| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2010 04:55:16 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by karmat:
Yes, I'm trying to make it a bit lighter, but at the same time, consider what he said and what I suggested.
As long as it is a competitive site, there will *always* be an incentive to cheat. Even if the prize is "just" a colored .gif. The only way to take that incentive away is to take away the competition.
We currently, and actively monitor for ghost accounts, etc.
For every 10 or so "suspicions" of ghost voting we receive (or find), typically, only 1 or 2 is "substantial" meaning that there *might* be something there. Of those, very few turn out to be true ghost accounts.
What else can we do? |
It is about removing 'low hanging fruit'. |
No, it's about you deciding that some other people's votes don't deserve to count, and asking us to actively monitor every voter's pattern according to your criteria and discard them. Maybe you didn't really read the post you quoted, but we already do this.
This site's been running a little over 8 years, and I think this discussion's been going on for 7 years 364 days ... :-( |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:11:01 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by karmat:
Yes, I'm trying to make it a bit lighter, but at the same time, consider what he said and what I suggested.
As long as it is a competitive site, there will *always* be an incentive to cheat. Even if the prize is "just" a colored .gif. The only way to take that incentive away is to take away the competition.
We currently, and actively monitor for ghost accounts, etc.
For every 10 or so "suspicions" of ghost voting we receive (or find), typically, only 1 or 2 is "substantial" meaning that there *might* be something there. Of those, very few turn out to be true ghost accounts.
What else can we do? |
It is about removing 'low hanging fruit'. |
No, it's about you deciding that some other people's votes don't deserve to count, and asking us to actively monitor every voter's pattern according to your criteria and discard them. Maybe you didn't really read the post you quoted, but we already do this.
This site's been running a little over 8 years, and I think this discussion's been going on for 7 years 364 days ... :-( |
It appears that you have put words in my mouth. I did not state anywhere that some votes should not be counted. The proposal that Ken suggested and that I endorse was to have new registered users or members enter 3 challenges before having the privilege to vote on challenges themselves.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:11:36 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
I think Ken is right on the three entries requirement. But that is again, just my two cents on that. I cant see what it can hurt. |
I totally agree! Why don't they poll members?? |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:17:44 PM · #104 |
bassbone's comment about low hanging fruit expresses my point exactly. It's not about accusing anyone or thinking some people's votes are not worthy of counting. Get over yourselves.
Why does it always seem there is constant defensiveness and utter resistance to any change by some members of the SC? Let's have a poll, determine if it is popular enough and let Langdon decide. How much trouble is that??
Then let's discuss term limits... ;-) |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:28:52 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This site's been running a little over 8 years, and I think this discussion's been going on for 7 years 364 days ... :-( |
And the bigger the reason you and  karmat should read and try to understand the suggestion which has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating votes or blaming SC for not already monitoring usage.
One would think SC would be grateful that members are trying to contribute in making this a site that most of the members enjoy and to limit the griping that according to  GeneralE has been going on for almost 8 years. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:30:33 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
One would think SC would be grateful that members are trying to contribute in making this a site that most of the members enjoy and to limit the griping that according to GeneralE has been going on for almost 8 years. |
+1 |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:39:05 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
It appears that you have put words in my mouth. I did not state anywhere that some votes should not be counted. The proposal that Ken suggested and that I endorse was to have new registered users or members enter 3 challenges before having the privilege to vote on challenges themselves. |
So for some people, you not only think their low votes are "wrong" but that all their votes are not worthy of being counted, so much so that you won't even let them vote?
Do you really think that after 7 years and 364 days of griping that Langdon hasn't heard and considered all kinds of suggestions about voting, and taken that into account in structuring how the site is run? What makes people think that "the membership" has better insight, information, or values than the people who have been running the site? I admit -- in the '60s I would have been carrying an anti-authoritarian protest sign, but here, for this issue, it just doesn't help IMO ... |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:44:32 PM · #108 |
Why are SC members against Ken's great idea? It would give this site more value knowing that registered users have earned the right to vote rather than just registering and voting irresponsibly right off the bat. During their 3 challenges they are surely going to read up on DPC rules, browse images and read comments giving them an idea of how things work here. This could only be positive for DPC. I see no negative repercussions, except from people who've signed up to vote on their friend's images.
I'm all for it 100%. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:46:21 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This site's been running a little over 8 years, and I think this discussion's been going on for 7 years 364 days ... :-( |
And the bigger the reason you and karmat should read and try to understand the suggestion which has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating votes or blaming SC for not already monitoring usage.
One would think SC would be grateful that members are trying to contribute in making this a site that most of the members enjoy and to limit the griping that according to GeneralE has been going on for almost 8 years. |
From what I've read in this thread, there is concern over unfair voting and/or ghost voting.
That is somewhat oversimplified, but the overall general gist of the argument as I see it.
I cannot, and will not speak for the general, but my own comments were simply acknowledging that there are already steps in place dealing with this.
We monitor patterns and what not and when "ghosts" are detected, we deal with it (and they are very rare).
Frankly, making someone enter 3, or make x number of comments, or vote x number of times (all of which I've seen done on on other sites) isn't going to address the issue of "ghost voters." yea, it would make it more difficult for them, but we are monitoring constantly, and checking, etc. any complaints we get, and it is a very RARE occurrence so essentially what you are asking us to do is eliminate a problem that a) may or may not exist and if it does exist b) is very small and gets caught eventually anyway (usually within a matter of weeks, if not sooner).
The reality of it is, it seems to me, is that the overall trend of voting is more and more stringent resulting in lower and lower votes. AND, that is not from "ghost" voters but an overarching trend of the site in general. If you have an answer to *that* I'm all ears. :)
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:47:36 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bassbone:
It appears that you have put words in my mouth. I did not state anywhere that some votes should not be counted. The proposal that Ken suggested and that I endorse was to have new registered users or members enter 3 challenges before having the privilege to vote on challenges themselves. |
So for some people, you not only think their low votes are "wrong" but that all their votes are not worthy of being counted, so much so that you won't even let them vote?
Do you really think that after 7 years and 364 days of griping that Langdon hasn't heard and considered all kinds of suggestions about voting, and taken that into account in structuring how the site is run? What makes people think that "the membership" has better insight, information, or values than the people who have been running the site? I admit -- in the '60s I would have been carrying an anti-authoritarian protest sign, but here, for this issue, it just doesn't help IMO ... |
This doesn't sound like you at all GeneralE. Nobody is saying their vote isn't worthy of DPC. Look at it as a safeguard against improper voting practices. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:48:09 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Why are SC members against Ken's great idea? It would give this site more value knowing that registered users have earned the right to vote rather than just registering and voting irresponsibly right off the bat. During their 3 challenges they are surely going to read up on DPC rules, browse images and read comments giving them an idea of how things work here. This could only be positive for DPC. I see no negative repercussions, except from people who've signed up to vote on their friend's images.
I'm all for it 100%. |
Agreed...
Now, I am admittedly a noob around here....but it sure seems to me that there are a lot of people speaking on "Langdon"'s behalf. To be perfectly honest, I am not even sure who he is. But in any event, why don't we wait to see a post from Langdon to get a clear evaluation on where Langdon stands? It appears to me that he is probably the Site Owner or something to that effect. In that light, I believe it might be important to hear directly from the "horse's" mouth, rather than just conjecture on what Langdon may or may not think....
just my .02 |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:50:39 PM · #112 |
For the record, I don't think it was "my idea" - I am pretty sure it has been suggested before.
GeneralE, I am really baffled by your obstinance - according to you, nobody should bother suggesting any changes to the way the site is run because you've seen and heard it all and if it worth doing, Langdon would have already done it. WTH? |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 05:56:40 PM · #113 |
| Karmat, you seem to be saying there isn't a problem that the SC and admins aren't on top of, yet even Shannon described a highly improbable string of low votes that seemed to have slipped through the cracks. I'd be hard pressed to believe that 5 1 votes in a row (or close together) on most challenge entries is a coincidence. This is the problem we think could be at least curbed by making voters participate in at least 3 challenges. For Pete's sake, why not stop bickering and put it to a poll and/or institute something on a trial basis?? |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:08:48 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bassbone:
It appears that you have put words in my mouth. I did not state anywhere that some votes should not be counted. The proposal that Ken suggested and that I endorse was to have new registered users or members enter 3 challenges before having the privilege to vote on challenges themselves. |
So for some people, you not only think their low votes are "wrong" but that all their votes are not worthy of being counted, so much so that you won't even let them vote?
Do you really think that after 7 years and 364 days of griping that Langdon hasn't heard and considered all kinds of suggestions about voting, and taken that into account in structuring how the site is run? What makes people think that "the membership" has better insight, information, or values than the people who have been running the site? I admit -- in the '60s I would have been carrying an anti-authoritarian protest sign, but here, for this issue, it just doesn't help IMO ... |
This doesn't sound like you at all GeneralE. Nobody is saying their vote isn't worthy of DPC. Look at it as a safeguard against improper voting practices. |
But by targeting only new members the assumption is they vote improperly or more so than the rest of us. This of course is just wild speculation based on no evidence. Heck, this whole thread started on the premise that the 5 ones left on Shannon's photo were somehow wrong. Again, no evidence just speculation that it's just not conceivable that his photo would have gotten 5 ones. For crying out loud his photo was of a girl's head mounted on top of a dog. I'm guessing you could find at least 5 random people on the street who would balk at that concept. Yeah, he executed it well but we all know that not everyone puts technical perfection on a pedestal as if it's something that must always be rewarded regardless of how empty the photo is otherwise (not saying his was). Bottom line, he got five lousy votes. Big deal. It happens. He himself doesn't care for the "fix" being proposed. That should say something right there.
Message edited by author 2010-05-05 18:13:30.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:21:28 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...This is the problem we think could be at least curbed by making voters participate in at least 3 challenges. For Pete's sake, why not stop bickering and put it to a poll and/or institute something on a trial basis?? |
Can't say that I agree with this as it pre-supposes that only newbies are involved in these dasdardly deeds and doling out these low scores, nor am I in favour or a poll which pits registered members against paid members.
I personally have in excess of 170,000 votes and have no shame in admitting that I have not participated in one single challenge this year...should I also be excluded from voting.
I am sorry my friends, but you are chasing virtual ribbons and in this instance tilting at imaginary windmills...Get over it... life is too short to be bitching about chicken shit like this.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:25:28 PM · #116 |
| Oh for the love of God, I give up. It's not a critical issue to me, the tone of the responses to suggestions here are really what are getting under my skin. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:33:12 PM · #117 |
Actually what scalver said was
Originally posted by scalvert:
To clarify, my entry didn't start with five votes of 1 in a row, but the early voting was brutal. It was at 3.83 after 6 votes, dropped as low as 2.5 shortly after that, and had five votes of 1 (and a 2) within the first 24 hours. Needless to say, I wasn't too happy about it. However, I actually got a higher average from participants than non-participants this time, and eliminating all the votes of 1 still wouldn't have been enough to ribbon.
I suspect it was a coincidence involving people new to DPC (more likely in Open challenges). As the DPL raises participation, some of the people who hadn't been entering before will naturally get their friends and family members interested, too. They won't be as familiar with the rules, and may vote down entries they think were edited illegally, buddy vote, etc. The good news is that more participation also means more "normal" votes to reduce the effect of the unusual ones. |
As he points out, it is not necessarily "ghost voters" but new signees. I would think that a note upon signing up (such as, Welcome to DPC. Please read our rules carefully before entering and/or voting, and note that while other sites allow and encourage "friend voting," we ask that you vote on the merit of the photograph.) would be more "friendly" in some ways and more effective than requiring some minimal level of participation. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:35:08 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Actually what scalver said was
Originally posted by scalvert:
To clarify, my entry didn't start with five votes of 1 in a row, but the early voting was brutal. It was at 3.83 after 6 votes, dropped as low as 2.5 shortly after that, and had five votes of 1 (and a 2) within the first 24 hours. Needless to say, I wasn't too happy about it. However, I actually got a higher average from participants than non-participants this time, and eliminating all the votes of 1 still wouldn't have been enough to ribbon.
I suspect it was a coincidence involving people new to DPC (more likely in Open challenges). As the DPL raises participation, some of the people who hadn't been entering before will naturally get their friends and family members interested, too. They won't be as familiar with the rules, and may vote down entries they think were edited illegally, buddy vote, etc. The good news is that more participation also means more "normal" votes to reduce the effect of the unusual ones. |
As he points out, it is not necessarily "ghost voters" but new signees. I would think that a note upon signing up (such as, Welcome to DPC. Please read our rules carefully before entering and/or voting, and note that while other sites allow and encourage "friend voting," we ask that you vote on the merit of the photograph.) would be more "friendly" in some ways and more effective than requiring some minimal level of participation. |
You have just confirmed the point that Ken and I were trying to make. Thanks Karmat. I am done now. Cheers. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:35:18 PM · #119 |
In response to what I was GOING to post....
The Unauthorized Beginner's Guide to DPC
1. DPC is not a democracy; it’s a joint dictatorship.
2. D&L stands for Drew & Langdon. They started this site for their own entertainment, and are the dictators.
Therefore, we have no voice, never had a voice, never will have a voice. As long as we have a paypal account, we can bitch all we want and be "muted"
LOL... |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:38:57 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by karmat:
Actually what scalver said was
Originally posted by scalvert:
To clarify, my entry didn't start with five votes of 1 in a row, but the early voting was brutal. It was at 3.83 after 6 votes, dropped as low as 2.5 shortly after that, and had five votes of 1 (and a 2) within the first 24 hours. Needless to say, I wasn't too happy about it. However, I actually got a higher average from participants than non-participants this time, and eliminating all the votes of 1 still wouldn't have been enough to ribbon.
I suspect it was a coincidence involving people new to DPC (more likely in Open challenges). As the DPL raises participation, some of the people who hadn't been entering before will naturally get their friends and family members interested, too. They won't be as familiar with the rules, and may vote down entries they think were edited illegally, buddy vote, etc. The good news is that more participation also means more "normal" votes to reduce the effect of the unusual ones. |
As he points out, it is not necessarily "ghost voters" but new signees. I would think that a note upon signing up (such as, Welcome to DPC. Please read our rules carefully before entering and/or voting, and note that while other sites allow and encourage "friend voting," we ask that you vote on the merit of the photograph.) would be more "friendly" in some ways and more effective than requiring some minimal level of participation. |
You have just confirmed the point that Ken and I were trying to make. Thanks Karmat. I am done now. Cheers. |
So, I listen to your concern (and clarify the issue someone else mentioned earlier) and offer another solution that *might* work just as well, and perhaps be friendlier to newbies and you get snarky.
I can't argue the issue.
I can't discuss merits of the "arguments"
I can't contribute other solutions to the issue.
What CAN I do? Agree with you and do what you want? (even though, technically, it is out of my control)
I wonder why I even bother?
(yea, I'm frustrated)
Message edited by author 2010-05-05 18:40:27. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:42:05 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Jac:
This doesn't sound like you at all GeneralE. Nobody is saying their vote isn't worthy of DPC. Look at it as a safeguard against improper voting practices. |
If someone has no voting history, how can (why should you) you declare their voting practices "improper?" To me this sounds extremely insulting (not to mention discouraging) to anyone seeking to join the activities here -- "you are assumed to be a biased cheater until you prove yourself otherwise" does not sound very welcoming, especially to something which professes to be a site where people can "teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week." ... |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 06:58:34 PM · #122 |
Look, The photo got 1's because I was repulsed by it.:(...but only 3 of the 1's were mine.:) I saw no difference in combining the head of a little girl with a dog and the head of a monkey with Obama. Some things just aren't right.
He got the low votes early, until his friends recognised the child and gave the high votes. Enough so to bring a so so pic up to 4th. place. Now which was worse, giving 1's to a pic you don't like or higher scores to someone you recognise? Of course this is just my opinion. :} |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 07:06:21 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I saw no difference in combining the head of a little girl with a dog and the head of a monkey with Obama. |
Oh, dear god, David. I hope that was tongue in cheek and not quite as offensively idiotic as it comes across.
Message edited by author 2010-05-05 19:06:56. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 07:07:54 PM · #124 |
| I really havent entered a challenge in a while until the DPL started again. There were many reasons for this, medical, and lack of MOJO photographicaly speaking. I had started to notice that voting was getting rough at the begininning of each challenge and can be daunting for a new member to deal with. During the B&W Landscape challenge, my first comment was DNMC and my score was 4.2xx or some crazy number around there. I found myself wondering what the hell I was doing wrong and was DPC really worth it to me anymore. By the end of the challenge my faith in DPC and the people we have here was restored. My score eneded at a 6.09xx. Really I expected a 5.8. My point is that yes during the early stages of voting we all get hit pretty hard, and yes there may be ghost accounts out there doing this to us, however, a good image will stand on it's own and the score will go up. The SC has one hell of a job trying to "babysit" all of us and keep this place fun and interesting. They are already out looking for trouble for US, so that we don't have to think about it too much. Honestly, all this talk is good for the continuing growth of our community but at the same time can be very dangerous to us as well as it will turn off many people who are new or looking to join. I personally don't vote below a 4, and that is being harsh for me. I use 5 as my base and go from there. Maybe instead of a 10 point scoring system a 5 point system would work better at eliminating lower scores. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 07:16:21 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by cryan:
can be very dangerous to us as well as it will turn off many people who are new or looking to join. |
That's what the DPC Portrait Challenge is supposed to solve isn't it? As someone else pointed out, sounds like a "Membership Drive"......
Point being, why does DPL have to be a part of the regular challenges? Can't they have their own? Why not just knock out the bottom and top few votes from everyone's photo? Then, there will be no reason to vote unusually low or high ....
Sounds like a simple solution to me. They do it in figure skating (I hate figure skating but they have a good idea) for that exact reason....to mitigate the votes that might be construed as biased (DPL, trolls, friends, etc)......
Message edited by author 2010-05-05 19:32:13. |
|
