How about a speed challenge all the way?

07/19/2006 09:42:15 PM · #26

Originally posted by yanko:

FYI, there is a member's only bash at Yanko's today. The cover is votes of 10 only in a soon to be announced challenge. :P

Am I still invited...hehehehe?

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/19/2006 09:42:30 PM · #27

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by yanko:
FYI, there is a member's only bash at Yanko's today. The cover is votes of 10 only in a soon to be announced challenge. :P

See? If we had taken the "friend vote" approach, I wont have to have that huge loser banner on my profile page right now :p I liked your entry, by the way - just too bad coz I didn't vote on it (actually didn't vote in that challenge)

Hehehehe..oh it looks good on you Crayon...MWAH!!

oh shuddup, Judi.... :p

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/19/2006 09:43:12 PM · #28

Originally posted by crayon:

oh shuddup, Judi.... :p

Awww....I still wuv ya!

Canon EOS-20D

07/19/2006 09:44:24 PM · #29

Originally posted by coolhar:

Bad idea. Less time to vote would be a serious encouragement for the cheaters to round up all their friends and manipulate the finishes. What we need is to find ways to get more votes, not less.

I seem to be completely missing the logic in this one. Why is a shorter time period more encouragement for cheating? Wouldn't a longer one be? I mean, if I'm going to ask my friends to vote for me, surely they would appreciate a more flexible time period, rather than me demanding that they vote and do it RIGHT NOW, no?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/19/2006 10:20:26 PM · #30

Originally posted by mk:

Don't really know for sure. I was just thinking more or less about groups of people who do it on a regular basis and are used to passing high votes back and forth among their own clique. That would be opposed to the normal grouping of voters which includes some who don't vote all at once, but spread it out over several sessions on several days; and there always seems to be a small rush of votes coming in on the last few days from the last minute types. Despite all the myths and legends that have grown up in the forums none of us really knows all that much about voting.

But I am pretty sure that a shorter voting period would mean fewer votes overall, and that would give more weight to the one's that weren't on the up & up regardless of their source or motivation.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/19/2006 10:35:47 PM · #31

How many of these "friendly" votes do you think gets cast on average? Unless you think there is wide spread abuse then cutting the votes received isn't going to change anything. If anything what you will get is possible proof of your claim. For example, if the same few people kept winning these types of challenges...

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

07/19/2006 10:49:43 PM · #32

Originally posted by coolhar:

Don't really know for sure. I was just thinking more or less about groups of people who do it on a regular basis and are used to passing high votes back and forth among their own clique.

I dont think that happens. I just find that hard to believe.

07/19/2006 10:53:42 PM · #33

Originally posted by yanko:

How many of these "friendly" votes do you think gets cast on average?

Too many.

Originally posted by yanko:

Unless you think there is wide spread abuse then cutting the votes received isn't going to change anything. If anything what you will get is possible proof of your claim. For example, if the same few people kept winning these types of challenges...

There may be wide spread abuse, there be very little of it. How much are you willing to tolerate? Why do people support ideas that would increase it's influence?

07/19/2006 11:01:42 PM · #34

Originally posted by Cam:

Originally posted by coolhar:

Don't really know for sure. I was just thinking more or less about groups of people who do it on a regular basis and are used to passing high votes back and forth among their own clique.

I dont think that happens. I just find that hard to believe.

Please don't take this personally Cam, but such a disbelieveing mindset is, IMHO, naieve. Cheaters will not be detered, let alone caught, if we don't believe they exist.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

07/19/2006 11:47:48 PM · #35

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by Cam:

Originally posted by coolhar:

Don't really know for sure. I was just thinking more or less about groups of people who do it on a regular basis and are used to passing high votes back and forth among their own clique.

I dont think that happens. I just find that hard to believe.

Please don't take this personally Cam, but such a disbelieveing mindset is, IMHO, naieve. Cheaters will not be detered, let alone caught, if we don't believe they exist.

What I find scarier than "naive" thinking is people who come up with completely (and admittedly) baseless conspiracy theories and make decisions or base opinions on said baseless theories. Don't take that personally coolhar. I like you, but I am amazed at your paranoia.

Rebecca

Nikon D80

07/19/2006 11:51:18 PM · #36

Originally posted by fir3bird:

They'd almost always vote the minimum of 20 percent with no or maybe just one comment plus one 10.

You've just described just about every voter on DPC...

Nuzzer

Canon EOS-7D

07/19/2006 11:58:25 PM · #37

I don't support the shortened voting idea. With a full-time job and a young family it can be hard enough to find the time to take a photo to submit let-alone vote in a hurry. Having a week means I can spread the voting out and have the chance to make comments on some photos.

If i had to rush I'd become a 2-second voter and have to not comment on more than 1-2 images.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

07/20/2006 12:01:52 AM · #38

I support the speed voting idea (but then I have lots of "friends"). ;-)

We need a poll and/or one test challenge. Do it, get feedback, decide. That's worked before.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

07/20/2006 12:03:45 AM · #39

Ken, maybe we can rally the entire family dude and get good votes on our dismal images :)

I agree about a test challenge. Make it a rubber ducky challenge. Have fun and award everyone with a funky looking avatar so they can proudly display it on their profiles ;)

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

07/20/2006 12:08:29 AM · #40

Originally posted by Rikki:

Ken, maybe we can rally the entire family dude and get good votes on our dismal images :)

We all know who they vote for, Rikki. They won't even speak to me or include me in the family photos. I've been an outcast ever since "the incident".

07/20/2006 09:13:00 AM · #41

Even if you discount, or entirely ignore, the possibility of increased influence for the buddy voters, you still have the point of a decreased total number of votes to deal with. More votes will always yield more accurate results. A shorter voting period will result in less votes yielding less accurate results.

And there is always the argument that "it ain't broke". I fail to see what's wrong with the way we do it now, or how the proposal would make things any better around here. Convince me. Why does it need to be changed? What are the advantages of a shortened voting period?

07/22/2006 12:15:12 AM · #42

Damn....I need a speed challenge right now!!! Who is with me?

07/22/2006 12:17:27 AM · #43

Originally posted by Judi:

Damn....I need a speed challenge right now!!! Who is with me?

Would a cold shower do? I wouldn't mind being with you for that. ;)

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

07/22/2006 12:59:03 AM · #44

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by Judi:
Damn....I need a speed challenge right now!!! Who is with me?
Would a cold shower do? I wouldn't mind being with you for that. ;)

LMAO!!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/22/2006 01:00:53 AM · #45

Originally posted by coolhar:

And there is always the argument that "it ain't broke". I fail to see what's wrong with the way we do it now, or how the proposal would make things any better around here. Convince me. Why does it need to be changed? What are the advantages of a shortened voting period?

Just to play the devil's advocate, you could make the argument that additional challenges detract from the voting on the "main" challenges, and that if we made the voting period on speed challenges the same length as the submission period, the voters would sweep through, get it over with, and go back to work on the other challenges sooner.

R.