| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/04/2006 11:03:45 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
It will weed out the extremes. And thus, give me a more accurate feel for the quality of my photo. |
You are getting an accurate feel already, just don't care for the result. Out of 150 web site voters, you are getting a mix of votes and an average vote of X.YZ. That's it. Feelings of unfairness, undeservedness, etc do not alter the fact that people cast the vote they wanted to cast. It is their right to cast a vote. It is not your right to receive a certain score.
Sorry, I get as irritated as everyone else when I feel my score is not up to what I feel the picture deserves. All it proves is that my opinion is not shared by everyone else voting. Any assumption that it should be would be foolishness on my part. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 11:11:40 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jaxsond:
We presume fraud instead of taking at face value what is provided. This is extremely disrespectful.
Check out this pic and tell me how many "too much photoshop" comments it would have gotten in a basic editing challenge. |
very cool thanks for the link |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 11:13:17 AM · #28 |
Standard deviation is a good measure here, but not to weed out the outliers. What it does do is show how controversial a picture was. If the standard deviation is high, the picture has a high number of people both hating and liking it. While a low standard deviation means that everyone thoght the same.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 11:35:23 AM · #29 |
There are always images that people say "This should have placed higher" ... and that's the one thing about the "Democratic" system (not to sound political) ... but the thing you have to ask is "Is the majority always right?" ... I am pretty sure that the majority would say NO :P !!!! To me, Anne Geddes is overly corny, exploitive, and cliché ... but millions of people buy her books and calendars - that's just the way it is.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Sorry, I get as irritated as everyone else when I feel my score is not up to what I feel the picture deserves. All it proves is that my opinion is not shared by everyone else voting. Any assumption that it should be would be foolishness on my part. |
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 11:44:06 AM · #30 |
my purple score was mixed reaction
25 people voted it 3 or lower
while 27 people scored it 8 or 9 no 10's
the photo did far better than I expected it to.
My current entry in the unrelated challenge is doing pretty good 5.9 with 10 comments over half the comments are DNMC.. but the score shows otherwise.
my free study entry which I thought and still think is my best challenge entry to date. is stuck at 5.5 i was expecting a 6.5 on that one. not sure why it is getting hammered. perhaps my subject has been exhausted. Ill try again for the October shot.
It is rare that I get the DNMC but when I do get it, I think the people are being a bit over critical and need to open up the mind a little bit. especially on current challenge.
I am not sure a simple change in wording would change the way people vote. You need an aluminum baseball bat to pull that task off. lol
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 01:15:40 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
...While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly. Voters should should take entries on good faith.[/b]
... it is quite possible that the entry did not break rules but used a creative method to accomplish the result.
...you feel that a number of people are hunting for any way to discount the validity of your entry and your effort.
...I believe ALL voting methods should be respectful and judicious. |
I whole-heartedly agree. I have tried to articulate the same view for years now.
To those who continue to justify the status quo by asking to accept it as it is and as an expression of a democratic process, I want to say that the status quo alone has no merit whatsoever, unless it inherently does. The democratic process, when it is good and sensible, cannot not proceed profitably without some notion of growth and improvement, to reflect not just what he have but also that which inspired it in the first place.
Nothing can be improved by leaving it as it is.
While I like sentence 2 of your recommended wording for the rules, I find the first sentence still a little too soft to be effective. Instead, as I have suggested before, I'd change the first sentence to "When submitting entries, participating photographers are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge." or something similar, so that
a) entrants are addressed and encouraged to respect the spirit and intent of this rule, and
b) lynch mobs are discouraged to act on presumption of guilt.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 13:16:51.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:29:46 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by theSaj:
It will weed out the extremes. And thus, give me a more accurate feel for the quality of my photo. |
You are getting an accurate feel already, just don't care for the result. Out of 150 web site voters, you are getting a mix of votes and an average vote of X.YZ. That's it. Feelings of unfairness, undeservedness, etc do not alter the fact that people cast the vote they wanted to cast. It is their right to cast a vote. It is not your right to receive a certain score.
Sorry, I get as irritated as everyone else when I feel my score is not up to what I feel the picture deserves. All it proves is that my opinion is not shared by everyone else voting. Any assumption that it should be would be foolishness on my part. |
Yes, I just want eliminate the voting that is non-judicious. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:37:26 PM · #33 |
| My opinion is that as the number of entries in challenges has increased, so have the DNMC comments / votes. I think that when people are sorting through 300+ pictures in a challenge, it is much easier to be annoyed by a picture of a sunset in a flowers challenge. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:40:27 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I want to say that the status quo alone has no merit whatsoever, unless it inherently does. |
The inherent merit in the status quo is that people have the right to vote as they please without fear of reprecussion and without having their opinions dictated to them by others. I find it highly ironic that some of the same people who whine to no end about how the voting public should let photogs 'think outside of the box' (read: ignore) in regard to the challenge descriptions are some of the same people who would like to stuff the voting process inside a box wherein the possible outcomes are restricted more to their liking.
It's either a free vote or it's not.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 14:41:27. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 03:10:57 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I find it highly ironic that some of the same people who whine to no end about how the voting public should let photogs 'think outside of the box' (read: ignore) in regard to the challenge descriptions are some of the same people who would like to stuff the voting process inside a box wherein the possible outcomes are restricted more to their liking.
It's either a free vote or it's not. |
I'm not even whining about thinking outside the box issues. More so against assumption. And people damning entries because they've made an assumption.
Not talking about opinion here. I one enters photo to the purple challenge, and it was a purple photo, and someone scores it a "1" because they think the photo was just Photoshopped purple and otherwise would be a DNMC. And the photo was indeed purple.
That's more of my issue. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 03:35:04 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I want to say that the status quo alone has no merit whatsoever, unless it inherently does. |
The inherent merit in the status quo is that people have the right to vote as they please without fear of reprecussion and without having their opinions dictated to them by others. I find it highly ironic that some of the same people who whine to no end about how the voting public should let photogs 'think outside of the box' (read: ignore) in regard to the challenge descriptions are some of the same people who would like to stuff the voting process inside a box wherein the possible outcomes are restricted more to their liking.
It's either a free vote or it's not. |
God, what a twist of my meaning. I don't know, if it makes any difference to you, but let me try again:
Opinions are opinions, rules, however are rules. Apparently here, we have both. No one is dictating any opinions. Opinions enter a debate.
The only thing that's being laid down are the rules. This also enters the debate.
And what is a free vote, an anarchy or a considered democratic process, concerned with what we see, feel and can know about a thing -as opposed to what about we assume and prejudge? Saj's attempt (and mine) to effect the rules is done in the spirit to civilize this free process and, certainly, not to suppress it.
Perhaps, you may wish to go back and read the reasons for this initiative provided by the Saj, myself and other posters, so you may come away with a different sense.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 15:36:22.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 03:49:44 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I one enters photo to the purple challenge, and it was a purple photo, and someone scores it a "1" because they think the photo was just Photoshopped purple and otherwise would be a DNMC. And the photo was indeed purple. |
You can't legislate against ignorance. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 03:53:29 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You can't legislate against ignorance. |
You can cultivate an environment and you can curb barbarism with legislation.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 04:02:59 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You can't legislate against ignorance. |
You can cultivate an environment and you can curb barbarism with legislation. |
How? All I've seen so far are ideas about removing the effect of such voters, not addressing the reason they vote as they do. If you are actively out to change the way they vote in the first place, you are doing exactly what I said before - stuffing the voting process into a little box that is more palatable to you. It's no longer a free vote.
Look, what is the big problem here? For every image you submit that is getting hammered with dnmc and 1's, some other image is out there winning first place. The same group of people are casting the votes, so it is not the voters who are the problem.
A more sensible suggestion might be something along the lines of:
"These ten word challenge descriptions completely suck. As written, they are fostering an environment in which limits are put in place on challenge submissions, yet they do nothing to insure that the voting public comprehends what exactly these limits are. Possible improvements to this train wreck would be reasonably verbose descriptions, hyperlinks to wikipedia definitions of key terms (eg, High Contrast), and links to galleries that showcase a wide variety of the sort of images the challenge description is referring to. Further, this description should be dispayyed beneath each photograph on the voting page."
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 16:05:08. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 04:31:59 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I one enters photo to the purple challenge, and it was a purple photo, and someone scores it a "1" because they think the photo was just Photoshopped purple and otherwise would be a DNMC. And the photo was indeed purple. |
You can't legislate against ignorance. |
No, you can only elect them to Congress. :P |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 04:54:02 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You can't legislate against ignorance. |
You can cultivate an environment and you can curb barbarism with legislation. |
â€Â¢ How? All I've seen so far are ideas about removing the effect of such voters, not addressing the reason they vote as they do. If you are actively out to change the way they vote in the first place, you are doing exactly what I said before - stuffing the voting process into a little box that is more palatable to you. It's no longer a free vote.
â€Â¢ Look, what is the big problem here? For every image you submit that is getting hammered with dnmc and 1's, some other image is out there winning first place. The same group of people are casting the votes, so it is not the voters who are the problem.
â€Â¢ A more sensible suggestion might be something along the lines of:
â€Â¢ "These ten word challenge descriptions completely suck. As written, they are fostering an environment in which limits are put in place on challenge submissions, yet they do nothing to insure that the voting public comprehends what exactly these limits are. Possible improvements to this train wreck would be reasonably verbose descriptions, hyperlinks to wikipedia definitions of key terms (eg, High Contrast), and links to galleries that showcase a wide variety of the sort of images the challenge description is referring to. Further, this description should be dispayyed beneath each photograph on the voting page." |
[Bullets mine]
Briefly:
â€Â¢ 'How?' -By speaking up as we do here.
You are unlike to see any such reasons addressed anywhere at anytime. To me, to prejudge something you know nothing about is ignorance, as I do not believe in evil. But why condone it? While you're certainly free to condone it, it still doesn't prevent anyone from curbing it at every stride.
I've, certainly, never said the voters are a problem. What I havesaid, is that the specific phrase adopted into the rules is encouraging problems. I also fail to connect to your concluding sentence, beginning with 'so'.
â€Â¢ Your sensible suggestion sounds like sarcasm to me, not like sense or sincerity, no matter how often I read it, especially in light of my, apparently, futile attempts achieve, at least, a little clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 16:56:11.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 04:54:15 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
How? All I've seen so far are ideas about removing the effect of such voters, not addressing the reason they vote as they do. |
Reasons they do...
Because, they do not give us the respect and decency of assuming we have fair intentions. They make an assumption, ie: there is no way the snake could be blueish/purple.
The issue is assumption. These are people who suspect something. But without knowing the matter they choose to condemn an entry. I say condemn, because a few one's can dramatically shift a score. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 05:11:08 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Because, they do not give us the respect and decency of assuming we have fair intentions. They make an assumption, ie: there is no way the snake could be blueish/purple.
The issue is assumption. These are people who suspect something. But without knowing the matter they choose to condemn an entry. I say condemn, because a few one's can dramatically shift a score. |
While you are correct, I truly doubt voters will change. So you can enter the purple snake and take a hit on your score, or enter something like a sunset that is more believable. As voters (me included) blast through images, things can certainly be missed. It's our job as photographers to show the voters that our picture is sharp, composed correctly, interesting , meets challenge, emotive, etc. all in a few seconds. Whack the voter over the head with a "wow" image and you'll get a good score. If something seems "off" you get the low vote and a quick click.
I didn't enter the purple challenge. I had two pictures ready to choose from and minutes before deadline I decided to not enter. While they were nice pictures, the purple was mostly photoshopped in and I didn't want to get voted down for something that appeared unnatural. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 05:17:21 PM · #44 |
Here is how I think of it. Mozart was hated for his concertos. In his day he would have been rated very very low. Does this mean he sucked as a compser? NO. Just not found those who would eventually appreciate his works. Unfortunately, it wasn't until after his death that people really stopped to listen. Art in all aspects have followed this cycle over and over again. Just because your art is unusual or doesn't conform to the standard during THIS time, doesn't mean that these votes reflect the quality of your works. Even though getting a low score tends to create a sore spot at times, I don't think we should base our vision on this trend. I understand we want to liked, we want to be competative and beat everyone else at their own game. But Art is an expression of US. We should create art to fit what we envision.
We do want to learn how to improve, but we don't want to allow the opinion of the masses to change our vision to fit inside the 'box'.
If you get a low score, think of yourself as a mozart and keep creating for you and noone else.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 05:21:11 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Reasons they do...
Because, they do not give us the respect and decency of assuming we have fair intentions. They make an assumption, ie: there is no way the snake could be blueish/purple.
The issue is assumption. These are people who suspect something. But without knowing the matter they choose to condemn an entry. I say condemn, because a few one's can dramatically shift a score. |
I totally agree. I've made this very same point a long time ago. The thing is this has been going on since forever. At least as long as I have been here. Like what mad brewer said, changing the rules isn't going to change the voters. Same thing as woring a challenge description. People are going to vote despite what you or anybody else tells them. The only resolution to this is to FORCE people into change by not giving them any other option but I don't see how you can do that here. Requiring a comment for votes in the 1-3 range is something that has been suggestioned countless times. That has more a chance of fixing the problem since it would force people to put their money where their mouth is, which may act as a deterrent for those who vote down photos for no valid reason but do so because they know their votes are secret.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 17:25:05. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 05:32:08 PM · #46 |
| I'm only new here so my opinion may count for naught, but I seriously doubt that requiring comments would "fix" the problem of low votes. It might skew the average up by 3 points, but it's not going to make (many) people who wouldn't otherwise comment do so. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 05:45:00 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by mist:
I'm only new here so my opinion may count for naught, but I seriously doubt that requiring comments would "fix" the problem of low votes. It might skew the average up by 3 points, but it's not going to make (many) people who wouldn't otherwise comment do so. |
Yeah it probably would do that. I only mentioned it as an example of something that would alter voter habits which is what I believe would be required to fix the problem. As you said, forced comments probably wouldn't fix the problem either but it's something that is closer to a solution than simply rewording the rules which IMO would have zero effect with voter habits.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 17:45:40. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 06:08:33 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Case in point...
|
I was wondering if there would be a purple-headed snake submitted.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 06:32:07 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
.... someone scores it a "1" because they think the photo was just Photoshopped purple .... |
Countless photos - including the very best of them - have several 1's, 2's and 3's - so how do you know YOUR 1's were because of that? (by the way, I didn't even vote on your photo)
Could have been for other reasons, too. Perhaps they truly hate snakes (I know, that is a sad excuse for voting a 1, but it could be the truth), or perhaps they thought it was too boring, too soft, too whatever.
The people who commented on it looking somewhat color-shifted probably weren't even the 1-voters anyway. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 07:06:30 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
â€Â¢ Your sensible suggestion sounds like sarcasm to me, not like sense or sincerity, no matter how often I read it, especially in light of my, apparently, futile attempts achieve, at least, a little clarity. |
It wasn't a sarcastic suggestion. However since you seem to be unable to actually speak to its merits or lack thereof, I'll leave you to pursue whatever better plan you have in mind. Good luck with it. |
|
