| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2007 03:32:30 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by ace flyman:
That's easy. Just find some folks with a average vote given well under 4 and you got your trolls. You'll also notice those folks have a much higher received average. Not going to point fingers, but they are out there........Lol
Originally posted by Megatherian:
show me PROOF of 5 trolls and I'll discuss this thread with you.
I contend there are no trolls, only differences of opinion. |
|
Really? Where? Every profile I click has an average vote >4. The only one's I've seen much lower than that in the last 2 years are from people who hardly vote.
In order to be a Troll not only do you have to have a low average, you also have make a difference in the total which means you have to vote A LOT. Even then if "the troll" gave all 1's their single vote wouldn't affect very much at all in the final outcome. You'd need Troll gangs of 10-15 people at least to make much difference and even then they'd need to vote in A LOT of challenges to make much difference in the site.
From the challenges on the front page look through them and find me 5 trolls (I'm not even talking the 10-15 needed to make a tiny difference - just 5). |
You know very well this is impossible to prove even if trolls did exist. Conversely, if I said show me 5 honest voters you wouldn't be able prove whoever you mentioned were indeed honest. Simply put nobody here has the resources to prove or disprove any of these arguments.
Message edited by author 2007-01-15 15:33:31. |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 03:37:07 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by yanko:
......Simply put nobody here has the resources to prove or disprove any of these arguments. |
We should hire a spy. He/she could hide in the bushes outside and peer in at people while they vote. I'm thinking Art Roflmao is our man.
Message edited by author 2007-01-15 15:37:24.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2007 03:45:40 PM · #28 |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 04:23:18 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I vote nude. |
We already guessed as much! |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 04:30:02 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I vote nude. |
I'm glad we don't have automatic webcam viewing!!
|
|
|
|
01/15/2007 04:30:08 PM · #31 |
| Yes, "guessed", that's it. |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 04:35:13 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
show me PROOF of 5 trolls and I'll discuss this thread with you.
I contend there are no trolls, only differences of opinion. |
If there were no "trolls", there would be no need for the "scrubbing" program cleaning out erratic voting patterns at the end of each challenge. The question would be why there is such reluctance to try to improve the integrity of the voting process when it is apparently flawed enough to generate threads like this with such frequency? |
Exactly, the system looks for pattern voting and those people get suspended / banned.
If they are so rampant on the site as to make a statistically significant difference in the votes on this site then show me 5. With all the members on this site how hard could that be. If you want me to support making changes to the site to fix a "problem" then I need proof there is a problem in the first place. |
That is only one function of the vote scrubber. The other is that it gets rid of votes if a person doesn't vote on at least 20%.
Maybe there are a lot of threads on this particular subject because everyone (well, not everyone, but a lot of people) wants to believe that there are a huge infiltration/perpetration of trolls on the site. That makes us feel better about the low scores. :)
|
|
|
|
01/15/2007 05:10:18 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by yanko:
......Simply put nobody here has the resources to prove or disprove any of these arguments. |
We should hire a spy. He/she could hide in the bushes outside and peer in at people while they vote. I'm thinking Art Roflmao is our man. |
Whuh?? I wasn't spying! I was just taking a leak. :/ |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 06:02:55 PM · #34 |
Opps, met to say well under 5 average. But I'll go with what you found. With all the talent here, how can you justify a 4ish average?
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by ace flyman:
That's easy. Just find some folks with a average vote given well under 4 and you got your trolls. You'll also notice those folks have a much higher received average. Not going to point fingers, but they are out there........Lol
[i]Originally posted by Megatherian:
show me PROOF of 5 trolls and I'll discuss this thread with you.
I contend there are no trolls, only differences of opinion. |
|
Really? Where? Every profile I click has an average vote >4. The only one's I've seen much lower than that in the last 2 years are from people who hardly vote.
In order to be a Troll not only do you have to have a low average, you also have make a difference in the total which means you have to vote A LOT. Even then if "the troll" gave all 1's their single vote wouldn't affect very much at all in the final outcome. You'd need Troll gangs of 10-15 people at least to make much difference and even then they'd need to vote in A LOT of challenges to make much difference in the site.
From the challenges on the front page look through them and find me 5 trolls (I'm not even talking the 10-15 needed to make a tiny difference - just 5). |
[/i]
Message edited by author 2007-01-15 18:03:40. |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 07:18:49 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
show me PROOF of 5 trolls and I'll discuss this thread with you.
I contend there are no trolls, only differences of opinion. |
I found one!! ;)
 |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 08:28:55 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by GueDesigns:
2 things...
I am reopening the troll voting case...
I feel that 1, you cannot vote in a challeng that you have entered, I personally make it a point not to vote in challenges that I have entered due to bias.
Also, 2, I feel that you should have to enter a challenge before you are givin voting privlages.
Let me know your thoughts on this. I may just be stupid for bringing this up. |
You are not stupid for bringing this up. But everyone should be aware that DPC has a (just for Robert) Surfeit of handicapped voters. They are almost universally handicapped by their bias against certain subjects, colors, frames, or any other dumb criteria they might arbitrarily select. And trust me, that is a severe handicap!
edit: spelling
Message edited by author 2007-01-15 20:29:49. |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 09:00:48 PM · #37 |
Hi Richard. Perhaps you can work on your bias voting tendencies. My entries usually run in the 4 to low 5 range yet I have no trouble at all voting the full range with my average being 6.16.
However, Gordy, I disagree a bit with you on the "dumb criteria bias". If a photo is, in my opinion repulsive, boring, or just plain unappealing to me, that sucker's gonna get a low number from me. That, and leaving a comment is the only way of showing disapproval. I think most of us take pictures and look at photos for enjoyment. Why should I vote something higher than the value I received when I viewed it?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 02:34:28 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
... Why should I vote something higher than the value I received when I viewed it? |
This, I believe, is hinting at the second reason so many here want to believe in trolls.
There are (at least) two camps of voters, the emotional voters and the technical voters. The emotional voters will mark a technically good image down if it doesn't appeal to them, while the technical voters will mark an emotionally strong image down if it is technically flawed. While most vote somewhat in between the two extremes, there are enough at the extremes to view the other as trolls -- and those comfortably in the middle are likely to view either as a troll.
This whole troll business is just silly.
BTW, David, I didn't quote you to make any sort of implication about you or your voting -- it just served as an entrance to my statement.
David
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 02:35:47. |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 11:14:23 AM · #39 |
|
|
|
01/17/2007 01:45:09 AM · #40 |
| Well, David Ey, as David C suggested, you seem to lean toward the emotional style of voting, and to some extent, we all judge the subject of a photo. There are some subjects that almost no one finds appealing, such as piles of dung. Also, blank walls tend to be a bit boring, as are featureless landscapes. I do find it a trifle inane to vote an image down because it has a frame, a predominance of a certain color, or an animal to which you have an aversion! |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 06:27:48 AM · #41 |
IMO if one votes 3 or less, it should be mandatory to accompany said vote with a comment - if you feel genuinely so dispassionate about a photograph that it deserves, say, a '1' score, then surely you wouldn't mind adding a one liner explaining why.
To my mind, any '1' vote without a comment is almost certainly from idiots deliberately trashing scores and should not count.
A classic example is the winner of this weeks challenge (Trees) - a beautiful image, both technically and creatively, and yet some clown gave it a '1'. Fortunately there were enough sensible people voting to make it irrelevant.
Does anyone know why comments on <4 scores are only advisory?
Cheers
Stu
Message edited by author 2007-03-02 06:36:52. |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 06:49:21 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by StuM:
IMO if one votes 3 or less, it should be mandatory to accompany said vote with a comment - if you feel genuinely so dispassionate about a photograph that it deserves, say, a '1' score, then surely you wouldn't mind adding a one liner explaining why.
To my mind, any '1' vote without a comment is almost certainly from idiots deliberately trashing scores and should not count.
A classic example is the winner of this weeks challenge (Trees) - a beautiful image, both technically and creatively, and yet some clown gave it a '1'. Fortunately there were enough sensible people voting to make it irrelevant.
Does anyone know why comments on <4 scores are only advisory?
Cheers
Stu |
I had a similar thought, but then you could still be stuck with a comment saying "I don't like" or something trivial instead of constructive criticism.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2007 06:49:25 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by StuM:
...Does anyone know why comments on <4 scores are only advisory? |
Perhaps to keep 4's from becoming the new 1? |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 06:58:13 AM · #44 |
With the recently added pop-up added to encourage commenting on low scores there have been several mention they avoid giving them out unless they really have to. Some view this as a win, since it means higher votes for everyone. In the end it just makes a few happy their score is higher -- regardless of if that high score means as much now. 4 is already on its way to being the new 1.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2007 08:53:11 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Perhaps to keep 4's from becoming the new 1? |
True, and a good point...
However... if people can't be bothered to post a comment to justify a '1' and would therefore put in a '4' then as they aren't voting on the merits of the photo anyway, who cares what score they give. At least excellent photos wouldn't be left with inappropriate scores. Any responsible, normal human being with a genuine interest in photography would happily mark '1' and comment if that was required. The only people therefore that couldn't be bothered are those that mark low for a 'laugh'.
I do however accept the arguement in another similar thread that you would just get people scoring '1' with a comment of "7", for example.
I guess that's just the way of the world.
Cheers
Stu
Message edited by author 2007-03-02 08:53:31. |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 09:32:19 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by David.C:
With the recently added pop-up added to encourage commenting on low scores there have been several mention they avoid giving them out unless they really have to. |
That's so funny because the popup shows one time while voting a challenge. If you give out a vote of '3' it shows up. After that, any 1,2,3's aren't impacted at all.
I don't see how it's a deterrent at all, just a one time friendly reminder (which is good) to those that missed the wording of DPChallenge voting rules/guidelines. |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 09:49:54 AM · #47 |
Hi Everyone,
I joined a few months ago when I bought my first real digital camera. I absolutely love taking pictures and just recently submitted to my first challenge. I have refrained from voting for the most part, I tried it once on a challenge and felt awkward judging others and trying to make helpful comments when I really have no clue what I'm doing in the first place...
I have seen some really amazing pictures taken by you guys. I am going to try to enter more challenges as my time permits (I wish I had more time to take photos), but really if I get a 7 or a 3 as long as I feel I am growing and I have taken a picture that I like, the score I get doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I think I could learn more on a score of 3 with constructive comments than with a 7 or so.
Anyway, this turned in to a bit of a ramble... I guess my point is that some of the scores could be people like me that are trying to get the hang of voting and critiquing, with a limited skill set to judge on.
Message edited by author 2007-03-02 09:51:11. |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 10:11:18 AM · #48 |
| What difference can a "troll" make? For more than 200 votes for a picture one vote will affect the overall score with 0.0x. Math is not my strong point so someone please correct me. In my opinion x is around 2. |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 10:12:02 AM · #49 |
Actually, speaking of Trolls....  TrollMan
;-)
|
|
|
|
03/02/2007 10:21:32 AM · #50 |
I 'll admit I vote in the 1-4 and 7-10 range. For me a picture either "clicks" or it doesn't. Bad composition, focus, lighting? Or, excellent technical skill, but DNMC. Sorry, you get a 3. Maybe 4. Now go back to photography school. Photos that click get the upper range. Different? Yes. Wrong? You are you to tell me?
Needless to say, 85-90% of photos are in the lower range. Hence my low average.
Just my 2p
Harry
Message edited by author 2007-03-02 10:22:31. |
|
