| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2011 11:48:26 AM · #26 |
The scores are already defined.
1 BAD
2 LESS BAD
3 NOT AS BAD
4 BELOW AVERAGE
5 SLIGHTLY BELOW AVERAGE
6 SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN AVERAGE
7 WELL ABOVE AVERAGE
8 NOT QUITE GOOD
9 NEARLY GOOD
10 GOOD
It makes a nice bell curve, too. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 11:53:29 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The scores are already defined.
1 BAD
2 LESS BAD
3 NOT AS BAD
4 BELOW AVERAGE
5 SLIGHTLY BELOW AVERAGE
6 SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN AVERAGE
7 WELL ABOVE AVERAGE
8 NOT QUITE GOOD
9 NEARLY GOOD
10 GOOD
It makes a nice bell curve, too. |
Your bell curve would be more symmetrical, and more accurate as well, if you removed just one of the "O"s from the last entry ... |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:01:45 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Your bell curve would be more symmetrical, and more accurate as well, if you removed just one of the "O"s from the last entry ... |
The scale is listed on the site as BAD --> GOOD, but it's implied. As in, "Good God that's a fantastic photo! I'll bet GeneralE would even favorite this one!"
Message edited by author 2011-01-09 12:02:33. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:25:49 PM · #29 |
For anyone voting regularly, those numbers already symbolize the very things you're suggesting, JH. It is simply not possible to account for everyone's way of looking at an image with a simple scale. Too many things to factor in. If I'm looking at an image, and none of the choices offered in the scoring reflect how I feel about that image, I am more likely to skip over it.
These are just a few of the things people consider when looking at an image:
Quality of Image:
first impact upon viewing
composition
crop
lighting
color
processing
originality
beauty
pov
dof
Interpretation of Challenge:
Clever
Original
Shoehorn
Out of the box
Style of Image:
Street Photography
Studio
Alternative (motion blur, grain, abstract, etc.)
Type of Image
Landscape
Portraiture
Black and White
Nature
Animals
Action
Macros
The issue is that not everyone uses all of these elements in voting. Some people do gut-level voting, others are much more deliberate. You can't "normalize" voting styles and hope to get a successful result. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:32:58 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
For anyone voting regularly, those numbers already symbolize the very things you're suggesting, JH. It is simply not possible to account for everyone's way of looking at an image with a simple scale. Too many things to factor in. If I'm looking at an image, and none of the choices offered in the scoring reflect how I feel about that image, I am more likely to skip over it.
These are just a few of the things people consider when looking at an image:
Quality of Image:
first impact upon viewing
composition
crop
lighting
color
processing
originality
beauty
pov
dof
Interpretation of Challenge:
Clever
Original
Shoehorn
Out of the box
Style of Image:
Street Photography
Studio
Alternative (motion blur, grain, abstract, etc.)
Type of Image
Landscape
Portraiture
Black and White
Nature
Animals
Action
Macros
The issue is that not everyone uses all of these elements in voting. Some people do gut-level voting, others are much more deliberate. You can't "normalize" voting styles and hope to get a successful result. |
Noted. Good point. I was just trying to look for a way to govern the monkeys who score 1's and 2's on obvious award winning photos. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:34:13 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
The average between 1 and 10 is 5.5. No one can vote 5.5, so one must choose whether the image is below average (5, or lower) or above average (6, or higher). The detail in the score comes from a couple hundred decisions like this. It works very well. |
Totally agree on this. When you average out several hundred opinions, you get something approaching a reasonable judgement. I choose to be a more generous voter and use 6 as my average. I'm balanced out by someone else who uses 5 as his vote for average.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:48:02 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by JarHead:
Noted. Good point. I was just trying to look for a way to govern the monkeys who score 1's and 2's on obvious award winning photos. |
Well, everyone is entitled to their own way of seeing and voting and use of the 1-10 scale so calling people monkeys because they don't agree with the majority doesn't exactly help. For example- James Cameron's film Avatar won awards and smashed box office records and i thought it was unmitigated shit. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 01:06:20 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by JarHead:
Noted. Good point. I was just trying to look for a way to govern the monkeys who score 1's and 2's on obvious award winning photos. |
As one of those monkeys, I'd like to retain the right to fling poo where I please.
I actually agree with you, though, that it's unusual to have a numbering system with no definition at all what each number means. But I've come to like it, because ranking is based on relative value anyway. Therefore, a collective 7 means "outstanding." 9 and 10 are meaningless, because nobody ever achieves those scores. An individual vote does not correlate to a collective vote. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 01:07:04 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
For example- James Cameron's film Avatar won awards and smashed box office records and I thought it was unmitigated shit. |
Oh, you mean "Dances with Smurfs"? Totally predictable and formula driven. Good analogy.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 06:45:24 PM EDT.
