Voting - Viewing / Refresh / Update Once Voted

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/29/2005 09:35:11 PM · #1

Ignore this if there are settings somewhere I have missed, however it seems that there is a bug (or it is by design?) that, when you view the thumbnails of submissions to choose which to vote on, the page does not 'recalculate' correctly. This is tricky to explain, so bear with me.

I tend to 'open in new window' the thumbnail/preview picture I want to see in more detail (and yes end up with a whole stack of windows), thus allowing them to load while I am perusing other things. Once I look at the 640 X xxx size, I decide if to vote or not. I then close the window and go on to the others, or back to the thumbnail page and 'start over'.

Firstly, once you vote on an image, it auto loads the 'next in sequence', whether you want to see it or not. It seems it remembers what you have voted on (which is good) and doesn't load that, but it does revert back to previous entries in the 'sequence'. In order to ensure my vote HAS counted for the previously viewed picture, I must wait till the next one starts to load before closing that picture. I wish there was another way/option.

Secondly, I KNOW that I can use the 'rate this photo' javascript but that still opens a new window AND there is no voting option there, just a comment (so pretty useless?). I also know that I can just 'cycle' through the photos using the one window, but this DOES take longer and I also must view photos that I just know are not 'my taste' and I do not want to see the full size of. I do not know, maybe a 'ignore this photo/skip this photo' option may make it easier for the 'poor old computer'?

Thirdly and finally, and this came to light during my first voting experience with 'Metal', that I did not remember seeing, let alone voting on, the 'winner'. There is a 'skip' in the refresh/update/whatever on the main thumbnail page. You need to ensure that if you have opened previews in another window, that you hit refresh on the 'numbered preview page' to ensure that it 'recalculates'. I have been finding even in voting on the 'Obsolete' that 'to be sure' it is actually best to go back right to 'page 1' periodically to ensure the 'computer' doesn't let you miss any. It would have had I not gone back to page 1, as there were images I saw that I DID like, that I did NOT see on my 'first course' through the page numbers, even with a reload.

If this makes sense at all, and is fixable/adjustable - great. I look forward to any improvement in this aspect.

If this makes no sense - forget it and 'keep up the good work'.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/29/2005 10:05:08 PM · #2

The system is set up to deliver the images to you in a random order as you cycle through them, so as to maximize the chances of all images have an equal number of votes. By opening multiple windows and picking the images you "choose" to vote on from tumbnails, you are defeating the random feature and voting only on those images that have thumbnail imapct. These are not always the best images. The "flaws" you are describing are basically intentional, I think, to promote straight through, random voting.

Robt.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/29/2005 11:44:06 PM · #3

Thank you for the insight. However, I thought I was in control of what I viewed.

I just want to be sure I see every single submission, without having to do 'one by one in random order' OR thinking 'maybe I have missed one'. I know the thumbnail does not do justice to detail, I bear this in mind when viewing them. It does though, make certain styles stand out. As does, admittedly, the 'title', which people obviously 'use'.

With this method, coupled with the '20% minimum vote to count' rule, once people get to or near 20% do they not just 'miss out' on the remaining submissions? This does baffle me a little. Or do 'most' people vote on each and every submission until it has cycled through completely?

I trust my brain/eyes enough to 'start out' from the thumbnails and hone in on the ones I want to see more of.

Guess it is the slow way or the..... 'back track' way.

gprinsloo

Nikon Coolpix 990

06/30/2005 07:02:49 AM · #4

I agree on the concept of using the thumb nails to vote. Like your have after making the initial vote. Try going back and resuffle your vote, its a pleasure to simply click the appropriate number below the thumbnail and make it a 7 instead of a 5. Why not a novote "*" option as well.

Programatically the code exists, it is not a major change for the site designers. Which is something that must always be taken into account. We cannot request million dollar changes on a site unless we pay up.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/30/2005 10:08:43 AM · #5

I would go the other way -- do not allow any display of thumbnails until after a vote's been registered. I've seen plenty of pretty thumbnails which open up to ordinary photos, and likewise plenty of terrific photos which yield awful-looking thumbs.

There are good reasons for presenting the photos randomly, so I'd have to ask if it's really fair to try and defeat the procedure.

If you need speed -- like if you're on a dial-up connection -- then open up two voting windows, and alternate between voting on the two. One window will load in the background while you vote, then switch. You may occassionally get a repeater this way, but shouldn't miss any, and won't be unduly influenced by the appearance of the thumbnails.

letenele

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/30/2005 10:34:52 AM · #6

Originally posted by macrothing:

Thirdly and finally, and this came to light during my first voting experience with 'Metal', that I did not remember seeing, let alone voting on, the 'winner'. There is a 'skip' in the refresh/update/whatever on the main thumbnail page.

I've noticed that too sometimes, that some of the images I don't ever see, even though I go trhough the voting pages a few times.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/30/2005 11:58:45 AM · #7

Macrothing... Welcome to DPC. Hope you have a lot of fun participating here and that your experience with DPC is positive and educational.

The current voting system is very cleverly designed. It's randomized display insures that every photographer's picture has an equal opportunity to be viewed and evaluated and that no images get a preferential display order over others. The default action to display the next image makes the process easy and painless.

Give the voting system, as designed, a fair testing. You might find it effective and efficient.

06/30/2005 09:31:38 PM · #8

Thank you for the Welcome. It's fun so far and I have learned many things already.

As mentioned by myself (and by you) I AM only new here and have only '2' experiences with the voting process. I will (and intended to) 'give it a fair go'. I did not realise the 'random intent' at first and thought there may have been 'options' that I had missed somewhere, or even a 'bug'.

I appreciate the thought and design that has gone INTO the system and that it 'works'. I grasp the random concept and that it indeed is likely included to allow for people only going as far as 20%. I will not reiterate the points I made in my previous post(s). Suffice to say it still baffles me how it can be 'balanced' (dare I say democratic?) when people are not viewing ALL images.

For the most part, I was compelled to 'post' about the process after I noticed that I had missed seeing the Metal Challenge Winner Convergence in steel when voting. I would like to have played a part in the voting of the winner. There was also some disappointment that I missed seeing such a great photo during 'the course'.

I now understand the system better and will work with it.

I think the dog is going back to sleep so I shall just "let sleeping dogs lie".

ps: for the record re: the post about voting on thumbnails only, I was not suggesting that.

Sorry, I think you were referring to 'second sweep'/refining voting using the thumbnails. I agree this could be useful and in fact did try to do it to no avail.

Message edited by author 2005-06-30 21:36:23.