till there are only three members (me, myself....etc). The voting form will consist of 7 pages in smallprint, which must be completed by hand, and 4 copies delivered to my doorstep. No photostats allowed.
My redeeming qualities (which make me a shoo-in) are:
- I have never scored above 4.8 (leave the fact that I only joined 2 months ago out of it)
- I will vote for the pictures I like only, and the rest will be DNQ'ed so that I only have to vote for less than 5 photo's.
- I live in Africa, and am therefore an expert in receiving bribes.
- I will graciously allow one other member (Art Roflmao) on my SC board to make tea for me, because he's funny. As soon as he starts taking better pictures though, he's out. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:41:25 AM · #380 |
Originally posted by h2:
No offense, pointandshoot, but I can hardly believe you are the only genius here |
No offense taken, Oliver. I am far from a genius. I am an average photographer who learned to play the "Posthumous Ribbon Game" rather well. Hopefully, in the process I also affected a few others.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:44:10 AM · #381 |
Originally posted by hopper:
it should be fairly easy to find another person with a similar style and see how Don voted on that guys stuff ... the same pattern should appear, no? |
It's interesting to see the divide in the mentality of the site but while I don't believe the SC meant any harm, damage is done and some very cool people will be leaving the site for good.
I think pointandshoots stuff is clearly and consistently of the substance that Don has ALWAYS gravitated towards. I mean, I can see images in a Challenge and say to myself "...uh oh, that's gonna get a posthumous award for sure" and true enough the image does. It's almost a no brainer to anyone paying attention to his choices over the past few years. Also worth mentioning that most of his award winning shots do shit in the popular vote.
This is kind of like a reverse Librodo thing where I'm sure you can dig up 5-10 voters that always gave him (Manny) 10's and certainly more so (guaranteed) when he used his most recognizable models (Kharu, Krystal, Rosalinda etc.) but in this case it might simply amount to a style. It's NOT inconceivable....is it? Now, to leap to collusion as the case, perhaps because the final scores don't amount to Ribbons speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:03:12 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
No offense taken, Oliver. I am far from a genius. I am an average photographer who learned to play the "Posthumous Ribbon Game" rather well. Hopefully, in the process I also affected a few others. |
not just affected a few others, but you have also contributed to damaging the underpinnings of the site ;-)
if only you had played the mainstream 'how to win a ribbon game' that shannon put out there years ago, the *style* votes would have been shielded. all those voters that fell for images from manny, the ribbon hogs, hieda, irene and other regular ribboners are safe because they voted the mainstream.
guess it goes to show: swim against the current, you're more likely to wash ashore. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:07:05 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by h2:
No offense, pointandshoot, but I can hardly believe you are the only genius here |
No offense taken, Oliver. I am far from a genius. I am an average photographer who learned to play the "Posthumous Ribbon Game" rather well. Hopefully, in the process I also affected a few others. |
You truly affected some people. My first ribbon entry was inspired by your work. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:08:39 PM · #384 |
I have the feeling that the owners of this site think that they have gone beyond to where they became the untouchables, and that their business can never lose; so that is why I earlier wrote: When great success brings with it arrogance and tyranny instead of humility and consideration the dawn of fall and self-destructions becomes imminent.
And for that same reason I give them the movie Thinner 1996
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:11:25 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by HighNooner:
I have the feeling ... |
I don't share that feeling at all. That doesn't mean people can't make mistakes, but you are way overdramatizing this. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:12:48 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by HighNooner:
I have the feeling that the owners of this site think that they have gone beyond to where they became the untouchables, and that their business can never lose; so that is why I earlier wrote: When great success brings with it arrogance and tyranny instead of humility and consideration the dawn of fall and self-destructions becomes imminent.
And for that same reason I give them the movie Thinner 1996 |
People come people go, the site is far bigger then one individual |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:18:03 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by HighNooner:
...I give them the movie Thinner 1996 |
DPC is more like The Hurt Locker. LOL!!!!!! Use any of the many metaphors in that movie and they FIT.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 12:18:26. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:19:01 PM · #388 |
| Hmm, no word from the SC in a while... I see a reversal on the decision coming. That and a slight movement toward more in-depth analysis of votes before reaching such a decision in the future. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:19:57 PM · #389 |
George, I can assure you, it couldn't have been much more in depth, if any at all.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:20:53 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by Skip:
if only you had played the mainstream 'how to win a ribbon game' that shannon put out there years ago, the *style* votes would have been shielded. all those voters that fell for images from manny, the ribbon hogs, hieda, irene and other regular ribboners are safe because they voted the mainstream.
guess it goes to show: swim against the current, you're more likely to wash ashore. |
I'm on the same side of this debate but I'm not buying this perspective - I don't think there is any deliberate re-engineering going on here. I think SC had discussed, planned and implemented a model and having done so are 'trying' to be even-handed and act on their own results (no matter how unpopular). Like others I believe the methodology is sensitive but not very specific and thus false positives are inevitable. In the early posts I had also read 'manual process' with some satisfaction since I thought that would mean they could use their full latitude of discretion - I'm not yet convinced they did.
Of course - Don has voted in a biased way, so we do see it in the numbers. The bias comes from voting high on the images he likes and as we know Pointy pushes his buttons just about like no one else can. Of course it might be fair to check his score for Cutout as a comparator but even if the distribution is different - the fact that he likes the Pointy Stuff (more than anything else) will still stand.
The hardest thing here is to play out a scenario whereby Don takes his suspension and returns - what is he to do then? If he votes on what he likes he risks suspension, if he curbs his scores because he suspects an image pushes his button to the degree that it might be Pointy he might be compelled to drop the score a bit and so as not fall foul of SC. What a self-fulfilling prophecy that would be - deliberately changing marks so it looks like you are not biasing your voting.... The lose-lose of this scenario must surely indicate something has to give. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:22:40 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by George:
Hmm, no word from the SC in a while... I see a reversal on the decision coming. That and a slight movement toward more in-depth analysis of votes before reaching such a decision in the future. |
Well  Langdon is on-line - maybe he will make some comment on this thread. ? ?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:31:24 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by HighNooner:
...I give them the movie Thinner 1996 |
DPC is more like The Hurt Locker. LOL!!!!!! Use any of the many metaphors in that movie and they FIT. |
You may be right, but it is the curse I am talking about |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:31:27 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by karmat:
George, I can assure you, it couldn't have been much more in depth, if any at all. |
I'd like to see breakdowns of his votes in each challenge since Jan 2009, the way we see them when we vote (10s, 9s, 8s, etc.).
I should add that when I see an "outside the box" image, I always assume it's either posthumous, clive_patric_nolan, or pointandshoot, since they are the ones who consistently enter that type of image. So that leaves two users whose work could be loved by posthumous. Both of them have entered almost 50 challenges since Jan 2009... in the challenges that posthumous voted and they both entered, how did their votes compare? And how did those compare with the votes he gave other "out of the box" or " posthumous-style" images in those same challenges? This very analysis is the reason I'd like to see the breakdown above (10s, 9s, etc. in each challenge).
(I know there are other users... someone mentioned cutout. You get the point, though... It's not really about whose images he votes high, but if they are the same KIND of images. If we just do a "whose images" analysis, you'll just claim he's friends with all of them.)
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 12:35:13. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:36:23 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I highly recommend that anyone interested in this disaster call up pointandshoot's profile page. Set the default on challenge entries to "show all" and click the arrow at top left to display the thumbnails of his entries. |
Thanks for highlighting what that little arrow on the top left of the challenge entries does. When I look at the work from pointandshoot I do see a very consistent aesthetic. Now I'm going to make these sound a unpretentious as possible. If one has been passionate about photography for many years and spent time browsing museums and galleries, as well as the web, it is more than likely that they will developed a taste for work that is unique and that helps them see things in a new way. My wife would call it artsy or say "I just don't get it", but I know that it is the esoteric that really catches my eye these days. If I were brave enough to vote with my emotions, rather than trying to be object and voting on the technical merits of an image, I could easily see myself in the same situation of Don. I actually feel like a bit of a coward at this point since I chose to interact on the forums rather than voting. I don't believe it is cheating to vote high for images that trigger an emotional response, even it that runs counter to the masses.
It is certainly understandable to see Don's voting get flagged in an objective analysis. What seems to be missing is the subjective followup to see if there was intent to cheat the system. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:37:10 PM · #395 |
| I just joined in Oct.2009! I'm leaving! I don't think any of this is right! I have been looking & I have found a much better site then this! Good luck to all of you! |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:39:44 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by karmat:
George, I can assure you, it couldn't have been much more in depth, if any at all. |
I'd like to see breakdowns of his votes in each challenge since Jan 2009, the way we see them when we vote (10s, 9s, 8s, etc.).
|
I am not sure everyone seeing more data will change a thing, at this point the decisions have been made and any arbitration needs to be between SC and affected users. The only reason people want to see more is so they can either believe the decision was right or argue they are wrong. The data already shown showed a clear trend, why the trend is the way it is needs to be sorted out by the user and SC. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:40:24 PM · #397 |
Just to refresh our memories: I copied some pertinent points from the voting rules. It shows why the SC is doing what they are, and they have a responsibility to keep on doing it. It also shows that posthumous is not guilty, on the evidence provided, except if one thinks that when he promotes his cause (i.e. his rewards and threads and voting profile etc) it constitutes "an intent to disrupt the voting system", or "abuses the voting system in any way".
I do not know how the current situation will be sorted out, but to help future SC'c it is probably neccesary to extend the rules on how to communicate and document all sensitive issues like these.
Voting Guidelines
Requirements
You must:
*vote on at least 20% of the entries in a challenge. If you vote on less than 20%, your votes will not count.
*rate entries on a scale of 1 to 10. A score of 1 is a âbadâ photo, and a score of 10 is a âgoodâ photo
You should:
*keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
*consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly.
*vote on as many entries as practical in any challenge in which you vote.
*comment on entries using the comment box under each photograph.
*offer constructive criticism with any vote of 3 or lower.
You may not:
*vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system.
*offer or cast biased votes for any other user.
*attempt to alter the point totals for any entry in any way.
We will:
*use automatic and manual methods to actively monitor voting patterns for abuse.
*ignore the votes of any user we believe is voting disruptively.
*disqualify challenge entries from, suspend or ban anyone who abuses the voting system in any way.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:40:55 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Kimmymac:
I just joined in Oct.2009! I'm leaving! I don't think any of this is right! I have been looking & I have found a much better site then this! Good luck to all of you! |
This is like the ocean. It goes in and out, sometimes there is a storm that takes us by surprise, things are not the same. But then the calm ocean takes over again.
(I thought that was quite clever for being sober!) lol |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:41:30 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by karmat:
George, I can assure you, it couldn't have been much more in depth, if any at all. |
I'd like to see breakdowns of his votes in each challenge since Jan 2009, the way we see them when we vote (10s, 9s, 8s, etc.).
|
I am not sure everyone seeing more data will change a thing, at this point the decisions have been made and any arbitration needs to be between SC and affected users. The only reason people want to see more is so they can either believe the decision was right or argue they are wrong. The data already shown showed a clear trend, why the trend is the way it is needs to be sorted out by the user and SC. |
Clear trend? Did you read what I wrote? Did you think through the REASONS for my proposed analysis? Clear trend my @$$. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:41:56 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
The hardest thing here is to play out a scenario whereby Don takes his suspension and returns - what is he to do then? If he votes on what he likes he risks suspension, if he curbs his scores because he suspects an image pushes his button to the degree that it might be Pointy he might be compelled to drop the score a bit and so as not fall foul of SC. What a self-fulfilling prophecy that would be - deliberately changing marks so it looks like you are not biasing your voting.... The lose-lose of this scenario must surely indicate something has to give. |
Yes, that's the dealbreaker. I've had problems with the SC before, but I enjoy this site, am addicted to it, and I stay on, but I can't stay here if they won't let me vote. There's only so much marginalization I can take. |
|
