| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 12:42:28 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
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'm not saying there's anything deliberate from a witch-hunting standpoint. i'm just saying that many, many of the regular winners here received many, many high votes from the same voters because of their style, but because they pursued a mainstream ribbon, those votes/voters are fairly hidden in the numbers. don & pointy, though, by being out of the mainstream, stand out like a sore thumb.
just like the ghost accounts that turned out to be two different people, i would tend to give don & pointy the benefit of a doubt, regardless of what the numbers say. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:44:44 PM · #402 |
I just wanted to chime in really quick to say that I appreciate everyone's interest and feedback regarding this.
I've read almost every post so far, and while some have reassured me that we made the right decisions here, others have filled me with regret, and some have just been downright disappointing. The idea behind proceeding with and acting on this investigation was to try and keep the site fair. We don't hold grudges against users, we aren't out to get anyone... we're just very much interested in the integrity of DPChallenge, and we try our best to maintain it.
The suspensions aren't and were never meant to be final, but most, if not all, will likely stick. If anyone feels so strongly that they haven't done anything wrong, we are more than willing to show them what we saw (as we did earlier in the thread), and discuss it further with them. I'll be the first to admit that people make mistakes. We made a list and had three different people vet it almost completely, and then we went for it.
It seems like the discussion in this thread surrounds a small number of people that feel they were wrongly accused, which is seemingly giving everyone the impression that the entire investigation was botched. Please know that this was generally a success and I think that for the most part, the right users were sent the right messages.
We're still working through tickets, so if you haven't received a reply yet, please be patient. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:48:56 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
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. |
I agree with this 100% |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:51:42 PM · #404 |
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! |
What are you - 12? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:51:46 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by George:
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 @$$. |
Statistical trend yes, but reasons for trend will never be something that can be captured. If it was me on the other end of this discussion I am sure no one would believe I voted fairly if they saw those numbers. Personally I tend to agree he was voting fairly and his likes and dislikes were the reason for the trend and the numbers do not tell the whole story. I also believe he should take it to SC and work through it. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:53:39 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by langdon:
I just wanted to chime in really quick to say that I appreciate everyone's interest and feedback regarding this.
I've read almost every post so far, and while some have reassured me that we made the right decisions here, others have filled me with regret, and some have just been downright disappointing. The idea behind proceeding with and acting on this investigation was to try and keep the site fair. We don't hold grudges against users, we aren't out to get anyone... we're just very much interested in the integrity of DPChallenge, and we try our best to maintain it.
The suspensions aren't and were never meant to be final, but most, if not all, will likely stick. If anyone feels so strongly that they haven't done anything wrong, we are more than willing to show them what we saw (as we did earlier in the thread), and discuss it further with them. I'll be the first to admit that people make mistakes. We made a list and had three different people vet it almost completely, and then we went for it.
It seems like the discussion in this thread surrounds a small number of people that feel they were wrongly accused, which is seemingly giving everyone the impression that the entire investigation was botched. Please know that this was generally a success and I think that for the most part, the right users were sent the right messages.
We're still working through tickets, so if you haven't received a reply yet, please be patient. |
Perhaps this mess could have been avoided (or be avoided in the future) by hearing the other side of the story prior to issuing the sentence thus creating at least a rudimentary 'due process'. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:54:34 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by redjulep:
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! |
What are you - 12? |
I know it should'nt but that did make me laugh.
My bad
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 12:55:23.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:55:18 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I also believe he should take it to SC and work through it. |
I would very much like to see this happen :) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:55:19 PM · #409 |
Been watching this discussion on and off since it started. Most of what I think has already been said. A couple points which may have been overlooked or are worth reiterating:
1. There are 80 people affected by this action. Not all of them will have legitimate explanations like Don. If the statistics against them are as damning on first blush as Don's initially appear to be, most of them will not.
2. SC should be commended for the effort and attempt to root out improper voting. The stubborn reliance on statistics to convict before an explanation is even solicited, much less considered, is wrong. Statistics create suspicion, not undeniable proof. ("Statistics are like a woman in a bikini ... the most interesting part is what remains concealed")
3. Surprised no one has mentioned that this was done in preparation for the new season of the DPL. That is good news, if it means the new season is coming. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:57:46 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ace flyman:
Sounds like facts to me. Thanks Langdon for cleaning house |
Then you obviously know nothing of either  zeuszen or  posthumous if you think they should have been part of a purge for improper voting techniques. |
For the record, I wasn't "purged" or "banned", but received what I consider a "warning" . |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:58:41 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by langdon:
I just wanted to chime in really quick to say that I appreciate everyone's interest and feedback regarding this.
I've read almost every post so far, and while some have reassured me that we made the right decisions here, others have filled me with regret, and some have just been downright disappointing. The idea behind proceeding with and acting on this investigation was to try and keep the site fair. We don't hold grudges against users, we aren't out to get anyone... we're just very much interested in the integrity of DPChallenge, and we try our best to maintain it.
The suspensions aren't and were never meant to be final, but most, if not all, will likely stick. If anyone feels so strongly that they haven't done anything wrong, we are more than willing to show them what we saw (as we did earlier in the thread), and discuss it further with them. I'll be the first to admit that people make mistakes. We made a list and had three different people vet it almost completely, and then we went for it.
It seems like the discussion in this thread surrounds a small number of people that feel they were wrongly accused, which is seemingly giving everyone the impression that the entire investigation was botched. Please know that this was generally a success and I think that for the most part, the right users were sent the right messages.
We're still working through tickets, so if you haven't received a reply yet, please be patient. |
Thanks Langdon for shedding a little light on the situation. Any effort to keep integrity in the voting process is seen as a good thing by me. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:08:08 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by langdon:
I just wanted to chime in really quick to say that I appreciate everyone's interest and feedback regarding this.
I've read almost every post so far, and while some have reassured me that we made the right decisions here, others have filled me with regret, and some have just been downright disappointing. The idea behind proceeding with and acting on this investigation was to try and keep the site fair. We don't hold grudges against users, we aren't out to get anyone... we're just very much interested in the integrity of DPChallenge, and we try our best to maintain it.
The suspensions aren't and were never meant to be final, but most, if not all, will likely stick. If anyone feels so strongly that they haven't done anything wrong, we are more than willing to show them what we saw (as we did earlier in the thread), and discuss it further with them. I'll be the first to admit that people make mistakes. We made a list and had three different people vet it almost completely, and then we went for it.
It seems like the discussion in this thread surrounds a small number of people that feel they were wrongly accused, which is seemingly giving everyone the impression that the entire investigation was botched. Please know that this was generally a success and I think that for the most part, the right users were sent the right messages.
We're still working through tickets, so if you haven't received a reply yet, please be patient. |
Perhaps this mess could have been avoided (or be avoided in the future) by hearing the other side of the story prior to issuing the sentence thus creating at least a rudimentary 'due process'. |
I second the statement by Andres. The next round up should stay behind the scenes until final decisions are made, i.e. after tickets/appeals are considered. I certainly want, and appreciate, a fair and legit process, both in the voting and punishing. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:16:28 PM · #413 |
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. |
Well said, Paul. I strongly agree. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:30:18 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by ace flyman:
Sounds like facts to me. Thanks Langdon for cleaning house |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Then you obviously know nothing of either zeuszen or posthumous if you think they should have been part of a purge for improper voting techniques. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
For the record, I wasn't "purged" or "banned", but received what I consider a "warning" . |
For the record, you have been one of the people I have learned from when it comes to mindful, and generally thoughtful, appreciation of photography as a form of expression way past the click of the shutter. The idea that you would in any way kick ethics to the curb for something that is so irrelevant to that premise still remains to me, patently absurd. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:37:05 PM · #415 |
There is no smiley or ellipsis at the end of the quoted sentence. The statement is very clear....
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Bear_Music, don't you think you are taking this thread too seriously. Seems like you are either perpetuating the hoax, or you've swallowed the hoax "hook, line and sinker". So, if an SC member says, "This is not an April Fool's prank." But, later says, "April Fools!", what will you think? |
Well, I think it IS serious stuff, actually. IF they announce that it was all a prank, then of course I can be counted among the "fooled", but I think it's gone way beyond that.
As an aside, ellipsis is not required when quoting full sentences, and there was no smiley at the end of that sentence. But anyway, I wasn't busting your chops, I was interested in your response, it wasn't entirely clear to me.
R. |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:39:14 PM · #416 |
Kick them all off for 3 months. Let them take their medicine like I had to. ;-)
Originally posted by langdon:
I just wanted to chime in really quick to say that I appreciate everyone's interest and feedback regarding this.
I've read almost every post so far, and while some have reassured me that we made the right decisions here, others have filled me with regret, and some have just been downright disappointing. The idea behind proceeding with and acting on this investigation was to try and keep the site fair. We don't hold grudges against users, we aren't out to get anyone... we're just very much interested in the integrity of DPChallenge, and we try our best to maintain it.
The suspensions aren't and were never meant to be final, but most, if not all, will likely stick. If anyone feels so strongly that they haven't done anything wrong, we are more than willing to show them what we saw (as we did earlier in the thread), and discuss it further with them. I'll be the first to admit that people make mistakes. We made a list and had three different people vet it almost completely, and then we went for it.
It seems like the discussion in this thread surrounds a small number of people that feel they were wrongly accused, which is seemingly giving everyone the impression that the entire investigation was botched. Please know that this was generally a success and I think that for the most part, the right users were sent the right messages.
We're still working through tickets, so if you haven't received a reply yet, please be patient. |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:45:01 PM · #417 |
Sup Art Roflmao good to see ya! Maybe we should get the band back together? :-P
@ Langdon - I dig what you are saying but that fact that there is no gray area for very honest and loyal site members, such as Don and Zen, and that the SC click allows for no other interpretation of that data smacks of a very narrow minded decision making process. If this was to be the outcome why not just let an algorithm make the decision as was suggested earlier.
I thought the point of this site and voting was to allow subjectivity and creativity. After all it is about the images I like, right?
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 14:41:38. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:46:18 PM · #418 |
What's happening here is not right.
I don't know about all the others that were flagged, but I have seen the evidence against Don and I don't believe it's evidence of any wrong-doing. Yes, there are big numbers there. But I can see where the big numbers are coming from. It's what Don enjoys. It's not wrong to tell your truth, is it? Isn't that how you are supposed to vote?
This thread also made me check my own stats and I found someone with an average of 9.6667. I checked the username and found that he's only entered 3 challenges. Those 3 images are in my favourites and faved during voting too. Also, in each case, I was the first one to fav them.
Red flag.
Am I not his best friend and aren't we here to mess up the system? Maybe our relationship is still in its infancy. Should I be allowed to vote like this? Should I repent now? It could get much worse, you see.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:48:04 PM · #419 |
| why was all this made public? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 01:48:10 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ace flyman:
Sounds like facts to me. Thanks Langdon for cleaning house |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Then you obviously know nothing of either zeuszen or posthumous if you think they should have been part of a purge for improper voting techniques. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
For the record, I wasn't "purged" or "banned", but received what I consider a "warning" . |
For the record, you have been one of the people I have learned from when it comes to mindful, and generally thoughtful, appreciation of photography as a form of expression way past the click of the shutter. The idea that you would in any way kick ethics to the curb for something that is so irrelevant to that premise still remains to me, patently absurd. |
Well, Jeb, that's a mighty fine thing to say, and I can't help but see the absurdity, too. The way things stand at the point of writing, I will refrain from voting altogether until matters have been reviewed and amended. If, in due time, nothing is done beyond the status quo, I'll abstain indefinitely. As far as posthumous (and pointandshoot for that matter) is concerned, I'm clearly in his camp -and I'm really not much of a camper at all. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:01:54 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by langdon:
I just wanted to chime in really quick to say that I appreciate everyone's interest and feedback regarding this.
I've read almost every post so far, and while some have reassured me that we made the right decisions here, others have filled me with regret, and some have just been downright disappointing. The idea behind proceeding with and acting on this investigation was to try and keep the site fair. We don't hold grudges against users, we aren't out to get anyone... we're just very much interested in the integrity of DPChallenge, and we try our best to maintain it.
The suspensions aren't and were never meant to be final, but most, if not all, will likely stick. If anyone feels so strongly that they haven't done anything wrong, we are more than willing to show them what we saw (as we did earlier in the thread), and discuss it further with them. I'll be the first to admit that people make mistakes. We made a list and had three different people vet it almost completely, and then we went for it.
It seems like the discussion in this thread surrounds a small number of people that feel they were wrongly accused, which is seemingly giving everyone the impression that the entire investigation was botched. Please know that this was generally a success and I think that for the most part, the right users were sent the right messages.
We're still working through tickets, so if you haven't received a reply yet, please be patient. |
I've mentioned this before but, based on everything that's gone on here, how can a self portrait possibly be fair. Everyone knows who it is. You can't possibly tell me that these people don't receive scores based on who they are. If DPC wants to contain people voting on known images, then any person who submits a self portrait should be immediately disqualified. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:05:36 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by Tez:
why was all this made public? |
To deter users from participating in voting malpractice, and to let the community know that we are trying to maintain its integrity. It could be argued that this thread successfully did both of those since we received multiple tickets from users confessing that they weren't caught but had done wrong in the past, and it seems a lot of folks are happy to know that we are not just simply turning a blind eye to potential cheating.
Unfortunately we also caused some unintended ripples elsewhere. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:11:30 PM · #423 |
I think the names of all the people caught should be released. I was accused of this and other things and my name was dragged through the forums. Why not anyone else that gets caught doing this? Publishing the accused names would only be fair.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 14:11:41. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:11:43 PM · #424 |
| I feel like such an unintended ripple. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:12:38 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by langdon:
I just wanted to chime in really quick to say that I appreciate everyone's interest and feedback regarding this.
I've read almost every post so far, and while some have reassured me that we made the right decisions here, others have filled me with regret, and some have just been downright disappointing. The idea behind proceeding with and acting on this investigation was to try and keep the site fair. We don't hold grudges against users, we aren't out to get anyone... we're just very much interested in the integrity of DPChallenge, and we try our best to maintain it.
The suspensions aren't and were never meant to be final, but most, if not all, will likely stick. If anyone feels so strongly that they haven't done anything wrong, we are more than willing to show them what we saw (as we did earlier in the thread), and discuss it further with them. I'll be the first to admit that people make mistakes. We made a list and had three different people vet it almost completely, and then we went for it.
It seems like the discussion in this thread surrounds a small number of people that feel they were wrongly accused, which is seemingly giving everyone the impression that the entire investigation was botched. Please know that this was generally a success and I think that for the most part, the right users were sent the right messages.
We're still working through tickets, so if you haven't received a reply yet, please be patient. |
I've mentioned this before but, based on everything that's gone on here, how can a self portrait possibly be fair. Everyone knows who it is. You can't possibly tell me that these people don't receive scores based on who they are. If DPC wants to contain people voting on known images, then any person who submits a self portrait should be immediately disqualified. |
And not only that...what about all the people who post their entries over at FaceBook, Flickr and the like? When jurying the Fine Arts challenge I was a little upset that a handful had posted their entries publicly over at FB, which automatically disqualified them from any consideration in my eyes. I don't get the need for some to post their entries and announce which challenge it's going to be entered in on other social sites...why the need to do this?
Edit for clarification...I hope. : D
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 14:14:57. |
|
