| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2005 12:07:59 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Probably already been suggested, but I think better photographers should have more influencial votes. |
I think a deviation of this idea (again with the sarcasm) should be that anyone with Canon eqipment should have more influencial votes. Or maybe we should base this on income or the Mp of your camera.
I don't know Plex, I think I like the democratic system better. After all, who's to say that just because someone is a better photographer that they will by default be better or fairer judges?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 12:18:58 AM · #127 |
I don't know if it's ever been suggested, but one way to eliminate rogue votes is to only allow members to vote. You won't have "fake" accounts being set up at $20 (or is it $25) a pop.
Note: I am not suggesting getting rid of non-paid members, they can still enter the open challenge, they could still comment, but they could not rate images.
Side benefit might be more paid members.
Perhaps that, combined with not being able to see your scores until the end, would be a nice combination for enhancing the fairness of votes.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 12:55:55 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I don't know if it's ever been suggested, but one way to eliminate rogue votes is to only allow members to vote. You won't have "fake" accounts being set up at $20 (or is it $25) a pop.
Note: I am not suggesting getting rid of non-paid members, they can still enter the open challenge, they could still comment, but they could not rate images.
Side benefit might be more paid members.
Perhaps that, combined with not being able to see your scores until the end, would be a nice combination for enhancing the fairness of votes. |
That would be a damn wise business solution! Makes sense to me. It would require a commitment which is, after all, what we are barking about |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:06:24 AM · #129 |
| That really is a swell Idea. I think nshapiro's solution to this problem is the best that ive heard so far. I dont think not being able to see your scores untill the end matters if they would eliminate open member votes. Just allow them to comment. Very good solution. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:14:48 AM · #130 |
I'm going to stir the pot a bit more. Neil's idea has a great deal of sense but lets go one step further. In addition, all non-member submissions are identified as such allowing the voting members the discretion to only comment on member submissions if they so desire. This may increase the number of comments given to the paying memebers and if there are surplus comments to be given, it can go to the non-member submissions.
Okay....now blast me for this. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:17:46 AM · #131 |
I think the idea of limited voting to paying members should be looked at, I am not sure it is the right thing to do but we should at least have a discussion about it.
I don't know if there is any way to tell this but I would be very interested to know how many of the 1 votes RulerZigzag's photo received were from non-paying users, that would tell us if having paying members only vote would have fixed the problem.
I have to say that I feel a bit odd about the idea of having only the paying members voting, what if no member could vote until they had entered at least two challenges but then voting would be open to both paying members and free registered users?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:26:32 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I think the idea of limited voting to paying members should be looked at, I am not sure it is the right thing to do but we should at least have a discussion about it.
I don't know if there is any way to tell this but I would be very interested to know how many of the 1 votes RulerZigzag's photo received were from non-paying users, that would tell us if having paying members only vote would have fixed the problem.
I have to say that I feel a bit odd about the idea of having only the paying members voting, what if no member could vote until they had entered at least two challenges but then voting would be open to both paying members and free registered users? |
I'm puzzled why someone should gain all of the benefits of membership without paying for it. When you consider the costs associated with this hobby, the fee for membership is a trivial expense. Free membership should only be a spectator sport with the submission privledge as a teaser. If you want to be a photographer, you gotta spend the bucks to by a camera. Why should this be different when there is such an educational benefit to be gained by participating on a site like this? |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:36:21 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
I'm puzzled why someone should gain all of the benefits of membership without paying for it. When you consider the costs associated with this hobby, the fee for membership is a trivial expense. Free membership should only be a spectator sport with the submission privledge as a teaser. If you want to be a photographer, you gotta spend the bucks to by a camera. Why should this be different when there is such an educational benefit to be gained by participating on a site like this? |
I started out as a free user and entered a challenge or two and after that decided to join, I suspect a fair number of people have done the same. I think it does help if we can give them the feel of what it is like to be a member without needing to pay first. I also would hate to see an us them kind of division between the paying and non-paying members. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:45:41 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by Ivo:
I'm puzzled why someone should gain all of the benefits of membership without paying for it. When you consider the costs associated with this hobby, the fee for membership is a trivial expense. Free membership should only be a spectator sport with the submission privledge as a teaser. If you want to be a photographer, you gotta spend the bucks to by a camera. Why should this be different when there is such an educational benefit to be gained by participating on a site like this? |
I started out as a free user and entered a challenge or two and after that decided to join, I suspect a fair number of people have done the same. I think it does help if we can give them the feel of what it is like to be a member without needing to pay first. I also would hate to see an us them kind of division between the paying and non-paying members. |
Unfortunately that division already exists even though we dare not speak of it. It really is a value proposition that is made is evident in these rant style threads. I/we pay for something that there is little to gain from membership other than a chance to enter more challenges. Whoopie! How many times have we heard of people seeking other sites where they may get more comments? I've seen it numerous times. My impression is that this is a "For Profit" venture and not a charitable testing ground. I'd be willing to up my membership cost so I could get more comments from interested and committed participants. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:51:39 AM · #135 |
Shit, I say we go one step further then whatever has been sugested so far! I say that only US citizens should be alowed to be members and of those only citizens of the state of Alabama who are registered to vote in their congressional district and whose last name starts with a B should be alowed to vote at all.
Or we can just leave the thing alone. It works.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:54:26 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Shit, I say we go one step further then whatever has been sugested so far! I say that only US citizens should be alowed to be members and of those only citizens of the state of Alabama who are registered to vote in their congressional district and whose last name starts with a B should be alowed to vote at all.
Or we can just leave the thing alone. It works. |
Damn ... I love well thought out retorts such as this. It makes me want to knit.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:58:57 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Shit, I say we go one step further then whatever has been sugested so far! I say that only US citizens should be alowed to be members and of those only citizens of the state of Alabama who are registered to vote in their congressional district and whose last name starts with a B should be alowed to vote at all.
Or we can just leave the thing alone. It works. |
Damn ... I love well thought out retorts such as this. It makes me want to knit. |
I need a quilt.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:07:28 AM · #138 |
This site started as a completely free opportunity for photographers to help each other become better, using the structure of weekly challenges on specified topics as the vehicle to that end of mutual education.
When the admins decided to introduce additional features for paid members, they made a commitment that the basic services/functions of the site which already existed would always be free -- that no one would be shut out of this learning environment for lack of funds.
Voting and commenting is part of the learning process. I'm pretty sure I'm a far better commenter/voter than I am photographer ... and I am pretty sure that weighting the votes is going to be what in politics they call a "non-starter" of an idea, for programming if not ethical reasons ...
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 02:08:44. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:10:21 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This site started as a completely free opportunity for photographers to help each other become better, using the structure of weekly challenges on specified topics as the vehicle to that end of mutual education.
When the admins decided to introduce additional features for paid members, they made a commitment that the basic services/functions of the site which already existed would always be free -- that no one would be shut out of this learning environment for lack of funds.
Voting and commenting is part of the learning process. I'm pretty sure I'm a far better commenter/voter than I am photographer ... and I am pretty sure that weighting the votes is going to be what in politics they call a "non-starter" of an idea, for programming if not ethical reasons ... |
I need a quilt.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:15:50 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Spurs:
Its funny no "one" wants a "one".. |
Actually I kinda' think I do. I would like to see as many tens as ones in a strange way. That would say I have spiked a person's emotions in a "Love It or Hate It" image.
Yeah, I may think a little differently now about what I am trying to do with some of my submissions, with separation being one of them. Time will tell soon enough if I was successful.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:17:23 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by Spurs:
Its funny no "one" wants a "one".. |
Actually I kinda' think I do. I would like to see as many tens as ones in a strange way. That would say I have spiked a person's emotions in a "Love It or Hate It" image. |
You'll have to change your style a bit : ) |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:41:49 AM · #142 |
And here I thought I'D managed to polarize people in the self-portrait challenge...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:47:29 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I don't know if it's ever been suggested, but one way to eliminate rogue votes is to only allow members to vote. You won't have "fake" accounts being set up at $20 (or is it $25) a pop...
|
Although I do not speak for this site, I understand that it is monitored by the site coucil to see if people do set up multiple accounts. There are a number of ways to do this.
Just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:12:00 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I don't know if it's ever been suggested, but one way to eliminate rogue votes is to only allow members to vote. You won't have "fake" accounts being set up at $20 (or is it $25) a pop.
Note: I am not suggesting getting rid of non-paid members, they can still enter the open challenge, they could still comment, but they could not rate images.
Side benefit might be more paid members. |
Won't happen.
When paid membership was introduced in the beginning of 2003, Drew and Langdon went "on-record" as saying that the existing features would always remain free, and that membership would (in addition to supporting the site) entitle the member to additional features such as extra challenges, etc. Removing the ability of Registered Users to vote would be a violation of that promise.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:18:19 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by aguapreta:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I don't know if it's ever been suggested, but one way to eliminate rogue votes is to only allow members to vote. You won't have "fake" accounts being set up at $20 (or is it $25) a pop...
|
Although I do not speak for this site, I understand that it is monitored by the site coucil to see if people do set up multiple accounts. There are a number of ways to do this.
Just my 2 cents... |
That is correct. Fraudulent accounts and ghost ballots are taken very seriously, and we use a number of automated and manual procedures to detect them.
They don't happen very often, but when they do we take swift and certain action.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:22:17 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Patrol:
Am i the only one who thinks an overhaul of the voting system is due, to stop the underhand low votes given by people whose only reason is to 'bump up' their own placing? Midnight mist from Bridges II was my personal favourite, yet 10 voters decided this picture only merited a 1, the lowest possible score!! Maybe a good idea would be to introduce an additional method by requesting that those who vote 3 or under have to explain the reasons why they thought to do so? And if the reason is deemed dubious then the vote considered void? That way the people responsible would have to rely on their own imagination and skill rather than resorting to underhand tactics. |
Since we don't see a similar pattern of ones on the 1st and 3rd place entries, it is also possible that there were just 10 people who really didn't like this particular entry. One would expect that if this were part of a Vast Conspiracy� to vote down potential winners, we would see multiple ones on those entries as well.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:27:37 AM · #147 |
Terry,
Did you see Messershmitt's conjecture that the excessive 1's are a backlash against Ruler's having posted an outtake of this bridge for discussion during (or just before) the voting? It's very possible that's the explanation, that some voters were reacting to the loss of anonymity. I knew whose image it was as soon as I saw it, althopugh I did not allow this to affect my voting.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:32:02 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Terry,
Did you see Messershmitt's conjecture that the excessive 1's are a backlash against Ruler's having posted an outtake of this bridge for discussion during (or just before) the voting? It's very possible that's the explanation, that some voters were reacting to the loss of anonymity. I knew whose image it was as soon as I saw it, althopugh I did not allow this to affect my voting.
Robt. |
Ahhh! Makes a lot of sense. I didn't know he had done that. I look down on posting something prior to entering it in a challenge, but don't think I would give a one for that reason alone.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:35:42 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Terry,
Did you see Messershmitt's conjecture that the excessive 1's are a backlash against Ruler's having posted an outtake of this bridge for discussion during (or just before) the voting? It's very possible that's the explanation, that some voters were reacting to the loss of anonymity. I knew whose image it was as soon as I saw it, althopugh I did not allow this to affect my voting.
Robt. |
I did, and added to your conjectures about the strange colors and the normal unexplainable votes I think it still adds up to a statistical blip which is, to paraphrase (what I think was a review of Gilbert & Sullivan), full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
The voting pattern is still within the statistical norms, even accounting for the fact we're voting on something subjective.
Have any of the mathematical "nuts" thought that the distribution of standard deviations also ought to follow a standard curve? That if there weren't the occasional photo where the voting fell somewhat outside the normal pattern, that itself would be a statistical anomaly?
After all this, let's hope the camera's clock was set correctly ...
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 03:36:13. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 07:35:32 AM · #150 |
There is a 'simple' solution to this. Lets ask the people that voted it a 1 to come out and tell us.
Dont worry about confessing, its good for the soul and also, in this case, its not going to harm anyone.
So, whoever gave this picture a 1 please let us know and then we can 'put the baby to bed' as they say.
Mike
|
|
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: 06/16/2025 04:50:45 PM EDT.
