| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/23/2004 09:28:55 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Kavey:
I agree that the algorithm used to recalculate after a DQ ought to take into account the 20% issue such that the 20% is STILL calculated on the ORIGINAL number of entries into the challenge rather than the new number post DQ - ensuring that those votes which were counted originally are still counted and those that weren't aren't. |
Does that mean that if entries are disqualified during voting, that should be ignored as well? |
Maybe. Your question introduces a different problem.
Once the voting period is over, voters that suddenly find themselves under 20% due to a (post-voting) DQ don't have recourse (they can't introduce new votes).
During voting, voters that no longer meet the 20% requirement (due to DQs) may have a chance to reach 20% by introducing new votes. The admins could put the onus on voters to ensure they have 20% throughout voting or create work for themselves by: either sending notifications when anyone falls short of 20% due to a DQ; or tag people (per challenge) when they meet 20% so it's a no-brainer later. The latter works because you can't unvote on an entry (at least not without admin intervention as far as I know).
Questions:
1. If I vote to the 20% minimum and some of my votes are tossed because of the statistically-challenged "vote scrubber", are all my votes tossed out when the remaining allowed votes fall under the 20% requirement.
2. When votes are not included in the final tally (due to under 20% after DQ, or ignored by "vote scrubber", or possibly ignored because of 1), do I still see my cast vote (in red) on images where my vote wasn't even counted? |
|
|
|
03/23/2004 10:10:47 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Kavey:
I agree that the algorithm used to recalculate after a DQ ought to take into account the 20% issue such that the 20% is STILL calculated on the ORIGINAL number of entries into the challenge rather than the new number post DQ - ensuring that those votes which were counted originally are still counted and those that weren't aren't. |
Does that mean that if entries are disqualified during voting, that should be ignored as well?
-Terry |
Personally I think it should.
For one reason: I am sure many voters do vote only on 20% of images in order to ensure their votes will count. If they happen to vote early during the challenge they may not notice a DQ part way through the week or have time to go back and vote on additional images in order to regain that 20% threshold.
Since that 20% is really just an abitrary number to ensure that people vote on a fair chunk of entries rather than just one or two I think it would do no harm at all to have the algorithm base the 20% on the original number of entries as submitted whether for calculations during, at the end of or after the challenge.
Message edited by author 2004-03-23 10:11:45.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2004 09:49:33 PM · #28 |
I think that voters should have to vote on 100% of the entries in order to be counted. What purpose does it serve to allow people to only vote on 20%? There is plenty of time to vote. If a person doesn̢۪t want to be fair and give equal time and consideration to each entry, than who wants their opinion?
What if an entry, or even multiple entries, gets no votes at all? Do they get no score?
The 20% rule just isn̢۪t fair. It̢۪s like telling the judges at a beauty contest that they only have to judge between the one or two girls that they really like, and the rest don̢۪t even get to say that they want world peace.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2004 10:15:07 PM · #29 |
The threshold is set at 20% to give adequate consideration to dialup users, while still requiring a voter to vote on enough entries that they cannot easily sway the scores unfairly. It takes considerably longer to vote on 300 images over 28.8kbps dialup than it does on 1.5 or 3Mbps broadband.
About 1.5 years ago we tried implementing a 95% voting requirement. It proved to be impractical, and was ultimately abandoned. As the number of entries per challengs has grown substantially since then, such a requirement would be even more impractical now.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/23/2004 11:02:59 PM · #30 |
Thanks to the Site Council and a few database queries, we were able to track down the actual cause of the shift. One user voted on exactly 27 submissions from the Portrait Challenge. After the recent disqualification, 135 photographs were left -- and 27 is exactly 20% of 135. Before the disqualification the user had only voted on 19.8% of the submissions, and so his votes were thrown out.
I feel that the results, as they are now, should stay because they are accurate according to the rules. Any differing opinions on this?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2004 11:06:44 PM · #31 |
fine by me, Langdon, thanks for looking into it
:) |
|
|
|
03/23/2004 11:19:18 PM · #32 |
| I think it's hilarious that, because of the rule and the DQ, someone's votes were added -- exactly the opposite of all the speculation .... |
|
|
|
03/23/2004 11:35:07 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think it's hilarious that, because of the rule and the DQ, someone's votes were added -- exactly the opposite of all the speculation .... |
LOL! I didn't even get it after I read Lang's post. That is too darn funny. Whoda Thunk It. |
|
|
|
03/24/2004 07:19:17 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think it's hilarious that, because of the rule and the DQ, someone's votes were added -- exactly the opposite of all the speculation .... |
Ditto - whou would have thunk it :-) |
|
|
|
03/24/2004 10:08:39 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The threshold is set at 20% to give adequate consideration to dialup users,[snip] |
Okay, I guess that makes sense. I do remember what it was like being stuck with a dialup connection. Funny, I suddenly feel queasy.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2004 11:35:11 AM · #36 |
Drew thanks for clarifying.
Personally I still think that the 20% should be calculated on the original number of entries to the challenge since this is the figure people use to reach that 20% during voting (if they vote before one or more images are DQd).
Originally posted by micknewton:
I think that voters should have to vote on 100% of the entries in order to be counted. What purpose does it serve to allow people to only vote on 20%? There is plenty of time to vote. If a person doesn̢۪t want to be fair and give equal time and consideration to each entry, than who wants their opinion? |
You may have plenty of time to vote but many members here have a great many other committments which make it hard for them to put aside the requisite several hours it can take to vote (thoroughly) on all entries to a challenge. Especially if they have dial up connections.
Just because some people have only a limited number of hours per week doesn't make their opinions and input any less valid or valuable to me. Nor does it mean that DPC isn't a long term interest and arena for them.
I believe that it's precisely because of this that entries are displayed in a random order for each viewer and those who cannot vote on all entries are encouraged to vote from the beginning of their displayed thumbnails, in order, for as many images as they have time to vote on. This evens out which images get the votes of these voters and ensures that they don't pick through thumbnails voting only on those that catch their eye.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2004 11:39:20 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
I think that voters should have to vote on 100% of the entries in order to be counted. What purpose does it serve to allow people to only vote on 20%? There is plenty of time to vote. If a person doesn̢۪t want to be fair and give equal time and consideration to each entry, than who wants their opinion?
What if an entry, or even multiple entries, gets no votes at all? Do they get no score?
The 20% rule just isn̢۪t fair. It̢۪s like telling the judges at a beauty contest that they only have to judge between the one or two girls that they really like, and the rest don̢۪t even get to say that they want world peace. |
Have you voted on all 400 entries for orange yet ? I'm hoping you are giving at least each one a few minutes of careful consideration. After all, just flying through and not looking closely wouldn't be fair now would it ? (That's about 13 hours for voting right there...) |
|
|
|
03/24/2004 11:42:47 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Drew thanks for clarifying. |
Langdon :P
|
|
|
|
03/24/2004 11:48:38 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Drew thanks for clarifying. |
Langdon :P |
Sorry
I had just read an email from Drew so my brain went wonky!
LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON LANGDON
:o)
|
|
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: 09/25/2025 08:35:11 AM EDT.
