| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 03:23:45 PM · #26 |
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. |
Like I said I usually 'see' a photo within 1 or 2 seconds - thats all I need, if it grabs me I will look at it longer, it it dont grab me then Its on to the next photo. I also do more than one look at the entries anyway, voting on the 2nd run. Usually the same photos that I thought were good were still good and the bad were still bad. Dont matter if I look at them for 2 seconds or 5 mins
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:27:48 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
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.
|
that would be easy to fix. The system can be programmed so that if you already voted an image, you can go back to it and change your vote with no wait time.
Originally posted by formerlee:
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.
|
I understand the patience problem. But you can't give each shot an equally fair chance if you look at it for a fraction of a sec. You definitely give a better chance to "simpler" photos with the most obvious "punch", and have a high chance to overlook something a little more subtle.
Originally posted by formerlee:
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! |
Well, DPC has been gradually changing over the years in many ways, in case you haven't noticed. The number of people/entries is growing, the number of challenges is exploding, so the time people spend per vote is probably going down (would be interesting to have some statistics), and I believe it is reflected in the outcomes.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:29:21 PM · #28 |
After casting your vote, the image has been replaced by another. If you can't remember at least three things (good or bad) about the prior image, your vote was based on first impression not the merit of the photograph.
Southern Gentleman
ETA: All that has to be done is to code the voting page like the WPL forum. I have it set so that a user cannot post post again for 15 sec. after they have posted. So DPC can add a value = "X" sec before it will allow some one to cast their next vote.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 15:37:28.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:30:14 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
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. |
So, all the speed kings will switch to dialup to avoid having their vote scrubbed? ;-) |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:35:04 PM · #30 |
Just an idea...why not make it so that you don't have to vote on a certain percentage before they count. I don't know that it would make people take more time to vote, but I personally look through the thumbnails and the ones that catch my eye...I take a closer look at. If I like it, then I vote. I then go through a time or two again and just browse through and vote on ones either way ( good or bad ). I sometime get in a hurry because I have to vote on so many before My vote counts. That is when I rush...and pay less attention to the photos.
In one way...if a photo does it's job, It will grab your attention right away..and draw you in to look at it more in depth.
Once again, these are merely my opinions.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:43:50 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by phototure:
... I personally look through the thumbnails and the ones that catch my eye...I take a closer look at. If I like it, then I vote.
In one way...if a photo does it's job, It will grab your attention right away..and draw you in to look at it more in depth. ... |
First, I'm not in favor of slowing down the voter by stalling the screen or any other method (see my "No thanks" earlier).
However, based on what you've just said you've made a good selling point for the "slow down" or "no thumbnail" camps on DPC. Basically, an image that "draw(s) you in" needs to be a simple image to have thumbnail impact. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:44:41 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by phototure:
Just an idea...why not make it so that you don't have to vote on a certain percentage before they count. I don't know that it would make people take more time to vote, but I personally look through the thumbnails and the ones that catch my eye...I take a closer look at. If I like it, then I vote. I then go through a time or two again and just browse through and vote on ones either way ( good or bad ). I sometime get in a hurry because I have to vote on so many before My vote counts. That is when I rush...and pay less attention to the photos.
In one way...if a photo does it's job, It will grab your attention right away..and draw you in to look at it more in depth.
Once again, these are merely my opinions. |
You mean like that big bold notice at the top of the voting summary page that says "You must vote on at least 20% of the entries for your votes to be counted"?
;) |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:49:06 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
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. |
|
Nice to see once again what I've witnessed time and time again, a voice of logical reasoning within the SC.
The SC has a thankless and difficult job dealing with fringe opinions and DQs. My greatest surprise is that anyone would actually want to subject themselves to that. :)
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:50:46 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by phototure:
Just an idea...why not make it so that you don't have to vote on a certain percentage before they count. I don't know that it would make people take more time to vote, but I personally look through the thumbnails and the ones that catch my eye...I take a closer look at. If I like it, then I vote. I then go through a time or two again and just browse through and vote on ones either way ( good or bad ). I sometime get in a hurry because I have to vote on so many before My vote counts. That is when I rush...and pay less attention to the photos.
In one way...if a photo does it's job, It will grab your attention right away..and draw you in to look at it more in depth.
Once again, these are merely my opinions. |
This is the approach I am opposed to, scanning thumbnails then deciding to vote if one catches your eye. I open the first photo to submitted size and vote on all at full size, and I mean all in a challenge. I think this is the fairest way of voting. Everyone gets the same chance and a fair vote. Like MikeOwens stated, it takes only a brief look to make an initial decision and enter a vote. Then, by making a second and even a third run through, you can bump votes. Plus, once I have voted, I never downgrade a vote, I will only bump it up.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 15:51:46. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:23:45 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
This is the approach I am opposed to, scanning thumbnails then deciding to vote if one catches your eye. I open the first photo to submitted size and vote on all at full size, and I mean all in a challenge. I think this is the fairest way of voting. Everyone gets the same chance and a fair vote. Like MikeOwens stated, it takes only a brief look to make an initial decision and enter a vote. Then, by making a second and even a third run through, you can bump votes. Plus, once I have voted, I never downgrade a vote, I will only bump it up. |
Honestly, this is where my issue comes into the discussion. Allow me to be blunt;
Who are you, or anyone else, to judge someone's voting methods, as long as they are voting honestly? People are not required to vote on every image - if they were, the rule wouldn't be 20%, it would be 100%. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:29:51 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by formerlee:
This is the approach I am opposed to, scanning thumbnails then deciding to vote if one catches your eye. I open the first photo to submitted size and vote on all at full size, and I mean all in a challenge. I think this is the fairest way of voting. Everyone gets the same chance and a fair vote. Like MikeOwens stated, it takes only a brief look to make an initial decision and enter a vote. Then, by making a second and even a third run through, you can bump votes. Plus, once I have voted, I never downgrade a vote, I will only bump it up. |
Honestly, this is where my issue comes into the discussion. Allow me to be blunt;
Who are you, or anyone else, to judge someone's voting methods, as long as they are voting honestly? People are not required to vote on every image - if they were, the rule wouldn't be 20%, it would be 100%. |
Whoa!! Touched a raw nerve!! All I said was I am opposed to this method of voting. If you are happy voting on 20%, that's fine. Just a shame the other 80% don't get the same chance! Rant, stamp you feet and slam the door if it makes you feel better, but you won't change my opinion, no more than I am trying to change yours! Here, take a chill tablet. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:31:43 PM · #37 |
There he is... I knew I smelled dead horse
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:36:16 PM · #38 |
IMO, a time setting on voting is about the worst idea I've heard around here in a while. Why can't we just let people vote their own way, without mircomanaging the whole process!? Fact: Some speed voters mixed in with the other 200 voters is NOT going to alter your score that much.
And as has been stated above, I know a good image when I see one, and a bad one, too. I don't need to stare at it for 10 sec. to "make sure" I still believe that. Really good images will make the voter want to sit and stare longer. Forcing them to will result in a sharp decrease in voter participation. I know that I, for one, would likely stop voting all together if this were implemented.
Someone mentioned using the time to "appreciate the subtlety." Well, sometimes there is no subtlety to appreciate. And even if there were, the idea of it being forced on me rankles me to no end.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:38:38 PM · #39 |
I'm glad you enjoyed my lengthy post :)
Seriously, I couldn't agree more with what you've said here. Why put something into place that will only stifle voter participation?
As the person who has cast the most votes of anyone on the site, I feel qualified to add an informed opinion here. I really don't need to sit there and dwell on an image for a full ten seconds to come up with an opinion on it. And there are plenty of times when I click a number to vote, think about it, and go back and re-evaluate my opinion of a shot.
There are some shots that I will sit and stare at for a while for one reason or another (strangely, there were a lot of those in the Nude challenge!), but there's no need to force me to do so. I think if there was an analysis done on my voting, you'd find that my votes tend to be pretty close to the final outcome in any given challenge.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
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. |
|
Nice to see once again what I've witnessed time and time again, a voice of logical reasoning within the SC.
The SC has a thankless and difficult job dealing with fringe opinions and DQs. My greatest surprise is that anyone would actually want to subject themselves to that. :) |
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:42:01 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by biteme:
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 :) |
UMMMMMM this might work for u Dialup and DSLow users but what about us 6 Meg cable and 15 Meg FiberOS users? lol the image is cached before the browser even has a chance to finish rendering the page! |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:43:35 PM · #41 |
If i cant vote in a certain time period (I have a busy day like many people, mainyl for me 2 jobs and college kills but i get to get on here while at work). I just wont vote for more then 20% if its gonna eat up too much time.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:51:59 PM · #42 |
There is one sure-fire way to slow down voters, wanna know what it is?
Ofcourse you'll get a lot of 1 votes, but hey, that's what ya get for holding up traffic :-P
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:54:40 PM · #43 |
That is something you would have to be very careful with. I agree that it would probably drive down voter participation. I think that it's kind of a Catch-22.
However, it would be nice to have people look at it for a couple of seconds. My personification entry is getting comments that there is no human qualities. Actually, there is, they just have to look at it for a second or two. It just doesn't JUMP right out at you. Unfortunately, most DPC voters need that instant gratification or they pounce on it.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:59:33 PM · #44 |
I don't agree with the 10 second thing. But believe it may be more useful that thumbnails are not shown until after you have voted on the whole selection. Thumbnails would then appear for you to adjust vote values. This would eliminate selective voting. If you only vote on 20% of the pictures and don't continue you don't get to see the rest of the shots.
For those just browsing with no intention of voting, thumbnails would be displayed at completion of voting so anyone can look at all the shots at that time.
Whilst there may be 270 entries in a challenge you may receive only 120 votes. Maybe it should be part of the deal that if you have entered a challenge yourself you MUST vote on all the shots in that challenge.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:05:48 PM · #45 |
I really don't like the idea of enforcing any more things on voters. There aren't enough as it is, without doing this.
One thing that I do wish was implemented though, would be pre-caching of the next image to be voted on. So then you don't have to watch the image load once you've voted. This is pretty simple to implement and would help the dial-up users even more.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:07:49 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
One thing that I do wish was implemented though, would be pre-caching of the next image to be voted on. So then you don't have to watch the image load once you've voted. This is pretty simple to implement and would help the dial-up users even more. |
Yes, I too like that idea.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:11:34 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by RamblinR:
I don't agree with the 10 second thing. But believe it may be more useful that thumbnails are not shown until after you have voted on the whole selection. Thumbnails would then appear for you to adjust vote values. This would eliminate selective voting. If you only vote on 20% of the pictures and don't continue you don't get to see the rest of the shots.
For those just browsing with no intention of voting, thumbnails would be displayed at completion of voting so anyone can look at all the shots at that time.
Whilst there may be 270 entries in a challenge you may receive only 120 votes. Maybe it should be part of the deal that if you have entered a challenge yourself you MUST vote on all the shots in that challenge.
Thoughts? |
yes I thought about this, too. With the only correction that you can see thumbs of the images you voted on for before finishing voting on the whole batch. You voted on 10 images, you see 10 thumbs, etc. You don't see the thumbs of images you did not vote on. ...I am shooting myself in the foot though, because I often browse through images without voting, and that would be hard to do... :)
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:12:37 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RamblinR:
I don't agree with the 10 second thing. But believe it may be more useful that thumbnails are not shown until after you have voted on the whole selection. Thumbnails would then appear for you to adjust vote values. This would eliminate selective voting. If you only vote on 20% of the pictures and don't continue you don't get to see the rest of the shots.
For those just browsing with no intention of voting, thumbnails would be displayed at completion of voting so anyone can look at all the shots at that time.
Whilst there may be 270 entries in a challenge you may receive only 120 votes. Maybe it should be part of the deal that if you have entered a challenge yourself you MUST vote on all the shots in that challenge.
Thoughts? |
If you're not voting on all the entries why does it matter if you cherry pick the 20% to vote on?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:27:29 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If you're not voting on all the entries why does it matter if you cherry pick the 20% to vote on? |
What I always get out of these threads is "I want the site to change, because I perceive this way would work best for my photos."
I'm not saying it is the case, but ... I'm not saying it's not.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:29:04 PM · #50 |
| If there was to be an implementation of this I would make it totally voluntary. A setting much like the number of threads you want to see on the DPC homepage could be added to the preferences page. You would be able to set the number of seconds you would like to view each challenge image before the scoring mechanism was displayed. Default it to the current "no waiting" amount and let people choose their own wait time. |
|
