| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 02:43:08 PM · #1 |
I posted this on another thread, but perhaps it is more appropriate to discuss here. A lot of people rightfully complain that some voters sprint through the images without taking time to appreciate their subtlety or think about their weaknesses and perhaps comment more constructively.
So, how about enabling the voting scale on the contest image page some 10 sec after the image finishes loading? It would force the voter to sit and wait, and maybe, maybe, he/she will use this time to look at the image more carefully? 10 sec is a long time compared with the average time people spend on a single image. It may also help to weed out some trolls out there which sprint through images giving 1 or 2 en masse - they still can do it, but at a higher time cost.
Is it possible to do, any html gurus out there? Is it worth it? We may lose a number of votes, but I bet the quality of an average vote would increase.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:45:43 PM · #2 |
| Possible, yes and easy too. Worth it, no. "Quality" increase, no. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:46:01 PM · #3 |
That IS a good idea! Sometimes I look at myself voting speedy. Like this, you really HAVE to take the time.
But, 10 seconds is a long time. Myabe 5 is enough?
Yeah, we will lose voters, and I think it's gonna be a pain with the big challenges (free study and popular themes).. but I'm sure someone who's very smart can solve that problem ;)
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 14:46:56. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:46:14 PM · #4 |
| 10 seconds is a long time to be forced to look at snapshot of someone's blurry cat with trash in the background. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:48:07 PM · #5 |
I always thought it should be instituted that the voting bar "1,2,3,4, etc." shouldn't show up until the image is loaded 100%.
Anyone else agree?
As it is now, its possible to vote on an image before even seeing it
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 14:48:41. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:48:43 PM · #6 |
| This site is PHP driven HTML is only used to produce a viewable page. The PHP scripts are what makes voting work inthe first place. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:48:57 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
I always thought it should be instituted that the voting bar "1,2,3,4, etc." shouldn't show up until the image is loaded 100%.
Anyone else agree?
As it is now, its possible to vote on an image before even seeing it |
yes I agree :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:49:20 PM · #8 |
Is it possible? Yes, quite easy to implement.
Would it work in the way intended? Probably not... it might even affect voters by annoying them and push the overall votes down.
Would people comment more or pay more attention to the shot? No, my guess is that they would sit staring at the voting bar for ten seconds waiting for it to appear.
Overall, I think this system would decrease the amount of votes in a challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:50:00 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
10 seconds is a long time to be forced to look at snapshot of someone's blurry cat with trash in the background. |
ok maybe 5 sec :). And you can use this time to write to the person something about his blurry cat. He may appreciate it, actually :). I bet the number of comments would go up, and this is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:50:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by LevT:
... It may also help to weed out some trolls out there which sprint through images giving 1 or 2 en masse ... |
As I understand it there are algorithms in place which already do this, not based on speed but vote pattern which is probably more accurate TBH.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:54:36 PM · #11 |
Just a quick bit of math.
If a challenge has 300 entries (quick eyeball average) at 10 seconds per vote it would take 50 minutes of just straight clicking.
Some voters actually end up two or more passes. Once is a kind of "rough sort" after which they go through and bump an image up or down depending on quality. If we put a time limit on voting these types of systems no longer work and to be honest I think these people give the highest quality votes/comments.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:55:33 PM · #12 |
| No thanks! I would not be in favour of this. If a photo is good enough it will register with me within a second or two. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:57:13 PM · #13 |
| maybe there should be a new category of challenges - for thoughtful people only. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:57:19 PM · #14 |
No.
I won't support it.
Matter of fact I'll fight it tooth and nail.
Why does everyone presume that if I vote slower I'll give them a higher score?
Sorry, no dice. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:57:56 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by LevT:
ok maybe 5 sec :). And you can use this time to write to the person something about his blurry cat. He may appreciate it, actually :). I bet the number of comments would go up, and this is a good thing. |
I really don't think so. Have you ever been forced to wait in a line? You get annoyed don't you? Ever been stuck behind a slow moving car when you wanted/needed to be somewhere? You got annoyed didn't you?
Same thing here. You're just gonna have voters watching the clock... and getting annoyed in the process.
I don't know about you, but I really don't want a PO'd voter voting on my pics.. nonetheless 300 of them.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:07:49 PM · #16 |
Here's an alternative approach: Instead of slowing the page down the site simply keeps track of your time viewing it. If it shows that you voted before the image even finished downloading or did so after seeing it for only 1-2 second afterwards your vote gets scrubbed at turnover.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 15:09:56.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:08:32 PM · #17 |
I believe if this was implemented you would end up with very unbalanced votes. Those who decide and vote quickly on a first pass, then go back later and adjust votes, would not bother to do either.
I trust my judgement when voting to give each shot a fair chance. If I was forced to sit and wait for each shot to update, then I am sure I would soon lose patience. I never part vote on a challenge, it is all or nothing and if you want to slow me down, then it would most like become nothing voted on in a challenge.
The current system has worked fine for a long time, why change it? I can't understand why suddenly members are falling over themselves to alter DPC. This is happening a lot recently, if people don't like DPC the way it is, why are they here? I like it the way it is! |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:08:34 PM · #18 |
For myself I find the longer I look at an image before voting the better score I give generally. However, I also don't want to be forced to stare at an image that I don't like particularly if I find it offensive or disturbing.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:10:48 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:13:12 PM · #20 |
Great idea, but it will never work in a practical manner.
The plain issue is that not every photo requires time to figure out a vote. Don't agree? Check out  whiterook's challenge entries. ;) I don't even know how he did it, but one of them actually scored 211th out of 210 entries! |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:16:28 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
I don't even know how he did it, but one of them actually scored 211th out of 210 entries! |
Damn, he's good! Uber-brown :-)
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:18:16 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Here's an alternative approach: Instead of slowing the page down the site simply keeps track of your time viewing it. If it shows that you voted before the image even finished downloading or did so after seeing it for only 1-2 second afterwards your vote gets scrubbed at turnover.
Edited for clarity. |
brilliant idea.... |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:19:26 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by LevT:
A lot of people rightfully complain that some voters sprint through the images without taking time to appreciate their subtlety or think about their weaknesses and perhaps comment more constructively.
So, how about enabling the voting scale on the contest image page some 10 sec after the image finishes loading? |
Under ideal circumstances I evaluate and score an image in about half a second. Do I make an occasional 'mistake' based on my own standards? - Yes. Does it matter in the overall scheme of things? - No!
Should we force viewers to look at an image a certain length of time before voting? - Absolutlely NOT!
Why? It reduces voter participation.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:22:25 PM · #24 |
Amen.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Under ideal circumstances I evaluate and score an image in about half a second. Do I make an occasional 'mistake' based on my own standards? - Yes. Does it matter in the overall scheme of things? - No!
Should we force viewers to look at an image a certain length of time before voting? - Absolutlely NOT!
Why? It reduces voter participation. |
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:23:33 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by yanko:
Here's an alternative approach: Instead of slowing the page down the site simply keeps track of your time viewing it. If it shows that you voted before the image even finished downloading or did so after seeing it for only 1-2 second afterwards your vote gets scrubbed at turnover.
Edited for clarity. |
brilliant idea.... |
Very difficult, if not impossible to implement. The server can't have anyway of knowing when the image is fully displayed on the screen, due to network latency or other potential bottlenecks.
|
|
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: 05/30/2025 05:43:49 PM EDT.
