| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2005 03:45:50 PM · #176 |
| I remember a thread not to long ago where someone mentioned that they used 1 and 2 as place holders and come back to them later and adjust the vote. Could by chance this be the case and the users did not get back to adjust the vote for some reason [ie. computer problem, internet down, had to work late, etc.]? |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:55:49 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 ... |
Paul, as I've come to view you as level headed and knowledgeable, I'm sure you know that suppressing such discussion does not make such suspicions go away.
Plus, much of this thread is aimed at suggesting possible voting changes/solutions. Not accusing. That may have been the initial premise, but without such premises, a lot of important investigations may never have begun.
Lastly, this isn't the first time I've seen members, and even site council, suppress a discussion. "It's been beaten to death hundreds of times". My point is that maybe this time there are new ideas, and maybe at one point, the time will be right for change. Or maybe it just makes these members feel good to discuss the possibilities. As I've said, there are far more wasteful threads. Anyone who is tired of hearing about it need only hit the "ignore" button.
Next thing you know, we won't be allowed to post pictures of cats and children anymore ;)
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 15:56:53. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 03:57:26 PM · #178 |
Let's see ...
3 number of one's almost every ribbon-winner gets
3 people who thought the color combo was atrocious
1 people who thought it was ruined by the over-sharpening effect
4 people who saw the out-take in the forum and strongly object to breaking anonimity
1 people who used a 1 "placeholder" vote and never got to change it
---------------
12 plausible number of ones for this photo |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 04:07:16 PM · #179 |
Sorry, I shouldn't have used your term, suppress.
I was more expressing why I find them more detrimental than beneficial overall (my opinion, of course), and would prefer they die out once we've decided pretty surely that it's a statistical blip and not actual cheating.
I am not in favor of suppressing discussion or dismissing new ideas, although I'm also resigned to the idea that the admins are not likely to have time to code any improvements for quite a while ... we're still waiting for the print site update first. It's more a case of it would have to be really broke for them to take the time to "fix" anything, especially a complicated weighted/limited voting scheme.
Perhaps you can start a new thread under the Web Site Suggestions area in which to carry on a discussion of possible improved voting schemes, without the rhetoric and charged atmosphere of this thread. Start over with the assumption that the voting is honest and varied, and figure out a better way to make the outcome reflect what you view as a more "accurate" result. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 04:32:50 PM · #180 |
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. |
well i am against troll voting of course, and also reasons for voting low.. but why do we have to think that giving out a 1 is forbidden. Wouldn't it be a better scale for everyone if we used ALL ten numbers not just the numbers 3 through 10.
I don't think i should have to appologize givine out some 1's in a challenge... i'll give them out to the worst 1, 2 or 3 worst images.. just like i give out my 10's to the best 1, 2, or 3 images.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 04:41:00 PM · #181 |
| General, I am surprised to see you had information of the handful of people who disliked my Bridge submission. It was nice to see why they voted a 1. I guess something as simple as a color can disturb someone, or the ones who did not agree with my sharpening of the photo, I totally agree with them, but I would not deduct more than 3 points for oversharpening an image, thats too much. Thanks for all the work you have done to retrieve this information. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 04:50:52 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
General, I am surprised to see you had information of the handful of people who disliked my Bridge submission. It was nice to see why they voted a 1. I guess something as simple as a color can disturb someone, or the ones who did not agree with my sharpening of the photo, I totally agree with them, but I would not deduct more than 3 points for oversharpening an image, thats too much. Thanks for all the work you have done to retrieve this information. |
I was posting "plausible" numbers (i.e. estimates) based on reasons people might have given a vote of one which had been previously mentioned in this thread. The only number I estimated myself was that first three that "most ribbon-winners get."
Personally, I don't think your photo deserved a one. But then, I don't think any of mine (well, maybe one) deserved any one votes either, and I've racked up quite a few more than you (or maybe anyone here) have.
I just wish folks would carry on the discussion of voting improvements in another thread and let you enjoy your ribbon.
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 16:51:08. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 04:51:22 PM · #183 |
I think this thread is simply beating the proverbial dead horse. For, the little that it may matter here are my reflections after losing myself in these arguments in the past.
The voting is not perfect simply because of the vested interest, however, while not perfect the system has a self correcting capacity which increases with each additional vote casted. Yes, a very small number of voters may abuse it but their overall effect becomes minimal at the very end. Your participation to vote is highly critical to keep the system honest. The bigger the number of votes the more insignificant is the weight of each individual vote. This does not mean that each vote is insignificant, rather that it takes a consensus or group of votes to affectuate a change.
There is no point to argue why a supreme image would receive a low vote or to even seek the logic, aberation or ill intent. The system is capable of reducing these inconsistencies as all stats have indicated.
It makes no sense to find explanations which at the end can not ever be addressed. The exercise is futile. We are dealing with human nature but once again, the system renders individual ambitions null and void because each voting weight grows lighter and lighter with each new vote casted.
Now, in place of complaining, make it a point to vote even of you have no entry in a challenge.
The ultimate solution is two have two distinct groups who enter images in their own group and then vote on the other group and never in the group in which they have an image. This has also been rehashed and found not feasable for many reasons.
After being here 8 months I accept the system but then I go out of way to vote on each and every challenge. Every vote is important and the more votes casted the better the correction and hence the final result.
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 16:52:13. |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 05:05:05 PM · #184 |
I like your reasoning Daniel, sounds logical.
I make a point of voting in every challenge I enter, not always in the others but after your statement I will try to vote the others too.
As for the "1" votes, I feel the majority are attempts to lower the average of obviously high scoring shots, no one with respect for good pictures could give a 1 to this image.
Paul.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 05:38:03 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 ... |
Easy... the head of the Vast Conspiracyâ„¢ doesn't like you.
-Terry
Vast Conspiracy is a registered trademark of DPTrolls Vote-Fixing LLC
Message edited by author 2005-02-24 17:39:02.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 05:45:19 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by peecee:
As for the "1" votes, I feel the majority are attempts to lower the average of obviously high scoring shots, no one with respect for good pictures could give a 1 to this image.
Paul. |
How does this explain the total absence of ones in many ribbon winners over the last several months? My only ribbon, for example, had no ones, no twos and one three.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 05:53:32 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 ... |
Easy... the head of the Vast Conspiracyâ„¢ doesn't like you.
-Terry
Vast Conspiracy is a registered trademark of DPTrolls Vote-Fixing LLC |
Thanks, I was sure there was a logical reason. Wait a sec ... I thought I was head of Vast Conspiracyâ„¢!
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get meâ„¢ |
|
|
|
02/24/2005 06:01:04 PM · #188 |
| Afer thinking it over, I love the way the site is set up. It should be left alone, not changes in the voting systym, leave it alone . I started with the free basic membership and this site gave me an oppertunitiy to go out and discover what camera's can do, and if it wasnt free to vote at first, I would not of gained an as much of an interest in photography...just end this forum topic already and focus on the next challenges. Happy shooting |
|
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: 06/18/2025 04:45:30 PM EDT.
