|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2006 01:07:09 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by nidici:
Did a fast analysis of the last 10 challenges (Mother to Holiday Catalog). Eliminating all the 1 votes and re-calculating the score shows NO ribbon winners would change. Even eliminating the 1 and 2 votes and recalculating, only TWO ribbon winners would change--5 place would move up to 3rd in City Life II and 4th would move up to 3rd in Holiday Catalog.
What's very surprising (at least to me) is that the greatest average percentage difference between two consecutive places is between first and second (at 3.0%); next is between 2nd and 3rd (2.7%) and next between 3rd and 4th (2.0%). Clearly, the ribbon winners deserved to win, and in the order they finished! |
For what it's worth, I've never thought the low votes make much, if any, difference in the high-end finishes; you're quite correct on that. I'm more concerned (I'm not sure that's the right word) with the middle of the pack; well-thought-out images that are technically very decent and reasonably on-topic but get hammered with low votes, LOTS of low votes, due to "unappealing" subject matter or other subjective criteria. It just so happens that Ingrid stepped forward with a statement about a low vote on a ribbon-winner, so that's where we started at.
R. |
|
|
|
01/12/2006 02:16:40 AM · #102 |
my last thought on this...
if a picure is technically good and it meets the challenge and it leaves me otherwise indifferent it would most probably get a 5, a 4 at worst in my voting system. most probably I would not even really remember the picture when I see it winning a ribbon..
in the mother challenge I remember being very surprised when I saw the ribbon winners, as I did rememeber them all... the first two because I really didn't like them at all and scored them low accordingly, and the third one because I had liked it so much.
so basically, i sort of start with a middle vote on a technically good picture that meets the challenge and the vote then gets pulled either way based on my emotional reaction to it.
I find this the easiest way of voting as there is a minimum of thinking involved... I just go with me feelings.
I've still got a whole challenge to vote for so I better get on with it!
Thanks for listening and respecting my point of view.
Ingrid.
maybe this explains |
|
|
|
01/12/2006 03:06:25 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by runin2dson:
Alright... heres a suggestion. It would be simple to do and, i believe, would do alot to deterr unfair voting.
Have it be mandatory to comment when giving a score of 3 or less (where the voters user name would be attached to the comment). If the photo is simply that bad, then comments would be a plus. If it ends up winning a ribbon then obviously it wouldnt seem to deserve a 1-3 vote. The voter could then back up his/her reason for voting that low or be called on it...as seen by their comment.
JS |
This is a suggestion that comes up all the time. The common response is that mandatory commenting wouldn't work. People would just type in 'aaaaa' or any lame thing just to record that vote, and there are simply not enough volunteers on the site to police what an "acceptable" comment would actually be.. let alone trying to standardize what an acceptable comment would be. |
Yes, BUT at least they would be recorded for that vote of 1,2 or 3 and it would no longer be anonymous ... therefore discouraging the malicious vote. there would not have to be a 'standardized' acceptable comment.. it would be up to the commentator to justify the score.. and if they type in 'adfdfa' or something and dont justify it then everyone would know...
(im saying just have it mandatory for the low votes btw)
JS |
|
|
|
01/12/2006 03:21:30 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by runin2dson:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by runin2dson:
Alright... heres a suggestion. It would be simple to do and, i believe, would do alot to deterr unfair voting.
Have it be mandatory to comment when giving a score of 3 or less (where the voters user name would be attached to the comment). If the photo is simply that bad, then comments would be a plus. If it ends up winning a ribbon then obviously it wouldnt seem to deserve a 1-3 vote. The voter could then back up his/her reason for voting that low or be called on it...as seen by their comment.
JS |
This is a suggestion that comes up all the time. The common response is that mandatory commenting wouldn't work. People would just type in 'aaaaa' or any lame thing just to record that vote, and there are simply not enough volunteers on the site to police what an "acceptable" comment would actually be.. let alone trying to standardize what an acceptable comment would be. |
Yes, BUT at least they would be recorded for that vote of 1,2 or 3 and it would no longer be anonymous ... therefore discouraging the malicious vote. there would not have to be a 'standardized' acceptable comment.. it would be up to the commentator to justify the score.. and if they type in 'adfdfa' or something and dont justify it then everyone would know...
(im saying just have it mandatory for the low votes btw)
JS |
That's the problem, not all low votes are malicious.. Some people simply have good, personal reasons for voting 1, 2, or 3 yet still either don't have time to comment, or simply don't want to. I think they still have a right to remain as anonymous as any other voter.
Yes, it would be a *great* help if more people that voted lower gave reasons, but making it mandatory would only scare people off, IMO. I just don't see the reason behind stripping people of an assumed anonymity simply because we're on a witch-hunt for a statistically tiny group of maliciousness.
Other's might not agree though. |
|
|
|
01/12/2006 03:30:08 AM · #105 |
I feel so left out in this thread because I have never clicked on the "1" before.
I wanna be a conformist!
I will vote you all a "1" from now onwards!!!
Message edited by author 2006-01-12 03:30:35. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 02:57:54 AM  |
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: 07/30/2025 02:57:54 AM EDT.
|
