| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2005 12:53:53 AM · #1 |
I think it would be very helpful (and interesting) to add another category into the voting breakdown on each entry, the new category would be for average scores from voters who participated in the challenge vs. scores from voters who did not participate, the reason is that I think voters who also submitted a photo to the same challenge are often 'biased' by the results of their own scores, specially if the results are below what they were expecting .. What do you think about that?
Message edited by author 2005-11-03 00:56:32. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 01:12:38 AM · #2 |
I don't see the benefit. Each person has one 'vote' -- what they do with it is up to them. I could imagine there are some who 'vote' based on how they feel the image compares to their own, but I could also imagine there are some who 'vote' based on what they feel should have been entered in the challenge.
Either way, or neither, is fine with me -- after all, in order for the voting scale to be meaningful each of us must place some sort of standard at a minimum of one value and then rank according to that standard. One of the most interesting things about the voting on DPC is the lack of a universal standard for voting.
Each person sets their own standard, and regardless of anyone else agreeing with their standard, it is just as good a standard as any other. This also eliminates the possibility of troll voting -- there is no wrong way to eat a Reeses 'vote' on DPC.
Being a stats kind of guy, I agree the breakdown (and many others) would be interesting to see -- but, I don't think it would be good to use such stats for hunting witches trolls.
David
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 01:25:01 AM · #3 |
| Someone else proposed the exact same thing about a week ago, but I can't find the thread. I'll echo Britannica's comments- it might be interesting, but wouldn't really prove anything. I believe the challenge participants might 'vote' more conservatively, but not to help their own scores. More likely it's because they've "experienced" the challenge, put more thought into the topic and any technical difficulties involved, and maybe formed a narrower personal definition of meeting the challenge than the casual voters. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 03:26:18 AM · #4 |
It's a well-known fact that people involved in a project tend to be harsher critics of the project-as-a-whole than do those who have only observed and have no stake. This is in line with what scalvert just said.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 03:45:09 AM · #5 |
| If you want to hunt trolls (and anti-trolls for that matter), it seems like you should be able to click on one of the bars on the graph next to a particular score and see the list of users who gave you that score. You can see who gave you which comments, why not what score? I'd be up for that ** he says, hiding torch behind his back ** |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 03:47:36 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
If you want to hunt trolls (and anti-trolls for that matter), it seems like you should be able to click on one of the bars on the graph next to a particular score and see the list of users who gave you that score. You can see who gave you which comments, why not what score? I'd be up for that ** he says, hiding torch behind his back ** |
Oh, NO WAY... the LAST thing we need here is to lose the anonymity of our votes. Average scores would skyrocket, too, LOL. I shudder to think of all the angry PMs this feature would generate.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 03:49:55 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Oh, NO WAY... the LAST thing we need here is to lose the anonymity of our votes. Average scores would skyrocket, too, LOL. I shudder to think of all the angry PMs this feature would generate.
R. |
...so you're saying you're a Troll? ** audible flick of the lighter as the torch comes to life ** ;-) |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 03:55:27 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Oh, NO WAY... the LAST thing we need here is to lose the anonymity of our votes. Average scores would skyrocket, too, LOL. I shudder to think of all the angry PMs this feature would generate.
R. |
...so you're saying you're a Troll? ** audible flick of the lighter as the torch comes to life ** ;-) |
** unlimbers fire extinguisher ** Like hell I AM. I just can't imagine having to field the PMs from people saying "Mr. Bear_Music sir, i've always admired your pithy commentary in the forums and your vast knowledge of matters photographic, nautical, and culinary, but I'm sorry to say that you have REALLY PISSED ME OFF by giving my sweet Pookums in the "Love" challenge a 4. I'd love to hear your esplanation for this. I suspect you're one of those people that just votes pets down without looking at the image closely, because if you HAD looked you'd see how perfectly I've captured that sappy grin and the gleaming ooze of saliva from her tongue. I guess I shouldn't expect better from someone who'd amputate his dog's hindquarters. Did she at least TASTE good, you CAN(ine)IBAL?"
Please, don't let it happen...
For the record I rarely give 3's and almost never a 2 or a 1.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 04:30:51 AM · #9 |
This is another way to look a it.
A challenge is announced, you try all week to get the right idea and set up, you second guess yourself, you are unsure you end up not entering.This happens to me a lot.
Then the voting begins and you see all these wonderful creative photos that you know you had no chance to match. You 'vote' the images much higher for the reason that you were not able to come up with anything as near as good.This happens to me a lot.
Take the pumkin challenge for example I have just worked out my average 'vote' for this challenge is 7.4 my overall average 'vote' is 5.2. This is because I admired the creative ability of the subjects and know that I could have never been able to achieve the same result.
This is compounded by the fact that I'm sure we all have a bias to some degree on the challenges we enter but is not the only reason we score them lower.
I hope this makes sense. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 05:56:36 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
I think it would be very helpful (and interesting) to add another category into the voting breakdown on each entry, the new category would be for average scores from voters who participated in the challenge vs. scores from voters who did not participate, the reason is that I think voters who also submitted a photo to the same challenge are often 'biased' by the results of their own scores, specially if the results are below what they were expecting .. What do you think about that? |
I don't think it's a very good idea in the overall context of dpc voting. It might give us some more reliable information about the extent of so-called "troll voters". Or, on the other hand, it might show that the two groups behave very nearly the same. But it would probably have an upward influence on votes in general. That would mean that the relevance of past scores, and a person's average score, is diminished.
Personally I would be against any proposal that would tend to push overall scores upwards (there have been many, some implemented); or any proposal that would result in fewer votes being cast in any given challenge. The latter is an unfortunate consequence of the newly adopted (or are they still considered to be experimental?) "exclusive" open challenges. Fewer votes being cast in each challenge means the "trolls", ghost accounts, and other types of nefarious schemers have more influence on the results.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 06:02:00 AM · #11 |
| Then, how about a compromise. In order to 'vote' a 1 or 2 on an image, you must comment. You must a have strong critacism to score an image that low, so provide some feedback to help that person improve. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 06:26:38 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
** unlimbers fire extinguisher ** Like hell I AM. I just can't imagine having to field the PMs from people saying "Mr. Bear_Music sir, i've always admired your pithy commentary in the forums and your vast knowledge of matters photographic, nautical, and culinary, but I'm sorry to say that you have REALLY PISSED ME OFF by giving my sweet Pookums in the "Love" challenge a 4. I'd love to hear your esplanation for this. I suspect you're one of those people that just votes pets down without looking at the image closely, because if you HAD looked you'd see how perfectly I've captured that sappy grin and the gleaming ooze of saliva from her tongue. I guess I shouldn't expect better from someone who'd amputate his dog's hindquarters. Did she at least TASTE good, you CAN(ine)IBAL?" |
LLLLLLLLLLLLLOFL! Then fall over, get up, and LLLLLLLLLLLLOFL again. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 08:24:38 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by 3eyedcrow:
Then, how about a compromise. In order to 'vote' a 1 or 2 on an image, you must comment. You must a have strong critacism to score an image that low, so provide some feedback to help that person improve. |
That isn't a new proposal. It's been around for a while in various forms. It's promoters lobbyed until they got the idea added to the rules in the form of a "suggestion", but not many voters comply with the suggestion.
I see it as a negative. Forced comments are rarely going to be quality comments. The effect will be to discourage people from using the lower end of the voting scale; scores will go up but not because the images have improved.
If someone dislikes your image so much that they score it a 1 or a 2 you're probably not going to want to hear what they have to say about it, and you'll have a hard time incorporating any of their advise into you continuing photographic education.
Nevertheless, it is legitimate to score images low. We use a scale of 1 to 10; and there are both great and poor entries in every challenge. We all score them differently according to our own sensibilities, and we don't have to justify our opinions to anyone. No one is ostracized from the community for not liking a certain type of shot; nor for being unable to put into words why they don't like it, or how to make it better.
|
|
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: 06/22/2025 01:29:13 PM EDT.
