DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Change the SCORING Scale?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/17/2005 05:23:05 PM · #1
An interesting discussion about the DPC scoring scale occurred today in another thread (BRIDGE Score update! How's everyone holding up?) and got me started thinking. Please take a minute to consider this:

Why not change the scoring scale from 1-10 to 1-7? Probably most people will instinctively respond, "No!", but please hear me out. I think that there would be some real improvements from such a change.

For one thing, an average photo could be fairly and consistently scored as a 4, exactly between the extremes of perfection (7) and ridiculousness (1). Not possible now with the 1-10 scale, since the exact middle of that range is an impossibility (5.5). Also, people would be more inclined to use all of the scale, instead of only some of it. The stigma attached by handing out a 1 or 2 would be lessened with the narrower range of scoring options, while a great photo would receive an abundance of 6s and 7s, with the difference between blue and red ribbons sometimes being only a fraction of a point (actually not so different from how it is now). And finally, the impact of the low-ball votes of the (perhaps mythical) troll voter would be reduced as well. All good outcomes, in my opinion.

There may be a few downside consequences. For one, the possibility increases slightly for a tie, but only slightly. Scores could still be calculated to the 5th decimal place. Also, the continuity of DPC would be interrupted, making any comparison between scores obtained under the "old 1-10 scale" and "new 1-7 scale" harder to do. Even so, the percentile finishing place of entries under both systems would remain valid, and would suffice for that purpose. I'm sure that there will be other objections to the idea, but these two come to mind for me. Everyone knows that people don't like change, and that will probably be the biggest obstacle to overcome, but that shouldn't get in the way of a real improvement, if that's what this idea is deemed to be.

Even as I type, I realize how unlikely such a change is, but you never know. If there is any support at all for the idea, maybe a trial run during a speed challenge would be in order. I'll be interested to see if anyone agrees.
 02/17/2005 05:28:35 PM · #2
why not 1-5 then... and at the end of the challenge mutliply by 2 to make it a 2-10 scale :-) (fixes continuity problem)

but on a more serious note i dont think there is anything wrong with the 1-10 scale, the problem is with voters not the scale.
 02/17/2005 05:29:05 PM · #3
I think they just need to put a 5.5 button in there....
 02/17/2005 05:29:21 PM · #4
Originally posted by nico_blue:
the problem is with voters not the scale.


How is there a problem at all?
 02/17/2005 05:33:08 PM · #5
Originally posted by Konador:

How is there a problem at all?


"Problem" might be too harsh. Room for improvement, maybe?

(1) For some, and average photo starts at "5". For others, it's "6".
(2) Some people NEVER use 1 or 2, making their scale effectively from 3-10. Scoring is discussed to death. Just an idea to make it more uniform.
02/17/2005 05:33:56 PM · #6
I propose

1 / 2 / Scalvert / Jacko / BradP / Heida / Kiwiness.

;)

Actually, I would like to see the scale changed so that there's a true middle. 1-7, 1-9, whatever. Or ma
 02/17/2005 05:35:24 PM · #7
Why not just make it a 3-8 scale? Nobdy likes getting a 1 or a 2 so we would make the people who do get these low scores happy. And the people who do get consistantly low scores probably feel that no one deserves a 9 or a 10 so we could just get rid of them too.

Wait! I have a better idea. Why don't we leave it the way it is? It works.
 02/17/2005 05:38:14 PM · #8
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I propose

1 / 2 / Scalvert / Jacko / BradP / Heida / Kiwiness.
;)


It would be those decimal places that would be tricky!
 02/17/2005 05:38:48 PM · #9
Originally posted by nsbca7:

Wait! I have a better idea. Why don't we leave it the way it is? It works.


True. Whatever the scale there will be a top and a bottom and people will see it. 1-10 is the norm, 1-100 is just the same and 3-9 or whatever will produce the same results. Not having a 'real' mid score makes the voter think more does it not?
 02/17/2005 05:41:34 PM · #10
I like the 1-5 scale a lot.

5-Perfect
4-Good
3-Average
2-Bad
1-No effort
 02/17/2005 05:43:51 PM · #11
Originally posted by nsbca7:

Wait! I have a better idea. Why don't we leave it the way it is? It works.


So do horses. Saddle up!
 02/17/2005 05:45:50 PM · #12
I think we should be able to type in a number, anywhere on the scale from 01 to 100. The averages would therefore be unaffected, for those who care (says he, who is after getting that up to 6 at the moment). and here would be room for everyone to grade images more finely. In fact, if we made it from 00 to 100, there would be room for a dead middle too. And then folks would really have to badly to get a 1.
 02/17/2005 05:48:38 PM · #13
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
I like the 1-5 scale a lot.

5-Perfect
4-Good
3-Average
2-Bad
1-No effort


Leave things as they are then but for people that want to change they can just vote 2-4-5-8-10 - problem solved.
 02/17/2005 05:50:48 PM · #14
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Leave things as they are then but for people that want to change they can just vote 2-4-5-8-10 - problem solved.


Because as pointed out, 5 out of ten is not the middle...
 02/17/2005 05:51:02 PM · #15
I agree, there should be more of a standard to the voting. I have my own system when I vote, as do other people, but it would be more valuable (to me at least) if I knew, "okay, I scored a 4.4, that means I met the challenge but had some minor technical flaws..."

I've seen other sites that assign specific details to the numbers in the scoring system. With this system, all I know from my number score is, X% of people liked other photos better than mine this time around. I'm a newbie with photography, and I know a lot of the comments here go to the two extremes (really great photos or really bad photos).

Sometimes it reminds me of the olympics, when you watch figure skating or gymnastics....everyscore is somewhere between 9.600 and 10.. why not get rid of the "9" and just score it differently?? (not the same type of flaw this system has, but still wacky voting, lol)

Anyway, thats my 2 cents....

Deb
 02/17/2005 05:51:34 PM · #16
There's no real problem that I see. People talk about different ways of voting and compare the people who think average is 5 and those who think the average is 6...either way, each person has the same chance of voting on the images which are presented in a completely random order.

Sure, anything that involves people can be skewed, mathematically a hundred different ways...but realistically speaking, even if there's one person out there who's average is a 5...there's the same amount of people out there who's average is a 6 (or whichever numbers you want to use) to balance everything out in the end.
 02/17/2005 05:56:23 PM · #17
Originally posted by e301:
I think we should be able to type in a number, anywhere on the scale from 01 to 100.


An even better idea I think.

02/17/2005 05:57:22 PM · #18
Good point, deapee..

I meant to point thatout in my post, that as long as everyone is consistent throughout the challenge with their voting, the right photo will win. However, it's unfortunate that you can't compare two 5.3 photos and say they are the same quality/excellence (or in my case, lack thereof, haha!).

It would just be nice to know what the scores meant...

Deb
 02/17/2005 05:58:25 PM · #19
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Leave things as they are then but for people that want to change they can just vote 2-4-5-8-10 - problem solved.


Because as pointed out, 5 out of ten is not the middle...


oops, I meant to type 2-4-6-8-10, 6 is in the middle of 'your' voting criteria. People vote in different ways and use their own criteria whatever the scale, why change things when ultimately trthey will be no different to what they are now?
 02/17/2005 06:03:09 PM · #20
Personally, I feel that the problem here is not the scale, but the fact that people can vote before a photo finished uploading to one's browser.
So people vote according to half a picture. Get the top part of your photo to be interesting enough, and get a high score for it. That's the trick.

I think the 1-10 scale is perfect. It let's me decide wether an average photo is a 5 or a 6, lets me hand out 8s and 9s when I really love a picture but it's still not a perfect one and the best thing is that I have enough space for bumping up and down at second pass.
 02/17/2005 06:06:23 PM · #21
for example, this is the definition of a "7" at another website. I don't want to post the entire thing, so as not to plagiarize...

7 (Good): Image is strong enough to draw attention, it is done well, with the exception of some minor flaws.

Gives you a better idea than, "well, I got a 5.6 in a member challenge, which is scored somewhat differently than an open challenge, and people were harsh this time around because the subject matter was difficult..."

I think you get the idea....

Deb
 02/17/2005 06:28:05 PM · #22
CAPGAL,

Don't you get the same results at the end of voting when the results are tallied. It doesn't take long to realize that page one is perfect, page two almost perfect, middle pagesaverage, and so on.

I do have a different question though: What do you do if you want to "pass" on rating a particular photo? Once it randomly appears for voting, you have to vote on it. Is it possible some of the "1" votes come from people who simply do not know where the image fits in the rating scale and therefore give it a one to get out of a higher vote? Not sure this is really happening, just raising the question.
 02/17/2005 06:28:07 PM · #23
Originally posted by capgal:
for example, this is the definition of a "7" at another website. I don't want to post the entire thing, so as not to plagiarize...

7 (Good): Image is strong enough to draw attention, it is done well, with the exception of some minor flaws.

Gives you a better idea than, "well, I got a 5.6 in a member challenge, which is scored somewhat differently than an open challenge, and people were harsh this time around because the subject matter was difficult..."

I think you get the idea....

Deb


Yes....that's the problem, IMO. There needs to be some kind of uniform criteria. How well does the photographer accomplish his or her intended goals? (Which may or may not be to make you smile/laugh/cry/think/become offended/etc.)

If the system worked as well as some of you say, you wouldn't be having this discussion 5 times a day. (No offense intended to the SC...this is a great site...but there will always be room for improvement.)

Message edited by author 2005-02-17 18:31:02.
 02/17/2005 06:30:01 PM · #24
Originally posted by drydoc:
I do have a different question though: What do you do if you want to "pass" on rating a particular photo? Once it randomly appears for voting, you have to vote on it. Is it possible some of the "1" votes come from people who simply do not know where the image fits in the rating scale and therefore give it a one to get out of a higher vote? Not sure this is really happening, just raising the question.


I certainly hope that doesn't happen. If you don't want to vote on it, just don't vote on it.
 02/17/2005 06:41:08 PM · #25
I would love to have a 5.5 button.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 01:17:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/01/2025 01:17:16 AM EDT.