| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2005 02:24:40 AM · #1 |
| Oddball thought for an additional fun statistic to measure and stick in the profiles, though it might be a little CPU heavy: for each challenge, when the challenge completes, for each voter with enough votes to be counted, take the square of the difference between the individual voter's vote and the final average, and store the running average of those values in the individual's profile. This measures how far away an individual's personal taste is from the DPC average. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 02:58:21 AM · #2 |
| I like the idea- it would be another factor encouraging people to vote thoughtfully, though it might be difficult to implement. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 08:06:07 AM · #3 |
This is very similar to how the "karma" system is implemented on worth1000. Voters who vote nearer the "norm" get better karma, and their vote counts more. Voters who just give tens or ones or vote nonsensically lose their karma, and their votes become meaningless. Wouldn't really work in the context of dpc though.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 08:23:50 AM · #4 |
I don't like the idea much. I vote for my own reasons. That is the reason that I choose to vote. I often don't have time to vote enough to make it count, so I only vote when there is a significant number of entries that I feel strongly enough about.
I often give tens to images I like in spite of their technical failings with the intent to bring their votes up. I wouldn't want my vote to count less because I didn't fall in with what everyone else felt. Indeed, in comments that I have seen that state the value of their vote, their votes are often 9's or tens. One could hardly say that quarter page reviews by the critique club that give an image a 9 or a 10 would be not well thought out. The truth however is that few pics get over 8, most blue ribbon pics score in the mid-low sevens and a good bunch of really decent pics get 6's. If everyone tried to keep their votes between 6 and 8, the average vote would go down even further and the votes would become homogenic.
The other by product of this would be that there would be "karma chasers" who would get really high karma because they would keep their votes between 5 and 7, while the truly thoughtful voters would have very mediocre karma...
If the point of this would be to give submitters an idea of how to take comments and votes from certain individuals, it would likely be quite misleading.
Sounds like a lot of work for no real purpose.
I prefer to validate comments by looking at commenter's profiles. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 08:37:34 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I don't like the idea much. I vote for my own reasons. That is the reason that I choose to vote. I often don't have time to vote enough to make it count, so I only vote when there is a significant number of entries that I feel strongly enough about.
I often give tens to images I like in spite of their technical failings with the intent to bring their votes up. I wouldn't want my vote to count less because I didn't fall in with what everyone else felt. Indeed, in comments that I have seen that state the value of their vote, their votes are often 9's or tens. One could hardly say that quarter page reviews by the critique club that give an image a 9 or a 10 would be not well thought out. The truth however is that few pics get over 8, most blue ribbon pics score in the mid-low sevens and a good bunch of really decent pics get 6's. If everyone tried to keep their votes between 6 and 8, the average vote would go down even further and the votes would become homogenic.
The other by product of this would be that there would be "karma chasers" who would get really high karma because they would keep their votes between 5 and 7, while the truly thoughtful voters would have very mediocre karma...
If the point of this would be to give submitters an idea of how to take comments and votes from certain individuals, it would likely be quite misleading.
Sounds like a lot of work for no real purpose.
I prefer to validate comments by looking at commenter's profiles. |
TBH i personally agree with you... but just to chip in to defend this idea, it does WORK on worth1000. The point is you don't need to vote 10 just to bring someone's votes up, because you don't need to be accounting for an irrational torrent of 1's - a 7 or 8 vote would be enough. Similarly, for those images that score 7 or 8 - you'd be perfectly justified voting 10, your karma would probably still increase from doing so - but someone who votes 1 or 2 on the same image will likely lose karma. The crucial thing to remember is that karma is an overall thing, not an instant effect on how your vote counts that click, so you can make a few votes a long way off the beaten track and still retain good karma as long as you're at least fairly "rational" in your voting most of the time. (Of course here is the problem of "rational" becoming equivalent to "populist"...)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 09:07:40 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Piorkowski:
I like the idea- it would be another factor encouraging people to vote thoughtfully, though it might be difficult to implement. |
You run the risk that in the end everyone will vote like sheeps. Beeeeeh, group beehhhss 6, I beeeh 6. We a beeeeeh group, beeeh!
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 09:19:12 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Piorkowski:
I like the idea- it would be another factor encouraging people to vote thoughtfully, though it might be difficult to implement. |
You run the risk that in the end everyone will vote like sheeps. Beeeeeh, group beehhhss 6, I beeeh 6. We a beeeeeh group, beeeh! |
Not quite, because you don't know how everyone else voted. It simply encourages you to think about the image from more than just your normal perspective, in thinking about what it will score overall... and then decide how you want to affect that score.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 04:12:16 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I don't like the idea much. I vote for my own reasons. That is the reason that I choose to vote. I often don't have time to vote enough to make it count, so I only vote when there is a significant number of entries that I feel strongly enough about.
I often give tens to images I like in spite of their technical failings with the intent to bring their votes up. I wouldn't want my vote to count less because I didn't fall in with what everyone else felt. Indeed, in comments that I have seen that state the value of their vote, their votes are often 9's or tens. One could hardly say that quarter page reviews by the critique club that give an image a 9 or a 10 would be not well thought out. The truth however is that few pics get over 8, most blue ribbon pics score in the mid-low sevens and a good bunch of really decent pics get 6's. If everyone tried to keep their votes between 6 and 8, the average vote would go down even further and the votes would become homogenic.
The other by product of this would be that there would be "karma chasers" who would get really high karma because they would keep their votes between 5 and 7, while the truly thoughtful voters would have very mediocre karma...
If the point of this would be to give submitters an idea of how to take comments and votes from certain individuals, it would likely be quite misleading.
Sounds like a lot of work for no real purpose.
I prefer to validate comments by looking at commenter's profiles. |
First,while the current setup allows it, cherry-picking the images you vote on is not good for the site and is against the intention of the voting system. A karma system would benefite the site in many ways when voting is done as it is set up to be done -- that is, random!
The karma system, as discussed here several times in previous threads, has a number of safeguards to prevent it from being abused. (search for the threads with 'karma voting', even google managed to come up with them.) For instance, karma is not calculated on a single vote basis, but on all votes -- this prevents one or two or even a few dozen radically deviant votes from affecting the individuals karma. Also, there is a range of votes around the average that are considered to be 'close enough' -- I think 2 or 3 on either side was discussed. This gives a large spread that is considered 'in the groove' with the rest of the site -- only those radically diviant over large portions of the voting are affected.
And finally, in direct response to the comment about 'karma chasers', the system that has been proposed here only penalizes those with negative karma -- it does not reward those with positive karma. I am personally opposed to this aspect -- if the system is good enough to be used to penalize is should also be considered good enought to reward. I don't like unbalanced systems -- but that may just be me. Using only negative karma turns the whole system into a system of punishment -- which it doesn't have to be.
The karma system deals with votes only, and says nothing about the value of comments. I prefer to validate comments by looking at the image again with the comment in mind -- to each there own, I guess.
David
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 04:30:48 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Piorkowski:
I like the idea- it would be another factor encouraging people to vote thoughtfully, though it might be difficult to implement. |
You run the risk that in the end everyone will vote like sheeps. Beeeeeh, group beehhhss 6, I beeeh 6. We a beeeeeh group, beeeh! |
Only if the 'safe range' around the vote average is too large. The system would need to be fine tuned with a small enough 'safe range' to catch the troll and cherry picking voters while still being large enough to not punish for personal taste.
BTW: There is no harm in voting an average score. A vote of 5 or 6 is close to average and will have very little (if any) affect on the score the image gets -- but it keeps the image from coming back up again as it will if I skip it. As I've learned more about photography and visual presentation in general I've become more opinionated about the images I see -- but there always seems to be a few that I just don't want to vote on.
David
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 04:32:16 PM · #10 |
As a statistic whore, i'd love more more more!
|
|
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: 09/03/2025 02:35:20 PM EDT.
