| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2015 02:16:43 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
This image has more low votes than DPL photos...
I mean com'n... How could it have 2s and 3s... Even 4s and 5s? |
He shot the exact same view for 4 separate challenges in a short time span; they were all being voted on consecutively, and there was a lot of overlap when 2-3 of the images were in voting at once. He got some scoring bounceback for that. He did it as an "experiment" to see what happens when you do just that, dispense a single killer scene repeatedly. |
To add to Robert's information, I ran a quick statistical analysis of the voting pattern on this shot. My technique compares the voting to the expected Gaussian or "normal" distribution. I find that there are perhaps two low votes that might be regarded as "excess" but by no means is there a large deviation from an expected pattern. This is pretty much what I find every time I do this, with very rare exception. The exceptions usually are "polarizing" images, those that generate strong negative emotional reactions in some people, and positive reactions in others.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2015 02:18:43 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
... I ran a quick statistical analysis of the voting pattern on this shot. My technique compares the voting to the expected Gaussian or "normal" distribution. I find that there are perhaps two low votes that might be regarded as "excess" but by no means is there a large deviation from an expected pattern. This is pretty much what I find every time I do this, with very rare exception. |
Are there more/fewer outliers on the high end? |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 02:21:36 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I don't think there is anything wrong with it |
I find this statement disturbing |
The only reason I don't find it disturbing is because in order to be disturbed by it I'd also have to be disturbed by a 1-10 scale that is based on nothing but the whim of the voter, and no justification has to ever be given when someone thinks so little of an image that they can leave a 1 or 2 with no comment. I used to find it disturbing, until I decided I had to make a choice between either leaving or disregarding the justification of others' numbers. I'm still here. |
I have no problem whatsoever of someone thinking a picture is 1 or 2. Art is subjective. What I find disturbing is that (and I may certainly be reading it wrong) it sounds like he has no problem in voting down a picture you might otherwise not in the spirit of competition. |
And I understand that. But to say that this site is all about art and not about competition is to deceive yourself. Rightly or wrongly (OK, it's wrongly) modern society has learned to expect that competition will have its share of unfairness. If it didn't, sports scandals would have nothing but detractors instead of fans using examples of other cheaters to justify the actions of their favorite cheater (spend 2 minutes talking to a Patriots fan about Deflategate is all you'll need to know I'm right). So, when someone is here in the spirit of competitiveness (not "competition"), voting down another image, even if "just a little", whether to punish others or to level the playing field for your not-as-good shot, is to be expected. It should bother you, just as it bothers me. But I accept it because it's the way things seem to be here - at least for some. I suspect most of those come, vote and leave, and have little to do with the social aspects of the forum, except maybe the Post Your Score section. Could be wrong about that. |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 02:23:16 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
... I ran a quick statistical analysis of the voting pattern on this shot. My technique compares the voting to the expected Gaussian or "normal" distribution. I find that there are perhaps two low votes that might be regarded as "excess" but by no means is there a large deviation from an expected pattern. This is pretty much what I find every time I do this, with very rare exception. |
Are there more/fewer outliers on the high end? |
The high end looks as it should. One might ask, "how can you tell since the distribution is truncated?" The short answer is, the technique used is not sensitive to the truncation.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:09:27 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
... I ran a quick statistical analysis of the voting pattern on this shot. My technique compares the voting to the expected Gaussian or "normal" distribution. I find that there are perhaps two low votes that might be regarded as "excess" but by no means is there a large deviation from an expected pattern. This is pretty much what I find every time I do this, with very rare exception. |
Are there more/fewer outliers on the high end? |
The high end looks as it should. One might ask, "how can you tell since the distribution is truncated?" The short answer is, the technique used is not sensitive to the truncation. |
What technique are you using? |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:26:25 PM · #31 |
I suspect the pattern may also have something to do with the number of entries in the DPL challenges. Even if "normal" voting patterns hold, the number of 2s, 3s, and 4s handed out in a challenge with 150 entries will be greater than one with 75. (One would hope the same holds true for 7s and above). Yours might be among them. Competition is stiffer as well, so that 6 in another challenge might only merit a 5 now.
Voting consistently low wouldn't seem to accomplish anything anyway, other than perhaps lowering the overall average vote received in a challenge. But DPL scoring is based on percentile finish not the score, so relative placement shouldn't be affected. |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:26:52 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Kobba:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
... I ran a quick statistical analysis of the voting pattern on this shot. My technique compares the voting to the expected Gaussian or "normal" distribution. I find that there are perhaps two low votes that might be regarded as "excess" but by no means is there a large deviation from an expected pattern. This is pretty much what I find every time I do this, with very rare exception. |
Are there more/fewer outliers on the high end? |
The high end looks as it should. One might ask, "how can you tell since the distribution is truncated?" The short answer is, the technique used is not sensitive to the truncation. |
What technique are you using? |
I'm doing a normal cumulative plot. Essentially, I am calculating the Z value for the cumulative probability for each vote value and plotting the Z values as a function of the voting scale. For a Gaussian distribution, this yields a straight line *if* the distribution is perfectly normal.
ETA: Here is the plot for this image:
Note that when plotting, one has to shift the X axis values by +0.5 to offset to the edge of the bin. Once this correction is applied, the slope of the plot is an esttimat eof the standard deviation, and the X intercept is an estimate of the final score.
Message edited by author 2015-06-17 15:32:20.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:28:12 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
This image has more low votes than DPL photos... |
I don't think this image is a good example of the issue the thread brings up.
The low votes that came in on this were more a reaction to a repeated image that an example of tactical voting.
I know how the votes came in during the week and the low votes came in late and were in my opinion almost completely attributable to an extremely similar image already having been voted on. The idea was to watch the reaction to the repetition and try to have a thread about it later asking why similar images are down voted.
There are plenty of great images that nail the challenge and get too many low votes, but this one is too weird to fit in that group. |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:37:57 PM · #34 |
I think as a voter, it can be natural to "tighten up" and hold people to a higher standard in league challenges. You have a bunch of people telling you how to process and crop it, giving it a good name, etc.
If the votes are lower, perhaps because of this? If you have no intent to "gain advantage" or "disrupt the system" - than it is not wrong to a few points lower, no? Intent must be proven for SC to act, even after a
"statistical indictment."- correct?
|
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:56:01 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think as a voter, it can be natural to "tighten up" and hold people to a higher standard in league challenges. You have a bunch of people telling you how to process and crop it, giving it a good name, etc. |
I have always attributed the drop in scores during league play not to lower voting (which may happen to some extent) but to the return to the site of some very good photographers for league, and to the collaborative process within a team making for better images.
I know I am not lowering my scores, but what might have been an above average shot in a challenge two months ago, may now be slightly below average due to more people putting in more polished images. |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:56:13 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Kobba:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
... I ran a quick statistical analysis of the voting pattern on this shot. My technique compares the voting to the expected Gaussian or "normal" distribution. I find that there are perhaps two low votes that might be regarded as "excess" but by no means is there a large deviation from an expected pattern. This is pretty much what I find every time I do this, with very rare exception. |
Are there more/fewer outliers on the high end? |
The high end looks as it should. One might ask, "how can you tell since the distribution is truncated?" The short answer is, the technique used is not sensitive to the truncation. |
What technique are you using? |
I'm doing a normal cumulative plot. Essentially, I am calculating the Z value for the cumulative probability for each vote value and plotting the Z values as a function of the voting scale. For a Gaussian distribution, this yields a straight line *if* the distribution is perfectly normal.
ETA: Here is the plot for this image:
Note that when plotting, one has to shift the X axis values by +0.5 to offset to the edge of the bin. Once this correction is applied, the slope of the plot is an estimate eof the standard deviation, and the X intercept is an estimate of the final score. |
Got it, thanks
|
|
|
|
06/17/2015 03:59:49 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think as a voter, it can be natural to "tighten up" and hold people to a higher standard in league challenges. You have a bunch of people telling you how to process and crop it, giving it a good name, etc. |
I have always attributed the drop in scores during league play not to lower voting (which may happen to some extent) but to the return to the site of some very good photographers for league, and to the collaborative process within a team making for better images.
I know I am not lowering my scores, but what might have been an above average shot in a challenge two months ago, may now be slightly below average due to more people putting in more polished images. |
Yes- that is why my photo's go down but the overall averages stay up! |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 05:27:47 PM · #38 |
| Voting down to help my score? I apparently didn't get the memo. For Road Signs, the average score I've given is nearly a full point higher than what I am receiving. Hence, I rate myself below average. Which is about right. |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 05:57:52 PM · #39 |
I'm going to be the one to admit that when my picture is doing really poorly, I second guess my votes and think "normally I would give this a 6, but is it really that much better than my current entry which is getting a 4.x?" And then I give them a 7 because I don't want to down-score someone as a result of being butt-hurt about my own score. Yes, I overthink things. My votes cast often end up being higher in the challenges that I've entered than the ones I haven't entered.
Message edited by author 2015-06-17 17:59:22. |
|
|
|
06/17/2015 07:58:20 PM · #40 |
The only time I have have seen someone intentionally vote low on an otherwise good photo is for DNMC. I have seen it in other photos and experienced it when I was under the (wrong) impression that eggs were considered to be a dairy product.
Outside of that, I believe the average voting pattern will stay pretty constant. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 12:58:18 AM · #41 |
| I don't tend to vote in challenges I enter. Not because I have any intention of trying to improve my own placement, but because when I enter a challenge, I have thought about the challenge enough that I have a more concrete idea in my head of what an entry in that challenge should look like. Images that don't look like the idea in my head tend to get lower votes, which is unfair to them. So I pick a different challenge to vote on. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 02:30:00 AM · #42 |
My graveyard score is a write off solid 5.6 any day struggling to stay above 5, my sign I though 6.6 ish but struggling to stay above 6 but 10 comments loving it!
I'm interested to see the votes when it rolls over
Scores feel down but could be just all returning members being harsher till they've normalised a bit? |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 10:52:41 AM · #43 |
I had 32 votes as of bed time last night. I've gotten 9 since, one of which I know and which was in line with the previous average. The other eight averaged 2.5 points below the score posted by the original 32 voters.
Don't tell me people don't vote differently and without specific motivation during DPL.
Message edited by author 2015-06-18 10:53:48. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 10:54:23 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
I had 32 votes as of bed time last night. I've gotten 9 since, one of which I know and which was in line with the previous average. The other eight averaged 2.5 points below the score posted by the original 32 voters.
Don't tell me people don't vote differently and without specific motivation during DPL. |
DPL kicked in when you went to bed? |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 11:18:36 AM · #45 |
Here's the thing, people:
NOBODY CAN VOTE ON THEIR OWN TEAM'S IMAGES DURING DPL.
That's your baseline. So even IF a lot of people out there are throwing around low votes in the heat of competition, it's the same for all of us and it isn't going to effect our relative positions. The only thing that's changing is the magnitude of an individual score, and we all *know* (sarcasm on) that was too low already, right?
We shouldn't be paying any attention to absolute scores here, just our placement relative to others. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 11:25:46 AM · #46 |
Voting low to benefit my own entries would never occur to me because I honestly have no interest in my scores. They signify nothing to me that I care about.
Different people have different expectations and standards. If I've voted low (and I very often do) on a wildly-acclaimed ribbon winning image, it reflects that difference, and nothing more. Nobody's right, nobody's wrong.
Most people at DPC understandably want nothing more than to produce popular photographs, which means higher scoring photographs. A great many have no other photographic aspiration at all, that I can detect. So they simply can't understand nor accept that a high scoring photograph may still attract a few low votes. The usual response is to suspect trolls or tactical voters, because what else explains it?
Well, there is another explanation and I am quite sure it's the overwhelming reason for these aberrant low votes: different expectations and standards.
It doesn't indicate anything sinister or unfair.
Those of us who expect low scores don't bleat about it when some aberrant fool gives us a 10. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 11:35:06 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Those of us who expect low scores don't bleat about it when some aberrant fool gives us a 10. |
You calling me an "aberrant fool" because I actually LIKE your pictures, sir? Oh, the humanity! |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 11:39:43 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's the thing, people:
NOBODY CAN VOTE ON THEIR OWN TEAM'S IMAGES DURING DPL.
That's your baseline. So even IF a lot of people out there are throwing around low votes in the heat of competition, it's the same for all of us and it isn't going to effect our relative positions. The only thing that's changing is the magnitude of an individual score, and we all *know* (sarcasm on) that was too low already, right?
We shouldn't be paying any attention to absolute scores here, just our placement relative to others. |
I absolutely understand that, and while it's tough to watch repeated slamming, I know that a) it's not going to be just me, and b) I expect the SC will be making sure that nothing egregious is happening, as has been stated previously - you guys are always watching.
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that to deny that these weeks are no different than others from a scoring perspective is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 02:31:37 PM · #49 |
| There IS another explanation as well, Jake. We have practically tripled the number of entries in each DPL-counting challenge. And a lot of the entries are from really great returning photographers, or those who finally decided to stop lurking. The overall quality of entries has been raised a notch, as everyone is bringing their A-game. Those used to being on the top of the little pile are finding their work to have some serious competition. |
|
|
|
06/24/2015 04:21:58 PM · #50 |
Will any of you be buying Blue Bell ever again?
I know I won't.
Bryers is actually better. |
|
