| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/06/2023 10:39:00 AM · #1 |
I know there's often a big gap between scores by participants and non-participants, but this one is really extreme.
Avg (participants): 4.9091
Avg (non-participants): 6.3333 |
|
|
|
10/06/2023 10:48:43 AM · #2 |
| It would be helpful to know ow many votes there were in each category as with a very small number of votes could make a huge difference. For example, with only three votes, changing one vote from 7 to 5 could change the overall score from 6.3333 to 5.6666 ... |
|
|
|
10/06/2023 11:06:28 AM · #3 |
I worked it out.
11 votes from participants
18 votes from non-participants |
|
|
|
10/06/2023 11:31:34 AM · #4 |
That IS a huge difference. I was a non-participant who gave it a 6. I didn't enter because I didn't have anything where the vanishing point was in the image, just implied. But seeing some entries such as yours, implied converging lines was just fine for this topic.
I've seen some topics where the participant average was higher. I don't know if there is any reason to how this works out. My best hypothesis is participants are more critical or rewarding of the fit to the topic.
Message edited by author 2023-10-06 11:33:30. |
|
|
|
10/06/2023 11:45:11 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
... seeing some entries such as yours, implied converging lines was just fine for this topic. |
Clearly the participants didn't think so. |
|
|
|
10/06/2023 03:59:37 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
... seeing some entries such as yours, implied converging lines was just fine for this topic. |
Clearly the participants didn't think so. |
I was a participant and I gave you a 7.
If there were 11 participants, then the avg could easily be skewed by 2 or 3 people giving you low votes. it's just not enough to be good data. |
|
|
|
10/06/2023 04:18:19 PM · #7 |
What Don said: "not enough to be good data."
And this is almost always the case.
That is why comments are gold. |
|
|
|
10/06/2023 06:45:11 PM · #8 |
I was another participant who gave you 7. I really like the tones of the image and the extra interest imparted by the fish eye.
If the one 3 that you got was from a participant and the two 8s were from non participants that would probably do it. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 04:15:55 AM · #9 |
| What I find most alarming is that so few participants voted. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 06:53:37 AM · #10 |
I'm glad you called it an opinion.
I gave it a 4, and that was based on my perception that the wide angle created a vanishing point persepctive that was unrealistic......IMO.
It's a cool image, I just didn't care for the effect as it related to the challenge.
Totally subjective.....I simply did not care for the resulting effect.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2023 09:03:00 AM · #11 |
| Like Jeb, I was one of your 4s. It's a cool picture but I didn't feel it was especially responsive to the challenge. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 09:28:41 AM · #12 |
Am i wrong, or at least one of the top five has no technical vanishing point?
Is the implication that those who participated in the challenge were more likely to use DNMC scoring?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2023 09:52:48 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Am i wrong, or at least one of the top five has no technical vanishing point? |
That is why I didnt enter. I didn't have anything with an actual vanishing point in the image. I have long held the belief that visual appeal counts for more in voting than meeting the topic without room for debate.Originally posted by blindjustice:
Is the implication that those who participated in the challenge were more likely to use DNMC scoring? |
Thats my hypothesis.
Message edited by author 2023-10-07 09:55:26. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 09:52:48 AM · #14 |
Duplicated post
Message edited by author 2023-10-07 09:56:26. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 09:58:08 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by tnun:
What Don said: "not enough to be good data."
And this is almost always the case.
That is why comments are gold. |
I gave you 5 - I was lost by too much visual information mostly because the image was treated in the same way (sharpness, contrast...).
It will still annoy me why participants don't vote and if they do they mark poorly, they don't leave comments either critical or positive. Some leave congratulatory comments only after the results as if a jury, not us decided upon the placement in the challenge.
Fear not to give 5 to 10. As to under 5, where not even the effort is acknowledge, a quick comment would be helpful. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 10:47:08 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
It will still annoy me why participants don't vote and if they do they mark poorly, they don't leave comments either critical or positive. |
Ok, I'll bite. As I said, I gave the photo a 7, which is high for me. Let me explain why. It's pretty much the same reason Jeb and Bear gave it a 4.
This shot is either from a casino/hotel monstrosity in Atlantic City, or someplace similar. The sky is painted on the ceiling. I've been to a place like this and it is unsettling and demoralizing. It suggests that reality is unnecessary, that capitalism can cherry pick the best parts of actual experience and give you a mediated and remunerated experience that is superior.
The photographer takes this distorted experience and distorts it further with a fisheye lens and dirty filter. Instead of the conventional (yawn) straight perspective lines, one sees a curved perspective. The vanishing point is distressingly nearby, like an omen of immanent doom. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 10:47:31 AM · #17 |
I was a non-participant and one of your 7's.
It took me awhile to decide which side to "come down on" with images such as yours (and Don's) - which I liked a lot but which didn't fit a traditional, literal, photography textbook definition of "vanishing point" as well as most and were more figurative or interpretive. I finally decided to let my gut rule and in fact gave Don's entry my top score 
vanishing point: 1. "the point at which receding parallel lines viewed in perspective appear to converge. 2. the point at which something that has been growing smaller or increasingly faint disappears altogether"
The intriguing thing for me to consider now is how I WOULD have voted had I been a participant . . . I know I would have approached the challenge traditionally and literally; would that have blinded me to alternate possibilities? I like to think not, but I can't be sure. . . |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 01:35:06 PM · #18 |
| We all should carefully consider whether we vote differently (unconsciously or not) on challenges where we have a horse in the race. Our perception of others' shots can certainly be affected by whether we are viewing them as "the competition." It's not at all easy to be impartial, bias tends to creep in. But we do need to be diligent, if we are to be fair. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 01:46:01 PM · #19 |
| Looking back at my photo in terms of the challenge, the vanishing point is concealed by the tree. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd stood the other side of the tree. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 05:12:22 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
We all should carefully consider whether we vote differently (unconsciously or not) on challenges where we have a horse in the race. Our perception of others' shots can certainly be affected by whether we are viewing them as "the competition." It's not at all easy to be impartial, bias tends to creep in. But we do need to be diligent, if we are to be fair. |
For me, and especially in this case, it's not about whether I am viewing others' images as "the competition". I feel I can quite honestly say that I don't. Unless I fail to come back and do my final bumping, I would say I give at least one 10 99% of the time, and it's not unusual for me to give two or three in a larger field. And I can't ever remember thinking about my own entry as I selected that 10 - or my 9's or 8's.
I was just trying to say that having put thought into my own entry, thought that included interpreting the challenge, might well have given me a kind of "tunnel vision" - had I participated . . . which I, unfortunately, did not. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 09:41:40 PM · #21 |
Has DPC ever considered changing how the scoring works? I used to run a digital picture challenge for the Canon PowerShot Group back when I was in university. We started with a score out of 10, but given the low number of voters, results could really be skewed. There were some issues as well with voters not considering the challenge topic, etc. Eventually we landed on having multiple scoring: meets the challenge, technical and overall (there may have been another, I can't remember). Then the scores were combined using a weighted average with priority given to meets the challenge.
From what I read there is no desire to make this site mobile-friendly and you want users to spend time viewing the images on their PCs. So it wouldn't add much time to the user experience when voting. Food for thought.
Message edited by author 2023-10-07 23:31:04. |
|
|
|
10/07/2023 11:01:55 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by wolf:
Has DPC ever considered changing how the scoring works? |
indeed that has been one of the things DPC has considered the most. |
|
|
|
10/08/2023 06:21:21 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by wolf:
Has DPC ever considered changing how the scoring works? I used to run a digital picture challenge for the Canon PowerShot Group back when I was in university. We started with a score out of 10, but given the low number of voters, results could really be skewed. There were some issues as well with voters not considering the challenge topic, etc. Eventually we landed on having multiple scoring: meets the challenge, technical and overall (there may have been another, I can't remember). Then the scores were combined using a weighted average with priority given to meets the challenge.
From what I read there is no desire to make this site mobile-friendly and you want users to spend time viewing the images on their PCs. So it wouldn't add much time to the user experience when voting. Food for thought. |
food for thought indeed ..
when there were lots of ppl entering and voting it pretty much averaged out ..
now it's very different .. so few entering and voting in comparison .. so a couple of low or high votes can totally change the outcome ..
it worked for a very long time but now I feel it's quite flawed ..
not sure how the voting system could be changed .. as it would be a labour of love ..
and who would decide .. ?? ..
could we vote on it .. !! .. ;) |
|
|
|
10/08/2023 09:50:41 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by roz:
. . .
not sure how the voting system could be changed .. as it would be a labour of love ..
and who would decide .. ?? ..
could we vote on it .. !! .. ;) |
Actually, I would vote the same in this case. I decided that Paul's image had a different kind of vanishing point - the point that separates objects above the surface and those below the surface, alive vs decaying, clear and present vs fading and dissolving, the point being represented by the surface of the water. As such, the image fit one definition of "vanishing point" and met the challenge which is all I ever require (or would require) of an entry. Just my approach. Apparently some have degrees of meeting the challenge . . . And that's fine. |
|
|
|
10/09/2023 03:26:15 PM · #25 |
| A 6. It's interesting, kind of sci-fi, like when in the future we're living in a dense warren of tubes, under the faux sky, to which Don alluded. The surface of the beautiful Earth, well, let's say "collateral damage." I like that white-leaved tree intermingling with said sky. And the strong contrasts underwritten by vague sepias. The sign hanging from the ceiling, that's kind of creepy. May have given a higher rating but for the lack of a convincing vanishing point. |
|
