| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 04:50:14 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
It should absolutely NOT be secret and private that the number of high/low scores any of us awards purely on our responses to the images themselves has the potential to be cumulatively considered a suspension worth violation at some undefined point in time later on. |
There is no such set criteria. Another hysterical reaction that might have been avoided by handling such a highly unusual situation in private. |
It may not be a set criteria--so my point still stands, and you have strengthened it: ANY of US can fall prey to an undefined criteria, to be applied we know not when, we know not how, looking at our cumulative voting patterns over an arbitrary length of time. So it is not secret, per se, just completely arbritray, undefined, applied in the moment, on a whim. It at least sounded better when the claim was "if we reveal the set criteria, it will be a handbook for cheaters, so we keep it secret." Now, it seems, the motivation to keep it secret is simply to hide the fact that it is ill-defined on its basis.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 16:51:03. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:50:48 PM · #477 |
I think its only fair, and can only help to acknowledge that we've received many appeals (and confessions!) via ticket, and we're reviewing a number of the suspensions set out, as well as our procedure for handling this sort of thing in future. We are looking at implementing an "ask questions first" process which should help with this. We were faced with an overwhelming set of data, a timeline that had already taken over 6 months to review, and felt action was needed. Clearly this was not carried out in the best way possible, and we'll try to do better by all of you in future.
PS: For those who would take my asssertion that this is not a joke as proof positive that it is.. well, that's disappointing as I am well known to have no sense of humour whatsoever.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 16:52:38. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:52:36 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
 Keegbow, honest question - if you recognize Timfy's kids, do you NOT vote on the shot because of that? He isn't entering any more these days (he has a Real Life (tm) now!) but when he did, his kids were featured regularly and often. Hard to NOT know it was Tim's entry. So were people NOT to vote on it? Just curious how that would work. This goes for other recognizable features/landmarks/models. If we didn't vote on any of those, we'd be unfairly slighting them, don't you think? |
You go girl! |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:55:02 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by frisca:
PS: For those who would take my asssertion that this is not a joke as proof positive that it is.. well, that's disappointing as I am well known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. |
You owe me a keyboard. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:57:08 PM · #480 |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:57:11 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I think its only fair, and can only help to acknowledge that we've received many appeals (and confessions!) via ticket, and we're reviewing a number of the suspensions set out, as well as our procedure for handling this sort of thing in future. We are looking at implementing an "ask questions first" process which should help with this. We were faced with an overwhelming set of data, a timeline that had already over 6 months, and felt action was needed. Clearly this was not carried out in the best way possible, and we'll try to do better by all of you in future. |
Thank You! Many of us will await further word on this, and it is gratifying to finally get a sense that the SC (or some members at least) attempt to discern the root concerns here rather than try to win "arguments" with "sound bites" and calling people "hysterical"
Please include in your discussions the concerns expressed here by myself and others: How do we confidently vote our consciences/hearts on images that move us without feeling the risk that cumulative voting patterns will cause surprise suspensions.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 16:59:54. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:00:24 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
ANY of US can fall prey to an undefined criteria... |
...and in the extremely unlikely event that it should occur, any of us can also seek resolution through private dialog. One person out of hundreds of active members, voting a suspiciously consistent 9+ average on a bunch of entries that barely topped 5, is hardly a situation that the typical DPCer would ever have to worry about. As Frisca noted, you'd be questioned on it first anyway. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:00:55 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
(snip)
Please include in your discussions the concerns expressed here by myself and others: How do confidently vote our consciences/hearts on images that move us without feeling the risk that cumulative voting patterns will cause surprise suspensions. |
You're right, this is a problem. I'm hoping that actually viewing the photos of those receiving the votes, and asking some pertinent questions will help immensely. I think everyone should wholeheartedly vote their conscious and vote their true feeling without fear, despite the feelings we've inadvertently created here today. I'm sorry that anyone feels they can't vote with their heart and have a clear conscience. That's wrong all over. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:04:32 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I am well known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. |
You're also sickeningly diplomatic and polite. How do you sleep at night? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:05:35 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I think its only fair, etc. |
This is potentially good news. I've seen the site admins issue mea culpa's in the past. I hope they'll come to their senses on this matter. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:10:11 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Any description of the specific criteria used to evaluate voting becomes a virtual manual the real cheaters (not anyone in this thread) can use to evade detection. |
Ahhhh, ye ol' "endangers National Security" excuse for not having transparency in the system. Straight out of the GW playbook. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:10:40 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I am well known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. |
I may be in love... |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:11:24 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by frisca:
PS: For those who would take my asssertion that this is not a joke as proof positive that it is.. well, that's disappointing as I am well known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. |
You owe me a keyboard. |
...Only a keyboard??? You got off cheap...Keyboard and monitor in my case. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:16:18 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
ANY of US can fall prey to an undefined criteria... |
...and in the extremely unlikely event that it should occur, any of us can also seek resolution through private dialog. One person out of hundreds of active members, voting a suspiciously consistent 9+ average on a bunch of entries that barely topped 5, is hardly a situation that the typical DPCer would ever have to worry about. As Frisca noted, you'd be questioned on it first anyway. |
Shannon, but this (I agree) unlikely case is precisely the one that should've called for "manual" intervention. And that intervention (inquiry, private discussion, whatever) clearly should have been done before suspension is imposed, not after. A notice should have been sent to all potential perpetrators with a given time frame (say 48 hours, like in entry validation) to respond with counter-evidence, if any. I bet that real perpetrators would accept the suspension or warning quietly, and only few people would fight. And in the case pointandshoot/ posthumous case, it is so patently clear looking at involved people's records that the sub-5 entries of one are not some newbie's crap but a conscious stylistic choice which happens to be passionately and broadly (without regard to authorship) appreciated by the other. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:24:27 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by LevT:
And in the case pointandshoot/ posthumous case, it is so patently clear looking at involved people's records that the sub-5 entries of one are not some newbie's crap but a conscious stylistic choice which happens to be passionately and broadly (without regard to authorship) appreciated by the other. |
This is what happens when you attempt to let numbers tell the whole story. That's the wonderful thing about statistics -- you can analyze and present them to say anything you want.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:28:50 PM · #491 |
Members of the SC, I appreciate your hard work on this topic and work to improve the site. But, in this attempt it appears problems have occurred and this thread has turned into a mass debate. I appreciate the posts of  langdon and  frisca but I'd like to remind some of the other members of the SC that your job is to help the site, this means listening to what users are saying, both their ideas and their will. Trying to win arguments and continually attacking how public this has become will help no one, especially the site. So please take what people are saying, even when seemingly attacking, from a non-personal, objective viewpoint so that the SC's original intentions(fairness and improvement) can be achieved. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:31:42 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
ANY of US can fall prey to an undefined criteria... |
...and in the extremely unlikely event that it should occur, any of us can also seek resolution through private dialog. One person out of hundreds of active members, voting a suspiciously consistent 9+ average on a bunch of entries that barely topped 5, is hardly a situation that the typical DPCer would ever have to worry about. As Frisca noted, you'd be questioned on it first anyway. |
I kinda like you, you know, and I kinda know you like the process of argument.
I don't.
For me, were I to have an image DQ'd for a defined violation, objective stated before hand (I had the time set wrong on my camera, I could not produce the original, I added text to the image, etc.) I would handle the matter privately--even if the rule was unknown to me (say I put a copyright notice on the image when I was new, didn't realize I shouldn't)--the rule is there, clear, for all to see, applied fairly and openly (we see who was dq'd and why). If I felt like I need special consideration on a date/time stamp, or explanation that that text was in the scene, not added by me, etc, a private discussion is completely in order, and likely to prove successful.
Imagine the scenario where cumulative DQ's resulting in suspension is NOT described specifically, available to all members to read: I enter challenges over a period of time and for one reason or another I manage to accumulate the magic numbers of DQs for an immediate suspension. But all the while I presumed, because there was no information, that each DQ was it's own self contained consequence. Now I get hit with a suspension, and find that there is a periodic screening with a "secret" or "not clearly defined" criterion and I have blindly crossed a DQ threshold--suspension mandatory, no discussion. In a case like that, all those previously private conversation about DQ's vanish, because a hidden rule has been applied to me. I would do just as Don did--worded differently, no doubt, but the essence would be the same: Hey Folks, there is a Hidden Criteria for Suspension and you oughta know about it. I think we can all agree that having a secret rule about "x" number of DQs gets a suspension would be wrong--which is why it is not secret.
In this subjective voting scenario, however, the problem is present. No one knew or suspected that participating actively in a Posthumous Thread type of activity could lead to suspension without warning. No one realized that just cumulatively voting high scores to images you admire might also mean high scores to a photographer you admire that cross some vaguely defined threshhold and get you in trouble. Once that is known, it follows that we want the same sort of clarity on this voting aberration ruling that we already have on the DQ-count-to-suspension rule.
In a site that, at its core (for better or worse) is all about voting on images in challenges, this sort of criterion, rule, implementation, frequency, pass/fail standards should be very clearly known. (and, if it is very clearly known, it might be even easier to find the gamers cheating the system)
But to tell us to just not worry about it, unlikely to happen to us anyway, and the rules are not that well established is of little comfort at best, insulting at worst: One of the most prominent participants here, with a prominent, active thread, recognizing his favorite styles, genres, qualities of image in a very public way, had the hammer fall. Many of us in this thread have in the past (or continue now) to award recognition within that very same thread, in much the same manner.
Why would you expect anything other than concern and dismay from us?
You can toss soundbites, hypotheticals, "hysterical" name-calling, and suggest private and secret is "mature" and "adult"--I suspect it serves your personal pleasure purposes to do that, but it does not help with any resolutions at all, damages the rep of the SC as a whole, further alienating folks at precisely the wrong time.
Respectfully, I suggest you read frisca's post over again a time or two, and see how effective her communication is, how it drives to resolution rather than fanning the flames and insulting the members who have concerns. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:31:55 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by tnun:
the criteria used for scrubbing some votes (zeuszen's) and detecting friend voting should be reexamined... |
The criteria for scrubbing Zeuszen's votes is simple: if he didn't vote 20%, they were scrubbed. None of his votes have EVER been discarded for any other reason, nor did we threaten to do so. You're jumping to conclusions from the forum thread when you really have no idea what the story is (nor do you need to)ΓΆ€” a vivid illustration of my point regarding handling such matters in private. |
Even though I wasn't the one who brought this up, I let it stand, because I did and still do suspect, after reading my mail and this thread, that my voting pattern might well trigger a scrubber. In short, I would trust posthumous more with managing my votes than any group or person relying on algorithms and statistics to determine what's right and what isn't.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 17:32:37. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:37:56 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by frisca:
I am well known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. |
You're also sickeningly diplomatic and polite. How do you sleep at night? |
I'm Canadian. :) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:39:56 PM · #495 |
| ;;;;;;;;snickers;;;;;;;;;;;; |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:45:42 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by LevT:
this (I agree) unlikely case is precisely the one that should've called for "manual" intervention... |
The situation is SO unusual that it's the first time we've ever encountered it, and therefore wouldn't know that a new approach was required. Every other instance of uniformly high votes on low scoring and/or widely variable entries has been a slam dunk case of biased voting. It required a perfect storm of not only specific and divergent tastes, but also hitting that narrow appeal consistently across a variety of challenges and topics.
Originally posted by LevT:
I bet that real perpetrators would accept the suspension or warning quietly, and only few people would fight. |
It varies. People engaging in intentionally fraudulent (and undeniable) behavior are sometimes the ones who protest the loudest. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:52:52 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by frisca:
I am well known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. |
You're also sickeningly diplomatic and polite. How do you sleep at night? |
I'm Canadian. :) |
Ok now you owe me a KB and Monitor :P
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 17:53:02.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:58:50 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It required a perfect storm of not only specific and divergent tastes, but also hitting that narrow appeal consistently across a variety of challenges and topics.
|
except for in this case all of that has been widely known to most of site regulars (as I assume SC members are).
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LevT:
I bet that real perpetrators would accept the suspension or warning quietly, and only few people would fight. |
It varies. People engaging in intentionally fraudulent (and undeniable) behavior are sometimes the ones who protest the loudest. |
that may be true (*sometimes* is the key here), but one can probably tell the difference by the arguments being presented as counter-evidence. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:09:54 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by aprudhomme:
I'd like to remind some of the other members of the SC that your job is to help the site, this means listening to what users are saying, both their ideas and their will. |
It's probably worth bearing in mind that it's not the SCs "job" to do anything; they're volunteers giving their time freely to help out, and largely seem to be getting a ton of abuse, from a very small but very vocal proportion of the actual community here, for trying to do the right thing.
Frankly, I'm amazed any of them bother to put up with this crap. Hats off to them. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 07:07:49 PM · #500 |
| ahh i completely apologize to the SC then, I assumed they were paid for the their time...well I for one am embarrassed lol |
|
