| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/13/2006 05:49:18 PM · #1 |
I've recently taken some harsh criticism on my voting scale.
This is the scale I use.
Meets Challenge: /1
Lighting: /2
Focus: /2
Creativity: /2
Aesthetics: /3
Now, let's take a look at my first entry. 
I personally would rate that photo, which is my own, this way.
Meets Challenge: 1/1
Lighting: 1/2
Focus: 0/2
Creativity: 0/2
Aesthetics: 1/3
It was a terrible photo. I could go on and on about why it is terrible. It's obviously so, as well.
I am here to get better as a photographer, and assume everyone else is as well. Thus, to me, a score of 3 on one of my photos would be something to take into consideration and improve on. It wouldn't be hard, either. I'd raise the aperture, use a bounced fill flash, and use a tripod. Bam, my focus is good, everything is sharp. Possible 2 points, and due to the focus, probably another aesthetic point.
If I wanted an easy score, I would ask my wife, or my parents what they think. "That's incredible!" But I'm not interested in a false boost of my ego.
I am a pretty hard voter. To me, my scoring system seems good. However, many disagree. 1 point for simply meeting the challenge. That seems fair to me. If I entered a horrible picture that would be worthless, but meets the challenge, I'd think that was fair. It's not hard to simply meet a challenge, so I think 1 point is good enough.
Lighting gets 2 points. Focus gets 2. Creativity 2. Aesthetics get 3. 10 points total. That's using the entire scale to me in a fair way. That way even if it's the most terrible photo as far as light, focus and creativity is concerned, it might still "look good" to me and get 3 points for that. To me, that seems fair. To give the most points for aesthetics and not technical merit. There's many famous photos that are technically terrible but would get a 3 in aesthetics.
Does this seem unfair? Some people have suggested I change my scale based on each photo. If it's not technically sound, rate it on a variety of different aesthetics so it might get a better score. That's non-sensical to me. I want to vote on every photo in a challenge if I can, and am trying to comment on every single one with at least my scoring reason.
Perhaps there should be a "stock" scoring system for everyone to lose to ensure it is fair to everyone?
I've been told a few times that I don't use the entire 10 point scale (despite my scoring system), and that the average here is 5 or 5.5. If someone is average, that means you get a lot of votes over and under it, as well as right on it. I don't think I should be thought of poorly for voting under the average. Just like teachers, some are hard markers, and others aren't.
Furthermore, I have less than 600 votes. That is hardly a good number to decide I am a "jerk" as I have been called by some.
Let's hear it. I'm sure it is a revisited topic, but I'd like to know. Does everyone here want easy scores? I've considered adding 2 points to my true score to avoid criticism. That's sickening to me. It's like watching American Idol. Paula Abdul gushes over everyone and tells them all how incredible and amazing they are. How can you improve at something if everyone tells you that you're great and need no improvement? Simon Cowell is hated, but he gives honest advice.
The difference with him and I, when I give a low score, I don't slam anyone, and offer positives.
So let's go, I want to hear what everyone thinks on voting. Go easy? Go hard? Ammend my voting scale? This will be a learning experience just like critiquing photos, so I can learn what is acceptable in voting here.
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!
-Hideo
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 17:50:54. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 05:51:43 PM · #2 |
Everyone has their own ideas on how to vote. Not many people will agree with yours and you won't agree with many of anyone elses :)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 06:05:53 PM · #3 |
| As long as you vote consistently using the same method and criteria on all the images of a challenge, my opinion is it is fair and nothing wrong with it. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 06:09:20 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by redsunphotography:
If I wanted an easy score, I would ask my wife... |
Please don't let Art ROTFLMAO see this. I can barely contain the snappy retort myself.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 06:48:02 PM · #5 |
A number of folks have scoring systems and I'm delighted if they use them consistently.
But usually when I hear of a scheme like this I think of an early scene in Dead Poets Society. Robin Williams who plays a poetry professor is reading from a book about critiquing poetry. The scheme rates a poem on a vertical scale for beauty and a horizontal scale for importance. Then he tells the students to rip this out of their books and "score" poetry by how well it captures the marrow and gristle of life. Maybe that's the 5 combined points for creativity and aesthetics? |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 06:57:21 PM · #6 |
I don't take issue with anyone's scoring system. Everyone has their own ideas. It would be one thing if you were deliberately scoring people down "just because". People forget that if a scale affects one it affects all and brings every score down by an equal margin. They forget that the score is actually less meaningful than the scoring percentage. People focus on the score because it's the only thing visible during voting, and without seeing the bigger picture it does get frustrating to see your score drop by a large amount minute by minute. Any vote under 5 will always be called a troll vote. But if you feel your scale is justified, then it is just fine.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 18:57:43.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 07:21:29 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by redsunphotography:
Now, let's take a look at my first entry.
I personally would rate that photo, which is my own, this way.
Meets Challenge: 1/1 |
I would stare at it for 5 minutes, check and re-check the challenge description of 'unexpected find', leave a comment about how finding a butterfly sitting on a plant is about as unexpected as finding a fish in the ocean, and vote a 4 on the shot. ;) If the whole bug were in focus, a 5.
It's a nice photo, you say you've never seen one in your area so I guess to you it was unexpected thus worthy of the challenge and other than the focus issue it's no better or worse than tens of thousands of other photos on the site. A perfectly average photo.
It works for me. I think your system makes sense and obviously works for you, so why change? |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 07:45:54 PM · #8 |
Since 1 is the lowest possible vote, I add to it rather than start from 0. On this image:
+1 (2 total) for adequate white balance
+1 (3 total) for kind of meeting challenge (it is on a leaf not somewhere exotic like my fridge. :)
+1 (4 total) for interesting subject and difficulty (live butterflies can be difficult compared to say, flowers?)
If an image has 'no redeeming value' as some have stated, you CAN'T give it a 0, you must give it a 1. Its not fair to every score above that if you don't add 1 to their score too. ;) |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 07:45:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
... so why change? |
I can think of a few reasons for change:
A) Casting an average of 3.6 is very harsh - what's the point of being so mean? Surely it would make sense that our average votes cast should be somewhere near the 5.5 which is the mathematical average of a scale of 1 - 10.
B) He says that: "if I do not think it meets the challenge requirements, I will not vote on it at all and skip it."
So if my submission is currently receiving an average of 6.5, I would be MUCH better off if he didn't vote on it, because he votes so much lower then most people. If, however, I have failed to meet the challenge, then I am safe from him..... his vote won't drag me down because he'll skip my photo. Why punish the people who tried harder?
C) I don't believe that there should be a difference of only ONE point between submissions that are on topic and DNMC photos. We are supposed to keep the topic in "highest regard" while voting.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 08:01:37 PM · #10 |
i hate scales
a presumption that it's either 1or0 2or1or0
(sarcasm) my world is black&white goodbad yesno(/sarcasm)
ya right ..
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 09:03:58 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
... so why change? |
I can think of a few reasons for change:
A) Casting an average of 3.6 is very harsh - what's the point of being so mean? Surely it would make sense that our average votes cast should be somewhere near the 5.5 which is the mathematical average of a scale of 1 - 10.
B) He says that: "if I do not think it meets the challenge requirements, I will not vote on it at all and skip it."
So if my submission is currently receiving an average of 6.5, I would be MUCH better off if he didn't vote on it, because he votes so much lower then most people. If, however, I have failed to meet the challenge, then I am safe from him..... his vote won't drag me down because he'll skip my photo. Why punish the people who tried harder?
C) I don't believe that there should be a difference of only ONE point between submissions that are on topic and DNMC photos. We are supposed to keep the topic in "highest regard" while voting. |
A) Being mean or nice has nothing to do with it for me, I'm voting based on appeal of the photo and technical execution as I see both.
B) By not voting on a photo he makes each vote cast on that photo carry more weight than (presumably) the greater number of votes cast on yours. Unless people are 'being nice' to dnmc photos and throwing them points for effort, the effect on the dnmc should be much greater than the effect on your shot.
C) Your belief is not a reason for someone else to change theirs ;)
One question I haven't seen discussed (tho I am new) is when you vote in a challenge if you are comparing photos only within that challenge or versus the archive of photos on the site. Is the best photo in a challenge worthy of a ten even if it is obviously inferior to photos that have received tens in other challenges? |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 09:53:15 PM · #12 |
I'll answer that last question. For me, most of my creativity points are given for things within that challenge only. So that way someone taking a picture that has been taken 100 times before it and is in every photographers portfolio still has a chance to get some creativity points.
My photography teacher said many times, "There are no more creative photographs, only nice replications of someone else's". Which is somewhat true.
And to an earlier comment, I have NEVER voted to be mean, EVER. I have a completely objective view on every submission, and if it's a photo of something I hate, I will give it the same treatment as something I love. If it is so repulsive to me as to have 0 aesthetic value I will even judge it only by what is typically beautiful in a photograph, ignoring my personal hatred of whatever the item is, and still give it a rating that is fair. It's not easy to look at the 500th macro photo of a flower I have seen today and give it a fair rating, ignoring the fact that I just looked at 499 before it. But I do.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:00:58 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
A) Being mean or nice has nothing to do with it for me, I'm voting based on appeal of the photo and technical execution as I see both.
B) By not voting on a photo he makes each vote cast on that photo carry more weight than (presumably) the greater number of votes cast on yours. Unless people are 'being nice' to dnmc photos and throwing them points for effort, the effect on the dnmc should be much greater than the effect on your shot.
C) Your belief is not a reason for someone else to change theirs ;)
One question I haven't seen discussed (tho I am new) is when you vote in a challenge if you are comparing photos only within that challenge or versus the archive of photos on the site. Is the best photo in a challenge worthy of a ten even if it is obviously inferior to photos that have received tens in other challenges? |
i would suggest you submit to a few challenges- it might give you a better sence of what is requiered
as far as your statements :
A) you are one of the ones that have a need a dictonary prior to voting , your view(belief) of the challenge is no reason for haveing other people change theirs - you may want to ponder a topic before voting
B) every image you skip in voting diminishes the total, esp, if you have skewed the vote - which from your average you do ...
C) correct, but don't expect anyone to respect your opinion
BTW - in ref to your last question, i (& i suspect many others) vote in multple stages / sort 4,5,6 then sort 4 low if nec. & bump 6's as nec.
& no i (we?) don't refer to old images while i (we) vote..
a 10 is far & few between (IMO) but so is a 1 ..
i hope we see some of your work in a challenge routerguy
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:22:59 PM · #14 |
| Statistically, it doesn't really matter what your average score is, as long as you are consistant and rate a significant number of entries. I would say that any system is better than no system at all. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:26:58 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
C) Your belief is not a reason for someone else to change theirs ;)
|
My "belief" is based on something very concrete - one of the site's rules:
"While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly."
As to your voting an average of 3 - if you think we are THAT useless, what could you possibly gain from being here?
I bet you would be very upset if a challenge submission of yours (assuming it isn't a total flop) would score an average of 3.
What is so terrible about basing your own average cast at 5.5 where it belongs, and dishing out votes accordingly from there? Why refuse to use the whole scale properly? |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:27:01 PM · #16 |
If it were up to me, the voting scale would be binary. A voter can either "like" or "not like" a picture. The picture that is liked by the most number of voters wins.
This would avoid the problem of voting scales. And, besides, who is the average DPC user to give me a mark? I don't know him, I can't appeal the vote - it makes no sense for me to care about the gradation of "like/don't like".
All voting scales that I've seen here are stupid (and, yes, yours is far from perfect too). But most people are voting without any system at all. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:32:42 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Statistically, it doesn't really matter what your average score is, as long as you are consistant and rate a significant number of entries. I would say that any system is better than no system at all. |
only works IF it is a significant number of RANDOM images
if i decide to base my average score at 3 and only do the top images (or middle images) this would skew the results ...
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:36:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
only works IF it is a significant number of RANDOM images
if i decide to base my average score at 3 and only do the top images (or middle images) this would skew the results ... |
You mean "randomly picked" images, right? If so, then, yes, I agree, one needs to go through the pictures one by one, without skipping any.
Was there any mention that the OP was cherry-picking the images to vote for? If so, I missed it. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:42:31 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
All voting scales that I've seen here are stupid (and, yes, yours is far from perfect too). But most people are voting without any system at all. |
I like the no-system scale. I tend to find that my first impression is what I will vote anyways. I tried to use a scale for about 50 votes, and I found I was just trying to crunch the numbers instead of being concerned about whether the photo was good or not. You already have the number in your head as soon as the picture pops up, and then you make the numbers fit most, if not all, of the time.
As for the rest of this thread?
Bah, strong words for people who have entered none or few challenges.
Though I agree with honest commenting part.
Frankly though, Hideo, how in the world do you fully judge focus on a 640p image? And how do you judge focus but by intent and effectiveness? You left a comment on my current entry judging focus 1/2, yet in your comments you spoke almost exclusively on what I wanted you to see. Seems to me my focus achieved the desired effect, but you're so focused on the numbers you can't see the forest for the trees.
Bah.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 22:47:40.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:42:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
If it were up to me, the voting scale would be binary. A voter can either "like" or "not like" a picture. The picture that is liked by the most number of voters wins. |
If we were to adopt such a proposal, we could feasibly end up with 16 people tied for first place and lord knows how many for the remainder of the positions.
The current system certainly is NOT perfect, but compared to this proposal, we at least have a measurable gradient scale.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:45:11 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
If it were up to me, the voting scale would be binary. A voter can either "like" or "not like" a picture. The picture that is liked by the most number of voters wins.
|
Black&White.. no indifference , no learning no promise of betterment ?
Originally posted by agenkin:
This would avoid the problem of voting scales. And, besides, who is the average DPC user to give me a mark? I don't know him, I can't appeal the vote - it makes no sense for me to care about the gradation of "like/don't like".
|
"who is the average DPC user to give me a mark" we are .. thats the challenge part of DPC, they are Joe&Jane Q. Public that have a inkling of what makes a good photograph -
certainly you can appeal to them look at the repeat ribbon winners they are GOOD, they obviously have a clue what is required ..
Originally posted by agenkin:
All voting scales that I've seen here are stupid (and, yes, yours is far from perfect too). But most people are voting without any system at all. |
possibly, i would rather think their system is more complex than can be put into words or a small simple scale ..
"I know art when I see it" J&J Q. Public
.. seems to be good enough for most ..
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:46:07 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by ralphnev:
only works IF it is a significant number of RANDOM images
if i decide to base my average score at 3 and only do the top images (or middle images) this would skew the results ... |
You mean "randomly picked" images, right? If so, then, yes, I agree, one needs to go through the pictures one by one, without skipping any.
Was there any mention that the OP was cherry-picking the images to vote for? If so, I missed it. |
mentions it in his profile |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:58:16 PM · #23 |
| Nobody is forcing anyone to stick around. If people don't care about what the voters here at DPC think, they can take their image elsewhere. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 11:00:25 PM · #24 |
On a personal level, I find these voting scales a bit impersonal. As though some computer has made a calculation on my image and churned out its standard response...like getting a Reader's Digest 'you could win a million pounds' letter.
If I cooked a meal for my husband and asked him how it was and he replied 1/1 for meeting the recipe; 1/1 for presentation,; 1/2 for taste
2/2 for lack of food poisoning..etc. then we wouldn't have a relationship. Would that scale improve my cooking skills? No...It would just make me tell him to cook for himself in future.
But that's just me...I know there are plenty of people who appreciate the scale voting, but equally there are those that don't.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 23:02:31. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 11:01:53 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Statistically, it doesn't really matter what your average score is, as long as you are consistant and rate a significant number of entries... |
Not so ... One person has already stated that his "Mode" is set at slightly over 3, and that his "Median" is often adjusted by the fact that a DNMC image will not be scored.
In addition, there is no arguing the fact that the recipients of these scores will see a significant decline in their "Mean" average whenever scorers with this line of reasoning opt to vote on their submissions.
Consistent voting on the required 20% of entries, using such skewed perspectives will only ensure that 20% of the participants see their scores suffer dramatically.
Just a thought...
Ray
|
|
