| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2012 09:54:03 AM · #26 |
My score is down about 0.3 from its highs AND i lost a comment!
Go figure...
-m |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 10:56:50 AM · #27 |
[/quote]ahhh was waiting for that to come up, whatever the implication of that was, i didnt mention the photos, i looked at stats using the top voted photos for any particular challenge... [/quote]
I did the math a a few photos, blue ribbons and some random and the scores seem to be right on the money. In some cases the 4th decimal might have been rounded up.
Maybe I'm missing the point. |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 11:41:25 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
it always amuses me that people can ignore the elephant in the room no matter how obvious or how many times its noticed by many people and still call it a sea lion in case someone else happens to notice you saw it, in order to try to prove a point without using logic. Who said anything about personal preference or value for impression having anything to do with calculation of numbers, its not just that people vote the way they do or don't; its about how those averages are being calculated and coded. if you want a discussion on value for impression and personal preference then open a thread and try and discuss that the same way as you can add two and two and get four its not 2+2=3.924245 and yes its relevant we all pay to be members, the council have their job and we have an interest and stake too, and we have a right to call in to question the voting or any other part of the site as members of it, even if its not upheld or dealt with we have the right to question it and have it reviewed... whether your a blue riboner or a last placer or just here for fun, if you enter a challenge you want to know its being calculated correctly..
its an emotional issue for some more than others, i am merely asking the question that it should be reviewed... and im not alone. |
Okay......perhaps I'm missing the point entirely. Are you suggesting that something needs changed in how the site calculates its averages or something based on how some comments in the challenge thread seems to have sparked a response in scoring?
I'm seeing the exact opposite trend that you're reporting.......obviously, I'm *not* going to bitch about that....
Not to ask any dumb questions or anything, but how can you even ask this seeing as how you can only see one score in this challenge?
Using other challenges shouldn't be able to tell you anything simply because the criteria for meeting the challenge is going to resonate differently with voters.......so how can you extrapolate anything that way?
|
|
|
|
12/10/2012 03:04:06 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
since you started discussing this in the forums which im sure is a rule violation, as well as richards post about what is or isnt proportion my score has gone from 6.4 to 5.9 so what ever yo wanted to achieve its had an affect on my score,
7 comments on my way upto 6.4, not one single comment on my way down to 5.9..... |
what rule violation? i don't understand the posts anyway. all it is a list of scores ... and the point of doing is ??? if not to discuss then what is the point? Every one is giving an opinion on their score anyway so why is a more general discussion against the rules? |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 06:18:21 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay......perhaps I'm missing the point entirely. Are you suggesting that something needs changed in how the site calculates its averages or something based on how some comments in the challenge thread seems to have sparked a response in scoring?
I'm seeing the exact opposite trend that you're reporting.......obviously, I'm *not* going to bitch about that....
Not to ask any dumb questions or anything, but how can you even ask this seeing as how you can only see one score in this challenge?
Using other challenges shouldn't be able to tell you anything simply because the criteria for meeting the challenge is going to resonate differently with voters.......so how can you extrapolate anything that way? |
yes unfortunately you missed my point it seems...
Ok firstly i'm sure the scoring could well be influenced by people in threads posting their scores, popular people or competitive people could well be voting differently based on it or opinions swayed if people recognise a style, i don't know if thats is happening and i don't care, if people are voting strategically then all i can say is thats nothing unusual, people will always be competitive and boring in that way to win.... but thats definitely not what i'm talking about and i'm not gaining the scores or using the current numbers from these threads or while a challenge is on, although i can see mine change obviously and sometimes quite weirdly thats not what i base my stats and analysis on!
I never said it was based on current stats and clearly as i cant see whos going to win before hand as i dont have a crystal ball, i had hoped it would be read as i intended it; that it was based it on previous challenges after voting and as stated based on the top scorers own stats that appear after the challenge has finished.
Its not like the site doesnt have its bugs, like photos appearing to have been removed after the challenge if scores are the same for people down the score list. As i came across when reviewing one of the last challenges and oddly thinking why have so many people pulled their photos off so quickly...
somebody else mentioned this bug after the fact, and i could see it myself quite clearly, so would you be arguing that i didnt see that? no... you can go see it for yourself, as can everyone else, its there and i just thought i'd use it as an example along the same logic
so when i say i believe from my own testing of the stats afterwards that they just dont seem to make sense, im saying based on my calculations and they just dont seem to add up, so either theres a bug in the code for working out the averages etc that are being incorrectly or very weirdly calculated, or its intentionally being done in a weird way that seems to make no sense.
I for one along with many others would like to see it reviewed or changed and updated. as i have stated elsewhere in threads and others have privately confirmed to me, this has been an issue for a while and never sorted out or explained, so i know im not alone. I also would like to see personally that everyone be constrained to vote 100% or no vote being registered, and again ive stated this in other threads that voting is affected by it not being 100% regardless of possible bias due to comments or threads, its logical that if its not 100% voting then the votes are not accurate full stop! ask any statistition or mathematician, they will tell you that.
and its not a personal attack on anyone including you, its an observation of the weird voting and calculation.
Message edited by author 2012-12-10 18:54:10. |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 08:15:16 PM · #31 |
The images removed weren't removed -- if you look, the place was removed. It means there was a tie in the results. Look above or below and you'll see there are ties for 23rd place, 33nd place, and then a blank spot where 24th place would have been. It's not a bug -- Langdon just didn't bother changing the code to get rid of the blank lines. The math is correct and the placement is correct.
Message edited by author 2012-12-10 20:22:24.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2012 08:30:54 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Was at 6.2 most the week last ten votes killed it
Votes: 71
Views: 223
Avg Vote: 5.9437
Comments: 7
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 12/09/12 05:10 am |
Healthy number of views and comments! |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 08:54:32 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
The images removed weren't removed -- if you look, the place was removed. It means there was a tie in the results. Look above or below and you'll see there are ties for 23rd place, 33nd place, and then a blank spot where 24th place would have been. It's not a bug -- Langdon just didn't bother changing the code to get rid of the blank lines. The math is correct and the placement is correct. |
yes that was what i was saying...re: images showing as being removed. as for the math im not convinced it is. its an intended failure, i mean feature to confuse, written code then rather than a bug... either way it shows an incorrect image and that is a bug, whether it be written or unintended!
Message edited by author 2012-12-10 21:02:42. |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 08:59:17 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
... as for the math im not convinced it is. |
It's a conspiracy! |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 09:01:39 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GAP2012:
... as for the math im not convinced it is. |
It's a conspiracy! |
lolal ;o) |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 09:10:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
The images removed weren't removed -- if you look, the place was removed. It means there was a tie in the results. Look above or below and you'll see there are ties for 23rd place, 33nd place, and then a blank spot where 24th place would have been. It's not a bug -- Langdon just didn't bother changing the code to get rid of the blank lines. The math is correct and the placement is correct. |
yes that was what i was saying...re: images showing as being removed. as for the math im not convinced it is. its an intended failure, i mean feature to confuse, written code then rather than a bug... either way it shows an incorrect image and that is a bug, whether it be written or unintended! |
I've been convinced, because I've been in ties a couple of times before. I've sat, and I've calculated the math out to the final digit. This is before the ties were done the way they are done now. After I bugged him a number of times, he fixed the coding so that it showed all ties. He just never bothered to fix the "prettiness" of it. I didn't bother complaining about that, because I was happy to have the math corrected. :)
|
|
|
|
12/10/2012 09:15:08 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
The images removed weren't removed -- if you look, the place was removed. It means there was a tie in the results. Look above or below and you'll see there are ties for 23rd place, 33nd place, and then a blank spot where 24th place would have been. It's not a bug -- Langdon just didn't bother changing the code to get rid of the blank lines. The math is correct and the placement is correct. |
yes that was what i was saying...re: images showing as being removed. as for the math im not convinced it is. its an intended failure, i mean feature to confuse, written code then rather than a bug... either way it shows an incorrect image and that is a bug, whether it be written or unintended! |
I've been convinced, because I've been in ties a couple of times before. I've sat, and I've calculated the math out to the final digit. This is before the ties were done the way they are done now. After I bugged him a number of times, he fixed the coding so that it showed all ties. He just never bothered to fix the "prettiness" of it. I didn't bother complaining about that, because I was happy to have the math corrected. :) |
well that shows a coding issue for sure, and one that hasnt been fully resolved because of the images, even if you got them changed to show everyone who tied, so good on you for that at least, it doesnt show any math was changed, maybe you can walk through your math and how and what it was based on privately with me? |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 09:26:53 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
The images removed weren't removed -- if you look, the place was removed. It means there was a tie in the results. Look above or below and you'll see there are ties for 23rd place, 33nd place, and then a blank spot where 24th place would have been. It's not a bug -- Langdon just didn't bother changing the code to get rid of the blank lines. The math is correct and the placement is correct. |
yes that was what i was saying...re: images showing as being removed. as for the math im not convinced it is. its an intended failure, i mean feature to confuse, written code then rather than a bug... either way it shows an incorrect image and that is a bug, whether it be written or unintended! |
I've been convinced, because I've been in ties a couple of times before. I've sat, and I've calculated the math out to the final digit. This is before the ties were done the way they are done now. After I bugged him a number of times, he fixed the coding so that it showed all ties. He just never bothered to fix the "prettiness" of it. I didn't bother complaining about that, because I was happy to have the math corrected. :) |
well that shows a coding issue for sure, and one that hasnt been fully resolved because of the images, even if you got them changed to show everyone who tied, so good on you for that at least, it doesnt show any math was changed, maybe you can walk through your math and how and what it was based on privately with me? |
The math wasn't changed -- the math was correct, the placement was incorrect.
If there was a tie (let's say there were two shots that tied for 1st in oops) -- with an average of 6.8095. One would have been given 1st and one would have been given 2nd. This happened rarely in the top ten. And would be fixed by Langdon by hand.
When I tied for the first time, the problem was since the average wasn't shown to the correct number of significant figures, the SC wasn't convinced it was a real tie. So I did the math with the numbers that were there along with the person's whose shot I thought I tied. (for example, in the oops challenge for first place:)
2* 1= 2
1* 2= 2
1* 3= 3
3* 4= 12
10* 5= 50
25* 6= 150
31* 7= 217
17* 8= 136
7* 9= 63
8* 10= 80
=715/votes (105)
= average of 6.80952381
That's the math. The math is right. It shows he has an average of 6.8095.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2012 09:38:42 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
[quote=GAP2012] [quote=vawendy]
The math wasn't changed -- the math was correct, the placement was incorrect.
If there was a tie (let's say there were two shots that tied for 1st in oops) -- with an average of 6.8095. One would have been given 1st and one would have been given 2nd. This happened rarely in the top ten. And would be fixed by Langdon by hand.
When I tied for the first time, the problem was since the average wasn't shown to the correct number of significant figures, the SC wasn't convinced it was a real tie. So I did the math with the numbers that were there along with the person's whose shot I thought I tied. (for example, in the oops challenge for first place:)
2* 1= 2
1* 2= 2
1* 3= 3
3* 4= 12
10* 5= 50
25* 6= 150
31* 7= 217
17* 8= 136
7* 9= 63
8* 10= 80
=715/votes (105)
= average of 6.80952381
That's the math. The math is right. It shows he has an average of 6.8095. |
Those numbers are not in dispute... and i can see the calculation is correct based on those numbers your putting!
im assuming its this example?
Angel Flew Too Close To The Ground
by Coley
1st place with an
average vote of 7.0346
Views: 18084 (1052 during voting)
Votes: 433
Average Vote (Commenters): 8.597
Average Vote (Participants): 6.880
Average Vote (Non-Participants): 7.055
Ornament
by Shan2112
2nd place with an
average vote of 6.7857
Views: 7597 (633 during voting)
Votes: 420
Average Vote (Commenters): 8.000
Average Vote (Participants): 6.578
Average Vote (Non-Participants): 6.811
Yikes!
by peete
3rd place with an
average vote of 6.6519
Views: 8733 (739 during voting)
Votes: 428
Average Vote (Commenters): 7.844
Average Vote (Participants): 6.480
Average Vote (Non-Participants): 6.675
Message edited by author 2012-12-10 22:00:35. |
|
|
|
12/10/2012 09:40:23 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
[quote=GAP2012] [quote=vawendy]
The math wasn't changed -- the math was correct, the placement was incorrect.
If there was a tie (let's say there were two shots that tied for 1st in oops) -- with an average of 6.8095. One would have been given 1st and one would have been given 2nd. This happened rarely in the top ten. And would be fixed by Langdon by hand.
When I tied for the first time, the problem was since the average wasn't shown to the correct number of significant figures, the SC wasn't convinced it was a real tie. So I did the math with the numbers that were there along with the person's whose shot I thought I tied. (for example, in the oops challenge for first place:)
2* 1= 2
1* 2= 2
1* 3= 3
3* 4= 12
10* 5= 50
25* 6= 150
31* 7= 217
17* 8= 136
7* 9= 63
8* 10= 80
=715/votes (105)
= average of 6.80952381
That's the math. The math is right. It shows he has an average of 6.8095. |
Those numbers are not in dispute... and i can see the calculation is correct based on those numbers your putting! |
Then I'm confused as to what the issue is...
|
|
|
|
12/10/2012 10:13:11 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
[quote=GAP2012] [quote=vawendy]
The math wasn't changed -- the math was correct, the placement was incorrect.
If there was a tie (let's say there were two shots that tied for 1st in oops) -- with an average of 6.8095. One would have been given 1st and one would have been given 2nd. This happened rarely in the top ten. And would be fixed by Langdon by hand.
When I tied for the first time, the problem was since the average wasn't shown to the correct number of significant figures, the SC wasn't convinced it was a real tie. So I did the math with the numbers that were there along with the person's whose shot I thought I tied. (for example, in the oops challenge for first place:)
2* 1= 2
1* 2= 2
1* 3= 3
3* 4= 12
10* 5= 50
25* 6= 150
31* 7= 217
17* 8= 136
7* 9= 63
8* 10= 80
=715/votes (105)
= average of 6.80952381
That's the math. The math is right. It shows he has an average of 6.8095. |
Those numbers are not in dispute... and i can see the calculation is correct based on those numbers your putting! |
Then I'm confused as to what the issue is... |
sorry i was still editing mine and had to go away from the computer for a minute...
not everyone has the same number of votes so while your correct about the calculation of per person per votes made its not the same as across the full voting as there are equal numbers of votes and that have an assigned number, ie. not 100% and still unsure as to whether participants and non-participants are all counted in together or one excluded so we dont know how many votes are cast by whom or not... so its not 100% but anyway... i thik maybe ive overly participated in this thread... lolal.. i'll let others speak or not as the case maybe.. have a great day all, happy photgraphing! :O) |
|
|
|
12/11/2012 03:21:15 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
hit 6.4 at 20 votes which was pleasant surprise
Votes: 26
Views: 94
Avg Vote: 6.2308
Comments: 3
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 12/05/12 01:02 pm
think it will keep going down |
5.78 now ...... F***ing annoying, why 7 great comments upto the high score but non coming down, if you don't like say why your giving that 1 at least have the strength of your conviction.
Sc should look at the ppl discussing what they think is or isn't dnmc in these threads and take action,
Message edited by Manic - Please keep your language clean. |
|
|
|
12/11/2012 05:40:03 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Sc should look at the ppl discussing what they think is or isn't dnmc in these threads and take action, |
On what basis?
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 11:45:30 AM EDT.
