| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2004 03:27:10 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
To me, a '1' should be reserved for somebody who submits a picture of the lens cap. i.e. absolutely no thought or skill involved whatsoever; |
No, a lens cap should be subject to a DQ vote - not a 1.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:28:00 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by dtoombs:
Originally posted by EddyG:
To me, a '1' should be reserved for somebody who submits a picture of the lens cap. i.e. absolutely no thought or skill involved whatsoever; |
No, a lens cap should be subject to a DQ vote - not a 1. |
On what grounds?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:30:21 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by dtoombs:
Originally posted by EddyG:
To me, a '1' should be reserved for somebody who submits a picture of the lens cap. i.e. absolutely no thought or skill involved whatsoever; |
No, a lens cap should be subject to a DQ vote - not a 1. |
Wrong. Why a DQ? It just doesn't meet the challenge or is nothing. 1 |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:31:32 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by xian:
I want people to be honest with me. |
I'm going to take a risk here and be honest with you. I read many of the comments you left on the Macro II entries and, despite your laudatory comment on my entry, I think perhaps you could re-think what you're saying and how you're voting.
Imagine, if you will, a large gallery with these same photos hung on the wall and the photographer of each standing next to their work. Then imagine walking up to each of them and saying out loud the comment that you have written on their entry. And then tell each what score you'd give them for their efforts. How well do you think you'd be received? |
Well I would have to say i am on the side of xian... so far anyhow. I didn't think his comments were rude, or out of order... they were just honest and fair... i.e. there is no focus, way to hard of lighting, nice detail, best coin shot, .....
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:33:16 PM · #55 |
| I have no problem with his comments. Just he needs to re-evaluate what a 1 is so his votes count |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:44:16 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by dtoombs:
Originally posted by EddyG:
To me, a '1' should be reserved for somebody who submits a picture of the lens cap. i.e. absolutely no thought or skill involved whatsoever; |
No, a lens cap should be subject to a DQ vote - not a 1. |
Wrong. Why a DQ? It just doesn't meet the challenge or is nothing. 1 |
So, um -- I'm curious, what method would you use to evaluate a lenscap photo to determine whether or not it meets the challenge? Because, I'm seeing photos that were very close to the challenge subject (see the currency thread for the macro challenge for an example) which were DQ'd - so if that's the measure that we're to judge by, then I think a lenscap gets a DQ.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:45:31 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I didn't give out 1's to very many photos, but alas, my votes for most of the shots have mysteriously disappeared. A phenomenon yet to be explained. I usually vote in the 4-8 range.
Not that it matters since the votes I cast are my own! Mine I tell you! Now give 'em 'ere!
j/k |
Same here! Not on the Macro challenge, but a different challenge. I gave away probably 20 - 30 ones, but also many many more on every number in the scale, and my votes disappeared. And, YES, I was a little pissed about it at the time! |:
Now, I could see it, if the number of entries was in the 200 range, where that could be considered an unfair 1 and 2 vote percentage, but when you have 500+ entries I don't think it is.
So, maybe the problem isn't how Goldberry or xian or myself is voting, but the number of allowed 1's and 2's per challenge. Sounds like maybe the code needs to be more dynamic in the event that we have challenges that exceed a certain number of entries.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:46:54 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by xian:
Originally posted by SDW65:
Simple you voted 719 1̢۪s and 2̢۪s or 9̢۪s and 10..but my guess is the first!!! Why? Do you feel everyone here is that bad? Do you feel your pictures are twice as good as everyone else? Did we over rate your pictures? What score would you give yourself? I̢۪m not trying to be rude but that̢۪s one of the reasons votes get booted [to many of the same vote in one challenge].
I would love to here how you rate photographs. What is a 1 to you, what is a 2 to you, what is a 3 to you, etc? Maybe it would help us understand a little better. |
No I don't think my images are "twice" (where did that come from?) as good as anyone elses. And there are some very talented people that submit to the challenges. I'd give my preying mantis a 7 and my fly (which I submitted as a goof on the theme) a 6. At least they were in focus!!!! So many hundreds of entries in both those challenges were out of focus! I rate technical acievment pretty high. On the other hand meeting the challenge and good composition is also important to me. I would NEVER submit an out of focus picture (unless it was some artistic effect, of course).
these are 1s:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=120131
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=119351
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=119647
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=119891
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=118238
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=119791
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=118240
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=118763
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=118272
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=118217
I could go on and on. Read my comments on those. Does anyone really disagree with me here? Poorly composed, no focus, or subjects that didn't even come close to meeting the challange.
xian |
I agree that a few of these photos are bad or below average or don’t meet the challenge. Given the plane picture, I do not think it deserves a 1 because it didn’t meet the challenge because the photo was not that bad. The highest I would of given it would have been a 4 but that’s me, because it didn’t meet the challenge [at all]. You have given us 10 links of what you think 1’s should be, could you give us 10 links that shows you voted higher than 6 on any photo? And where I got “do you believe you are twice as good as the rest of us†is because we have rated your photographs approx. twice as high as you have rated the mass.
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 15:48:01.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:58:30 PM · #59 |
Good thing there's no limit to the amount of "shoulds" any one person could post cause most of the rebuttles to Xian would be mysteriously empty.
Lots of 'you should you should you should'...lots of folks not accepting Xian's point of view.
I see a trend here....and me no likey.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:03:01 PM · #60 |
I am not condemning Xian, I just can̢۪t see over 700 pictures deserving less than a 3.4+ average!
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:04:44 PM · #61 |
I'm going to post this twice cause I think its an important issue now that the number of entries are going up. Does anyone else agree?
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I didn't give out 1's to very many photos, but alas, my votes for most of the shots have mysteriously disappeared. A phenomenon yet to be explained. I usually vote in the 4-8 range.
Not that it matters since the votes I cast are my own! Mine I tell you! Now give 'em 'ere!
j/k
Same here! Not on the Macro challenge, but a different challenge. I gave away probably 20 - 30 ones, but also many many more on every number in the scale, and my votes disappeared. And, YES, I was a little pissed about it at the time! |:
Now, I could see it, if the number of entries was in the 200 range, where that could be considered an unfair 1 and 2 vote percentage, but when you have 500+ entries I don't think it is.
So, maybe the problem isn't how Goldberry or xian or myself is voting, but the number of allowed 1's and 2's per challenge. Sounds like maybe the code needs to be more dynamic in the event that we have challenges that exceed a certain number of entries.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:09:00 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by langdon:
Just confirming that your votes were marked as suspect. Out of your 802 votes, 80% of them were 1, 2, or 3. You've never given a 10. |
Let's put this in perspective. This means that 3 is the highest rating a photo outside the top 20% (on average) could get (according to xian). That is, if you're in the 80th percentile or lower, you're getting a 1, 2 or 3. Do we really have that many bad photos on this site? Let's take a look at the last 5 entries to finish just out of the top 20%:
Now I know that the bottom 80% isn't the same for everyone, but by definition it is the average bottom 80% across all users. Sure, these are not ribbon winners, but do none of these photos merit more than a 3?
There has to be some level of screening to prevent tampering with the system. It's unfortunate if truly valid votes are mistaken for tampering. However, when someone rates 80% of the photos at 3 or less, it indicates someone who is not taking the time to really evaluate the photo, just clicking the "1" for everything that isn't spectacular.
Xian, you say that you are just being honest and as critical of others' photos as you are of yourself. A general disregard for anything that isn't spectacular is not behaviour indicative of critical honesty. Critical honesty requires taking the time to truly evaluate a photo. Disregarding 80% of the photos is just laziness.
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 16:52:51. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:10:36 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by MWitt:
I'm going to post this twice cause I think its an important issue now that the number of entries are going up. Does anyone else agree?
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I didn't give out 1's to very many photos, but alas, my votes for most of the shots have mysteriously disappeared. A phenomenon yet to be explained. I usually vote in the 4-8 range.
Not that it matters since the votes I cast are my own! Mine I tell you! Now give 'em 'ere!
j/k
Same here! Not on the Macro challenge, but a different challenge. I gave away probably 20 - 30 ones, but also many many more on every number in the scale, and my votes disappeared. And, YES, I was a little pissed about it at the time! |:
Now, I could see it, if the number of entries was in the 200 range, where that could be considered an unfair 1 and 2 vote percentage, but when you have 500+ entries I don't think it is.
So, maybe the problem isn't how Goldberry or xian or myself is voting, but the number of allowed 1's and 2's per challenge. Sounds like maybe the code needs to be more dynamic in the event that we have challenges that exceed a certain number of entries. |
You are defiantly correct in saying that the number of entries is going up and that could pose a problem. But it is my understanding that it̢۪s not the amount of same vote you give but the % of same votes given.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:16:50 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by MWitt:
I'm going to post this twice cause I think its an important issue now that the number of entries are going up. Does anyone else agree?
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I didn't give out 1's to very many photos, but alas, my votes for most of the shots have mysteriously disappeared. A phenomenon yet to be explained. I usually vote in the 4-8 range.
Not that it matters since the votes I cast are my own! Mine I tell you! Now give 'em 'ere!
j/k
Same here! Not on the Macro challenge, but a different challenge. I gave away probably 20 - 30 ones, but also many many more on every number in the scale, and my votes disappeared. And, YES, I was a little pissed about it at the time! |:
Now, I could see it, if the number of entries was in the 200 range, where that could be considered an unfair 1 and 2 vote percentage, but when you have 500+ entries I don't think it is.
So, maybe the problem isn't how Goldberry or xian or myself is voting, but the number of allowed 1's and 2's per challenge. Sounds like maybe the code needs to be more dynamic in the event that we have challenges that exceed a certain number of entries. |
If 80% or more of your votes are 2 or below, they are thrown out. I don't think that seems like an unfair number, really.
And Goldberry's votes weren't thrown out so she must be having some other problem.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:19:50 PM · #65 |
| 80% votes that are one's, two's or three's that's an insult to the people of this site.Maybe you should not waste our time and your's and not vote at all if they are so bad. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:21:52 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Good thing there's no limit to the amount of "shoulds" any one person could post cause most of the rebuttles to Xian would be mysteriously empty.
Lots of 'you should you should you should'...lots of folks not accepting Xian's point of view.
I see a trend here....and me no likey. |
*nod* Also, it doesn't really matter what is the absolute value of the scores given. As long as as a result of voting you have arranged the entries in some kind of an order, relative to each other. I used a scale from 5 to 10 mostly on the macros. Will probably do the same with B/W...
Makes no difference how i rate them, as long as i prioritize them to my liking. A scale from 1 to 5 is also good, doesn't matter. Besides, 80% of the macro entries were indeed, let's put it this way, imperfect.
And if there is some kind of a system in place to throw out votes, i'd like to know what exactly it considers grounds for throwing votes out. Not a guess, not a vague explanation, but precisely, what the script is looking for. Otherwise, it seems the whole process is flawed and shady. Open source of sorts, if you will. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:27:59 PM · #67 |
I'm glad there's a system in place...and I don't feel that Langdon and Drew need to divulge it to us. They run a top notch photography site with integrity and that's all that matters to me.
Keep up the good work, guys! |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:30:41 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Makes no difference how i rate them, as long as i prioritize them to my liking. A scale from 1 to 5 is also good, doesn't matter. Besides, 80% of the macro entries were indeed, let's put it this way, imperfect.
And if there is some kind of a system in place to throw out votes, i'd like to know what exactly it considers grounds for throwing votes out. Not a guess, not a vague explanation, but precisely, what the script is looking for. Otherwise, it seems the whole process is flawed and shady. Open source of sorts, if you will. |
First of all, a scale of 1-5 is nice. But that's not what DPC uses. Go somewhere else if you want something else.
Second of all, if you knew the system, you could defeat it. The whole point is to discourage people from voting this way. If this is how you vote, YOU ARE HEREBY DISCOURAGED.
M
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:30:53 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by MWitt:
I'm going to post this twice cause I think its an important issue now that the number of entries are going up. Does anyone else agree?
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I didn't give out 1's to very many photos, but alas, my votes for most of the shots have mysteriously disappeared. A phenomenon yet to be explained. I usually vote in the 4-8 range.
Not that it matters since the votes I cast are my own! Mine I tell you! Now give 'em 'ere!
j/k
Same here! Not on the Macro challenge, but a different challenge. I gave away probably 20 - 30 ones, but also many many more on every number in the scale, and my votes disappeared. And, YES, I was a little pissed about it at the time! |:
Now, I could see it, if the number of entries was in the 200 range, where that could be considered an unfair 1 and 2 vote percentage, but when you have 500+ entries I don't think it is.
So, maybe the problem isn't how Goldberry or xian or myself is voting, but the number of allowed 1's and 2's per challenge. Sounds like maybe the code needs to be more dynamic in the event that we have challenges that exceed a certain number of entries. |
If 80% or more of your votes are 2 or below, they are thrown out. I don't think that seems like an unfair number, really.
And Goldberry's votes weren't thrown out so she must be having some other problem. |
And what about mine? They were thrown out too!
I gave maybe at the most 30 1's and maybe 30 2's.
I don't think that 30 of 700 votes that were 1's and 30 of 700 votes were 2's is that bad. Especially if I have given more than that number on 3-10. If my spread is pretty even throughout or even if my numbers of 5-7 were even higher than 1 & 2, then I think it VERY fair. And to remove these votes because of some algorithm is BS IMO.
I'm not saying that this shouldn't happen at all, I'm saying with the number of entries getting larger, something needs to change in order to vote fairly and to be able to use the entire voting scale. I'm also not about to argue about xian's vote percentage, he obviously didn't use the whole vote scale. I on the other hand did, as did Goldberry from what she says.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:32:31 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
I'm glad there's a system in place...and I don't feel that Langdon and Drew need to divulge it to us. They run a top notch photography site with integrity and that's all that matters to me.
Keep up the good work, guys! |
I agree!
It's normal and sound practice in statistics to throw out rogue votes, and if D & L revealed their "exact" method it would just open the door to those who want to circumvent the system. A general idea of how it works is just fine. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:35:05 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by MWitt:
[
And what about mine? They were thrown out too!
I gave maybe at the most 30 1's and maybe 30 2's.
I don't think that 30 of 700 votes that were 1's and 30 of 700 votes were 2's is that bad. Especially if I have given more than that number on 3-10. If my spread is pretty even throughout or even if my numbers of 5-7 were even higher than 1 & 2, then I think it VERY fair. And to remove these votes because of some algorithm is BS IMO.
I'm not saying that this shouldn't happen at all, I'm saying with the number of entries getting larger, something needs to change in order to vote fairly and to be able to use the entire voting scale. I'm also not about to argue about xian's vote percentage, he obviously didn't use the whole vote scale. I on the other hand did, as did Goldberry from what she says. |
If you gave 60 1s and 2s out of 700 votes, your votes weren't thrown out. The vote scrubber doesn't work on strict numbers, it works on percentages. If you truly voted on all 700 (or whatever) and only cast 60 votes under 2 and your votes have all been thrown out, then there is probably some other sort of problem.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:36:46 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
First of all, a scale of 1-5 is nice. But that's not what DPC uses. Go somewhere else if you want something else. |
*shrug* Very strong argument. Again, it doesn't matter what scale to use, provided it has sufficient granularity.
Originally posted by mavrik:
Second of all, if you knew the system, you could defeat it. The whole point is to discourage people from voting this way. If this is how you vote, YOU ARE HEREBY DISCOURAGED.
|
This is very wrong. Security by obscurity doesn't work, never did, never will. Believe me, i do computer security for a living.
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 16:37:21. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:38:43 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
If this is how you vote, YOU ARE HEREBY DISCOURAGED. |
See there you go again. Telling people how to vote... And who are YOU to tell ME or yurasocolov how or when to vote?
xian |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:39:06 PM · #74 |
| By the way...HAVE the votes for the Macro challenge been updated to everyones stats already? That happen on Tues or am I wrong? |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:40:01 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Originally posted by mavrik:
First of all, a scale of 1-5 is nice. But that's not what DPC uses. Go somewhere else if you want something else. |
*shrug* Very strong argument. Again, it doesn't matter what scale to use, provided it has sufficient granularity. |
On DPC, we use 10 points.
Originally posted by mavrik:
Second of all, if you knew the system, you could defeat it. The whole point is to discourage people from voting this way. If this is how you vote, YOU ARE HEREBY DISCOURAGED.
|
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
This is very wrong. Security by obscurity doesn't work, never did, never will. Believe me, i do computer security for a living. |
If you tell people "if you vote 80% 1s, we will knock your score out, but not 79%" then people will vote 79 1's, and one 2 and then they are able to cheat.
|
|
