| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2006 03:24:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Simply, it's about time for the Site Council to investigate the voting behavior of the teams. Don't warn them. Just audit their votes. I'd especially check the first 50 votes on any recent challenge.
And, if you find some evidence of collaboration, make examples of the bums. |
Wow. If this is how my photos do whilst I'm a member of the suck league, maybe I could really suck outside of it.
Seriously, I think that people know how to seperate being in a team from voting as a team. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:37:25 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mist:
....
Seriously, I think that people know how to seperate being in a team from voting as a team. |
So do I. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:56:28 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by mist:
....
Seriously, I think that people know how to seperate being in a team from voting as a team. |
So do I. |
How many SC members are on teams?
If team members vote a little higher on their teeam members' images and the rest of the teams do the same, then only the poor saps who are not team members suffer. Maybe SC does not care about poor saps.
Can someone explain the phenomenon of the first 50 votes being surprisingly low. And then, the next 200 votes see a rise in the image score of 0.50 to 1.00 points. That's contrary to expected results from random voting activity. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:57:35 PM · #29 |
Does anyone else have the opinion that "it's just a vote" & a virtual ribbon? not the end of the world, not $1,000 at the end of the challenge. I agree with the people that are saying that just because there are teams doing their own thing does not mean that they are voting as teams. Yes you may always have a few people that think they can change the votes in their favor but most of the time it seems that S.C. has nipped it in the butt. This site, in my opinion is for self improvement of your own personal photography & to get critiques & compliments of your photos.
I'm not aiming this at anyone just saying that this site needs to be taken for what it is. Site council definitely has seemed to stay on top of any fowl play.
That's it, i'm done bitching, sorry everybody. Lets get back to having fun & taking pictures! :)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:00:41 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by mist:
....
Seriously, I think that people know how to seperate being in a team from voting as a team. |
So do I. |
How many SC members are on teams?
If team members vote a little higher on their teeam members' images and the rest of the teams do the same, then only the poor saps who are not team members suffer. Maybe SC does not care about poor saps.
Can someone explain the phenomenon of the first 50 votes being surprisingly low. And then, the next 200 votes see a rise in the image score of 0.50 to 1.00 points. That's contrary to expected results from random voting activity. |
How many SC are on teams? I don't know. I am, Shannon and Karma are, Ben I think is, not sure who else. You could check the team rosters and find out exactly how many there are.
A lot of people's votes suffer not because of vote tampering, but because in their mind their picture is so much better than what it actually is.
As for the first 50 votes being "surprisingly low", where in the world are you getting that from? That is not the case with my images.
Listen, I am all for fairness, and all for finding cheaters. I do not like cheaters or cheating, and I do not cheat. But you can't go around making accusations based on suspicions, casual observations, and hearsay. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:04:51 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Can someone explain the phenomenon of the first 50 votes being surprisingly low. And then, the next 200 votes see a rise in the image score of 0.50 to 1.00 points. That's contrary to expected results from random voting activity. |
i was over 7 at 25 votes and over 6.8 at 50 and am now at 6.4 at 120 for morning. i would agree with ursula in that i start higher in the begining almost every challenge, then go down then sometimes up on the last day. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:06:37 PM · #32 |
| Just would like to have some assurance there are some unannounced audits of vote patterns conducted... by some without a vested interest. Of course I don't have any proof. Perceptions of fairness are important to the integrity of this excellent photo contest site. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:06:55 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
How many SC members are on teams? |
Well, in WPL2, there was a team made up of mostly SC members. We, umm, won't talk about the results of that.
Originally posted by hahn23:
If team members vote a little higher on their teeam members' images and the rest of the teams do the same, then only the poor saps who are not team members suffer. Maybe SC does not care about poor saps. |
If team members voted a little higher on their images, adn teh rest of the teams did on theirs, only the team members would be a little higher. Is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by hahn23:
Can someone explain the phenomenon of the first 50 votes being surprisingly low. And then, the next 200 votes see a rise in the image score of 0.50 to 1.00 points. That's contrary to expected results from random voting activity. |
Nope. Actually, the pattern I see most often is higher initial votes, then a slight decline until about midway through the voting then it rises slowly. From my limited knowledge of statistics, I would think this is about right. My vote almost always finishes within .25 of a point from where it is after about 10 votes.
Also, I don't think the voting pattern (if it is how you perceive it) would be a result of any team stuff. If it is, I fail to see the connection.
Again, as ursula (I think it was) said, if you see anything suspicious, please feel free to report it. As it is, I know at one point going into the "playoffs," Langdon had a list of each team member of the top four team, and was able to work his "magic" just to make sure what you are talking about wasn't happening. Nothing turned up.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:07:52 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Just would like to have some assurance there are some unannounced audits of vote patterns conducted... by some without a vested interest. Of course I don't have any proof. Perceptions of fairness are important to the integrity of this excellent photo contest site. |
they do it all the time. as someone else mentioned if you actually suspect someone the report it. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:08:33 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Just would like to have some assurance there are some unannounced audits of vote patterns conducted... by some without a vested interest. Of course I don't have any proof. Perceptions of fairness are important to the integrity of this excellent photo contest site. |
I was composing while you were posting, but rest assured that SC couldn't "audit" this even if we wanted to. Langdon, can, and I think has, a couple of weeks ago, but nothing has turned up, to my knowledge. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:11:13 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by bs-photos:
Does anyone else have the opinion that "it's just a vote" & a virtual ribbon? not the end of the world, not $1,000 at the end of the challenge. I agree with the people that are saying that just because there are teams doing their own thing does not mean that they are voting as teams. Yes you may always have a few people that think they can change the votes in their favor but most of the time it seems that S.C. has nipped it in the butt. This site, in my opinion is for self improvement of your own personal photography & to get critiques & compliments of your photos.
I'm not aiming this at anyone just saying that this site needs to be taken for what it is. Site council definitely has seemed to stay on top of any fowl play.
That's it, i'm done bitching, sorry everybody. Lets get back to having fun & taking pictures! :) |
lol I agree!! great post... and...
Originally posted by bs-photos:
Does anyone else have the opinion that "it's just a vote" & a virtual ribbon? not the end of the world |
I have said that before
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 16:14:06.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:13:24 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Just would like to have some assurance there are some unannounced audits of vote patterns conducted... by some without a vested interest. Of course I don't have any proof. Perceptions of fairness are important to the integrity of this excellent photo contest site. |
As said before, SC can't audit voting patters. SC has no way to find out who voted what on which picture. Langdon however can, and does. He has a vested interest, he wants the site to be good and fair. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:18:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by karmat:
As it is, I know at one point going into the "playoffs," Langdon had a list of each team member of the top four team, and was able to work his "magic" just to make sure what you are talking about wasn't happening. Nothing turned up. |
You mean...someone sprinkled 'magic dust' over me and I didn't even know...damnnnnn! Can he do it again please....hehehehe!
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:50:12 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Can someone explain the phenomenon of the first 50 votes being surprisingly low. And then, the next 200 votes see a rise in the image score of 0.50 to 1.00 points. That's contrary to expected results from random voting activity. |
I also wondered why my entries tended to start low and then rise (especially the entries that ended below 6.0). It was then that I read a number of threads that described the voting process many people use.
They will go through the entries once, placing the entries into one of three groups, 4,5, and 6. Then they go back through each entry and refine the votes, moving them up and down to get to the vote they wish the entry to have. This is especially evident in the early voters.
Therefore, your entry may be grouped, and later bumped up or down a point or two. Most often the bumping is done upward, making your score go up as more votes are cast.
I've seen it happen over and over, when on a team and when I'm not on a team. I've had great scores while on a team and off, and low scores in both ways. Generally, unless my entry started in the mid 6's, it started lower and went up on day two.
I hope that explains the trend you've seen.
Becky |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:53:19 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Can someone explain the phenomenon of the first 50 votes being surprisingly low. And then, the next 200 votes see a rise in the image score of 0.50 to 1.00 points. That's contrary to expected results from random voting activity. |
This could easily be the result of selection bias. The type of person that is around at the rollover and votes immediately may be quite different than the average voter who comes along during the rest of the week. Those people may vote lower because they are more critical of pictures. I've also wondered if time zones have different voting patters. Perhaps european voters vote differently than americans and there are more of those people voting in the first 50 votes due to times. (that's just an example).
I'll echo that this isn't the pattern I typically see. My scores tend to start high in the first 10 votes, drop and then recover to some point between the high and the low.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 16:54:12.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:58:35 PM · #41 |
| I just hope Langdon has more control over the gangs' voting behavior than Dennis Hastert has over Congress' ethical behavior. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:00:54 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps european voters vote differently than americans |
Blame the French! :D
I am on Team Suck so I am careful not to vote on pictures that suck, unless of course, my vote sucks, which it does. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:04:08 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I just hope Langdon has more control over the gangs' voting behavior than Dennis Hastert has over Congress' ethical behavior. |
I am on Team Suck so I am careful not to vote for Republicans.
(ok, start the countdown to Rant...) |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:07:19 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I just hope Langdon has more control over the gangs' voting behavior than Dennis Hastert has over Congress' ethical behavior. |
I gotta say I am getting tired of being referred to as a "Gang Member". I think it's rude and very presumptuous. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:11:34 PM · #45 |
Are you winning monety if you win a contest here?
I really hate seeing people accuse other people of stuff over a virtual ribbon. Can we get this moved to rants? That is why I hide that section.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 17:11:41.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:14:00 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I gotta say I am getting tired of being referred to as a "Gang Member". I think it's rude and very presumptuous. |
Wurd. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:15:50 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I gotta say I am getting tired of being referred to as a "Gang Member". I think it's rude and very presumptuous. |
Wurd. |
LMAO I was going to abbreviate something but the last post I did that in was deleted ... weird? |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:16:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I just hope Langdon has more control over the gangs' voting behavior than Dennis Hastert has over Congress' ethical behavior. |
wish you had more control over your own behavior.
On that note, at least Hastert told the guy to get out. The Dems gave their congressman who actually HAD SEX with a male page in the 80's a standing ovation and a slap on the wrist.
BTW - It's the entire cogress that has ethical problems, neither party owns the whole ranch on that end. They both pretty much suck, and there are no alternatives, unless you'd like sharia law instated or a dictatorship. I'd rather not.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:18:25 PM · #49 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gang Member :P
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:20:44 PM · #50 |
| Moving to Rant. If you have a legitimate concern, then send a ticket to Langdon or the SC with your evidence. It serves no purpose to spread paranoia in a public thread when the public has no ability to investigate such speculation. If you think people are cheating, then report it to the authorities and/or don't participate. There will probably be a few bad apples in any large group, but I have faith in the integrity of our general membership. |
|
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: 08/09/2025 04:06:23 PM EDT.
