| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2015 12:54:36 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by MeMex2:
... and are not voting fairly, there isn't a reason to be here. |
Since votes are a reflection of one's views relative to a specific image, I amm of the opinion that all of these are "Fair" votes.
Individually we may not care for the score meted out, but that is not the crux of the issue here.
Consistent voting by someone, even at the lower echelons is indeed fair.
Ray |
Voting on a scale of 1-5 while entering and having others vote on one's own image using the scale of 1-10 is effectively advantaging one's own image. It may not have much impact, but I wouldn't call that fair... |
And how about entering and not voting at all? Expecting votes from others and not blessing them with an opinion... I think that also is not fair. |
|
|
|
04/08/2015 04:07:08 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
And how about entering and not voting at all? Expecting votes from others and not blessing them with an opinion... I think that also is not fair. |
Can't say that I suffer from that problem.
Votes cast - 236,814
Votes Received - 12,023
Ray |
|
|
|
04/08/2015 07:59:39 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
The 1-5 voter has no more impact on fairness than the 6-10 voters do and the statistics have proved time and again that they balance one another. |
Yes, I am splitting hairs, but your analysis reflects a third party recipient of 'both' votes. The 1-5 voter excludes themselves from the very slight skewing effect of their own 1-5 voting pattern while receiving (the non-compensated) slightly skewing vote of a 6-10 voter. That's a mathematical fact. But Ray, whether people actually do it? (I presume that's what you meant) That's another matter.
Is it significant? Well it might be between say 1st and 2nd places (where individual votes above 5 are very plentiful). Take a first place image with a score of 7.3662 with 71 votes. Now let's say that the second place ribbon winner was a 1-5 voter (rather than a 1-10 voter who would vote 10 in this scenario). They really liked the image and gave it their top score of 5. That would depress the 1st place score to 7.2958. There is certainly enough room within those two scores to be place-changing.
I'm not talking about the overall effect on all voters (which I accept smoothes), I'm talking about the ability for 1-5 voters to exclude themselves from the skewing effect their own voting pattern while still being a recipient of the votes of those who vote with a higher top end (whether that be 1-10 or 6-10).
[edited to parse the quote properly] |
I understand the "skewing" math and it is logically undisputable. It could happen mathematically. However, practically speaking the stars have to align for it to have any real impact. Using the logic above, you would have to have picture in ribbon contention and be a low voter too to impact the final results. That would be a pretty rare combination. The low voter's picture is still subject to the whole spectrum of other voters that likely includes other low voters.
I believe a consistent low voter has less impact on a challenge than a voter who singles out an image with a one vote because they don't like the content, i.e. nudity, guns, etc. By the way, I still defend that voter's right to do so too
This continues to be much ado about nothing IMHO |
|
|
|
04/09/2015 09:32:36 AM · #54 |
I think it about what  pennystreet and I are trying to say, it doesn't matter WHAT you vote it matters THAT you vote.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2015 09:36:32 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by nygold:
I think it about what pennystreet and I are trying to say, it doesn't matter WHAT you vote it matters THAT you vote. |
Absolutely! |
|
|
|
04/09/2015 01:03:50 PM · #56 |
Del, how do you calculate fluctuations in "climate", when 80% of the population are voting between 1 through 4 and 20% 6 through 10?
I also agree with Penny that voting really matters. I also think comments really matter,too. The Ubique Challenge reminds me of the old days.
9 comments and it is mid challenge.
Maybe we have too many challenges. Maybe we should focus on selecting challenges that appeal to a wider group of people and have less of them?
It would be easier to comment and vote if there were not so many challenges.
(I am sure this has been overly hashed. I just do not frequent forums that much and am out of the loop...but wouldn't fewer challenges help the malaise?) |
|
|
|
04/09/2015 01:09:58 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Del, how do you calculate fluctuations in "climate", when 80% of the population are voting between 1 through 4 and 20% 6 through 10? |
Jane, how do you "know" this is how people vote?
The links to the analyses posted earlier are based on actual votes, not paranoid projections based on "unacceptable" scores ... |
|
|
|
04/09/2015 01:48:02 PM · #58 |
Paul,
I do not think the group is ever static. I was wondering how those changes are calculated.
I just remember why I stay away from forums. |
|
|
|
04/09/2015 01:49:05 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Del, how do you calculate fluctuations in "climate", when 80% of the population are voting between 1 through 4 and 20% 6 through 10? |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Jane, how do you "know" this is how people vote?
The links to the analyses posted earlier are based on actual votes, not paranoid projections based on "unacceptable" scores ... |
Yeah.....that is an absurd premise. No way.
I would genuinely like to know why you have come to this conclusion that there are a bunch of mean, bitter low voting users/members trashing the challenges.
Message edited by author 2015-04-09 13:51:06.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2015 02:33:35 PM · #60 |
| I haven't read the whole thread, but receiving a score of 6, 7 or 8 on a mediocre shot does not help me at all. It just makes me believe my photography is better than it really is. I want my score to reflect the quality of the shot (and whether it fits the challenge well). |
|
|
|
04/09/2015 10:13:24 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Del, how do you calculate fluctuations in "climate", when 80% of the population are voting between 1 through 4 and 20% 6 through 10?
I also agree with Penny that voting really matters. I also think comments really matter,too..... |
Jane, when I set out to do the statistics threads I created in 2011 there was a general malaise at DPC that a few of the elder statesman were trying to address. I approached one of them with the suggestion that I posts some information that would help the community understand that the voting at DPC is actually incredibly fair. I tried to take data driven approach dispel some of the myths about voting that peeve many members so much. The data I used from the site covered more than 240,000 scores over 8 or 9 years. During that time the average score was ~5.36 which is very close to the center of the scale, 5.5. Also, the data formed a bell curve that indicated that most votes fall in the center 4 to 7 buckets and nearly equal numbers fall in the 1-3 and 8-10 buckets.
Perhaps things have changed. I haven’t had time to scrub data from the site like I used to. However, in 8 or 9 years there was no evidence of “climate” change and I suspect there hasn’t been any. With all due respect, the 80% voting 1-4 and 20% voting 6-10 theory just isn’t possible. The typical voter uses most of, or all of, the scale. The rare low and high voters are in the tails of the distribution.
Look at the most recent free study images one at a time and concentrate on the voting breakdown under the image. The highest scoring images are skewed toward the highest buckets and lowest scoring images are skewed toward the lower buckets. This is expected and normal because you can’t score more than 10 or less than 1. However, from about the 6th place finisher to the 141st place finisher, the score breakdowns have that familiar bell curve including a central peak and even tails. If 80% of voters were voting 1-4 these breakdowns would not be bell shaped. Also, if your statement were true the average score would be about 3.5 and the highest mathematical score possible would be 5.2 (80 “4” votes + 20 “10” votes)/100 votes. There was a 7+ and many high 6s in the free study and the average score was 5.76. There just isn’t any evidence of a large number of “negative” voters
If you’re still with meâ€Â¦ I appreciate your passion and agree voting really matters. We all want the high votes. A 7 vote always feels better than a 4 vote but one is no more fair or more valid than the other. If you submit an average photo on the DPC 1-10 scale you will probably get a pretty equal number of 7s and 4s
You're entitled to your opinion but saying “Anyone with an "average vote cast" of 4 and below should leave the site and seek treatment. The negativity is really off putting” is way off-base. You are projecting your interpretation of the scale on others. It’s also totally unfair to call out voters with an average vote around 4+/- if you’re not going to call out the voters with an average vote cast around 7+/-. Both exist in equal numbers. Both have minimal, offsetting, impact on the average score at DPC.
I hope your friends will give DPC another chance. The DPC experience is only as good as you make it. Ask for help, participate in side challenges, learn from the incredible talent here but don’t expect exceptional scores until you earn them. This isn’t kindergarten. In my humble opinion the DPC average score is never going to move much outside of 5.3 to 5.7 but don’t get hung-up on the numbers. That average DPC image is still pretty damn good. If you’re ever blessed to score a 7+ you have taken and exceptional photo.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2015 04:05:07 AM · #62 |
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me Del, I understand that the statistics are valid and it is my perception that is off.
As I have said, this really isn’t about my scores. I have been here for 5 years and I know what to expect. I also know that my friend had the opportunity to
introduce herself and to ask for help and she did not do either of those things. But, aside from her experience it seems that we are in an exceptionally
apathetic place where the numbers of comments are down as well as the number of votes and that combination seems lethal for people who
are new to the site.
Sounding off in forums is not my habit and I am sorry that I did. I accomplished nothing, really.
Thanks again Del for taking the time.
my best |
|
|
|
04/10/2015 12:06:09 PM · #63 |
Don't feel bad Jane these conversations are healthy.
After reading your post and  DJWoodward's post I took a closer look at the Free Study results and it looks like the difference between a ribbon and no ribbon was VERY tiny.
The 3rd place yellow ribbon winner had a score of 6.7037 and the 4th place finisher had a score of 6.7013.
Thats a difference of 0.0024.
BUT the ribbon winner recieved 4 more votes than the 4th place image.
I know this doesn't prove anything but in theory the positions could have been switched IF they had recieved the same amount of votes and the 4th place image continued to get high scores.
It really isn't fair to the 4th place finisher that he/she ended up with fewer votes. |
|
|
|
04/10/2015 05:21:13 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by MeMex:
Sounding off in forums is not my habit and I am sorry that I did. I accomplished nothing, really. |
Originally posted by nygold:
It really isn't fair to the 4th place finisher that he/she ended up with fewer votes. |
I guess these statements are the kind of thing that chap my cheeks and frustrate me the most.
If you guys don't say anything, ask, poke the hornet's nest, than how does anything change, become better, or at least give YOU a better understanding of how things work.
Where, IMNSHO, the problems arise is when you project your own expectations and/or rules into the mix.
Jane.....if you DO get to the forums more, you get to find out more about your fellow DPCers......and maybe you could still approach your friend and help her understand what's going on here a little better. Help her navigate her way to getting help. Yah, people don't leave comments so much during challenges, but start a thread asking, or approach any of the long term members who help on a regular basis.
Don.....the fairness trap....WHY isn't it fair that 4th place ended up with fewer votes? Could it be that it inspired less people than the 3rd place image........ergo getting 4th place? I'm puzzled......isn't that how this works? So what's unfair about it?
You only have to vote 20% of the challenge for your votes to count. So they cannot be divided up any way other than how they're given.
This is a place to better your photography, meet other photogs, get a glimpse of what's happening around the country and around the world, and a place to compete in multiple contests per week. The competition is a way to gauge your own image impressions on others and to comp[are it with others who are doing the same thing. The scores aren't important.......yeah, they can be fun when they're all good, and frustrating when they're not, but this place is YOUR workshop, to improve YOUR skills, as a resource for YOUR photographic journey.
Enjoy it for the fabulous resource that it can be for YOU, and let any other shit roll off.
This place has been the most versatile, valuable tool I have *EVER* found for my personal photography development over the last decade BAR NONE.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2015 07:20:42 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by nygold:
It really isn't fair to the 4th place finisher that he/she ended up with fewer votes. |
I once again have to respectfully disagree. I won’t repeat the details here now but this was another topic of discussion in 2011 Average Stabilization
Let’s start with the possibilities. If the third place image received 4 more votes three things could happen. The average score could go up as you postulate, the average score could stay the same or it could even go down. The reality is that an average will swing wildly in the first few votes received but as the votes increase the moving average doesn’t move very much. Why is this? Say you have an average of 7 established by 75 votes, the probability of the next vote being a seven is higher than it being a 10 or a 4. The voting pattern is established. I can’t dispute that the next four votes could be 10s but the probability is that they will not be, having little effect on the average.
A simulation performed 150 times resulted in this data on average...
The first vote starts about 1.2 points away from what will eventually become the final average
By the second vote the moving average is typically less than 0.100 points away from the final average
By the seventy-fifth vote the difference is less than 0.010 points
By the one-hundredth vote the difference is less the 0.005 points
Both images had more than 75 votes so the 4th place image could have gone up 0.010 swapping places with 3rd as you theorize. But it could have gone down the same amount, coming very close to the 5th place image. If the 5th place vote received more votes it might have gone up passing the 4th place image. We could “What if” this to death, but once an image receives about 75 votes the number of votes has minimal impact. 100 votes or more per image like the old days of DPC would be better to really stabilize the average, but the position of even 75 votes is more important.
You can tell I bristle a little when I hear the word “fairness” connected with voting here at DPC. Clearly in this case it’s not a matter of fairness because the 4th place image could have moved either direction, up or down, or stayed the same with 4 more votes.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2015 07:24:13 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me Del, I understand that the statistics are valid and it is my perception that is off.
As I have said, this really isn’t about my scores. I have been here for 5 years and I know what to expect. I also know that my friend had the opportunity to
introduce herself and to ask for help and she did not do either of those things. But, aside from her experience it seems that we are in an exceptionally
apathetic place where the numbers of comments are down as well as the number of votes and that combination seems lethal for people who
are new to the site.
Sounding off in forums is not my habit and I am sorry that I did. I accomplished nothing, really.
Thanks again Del for taking the time.
my best |
You're welcome Jane. No harm. No foul. By the way we would all like to see more comments in challenges. I have no dispute with that. But if you don't get them and would just like some feedback ask. I don't think I have ever seen feedback refused. |
|
|
|
04/11/2015 01:59:44 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by nygold:
It really isn't fair to the 4th place finisher that he/she ended up with fewer votes. |
I once again have to respectfully disagree. I won’t repeat the details here now but this was another topic of discussion in 2011 Average Stabilization
Let’s start with the possibilities. If the third place image received 4 more votes three things could happen. The average score could go up as you postulate, the average score could stay the same or it could even go down. The reality is that an average will swing wildly in the first few votes received but as the votes increase the moving average doesn’t move very much. Why is this? Say you have an average of 7 established by 75 votes, the probability of the next vote being a seven is higher than it being a 10 or a 4. The voting pattern is established. I can’t dispute that the next four votes could be 10s but the probability is that they will not be, having little effect on the average.
A simulation performed 150 times resulted in this data on average...
The first vote starts about 1.2 points away from what will eventually become the final average
By the second vote the moving average is typically less than 0.100 points away from the final average
By the seventy-fifth vote the difference is less than 0.010 points
By the one-hundredth vote the difference is less the 0.005 points
Both images had more than 75 votes so the 4th place image could have gone up 0.010 swapping places with 3rd as you theorize. But it could have gone down the same amount, coming very close to the 5th place image. If the 5th place vote received more votes it might have gone up passing the 4th place image. We could “What if” this to death, but once an image receives about 75 votes the number of votes has minimal impact. 100 votes or more per image like the old days of DPC would be better to really stabilize the average, but the position of even 75 votes is more important.
You can tell I bristle a little when I hear the word “fairness” connected with voting here at DPC. Clearly in this case it’s not a matter of fairness because the 4th place image could have moved either direction, up or down, or stayed the same with 4 more votes. |
I think you forgot to read this part (I know this doesn't prove anything but in theory the positions could have been switched ) of my message.
I think it's unfair that they didn't get the same amount of votes.
DPC seems just fine with the 20% rule but to ME it doesn't seem fair.
Its like having 3 kids and only giving 2 of them a piece of candy.
It just doesn't sit right with ME.
Unless I have looked at the image before voting or it's part of a TPL I couldn't think of a reason why I wouldn't vote on all the images.
To ME not voting on an image is just rude.
But like I mentioned already people seem to be fine with it here so that's cool with me, just because I don't like the rules doesn't mean I wont play by them. |
|
|
|
04/11/2015 02:05:32 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Don.....the fairness trap....WHY isn't it fair that 4th place ended up with fewer votes? Could it be that it inspired less people than the 3rd place image........ergo getting 4th place? I'm puzzled......isn't that how this works? So what's unfair about it?
You only have to vote 20% of the challenge for your votes to count. So they cannot be divided up any way other than how they're given.
|
So if you aren't inspired by an image you don't vote on it?
Seems you and probably many others are happy with the 20% rule and that's fine. I'm not going to kick and screem to change it if that's what the people want.
I'm sure there is a perfectly logical reason why they came up with the 20% rule but that doesn't mean I have to like it. |
|
|
|
04/12/2015 08:38:15 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Don.....the fairness trap....WHY isn't it fair that 4th place ended up with fewer votes? Could it be that it inspired less people than the 3rd place image........ergo getting 4th place? I'm puzzled......isn't that how this works? So what's unfair about it?
You only have to vote 20% of the challenge for your votes to count. So they cannot be divided up any way other than how they're given.
|
Originally posted by nygold:
So if you aren't inspired by an image you don't vote on it? |
Nope. I didn't say that I vote full when I vote, provided life doesn't intervene.
Originally posted by nygold:
Seems you and probably many others are happy with the 20% rule and that's fine. I'm not going to kick and screem to change it if that's what the people want. |
You're making assumptions. And it doesn't matter whether or not someone is in favor, not, or is ambivalent. It's one of the parameters. Why squawk?
Originally posted by nygold:
I'm sure there is a perfectly logical reason why they came up with the 20% rule but that doesn't mean I have to like it. |
When there were regular challenges that had 150-200 entries, then what would have happened to voting had you been required to vote all of them for the people that simply cannot allot the time?
The parameters set up for entering, voting, and general participation are pretty reasonable. It seems to me that it's only when one doesn't get their expectations met or takes themselves, or this site, too seriously that problems arise.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2015 03:31:41 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by nygold:
I think it's unfair that they didn't get the same amount of votes.
DPC seems just fine with the 20% rule but to ME it doesn't seem fair.
Its like having 3 kids and only giving 2 of them a piece of candy.
It just doesn't sit right with ME.
Unless I have looked at the image before voting or it's part of a TPL I couldn't think of a reason why I wouldn't vote on all the images.
To ME not voting on an image is just rude.
But like I mentioned already people seem to be fine with it here so that's cool with me, just because I don't like the rules doesn't mean I wont play by them. |
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just saying it is flawed. That doesn't mean you can't express it. More votes lead to a more stable average but not to a more fair average.
It's nothing like your candy analogy by the way. It's really more like giving kid #1 81 pieces, kid #2 78 pieces and kid #3 only 77 pierces. They all got enough, just not exactly the same. Like votes, after about 75 pieces it doesn't matter. All three kids have enough sugar to make them hyper. At DPC none of the images are receiving 0 votes.
The practical aspect of the 20% rule is that not everybody has time vote 100% and statistically we don't need it for a well established score . If DPC forced 100% voting the total number of voters, and probably votes, would plummet. Averages would not be as stable then. I almost always vote 100% but I'm comfortable the 20% rule prevents target voting well. When it doesn't the other safeguards seem too keep things fair. There is too much unnecessary angst about the fairness of voting.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2015 07:57:03 AM · #71 |
The point is 4 votes in a margin as small as 0.0024 COULD easily change positions.
In this latest case now it's the difference between red and yellow after the 2 DQ's in the free study.
Judging but the scores they already recieved they would probably get high scores, it's hard to get a 6.7+ average with below average scores.
Can they get 4 one's sure but 70+ votes say the probability is slim.
Do to the fact that we have a much lower voter turnout than we used to, do you guys think the 20% rule should be looked at again? |
|
|
|
04/13/2015 08:00:47 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You're making assumptions. And it doesn't matter whether or not someone is in favor, not, or is ambivalent. It's one of the parameters. Why squawk?
|
This is the Rant forum right? ;) |
|
|
|
04/13/2015 10:34:04 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Do to the fact that we have a much lower voter turnout than we used to, do you guys think the 20% rule should be looked at again? |
No. Just like I don't believe that people should be able to drive 150mph at night simply because there is less traffic.
I vote on all the entries in a challenge, but don't think I would accept being told that I have to vote on all of them or all my votes would be scratched.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/13/2015 07:52:50 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by nygold:
The point is 4 votes in a margin as small as 0.0024 COULD easily change positions. |
Not only COULD 4 votes make a change, they DO make position changes. But the change could be UPor DOWN so there is no impact on fairness. With about 75 votes cast the average is pretty well established.
Originally posted by nygold:
In this latest case now it's the difference between red and yellow after the 2 DQ's in the free study. |
My point exactly. It does make a difference. With the additional votes the yellow ribbon might have gone up enough to pass the red but the probability is equally high that it could go down instead. How is the vote count unfair?
Originally posted by nygold:
Judging but the scores they already received they would probably get high scores, it's hard to get a 6.7+ average with below average scores. |
Actually, if the already have an average of 6.7 the next four votes are MOST PROBABLY going to be 6s and 7s. Which won’t shift the average much.
Originally posted by nygold:
Can they get 4 one's sure but 70+ votes say the probability is slim. |
As I said in the previous post. With an established 7 average the next votes are LESS likely to be a 4 or 10 than a 7. Anything can happen and that’s Ok, but the next four votes COULD all be 8 and they COULDall be 6 too. Equal probability / equal fairness.
Originally posted by nygold:
Do to the fact that we have a much lower voter turnout than we used to, do you guys think the 20% rule should be looked at again? |
No, perhaps something like raising it to 25% might boost the total vote # but forcing 100% would kill the voting.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2015 08:29:00 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
...No, perhaps something like raising it to 25% might boost the total vote # but forcing 100% would kill the voting. |
Pretty much sums up my feelings on this matter.
Ray |
|
