The [I Give More Than I Take] Award Thread

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

05/19/2010 09:39:55 PM · #1

Dear All:

This thread is now closed for any award specific discussions from my side (the OP). It was an effort in good intentions that was executed badly.

Thank you for visiting here. Thank you for everyone that supported the effort, for those who didn't support it BUT suggested improvements, and for those who wrongly assumed that this was a rant thread, and heroically took their saws out in a second in defense;-)

Dear SC: I request this thread to be closed please to avoid any further distractions. I do not have the energy or the time to engage in endless debates esp. when there is an already acknowledged fundamental disagreement.

Happy imaging!

[Prash]
___________________________________________________________
The Award:

I hereby institute an award, 'I Give More Than I Take' Award, for those members whose statistics on the day of nomination shows that they have given an average score 'more than' what they have received.

Please note that the goal is to encourage people to give more to this wonderful site than they take.

Guidelines:

[0] Nominations will be accepted on a weekly basis, starting Monday (00:00 AM Pacific Time) and ending Sunday (11:59 PM Pacific Time) the following week.

[1] Anytime you notice a member profile who satisfy the above condition(s), and can be a nominee here, please notify via a PM or in the thread here.

[2] Self nominations are valid too.

[3] Only the 'best' nominee per week will be awarded the trophy. See rule [4] below to see how to determine the 'best' nominee'.

[4] Determination of 'best' nominee: the one from the list of nominees for whom the difference in Avg. Votes received and Avg. Votes cast (Cast MINUS Received) is largest. In case of a tie, the member who has made more comments per comment they received will be the winner. If that is a tie too, both/all tying members will get the trophy.

[5] Repeat nominations are valid in another week, as long as you haven't already won this award.

Nominees
[Current week: 00:00 AM PT 05/17/2010 - 11:59 PM PT 05/23/2010]
[1]

TCGuru. Avg Vote Cast: 5.9006. Avg Vote Received: 5.5673.
[2]

photosensualis. Avg Vote Cast: 5.7681. Avg Vote Received: 5.2774.
[3]

Venom. Avg Vote Cast: 6.0283. Avg Vote Received: 5.6024.
[4]

SmudgeChris. Avg Vote Cast: 5.5841. Avg Vote Received: 5.5068.

... still accepting nominations...

List of Winners:

Nominations underway. Results will be announced past deadline.

ETA: Formatting.
ETA: Removed nominee list, rule set under consideration.
ETA: Enhanced the rule set.

Message edited by author 2010-05-20 18:41:46.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

05/19/2010 09:55:03 PM · #2

How about an additional special award? For those that rarely leave comments and then have the cajones to go into the scores thread and complain about the lack of comments on a 5.7 average.

On the serious side, I'm not sure that is a fair list. True, their average given is less than received, but in many cases it is not a very large difference and their average given is well within the norm. Some of them are very heavy commenters. It feels to me like they are being called out unfairly. Sorry to be a wet blanket, because the basic idea is a good one.

Message edited by author 2010-05-19 21:58:55.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

05/19/2010 10:03:11 PM · #3

agreed. I like the idea, but I really don't think calling people out is appropriate. I agree with Steve: there are definitely people on that list that contribute a great deal, and this seems like they're doing something wrong.

I'd get rid of the names and simply offer an award to those who give more than they receive.

05/19/2010 10:05:27 PM · #4

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Thank you.

The intention is not to call anyone out. I am open to suggestions to how to better encourage each other to give more. Perhaps it's a bad idea to start the list as I did (again no offense). I may remove the list, and in lieu we come up with a means to nominate members who turn around to become more generous. Please also suggest ways to measure the 'generosity'.

Thanks again.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

05/19/2010 10:08:56 PM · #5

Originally posted by vawendy:

Thanks.

I removed the list. Still open for suggestions for how to better carry out this award:-)

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

05/19/2010 10:11:59 PM · #6

Awards and recognition are all well and good, but I'm not sure how I should feel about my inclusion on your list of nominees. To the extent that the award is given on three criteria--(1) <6 average score received, (2) lower average score given than received, and (3) some kind of commitment to give higher scores than I'm getting--it feels more like criticism for being less than generous when voting.

FWIW, and it's maybe not W much, I realized at some point that my average vote given of ~5.3 is pretty low. I've actually been consciously trying to increase that average, and in the last 10 challenges at least, my voting average has been 5.5-5.7. But after ~17k votes given, it really takes a while to bring up the average vote ~_~

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/19/2010 10:14:45 PM · #7

Originally posted by mycelium:

That was not a good move to have the list published, my apologies. It's been removed.

I am looking for ways to reward people who are genuine contributors...

Thank you.

Ja-9

Nikon D750

05/19/2010 10:15:14 PM · #8

I like this...I try to do a "pay it forward" theory but have been scoring lower during this DPL season...not on purpose...just a lot more so-so pictures in the challenges of late...still giving out my 9 and 10's but I have a boat load of middle of the road stuff it seems...

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

05/19/2010 10:18:01 PM · #9

Originally posted by Prash:

That was not a good move to have the list published, my apologies. It's been removed.

I am looking for ways to reward people who are genuine contributors...

No worries. I like your idea. Sounds tough to implement without getting really subjective! Maybe some sort of formula involving, if nothing else, number of votes cast vs. received and comments given vs. received? Forum posts?

Really does seem like a challenge to work out! Good luck to you.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/19/2010 10:19:23 PM · #10

It is a slippery slope, for one, and your naming of the award has negative implications: members don't take votes, they receive them. Nor do members have any real control over the votes they receive (hence the endless voting complaint threads).

The slope is slippery, in that you are suggesting that I attempt to manipulate my voting average (over ~50,000 votes cast so far) in order to try an boost it above the average for ~6700 votes received--just to get an award you created because you think those two numbers tell the whole story: they don't.

But thanks for calling me out in this thread earlier because my 50,000 vote given average is 0.2 points different than my 6700 votes received average. It really made my day, here.

But at least you have for yourself a simple definition of "genuine" contributor that you can measure everyone else here by....

Message edited by author 2010-05-19 22:29:22.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

05/19/2010 10:23:24 PM · #11

One key point, the score that you receive has absolutely nothing to do with the score that you give.

If you constantly submit amazing images you are bound to have an average higher than the average you give. The scores you give are spread out over the whole image population where as the scores you receive are only on your images which don't represent the full range of image quality.

Unless of course this is to entice people to cherry pick images and not vote on those that they would traditionally vote low.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

05/19/2010 10:23:31 PM · #12

I don't understand how giving higher votes makes you a better person, or implies giving or taking, in the first place.
Inflating votes doesn't make you a good person, and giving honest feedback about an image doesn't make you a bad person.
I honestly do not understand this at all.
What will we do when the voting inflation bubble bursts?
It may be feel good to give everybody a 10, but aren't you doing them a disservice if there really are flaws?
I'm just baffled. Maybe I'm missing something here...

05/19/2010 10:27:13 PM · #13

I'm posting this so you can see that I have no place on your list....

Avg Vote Cast: 6.1831

Avg Vote Received: 5.5295

What an abominable idea. How dare you!

I have gotten slammed from a 6.87 this morning to a 6.03 tonite and I'm not one bit happy about it.

But part of what you sign up for when you post up an image for voting is what it all comes out to when the hammer drops.

Each and every user & member has the right to vote as they see fit within the parameters of the rules.

I get so tired of seeing people trying to impose their idea of what's right and fair onto others.

You get one vote on an image. Who is anyone to tell you how to cast it?

Who are you to tell anyone how to cast theirs?

05/19/2010 10:30:07 PM · #14

Two things:

[1] A global apology to everyone whose name was on the nominee list, that list has been removed, it was a mistake.

[2] This award, like the Extraordinary Outreach Award, is meant to encourage people for being 'good' DPC members, and to avoid unfair voting practice. While it can be a motivator for some, I don't expect it will be widely sought after, unless we collectively come up with a practical way of measuring and rewarding fair voting behavior.

Still open for ideas...

Thanks.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

05/19/2010 10:33:13 PM · #15

your basic premise is fundamentally flawed: comparing those two numbers is no measure at all of being a "good" DPC member.

Making lists of members you deem not to be good and post them in forums, however, is another kind of metric altogether.

05/19/2010 10:33:22 PM · #16

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It's an award. It's not a rule, or a guideline to tell people how to cast their votes. It's meant for encouragement, IF it appeals to you. If not, that's fine too:-)

And for the record, yes you did not fit the formula. The first rule set says your avg vote received must be 'less than or equal to' 6.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

05/19/2010 10:47:34 PM · #17

[1] Rule set clarified.

[2] Nominations are open, please see the first post...

spiritualspatula

05/19/2010 10:48:20 PM · #18

Originally posted by Prash:

Okay... I get more what you're aiming for now, I think. I wasn't equating high voting with good per se, so there was a big disconnect with us. I'm not really sure how much of a positive encouragement is possible. Obviously, a deterrence (punishment) helps, but I see that you're trying to come from a positive enforcement side of things... What makes it difficult is that voting is so private... so people who are deviant and vote illegally will likely lie about it as well... hmm.

05/19/2010 10:52:56 PM · #19

Originally posted by Prash:

This award, like the Extraordinary Outreach Award, is meant to encourage people for being 'good' DPC members, and to avoid unfair voting practice. While it can be a motivator for some, I don't expect it will be widely sought after, unless we collectively come up with a practical way of measuring and rewarding fair voting behavior.

That's SC's job to determine if someone is enacting unfair voting practices.

I'm not a "good" DPC member because of some arbitrary, unofficial index.

You have a completely flawed premise that effectively encourages members to call out others for their voting style simply because someone doesn't like it.

I'm hoping that you actually meant this to be a good thing with the best of intetions, but this one is going to bite you.....and hard.

Let it go.

05/19/2010 10:56:08 PM · #20

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Emboldened for emphasis.

Veritable truisms.....

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/19/2010 11:01:04 PM · #21

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Avg Vote Cast: 6.1831

Avg Vote Received: 5.5295

Originally posted by Prash:

And for the record, yes you did not fit the formula. The first rule set says your avg vote received must be 'less than or equal to' 6.

Again for the record, like Colette's post indicated, the differential between those two numbers in my case has shrunk over the last six to nine months since my average has increased.

My voting formula pretty much remains unchanged.

If my average vote received exceeds my vote given, do I then have my "goodness" revoked?

I'd like to get better, but if that's the payoff, I'll need to stop improving, right?

Granted, that's ridiculous, but do you see the problems? Would there be anything wrong on any level with an almost 6.2 average vote given regardless of what the average vote received is?

scooter97

Canon EOS-6D

05/19/2010 11:04:32 PM · #22

Ok Jeb, we get your point. The OP had good intentions and didn't approach it properly. He has backed off. Maybe you should too. Sheesh

05/19/2010 11:28:55 PM · #23

The nominations are now open. Come on fellow DPCers, go ahead and nominate yourself/friends who you think meet the conditions (please see the first post) :-)

05/19/2010 11:54:37 PM · #24

Wow! We have the first nominations. Congratulations

TCGuru,

photosensualis,

Venom,

SmudgeChris.

Nominations still open... please see the first post.