| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2005 12:46:04 AM · #1 |
The winner of the 'best of 2004' challenge only scored a 7.1xx - given then that the winner of the masters free study, which covered only a monthlong period scored in the 8.3's it begs the question - why the low scores. There's a number of possible explanations - some far better than others.
Were people just fatigued by the number of great images ?? Bored by the regularlity of terrific shots ?
Did some adopt amended voting scales - i.e were they deliberately distributing their votes along something approaching a bell curve ?
Were the voters in the masters challenge conscious they were voting on these 'masters' and thus giving higher marks ?
Did everyone just submit their best photos in challenges leaving only the dregs for the best of challenge ?
Were their so many entries that the good old lowering the scores I give because my entry ain't doing so well phenomena set in ?
I know their were a huge number of 6+ scores, but the dearth of really really high scoring entries surprised me. The above hypotheses should be taken with a grain of salt, I'm not entirely serious about most of them, but does anyone have any other ideas why we didn't see anything topping 7.5, let alone 8. I for one gave out about 20 tens, and expected to see at least a few in that range.
Cheers |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 12:47:59 AM · #2 |
She won the challenge. I don't think she cares about the 7.1
;)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 12:52:44 AM · #3 |
| Hehehe... of course not - I don't think anyone actually cares - I'm just curious. |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 12:57:02 AM · #4 |
The "Master's" Challenge was hyped to the point of near hysteria -- and the scores reflected this.
David
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 12:57:04 AM · #5 |
If you took all challenges that either voting started or stopped during January you would find that we had a total of 12 challenges and a total of 2864 entries. That a lot to vote on even though some do lap over in to Dec. 2004 and Feb. 2005 on voting.
So I believe it may have been voter fatigue.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 12:57:31 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by samtrundle:
... Were the voters in the masters challenge conscious they were voting on these 'masters' and thus giving higher marks ? ...
|
Undoubtedly true. Masters challenge scores were inflated by this factor, but also there was a different group of people eligible to enter. Best of 04 drew from a much bigger group. Comparing the scores is apples and oranges.
Message edited by author 2005-02-01 00:59:36.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 01:03:53 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Comparing the scores is apples and oranges. |
//www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 01:08:36 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Undoubtedly true. Masters challenge scores were inflated by this factor, but also there was a different group of people eligible to enter. |
Yeah - it drew from a bigger group - but what I find interesting is that the top ten placegetters from the masters challenge all entered the best of 2004 challenge - and all received considerably lower scores - all but pedro scored over a full point worse. |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 06:02:36 AM · #9 |
i think, that the more votes a challenge gets the lower the scores (generally)... because there are more people to even everything out..
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 06:56:20 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by leaf:
i think, that the more votes a challenge gets the lower the scores (generally)... because there are more people to even everything out.. |
So if we got enough voters, everyone would score a 5.0? ; )
I see things the other way round to some ... I think the scores in this challenge were too low rather than the Masters' scores too high. Maybe (I won't say undoubtedly as I have nothing to back it up with) because of the shear amount of entries and some extremely fast voting?
Away from the top the scores may well have been higher than normal though. I scored nearly the same as my October Free Study entry yet finished 10% lower in the rankings.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 01:09:25 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bod:
...So if we got enough voters, everyone would score a 5.0? ; )... |
I'd say 5.5 - but yes, I think there is that going on. Also, given the free-subject nature of the challenge I believe people were tending to give more weight to how they liked it (over strictly photographic considerations) and with the wider audience and wider tastes this tended to flatten out the scores.
Message edited by author 2005-02-01 13:09:47.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 01:12:39 PM · #12 |
| I think in part it was because of the amount of images in the challenge. I also believe that because a lot of the images had been seen throughout the year that the impact had lessened and so the 'instant wow' votes were not quite as wow. I'm sure the fact that not all images were annoymous also played a factor, at least for some images and in some small way. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/17/2025 02:03:24 PM EDT.
