| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2005 07:48:41 AM · #151 |
Why don't you just eliminate the Number 1?
There is also the assumption that paid members are not trolls? I know lot's of trolls who can fork out $25.
I bet it all comes out in the wash anyway and from my experience trolls always lose. I'm sure they spread their misery pretty evenly, just the same. Unless some of you have been unfairly isolated and sabotaged by troll insurgents? Then you might have a beef.
The world has never been 100% fair and it probably never will. Let it slide and more often than not...the cream will rise to the top. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 08:31:20 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Why don't you just eliminate the Number 1?
There is also the assumption that paid members are not trolls? I know lot's of trolls who can fork out $25.
I bet it all comes out in the wash anyway and from my experience trolls always lose. I'm sure they spread their misery pretty evenly, just the same. Unless some of you have been unfairly isolated and sabotaged by troll insurgents? Then you might have a beef.
The world has never been 100% fair and it probably never will. Let it slide and more often than not...the cream will rise to the top. |
Maybe DPC should do "Random Vote Verifications" like they do when they request a picture. In a random vote verification the voter will have to explain why they voted the way they did on a certain picture. DPC can set up a system that would flag votes that way off the median, mean, or mode votes for a particular photograph. And from that flag list they could do a random vote verification. If they see there is a fraud vote then they could have a penalty faze like they do on DQ'ed pictures.
Just a thought.
Example could be:
DPChallenge request from you a “vote verification” on picture XXXXXXXX. The reason we are asking for this verification is to validate your reason for giving picture XXXXXXXX the score you recorded. DPChallenge understands that when voting it is subjective and we will keep that in mind when reviewing your response.
Please provide us in detail why you felt Picture XXXXXXXX in you view deserved the vote you cast. You must reply to this request within 48 hours or your voting privileges maybe revoked until such request has been received.
Thank you for your cooperation,
DPC.
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 08:38:01. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 08:44:59 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Maybe DPC should do "Random Vote Verifications" ... |
Great, except that my voting method (which was on my profile until last night) is ...
When I see your entry a number pops into my head.
While looking at your entry this number may go up and down.
Wherever it settles is the vote you get.
So how do I justify my votes? The truth ... the voices in my head told me? : ) Or will I be banned from voting.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 08:59:39 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Example could be:
DPChallenge request from you a “vote verification” on picture XXXXXXXX. The reason we are asking for this verification is to validate your reason for giving picture XXXXXXXX the score you recorded. |
And my answer could be, "I thought the image sucked."
Like it or not, there's no effective way to police 1 votes. Some folks vote images a 1 for not meeting the challenge. Some vote a 1 because they don't like the subject matter and want it at the bottom of their voting page. Some vote 1 because they know who the photographer is. I doubt any of them are going to say, "Well I know this is BradP's image and think he has too many ribbons as is. So a 1 from me." Well come to think of it that might be considered justified. ;) (Love ya Brad!)
As annoying as 1 votes are they are still part of the process. If you see something where you believe the votes are way out of whack- ask SC to look into it. That's why they are there.
In this case, I will agree that 11 is a little high. But earlier in the week an out take of that image was in the forums. That alone could account for the 1 votes.
One good way to prevent 1 votes on your image is to preserve annonimity. If they don't know who took it they can't vote it purpousefully low.
As a side, congrats to Rutger on an awesome image. Nice job knocking Brad to third. :)
Clara
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 09:13:15 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by SDW65:
Example could be:
DPChallenge request from you a “vote verification” on picture XXXXXXXX. The reason we are asking for this verification is to validate your reason for giving picture XXXXXXXX the score you recorded. |
And my answer could be, "I thought the image sucked."
Like it or not, there's no effective way to police 1 votes. Some folks vote images a 1 for not meeting the challenge. Some vote a 1 because they don't like the subject matter and want it at the bottom of their voting page. Some vote 1 because they know who the photographer is. I doubt any of them are going to say, "Well I know this is BradP's image and think he has too many ribbons as is. So a 1 from me." Well come to think of it that might be considered justified. ;) (Love ya Brad!)
As annoying as 1 votes are they are still part of the process. If you see something where you believe the votes are way out of whack- ask SC to look into it. That's why they are there.
In this case, I will agree that 11 is a little high. But earlier in the week an out take of that image was in the forums. That alone could account for the 1 votes.
One good way to prevent 1 votes on your image is to preserve annonimity. If they don't know who took it they can't vote it purpousefully low.
As a side, congrats to Rutger on an awesome image. Nice job knocking Brad to third. :)
Clara |
To clarify " I don't feel there is a way that DPC can police voting". As I stated voting is subjective. After all we have the 1-10 scale and anyone can use it in full or part.
Now for me I vote the way I see the picture usually no less than 4 and can go up to 10. I give out very little 1's. And to anyone that would vote a picture down because they know or DO NOT know who the photographer is they should not be here. That's why I feel sharing pictures before the challenge should be a violation of challenge rules. But it seems not to be, as long as you do it discreetly. When you know what picture belongs to whom, human nature can sneak in and cause you to vote up or down because of that. But here we are back to square one, how do DPC police that?
So when this thread is all said and done no matter how many pages it takes. We have the best voting system in place, everyone just has to be fair. And then in another week or so we will see another thread started about the same issue. I have been here for almost a year and I cannot count how many time this has been brought up. If people feel that someone maybe making duplicate accounts then maybe DPC needs to review the registered user list. Out of the 31,000+ how many are still active? Clean it up and it will be easier to police.
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 09:13:52. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 09:32:44 AM · #156 |
Wow, this thread just keeps going in circles. Why must we keep invoking the mythical trolls for events that inevitably are shown to have a rational explanation? The voting patterns at DPC fit well-known statistical models very closely, and virtually all of the "anomalous" voting behavior is easily explained. In the incredibly few cases (like Rulerzigzag's bridge shot) where a few "spurious" ones show up, people point and stare like it's a UFO. The mythical trolls are inevitably invoked, either because that's the easiest explanation, or maybe we just are naturally suspicious. Who knows?
In this case, it took a while for the probable explanation to come to light, but I believe Messerschmitt hit it on the head with the "lost anonymity" hypothesis (some voters knew who the photog was because a similar shot had been posted in the forums). I can't present evidence to support this theory, but it rings true. If it's true, then it's very likely that Rulerzigzag gave up a blue ribbon by posting the other shot. Now that's something we can learn from. Jumping up and down pointing at trolls that do not exist is not something we can learn from. Whether it be DPC voting or in other, more important aspects of our lives, it always better to look for rational explanations than to "invoke spirits". We may not succesfully explain everything, but those things that we do successfully explain will teach us valuable lessons.
Of course there are rare cases where someone votes images low just out of spite. What I'm saying is that these cases are very uncommon, there are checks in place to detect and eliminate the behavior, and any that sneak through certainly do not affect voting outcome to any significant degree. We should focus on the positive aspects of the site, and let our minds rest on this subject. It really is not a problem, hard as that is for many to believe.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 10:48:56 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by eirasi:
Coincidences are coincidences and they do happen. |
Not to this level. If we assume that the photo would on average get 1 vote of 1 then to get 10 votes of 1 is something like a billion to 1.
If we assume that it would on average get two votes of one then the odds are something like 100,000 to 1.
Add to that the spike in votes that this photo recived and something is very fishy. But this should not be hard to check out, and why not check it out? |
Bottom line is this... People are allowed to their opinions and that is that. 10 people didn't like it. I liked it but they didn't. You can spin 100 different theories. but what does it matter. The photo took 2nd! From all the entries...It got 2nd. That is a great thing! |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 11:02:15 AM · #158 |
these threads do seem to go in circles. and I agree that there is no way to limit the spurious 1's, after all this is and art contest not a math contest.
but I'll venture another suggestion anyway.
Perhaps if on each users home page the precentages for each score given was displayed, this would apply some peer pressure to everyone to think more about the votes they cast.
some thing like this:
1 .15 %
2 .3%
3 5%
4 20%
5 40%
6 20%
7 9.05%
8 4%
9 1%
10 .5%
This would be self policing and easy to impliment, but still keep the anonymity of the votes. and it might actually result in increased thought in the voting process
just another votig suggestion
Dean |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 11:16:17 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by brockmd:
these threads do seem to go in circles. and I agree that there is no way to limit the spurious 1's, after all this is and art contest not a math contest.
but I'll venture another suggestion anyway.
Perhaps if on each users home page the precentages for each score given was displayed, this would apply some peer pressure to everyone to think more about the votes they cast.
some thing like this:
1 .15 %
2 .3%
3 5%
4 20%
5 40%
6 20%
7 9.05%
8 4%
9 1%
10 .5%
This would be self policing and easy to impliment, but still keep the anonymity of the votes. and it might actually result in increased thought in the voting process
just another votig suggestion
Dean |
I think that's the best suggestion so far. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 12:32:56 PM · #160 |
IMO that's a horrible suggestion, and all this talk about holding people "accountable" for their votes is a horrible suggestion. The whole POINT of the voting procedure is to keep it anonymous. Why should we encourage mob rule on voting standards, by forcing people who have "high" standards to succumb to peer pressure to raise their votes? And for that matter, why should we force people who vote leniently to justify their high scores-given-out? Because these would be the effects of the voting profile suggested here.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 12:37:02 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
IMO that's a horrible suggestion, and all this talk about holding people "accountable" for their votes is a horrible suggestion. The whole POINT of the voting procedure is to keep it anonymous. Why should we encourage mob rule on voting standards, by forcing people who have "high" standards to succumb to peer pressure to raise their votes? And for that matter, why should we force people who vote leniently to justify their high scores-given-out? Because these would be the effects of the voting profile suggested here.
Robt. |
What Robert said.
The horse is dead, the bones have been picked clean and have fossilized. Can we stop beating it now?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 12:54:20 PM · #162 |
It's a virtual ribbon for god's sake!
No money, no trophies and no claim to fame.
I too would like to place in the top three one day and earn a ribbon but I am not going to waste my time analyzing quantum physics for a better voting system. It is what it is... live with it.
=)
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 12:59:08. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:09:13 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by brockmd:
these threads do seem to go in circles. and I agree that there is no way to limit the spurious 1's, after all this is and art contest not a math contest.
but I'll venture another suggestion anyway.
Perhaps if on each users home page the precentages for each score given was displayed, this would apply some peer pressure to everyone to think more about the votes they cast.
some thing like this:
1 .15 %
2 .3%
3 5%
4 20%
5 40%
6 20%
7 9.05%
8 4%
9 1%
10 .5%
This would be self policing and easy to impliment, but still keep the anonymity of the votes. and it might actually result in increased thought in the voting process
just another votig suggestion
Dean |
I think it's a great idea. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:29:00 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by brockmd:
these threads do seem to go in circles. and I agree that there is no way to limit the spurious 1's, after all this is and art contest not a math contest.
but I'll venture another suggestion anyway.
Perhaps if on each users home page the precentages for each score given was displayed, this would apply some peer pressure to everyone to think more about the votes they cast.
some thing like this:
1 .15 %
2 .3%
3 5%
4 20%
5 40%
6 20%
7 9.05%
8 4%
9 1%
10 .5%
This would be self policing and easy to impliment, but still keep the anonymity of the votes. and it might actually result in increased thought in the voting process
just another votig suggestion
Dean |
If this was implemented I'd give out 10 ones the first challenge just to be non-conformist. But the point is mute anyway because this will never happen.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 01:37:46 PM · #165 |
Trolls are a figment of your imagination, there is nothing wrong with the voting system, D&L will not change the voting system anytime soon (even if people keep complaining) and the 10 one votes is very easy to explain with the additon of the Messerschmitt theory to the photoshop and the title theories...
There is nothing to see here, please move on to the next thread!
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:26:33 PM · #166 |
Regardless of the merits of this discussion, or whether it is moot, why is it that people try to suppress such discussions? And yet there are countless wasteful threads, one that comes to mind is a thread where people wasted bandwidth seeing how long of a post they could make, etc.
There is an ignore filter for threads that you don't want to read. There's nothing wrong with such discussions and members and site council should not try to suppress them IMHO.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:44:19 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
IMO that's a horrible suggestion, and all this talk about holding people "accountable" for their votes is a horrible suggestion. The whole POINT of the voting procedure is to keep it anonymous. Why should we encourage mob rule on voting standards, by forcing people who have "high" standards to succumb to peer pressure to raise their votes? And for that matter, why should we force people who vote leniently to justify their high scores-given-out? Because these would be the effects of the voting profile suggested here.
Robt. |
I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter, but it would be refreshing if people who dole out scores provided a comment as to the reasons why they voted so low...(something a tad more insightful than say.... your image sucked (no offence meant) .... yewwwwwwwwww and the like).
I am here to learn, and can categorically state that I hold no illusions that I will ribbon anytime soon, given the talent in this forum. I do however continue to be amazed at the number of instances where individuals will post their photos post competition, asking for comments. I also realize that I am remiss in making comments myself, but that is something that I attribute to my lack of knowledge in this field.
I am not a proponent of changing the voting system.... it may not be perfect but is in my opinion the best we can hope for under the circumstances. As for the scoring, I have managed to save myself the agony of the "Update trauma by simply deactivating that feature.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:45:36 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Regardless of the merits of this discussion, or whether it is moot, why is it that people try to suppress such discussions? And yet there are countless wasteful threads, one that comes to mind is a thread where people wasted bandwidth seeing how long of a post they could make, etc.
There is an ignore filter for threads that you don't want to read. There's nothing wrong with such discussions and members and site council should not try to suppress them IMHO. |
Neil I will have to agree with you 100% on your statement. I for one feel the discussion will not get anywhere but like you said why try to make or suggest users from posting there opinion. This discussion at least lets people vent. Debate is vital and should not be suppressed.
I for one feel the voting system is the best in can be at this time but we all should be open for suggestion and debate. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:49:31 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter, but it would be refreshing if people who dole out scores provided a comment as to the reasons why they voted so low...(something a tad more insightful than say.... your image sucked (no offence meant) .... yewwwwwwwwww and the like).
|
I too think it would be a great idea if people who gave out low scores or any scores for that matter would leave a comment. Forcing them (us) to do it however it not a viable answer.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 02:56:24 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
I for one feel the voting system is the best in can be at this time but we all should be open for suggestion and debate. |
Exactly ... As previously stated, if one doesn't like a particular forum, by-passing it is quite simple. There have been, and continue to be some long drawn out forums that I have personally opted not to peruse, as I have not the slightest interest in them... That said however, I do not begrudge anyone from participating in these, as is their inalienable right.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:02:06 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter, but it would be refreshing if people who dole out scores provided a comment as to the reasons why they voted so low...(something a tad more insightful than say.... your image sucked (no offence meant) .... yewwwwwwwwww and the like).
|
I too think it would be a great idea if people who gave out low scores or any scores for that matter would leave a comment. Forcing them (us) to do it however it not a viable answer. |
My apologies if I lead anyone astray with my comments...
I am not at all advocating that individuals be "forced" to comment on scores. I am merely suggesting that insightful comments are a fantastic vehicle through which the scorers could provide concrete examples of deficiencies in my submission, or where a different approach might prove beneficial to my future endeavours in this regard.
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:08:04 PM · #172 |
| I just got an idea. How about if we recommend that everyone keep a voting average between 4.0 and 7.0. That would keep people from giving out inordinate ones (or tens). It would allow for ones when felt to be warrented. Anyone outside the range could be reviewed as to their voting habits. Now that I think about it; I wonder if there are people on this site who have voting averages outside this range. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:22:07 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
... why is it that people try to suppress such discussions? |
Because it creates an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust ... you leave people with the feeling there is something wrong going on, when the overwhelming likelihood is that those suspicions are completely unfounded.
It leads to unresearched, off-the-cuff statements like "there are people with 20 accounts ..."
It leads to the making of generalized, unsupporterd accusations, undermining the credibility of every participant here -- "Gosh, I wonder if ____ is a troll voter?"
All this over a ribbon-winner. Why don't you invesigate why my clever and (often) in-focus images routinely finish below 5 -- even when I slam the topic over the head? I think that's far more "anomolous" than 10 people not liking the funny colors and overshaprening (and "outing") of this one ... |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:36:43 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Regardless of the merits of this discussion, or whether it is moot, why is it that people try to suppress such discussions? And yet there are countless wasteful threads, one that comes to mind is a thread where people wasted bandwidth seeing how long of a post they could make, etc.
There is an ignore filter for threads that you don't want to read. There's nothing wrong with such discussions and members and site council should not try to suppress them IMHO. |
My sentiments exactly. What is so wrong with suggesting something contrary to what you've been living with since the site began?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:38:59 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I just got an idea. How about if we recommend that everyone keep a voting average between 4.0 and 7.0. |
I think that's already true.
I'd rather see a simpler 1-5 scale, with voting averages between 2.75-3.25
(You wouldnt have to ask people to do that, I bet it would automatically happen).
|
|
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 04:49:14 PM EDT.
