| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2010 07:35:49 PM · #26 |
There are statistical methods to fix this dilemma. (This will fall on deaf ears, but so what.) My understanding of the challenge " vote scrubber" is that votes of ALL "1" or ALL "10" are simply removed. That's appropriate, but it's a blunt tool.
The most poisonous strategic voter will vote "upside down". To me, that means voting high for crap and voting low for highly competitive images. The upside down voting hurts top images and falsely rewards the weak images. A voter's correlation of +1 would be very highly correlated with general results. Whereas, a correlation of -1 would be highly inversely correlated with general results.
So, when a member's votes are strongly inversely correlated to the challenge's final results, it would imply strategic voting. Yes, I think we do have strategic voters in our community, who understand that a blanket vote of all "1's" would be discarded. Therefore, strategic votes are placed with a slate of insincere votes to "fool" the vote scrubber.
My suggestion is to scrub ALL votes from voters with a vote correlation of -0.50 or less. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 07:50:53 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
There are statistical methods to fix this dilemma. (This will fall on deaf ears, but so what.) My understanding of the challenge " vote scrubber" is that votes of ALL "1" or ALL "10" are simply removed. That's appropriate, but it's a blunt tool.
The most poisonous strategic voter will vote "upside down". To me, that means voting high for crap and voting low for highly competitive images. The upside down voting hurts top images and falsely rewards the weak images. A voter's correlation of +1 would be very highly correlated with general results. Whereas, a correlation of -1 would be highly inversely correlated with general results.
So, when a member's votes are strongly inversely correlated to the challenge's final results, it would imply strategic voting. Yes, I think we do have strategic voters in our community, who understand that a blanket vote of all "1's" would be discarded. Therefore, strategic votes are placed with a slate of insincere votes to "fool" the vote scrubber.
My suggestion is to scrub ALL votes from voters with a vote correlation of -0.50 or less. |
Not falling on deaf ears, but definitely falling on ears that have heard this rhetoric before.
This is ridiculous. What this kind of thing would suggest, is that people must fall into what the rest of the community has decided are "good photos". It's pushing people into some kind of lame, pathetic social standard. It's trying to cookie-cutter the entire process, based on what the majority of the population thinks is "good".
Well, personally, I think it's a terrible idea.
If I frequently like many of the photographs nearer the bottom of the heap than the top, that doesn't suggest I'm a 'strategic' voter. All it suggests is that I'm different than the majority of people. If enough people begin to feel the same way, then we'd see a flipping of the kinds of images that frequent the top places, and then eventually you'd get people whining that people are 'strategically' voting for the former top images that are now always on the bottom.
Quite frankly, it's time to get over ourselves, and just let the game play itself out. As far as I'm concerned, any kind of voting that is OUTSIDE of true cheating (such as multiple accounts, signing up friends to over-vote your photo, voting all your friends astronomically high all the time, etc.) are fair game. It's impossible to KNOW that people are voting low scoring images higher because they want images that classically score higher to finish lower. Even if they ARE, so be it. They still aren't cheating, they are exercising their right to have a voice on what THEY believe should be on top.
Let voters just *$#*@*@ VOTE. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 07:55:56 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
My suggestion is to scrub ALL votes from voters with a vote correlation of -0.50 or less. |
The only problem with that is it would scrub the votes of people like Posthumous, Ubique, and other appreciators of what we might call "fringe aesthetics", for lack of a better term. The end result would likely be even further homogenization of DPC images. I doubt that my correlations would be troublesome (I often give high votes to mainstream images that win ribbons) but I do give a LOT of high scores to "alternative images" because I like them and I want to encourage them.
Not all upside-down voters are malicious or tactical; some people just don't value the smooth, commercial, easily-digestible images that usually win, and place great value on quirky, "flawed" images that seem to have a direct connection to the maker's consciousness. Do you remember when Posthumous was "warned" that his voting patterns were suspicious? Oh, what a hue-and-cry that engendered...
R.
ETA: +1 for K10D
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 19:57:15. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 07:57:16 PM · #29 |
Still doesn't explain the bell curve. One thing does: the majority of people cannot handle competition, and given the chance to anonymously kick their competition in the shins, they will.
Edit: I agree with you, Bear. But there is a problem there.
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 20:00:22. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 07:58:15 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Still doesn't explain the bell curve. One thing does: the majority of people cannot handle competition, and given the chance to anonymously kick their competition in the shins, they will. |
It's kind of just part of playing the game. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:03:05 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's kind of just part of playing the game. |
Fair enough. But going beyond the game, I bet there are some interesting stats on which some interesting reports could be run. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:08:49 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by hahn23:
There are statistical methods to fix this dilemma. (This will fall on deaf ears, but so what.) My understanding of the challenge " vote scrubber" is that votes of ALL "1" or ALL "10" are simply removed. That's appropriate, but it's a blunt tool.
The most poisonous strategic voter will vote "upside down". To me, that means voting high for crap and voting low for highly competitive images. The upside down voting hurts top images and falsely rewards the weak images. A voter's correlation of +1 would be very highly correlated with general results. Whereas, a correlation of -1 would be highly inversely correlated with general results.
So, when a member's votes are strongly inversely correlated to the challenge's final results, it would imply strategic voting. Yes, I think we do have strategic voters in our community, who understand that a blanket vote of all "1's" would be discarded. Therefore, strategic votes are placed with a slate of insincere votes to "fool" the vote scrubber.
My suggestion is to scrub ALL votes from voters with a vote correlation of -0.50 or less. |
Not falling on deaf ears, but definitely falling on ears that have heard this rhetoric before.
This is ridiculous. What this kind of thing would suggest, is that people must fall into what the rest of the community has decided are "good photos". It's pushing people into some kind of lame, pathetic social standard. It's trying to cookie-cutter the entire process, based on what the majority of the population thinks is "good".
Well, personally, I think it's a terrible idea.
If I frequently like many of the photographs nearer the bottom of the heap than the top, that doesn't suggest I'm a 'strategic' voter. All it suggests is that I'm different than the majority of people. If enough people begin to feel the same way, then we'd see a flipping of the kinds of images that frequent the top places, and then eventually you'd get people whining that people are 'strategically' voting for the former top images that are now always on the bottom.
Quite frankly, it's time to get over ourselves, and just let the game play itself out. As far as I'm concerned, any kind of voting that is OUTSIDE of true cheating (such as multiple accounts, signing up friends to over-vote your photo, voting all your friends astronomically high all the time, etc.) are fair game. It's impossible to KNOW that people are voting low scoring images higher because they want images that classically score higher to finish lower. Even if they ARE, so be it. They still aren't cheating, they are exercising their right to have a voice on what THEY believe should be on top.
Let voters just *$#*@*@ VOTE. |
Totally agree. I have a couple of images at the bottom of my heap that actually have favourites. Vive la différence.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:10:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not all upside-down voters are malicious or tactical; some people just don't value the smooth, commercial, easily-digestible images that usually win, and place great value on quirky, "flawed" images that seem to have a direct connection to the maker's consciousness. Do you remember when Posthumous was "warned" that his voting patterns were suspicious? Oh, what a hue-and-cry that engendered...
R.
ETA: +1 for K10D |
Well, I do appreciate the non-conformist images. I'm not sure the non-conformist's vote fairly on quality images. If the non-traditional image fanatic ONLY likes the extreme and HATES the traditional "great" photography, then we have a problem. My definition of "upside down" voting is one who votes high on the "non-traditonal" and votes low on ALL "traditional" photography. That is a form of intolerance and bigotry. Gee, I vote well on artistic effort images which show effort and great end results. But, I'm not going to vote low on all blurry images and vote high on all images with sharp focus. That would be wrong, which is a philosophy not shared by some. The K10D guy hasn't submitted images for a long time, so until he does, his case is weak. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:11:49 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not all upside-down voters are malicious or tactical; some people just don't value the smooth, commercial, easily-digestible images that usually win, and place great value on quirky, "flawed" images that seem to have a direct connection to the maker's consciousness. Do you remember when Posthumous was "warned" that his voting patterns were suspicious? Oh, what a hue-and-cry that engendered...
R.
ETA: +1 for K10D |
Well, I do appreciate the non-conformist images. I'm not sure the non-conformist's vote fairly on quality images. If the non-traditional image fanatic ONLY likes the extreme and HATES the traditional "great" photography, then we have a problem. My definition of "upside down" voting is one who votes high on the "non-traditonal" and votes low on ALL "traditional" photography. That is a form of intolerance and bigotry. Gee, I vote well on artistic effort images which show effort and great end results. But, I'm not going to vote low on all blurry images and vote high on all images with sharp focus. That would be wrong, which is a philosophy not shared by some. The K10D guy hasn't submitted images for a long time, so until he does, his case is weak. |
Quality according to whom? Great according to whom? Just because a large number of voters think an image is great doesn't mean that all should.
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 20:12:44.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:15:38 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Quality according to whom? Great according to whom? Just because a large number of voters think an image is great doesn't mean that all should. |
Well, that's the crux of the matter. My point is.... some voters are voting upside down, with negative (low) votes going to anything "in focus". That would be like me voting "1" on anything with indiscernible subjects and composition. I am tolerant of artistic efforts. Are they tolerant of traditional photography? I say, no! |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:18:56 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not all upside-down voters are malicious or tactical; some people just don't value the smooth, commercial, easily-digestible images that usually win, and place great value on quirky, "flawed" images that seem to have a direct connection to the maker's consciousness. Do you remember when Posthumous was "warned" that his voting patterns were suspicious? Oh, what a hue-and-cry that engendered...
R.
ETA: +1 for K10D |
Well, I do appreciate the non-conformist images. I'm not sure the non-conformist's vote fairly on quality images. If the non-traditional image fanatic ONLY likes the extreme and HATES the traditional "great" photography, then we have a problem. My definition of "upside down" voting is one who votes high on the "non-traditonal" and votes low on ALL "traditional" photography. That is a form of intolerance and bigotry. Gee, I vote well on artistic effort images which show effort and great end results. But, I'm not going to vote low on all blurry images and vote high on all images with sharp focus. That would be wrong, which is a philosophy not shared by some. The K10D guy hasn't submitted images for a long time, so until he does, his case is weak. |
Entering images doesn't mean a thing, my friend. Voting is about appreciation, and one doesn't have to be a photographer to appreciate. You have an inflated sense of importance, methinks. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:20:14 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Quality according to whom? Great according to whom? Just because a large number of voters think an image is great doesn't mean that all should. |
Well, that's the crux of the matter. My point is.... some voters are voting upside down, with negative (low) votes going to anything "in focus". That would be like me voting "1" on anything with indiscernible subjects and composition. I am tolerant of artistic efforts. Are they tolerant of traditional photography? I say, no! |
So what? I'm legally allowed, (and entitled) to vote every image of a banana a 1, should I wish. It's part of having the masses vote. It's part of the game. It's part of life. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:21:39 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Quality according to whom? Great according to whom? Just because a large number of voters think an image is great doesn't mean that all should. |
Well, that's the crux of the matter. My point is.... some voters are voting upside down, with negative (low) votes going to anything "in focus". That would be like me voting "1" on anything with indiscernible subjects and composition. I am tolerant of artistic efforts. Are they tolerant of traditional photography? I say, no! |
Thinking traditional photography (whatever that is) is crap is just as valid an opinion as thinking it is great.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:21:55 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Entering images doesn't mean a thing, my friend. Voting is about appreciation, and one doesn't have to be a photographer to appreciate. You have an inflated sense of importance, methinks. |
Well, let's see your work. Participate, or shut up! If you show us your recent artistic efforts, then you can establish a platform of credibility. Otherwise, I'd guess not. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:24:54 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Thinking traditional photography (whatever that is) is crap is just as valid an opinion as thinking it is great. |
Critiques of photographic art have always been, and will always be, subjective. But, it is a gradient, not a polarity. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:26:01 PM · #41 |
| I second that, and further, this is a thread about people rating images in the same contests they've been a part of. Unfairly. This has nothing to do with artistic vs. realistic mentality. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:27:23 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Thinking traditional photography (whatever that is) is crap is just as valid an opinion as thinking it is great. |
Critiques of photographic art have always been, and will always be, subjective. But, it is a gradient, not a polarity. |
... and the range goes from one extreme (one pole) to the other pole so there will be those who absolutely hate a piece of work and those who absolutely love it along with many varying opinions between the two extremes.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:28:26 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I second that, and further, this is a thread about people rating images in the same contests they've been a part of. Unfairly. This has nothing to do with artistic vs. realistic mentality. |
It wasn't, until Hahn made it one. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:30:35 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Entering images doesn't mean a thing, my friend. Voting is about appreciation, and one doesn't have to be a photographer to appreciate. You have an inflated sense of importance, methinks. |
Well, let's see your work. Participate, or shut up! If you show us your recent artistic efforts, then you can establish a platform of credibility. Otherwise, I'd guess not. |
LOL. Really? You're a piece of work. I don't ever have to submit another image AGAIN, and it has nothing to do with my voting credibility. My voting credibility is established by the fact that I'm human, and have tastes and feelings. Period.
This is my last word on the subject:
It really doesn't matter how you feel about the subject. Not agreeing with something, doesn't make it WRONG. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:37:23 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
... I don't ever have to submit another image AGAIN, and it has nothing to do with my voting credibility. My voting credibility is established by the fact that I'm human, and have tastes and feelings. Period...
|
Well, I respect your vote, if you are open-minded. I'll promise to offer a constructive critique on ANYTHING you submit in the future. Should I hold my breath? |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:44:14 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by lreynelsg:
I'm new to the site, couple of months maybe... But from the beginning I decided as a personal rule not to vote in those challenges where I participate because of the "conflict of interests"...
Not because I'd give a low score to the others, most of them way better photographers than me (I'm just a beginner), that would be unethical and I'm mature enough to recognize when someone else's work is better than mine, but because to me it's just weird to judge while I'm judged... It's a psychological thing I guess...
Wonder how other people see this... |
Considering that you can't vote on your own entry, and you can be honest with yourself, I don't see the problem.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:54:33 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
... I don't ever have to submit another image AGAIN, and it has nothing to do with my voting credibility. My voting credibility is established by the fact that I'm human, and have tastes and feelings. Period...
|
Well, I respect your vote, if you are open-minded. I'll promise to offer a constructive critique on ANYTHING you submit in the future. Should I hold my breath? |
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one that is in danger of being closed-minded here. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:57:20 PM · #48 |
| I'll guess that there's some old business here. No matter. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:58:49 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Well, I do appreciate the non-conformist images. I'm not sure the non-conformist's vote fairly on quality images. If the non-traditional image fanatic ONLY likes the extreme and HATES the traditional "great" photography, then we have a problem. My definition of "upside down" voting is one who votes high on the "non-traditonal" and votes low on ALL "traditional" photography. That is a form of intolerance and bigotry. Gee, I vote well on artistic effort images which show effort and great end results. But, I'm not going to vote low on all blurry images and vote high on all images with sharp focus. That would be wrong, which is a philosophy not shared by some. The K10D guy hasn't submitted images for a long time, so until he does, his case is weak. |
When I want to see work that is in the spirit of traditional photography I seek out the work being promoted or photographed by posthumous, ubique, zeuszen and the like. The last place I would go is the DPC front page. So in a way you're right. We do have an upside down problem but it's bigger than you have imagined.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 09:27:56 PM · #50 |
No offense. You've got 12 ribbons, yanko. And more, great photos.
So when you say:
"When I want to see work that is in the spirit of traditional photography I seek out the work being promoted or photographed by posthumous, ubique, zeuszen and the like. The last place I would go is the DPC front page."
You've filled that front page. |
|
