DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Scores, Trolls, Averages
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 41 of 41, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/23/2008 04:31:53 PM · #26
Originally posted by Quasimojo:

what is the value to you or to any DPC voter of someone contributing that kind of opinion or vote when it is consistently so contrary to all other belief.


Those votes remind me that not everyone agrees on what's a good photo. That's the value.

Would you argue that people who have opinions that are further from the political center have nothing to add to the discourse? That they should just be quiet?

Back on DPC, do you complain about people who score highly on shots that have a low average? I mean, what about the people who favorited this photo, despite its 4.8 score?


If anything, I think the people who disagree with the majority have more to add than the people in the majority, on a per-person basis, and the stronger the disagreement, the more they contribute per person.

If you would still argue your original point, then I'll just close by saying I strongly disagree; I think that if we got rid of everyone who disagreed with the average result by N (pick any value for N that you like), relative rankings still wouldn't change much, but scores would be artifically high (see eyefetch, for example) and no alternative tastes would exist on DPC. All bad outcomes.

Message edited by author 2008-02-23 16:33:32.
02/23/2008 05:54:46 PM · #27
This is my problem here: I'm not talking about anyone who doesn't like a photo. I'm not even disagreeing with you that dissenters provide value. What I am talking about is a select minority of users who I suspect are extremely dissenting on a regular basis (maybe even as a matter of course or just malevolence).

So, just to repeat myself to reiterate the point - I'm not suggesting that everyone votes the same and that anyone who doesn't agree is bad. I am suggesting that there are users who either deliberately or otherwise vote unnecessarily harshily on photos that don't warrant that level of criticism. Specific repeat offenders.

With regards to that shot in particular, I personally don't think it's a great shot and the masses agree as evidenced by the voting. Yes there are people who appreciate a photograph like that, and it is reflected in the favourites - but it isn't unreasonable to believe that someone wouldn't like that amount of blur in the subject (even in a Blur challenge) and so I could understand if that was my photo why there were so many scores at 1-3. However, if your shot was rated 6.5 by the voters and a handful of people voted it 1 then you have to wonder. If it transpires that those 1 votes are from the same person that does it to lots of well regarded photos then I couldn't disagree with you more in that these people don't add value in their opinion and no-one learns anything.

N


02/23/2008 06:29:53 PM · #28
Nick, I agree my photo scored low, and I'm not surprised or upset. I was trying to ask whether you complain about people who deviate in the other direction, and give out high marks, much higher than the average, on a regular basis? I think they "taint" the average as much as the perpetual low-scorers. Do you?
02/23/2008 06:41:54 PM · #29
Originally posted by levyj413:

I was trying to ask whether you complain about people who deviate in the other direction, and give out high marks, much higher than the average, on a regular basis? I think they "taint" the average as much as the perpetual low-scorers. Do you?

But you notice we don't talk about them. We don't assume that they're a group, acting consistently week after week, to skew the voting for their own purposes. There's no assumed nefarious purpose behind their collective actions. Why is that?

Have somebody mention trolls in the forums, and we're all over it, because it fulfills a need we have to "explain" low votes. Something that in fact needs no explanation beyond the normal variation in group performance. No similar need exists to explain high votes, because of course, we all know we're geniuses and we're happy when others recognize it with their 8s, 9s, and 10s.
02/23/2008 06:44:25 PM · #30
Originally posted by levyj413:

Nick, I agree my photo scored low, and I'm not surprised or upset. I was trying to ask whether you complain about people who deviate in the other direction, and give out high marks, much higher than the average, on a regular basis? I think they "taint" the average as much as the perpetual low-scorers. Do you?


No, I don't complain about people who give out high marks (even unreasonably) and I agree that they perhaps taint the voting outcomes too.

But to me there seems a world of difference in acts of kindness and acts of cruelty (intentional or otherwise). We are all trying hard to produce good photographs - and that 'good' is defined by the score it receives in voting (otherwise why else be here?). If there are individuals who persistently vote excellence poorly it has a far greater impact on the submitter than when a poor shot is voted excellently. It's not the kind of realistic feedback that helps anyone to progress and learn. If everyone gives it a poor score it's a learning outcome, if everyone gives it a good score it's a learning outcome....but if most people give it an excellent score and a couple of people vote it poor (not average, but poor/bad) then it affects the score and the submitter's feelings. And yes...sh!t happens and people are entitled to their opinions...just not repeatedly.

N
02/23/2008 07:48:33 PM · #31
Nick, we just disagree. No sweat - that's what makes the world go around. :)
02/25/2008 01:19:38 AM · #32
My suspicion in the scores getting mildly worse may be from tweaking the scrubber. 4-6 months ago I noticed it became fairly common for ribbon entries to have zero votes of 1-3 or even 1-4. Lately it is much more common to see five to seven votes of 1-3 even on ribbon photos. If these votes are not being removed when they were before, it could easily lower a ribbon score by a few tenths.
02/25/2008 01:30:28 AM · #33
Originally posted by Quasimojo:

Originally posted by levyj413:

Nick, I agree my photo scored low, and I'm not surprised or upset. I was trying to ask whether you complain about people who deviate in the other direction, and give out high marks, much higher than the average, on a regular basis? I think they "taint" the average as much as the perpetual low-scorers. Do you?


No, I don't complain about people who give out high marks (even unreasonably) and I agree that they perhaps taint the voting outcomes too.

But to me there seems a world of difference in acts of kindness and acts of cruelty (intentional or otherwise). We are all trying hard to produce good photographs - and that 'good' is defined by the score it receives in voting (otherwise why else be here?). If there are individuals who persistently vote excellence poorly it has a far greater impact on the submitter than when a poor shot is voted excellently. It's not the kind of realistic feedback that helps anyone to progress and learn. If everyone gives it a poor score it's a learning outcome, if everyone gives it a good score it's a learning outcome....but if most people give it an excellent score and a couple of people vote it poor (not average, but poor/bad) then it affects the score and the submitter's feelings. And yes...sh!t happens and people are entitled to their opinions...just not repeatedly.

N


If I remember correctly, the scrubber also goes after voters that vote everything very high too. Many times the roll over lowers my score from just prior. Now some of the missing votes may be people that didn't get to 20%, but I don't think that is always the case.
02/25/2008 09:24:33 AM · #34
Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by Quasimojo:

what is the value to you or to any DPC voter of someone contributing that kind of opinion or vote when it is consistently so contrary to all other belief.


Those votes remind me that not everyone agrees on what's a good photo. That's the value.

Would you argue that people who have opinions that are further from the political center have nothing to add to the discourse? That they should just be quiet?

Back on DPC, do you complain about people who score highly on shots that have a low average? I mean, what about the people who favorited this photo, despite its 4.8 score?


If anything, I think the people who disagree with the majority have more to add than the people in the majority, on a per-person basis, and the stronger the disagreement, the more they contribute per person.

If you would still argue your original point, then I'll just close by saying I strongly disagree; I think that if we got rid of everyone who disagreed with the average result by N (pick any value for N that you like), relative rankings still wouldn't change much, but scores would be artifically high (see eyefetch, for example) and no alternative tastes would exist on DPC. All bad outcomes.


I agree with this. People should be able to vote how they want whether that is low or high. I mean what is the alternative? Just give everyone a 10 so they are happy? Thats no answer. I do think however that anyone that scores say a 1-3 or a 9-10 should HAVE to post a comment. Atleast then the person knows why the person hated there foto or loved it.

Just my two cents.
Ben
08/27/2008 04:20:55 AM · #35
Originally posted by SnapperL:

I do think however that anyone that scores say a 1-3 or a 9-10 should HAVE to post a comment. Atleast then the person knows why the person hated there foto or loved it.


I'll second that! Not bad idea at all.

For example, I'd like to know what was wrong with IreneM's purple picture, so that two people gave it a 1... strange.

-H
08/27/2008 04:44:35 AM · #36
Yeah... similarly, I'd like to know why 3 people gave my purple entry a 1. There are a few 1s given to the top 10 in Purple... 11 to be precise.

Compare that to the Doors challenge which had 5 1's in it's top 10.

Now, the other thing I notice is that the two in the top 10 that didn't get a 1 were the floral ones that wouldn't have been processed as much. From that I assume someone decided that if it wasn't a "natural" purple image it was getting a 1.
08/27/2008 06:38:52 AM · #37
Originally posted by vlado:

Yeah... similarly, I'd like to know why 3 people gave my purple entry a 1. There are a few 1s given to the top 10 in Purple... 11 to be precise.

Compare that to the Doors challenge which had 5 1's in it's top 10.

Now, the other thing I notice is that the two in the top 10 that didn't get a 1 were the floral ones that wouldn't have been processed as much. From that I assume someone decided that if it wasn't a "natural" purple image it was getting a 1.


Regarding low scores on the purple challenge entries...I remember reading a few threads that suggested that if the image was not purple to start with and the purple was done post processing, it was going to be voted low. It is a rather stark reason, but it seems rational at least.
08/27/2008 07:50:13 AM · #38
People are always going to vote how they want to and people will always interpret things differently. Just the way things are. Showing who voted how isn't a good idea because I believe it would cause everybody to feel TOO responsible for their votes and remove any real credibility from the votes. It's easier to just give a mediocre vote to appease somebody and avoid the potential for a flame/vendetta war than to bear the possibility of somebody being all bent out of shape over a simple vote. And in regards to people voting lower having a bigger impact? I agree that psychologically there is an impact for negative votes, but if they are atypical of the other votes received and do not supply a comment one can't help but say "man I guess these votes can be tossed out the window." Artificially inflated votes are the same, and if you don't follow the same procedure, you get an inflated sense of ability and self-importance, and become a gasbag photographer. Realistically, the voting process cannot be refined very much further without having a detrimental effect on itself. It's like noise reduction: a bit is nice, too much destroys the image by turning it into a blurry mess of averages.
08/27/2008 07:59:46 AM · #39
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:


Realistically, the voting process cannot be refined very much further without having a detrimental effect on itself. It's like noise reduction: a bit is nice, too much destroys the image by turning it into a blurry mess of averages.

That needs to be kept handy for reposting whenever this subject appears again (like next week). :-D

Well said!
08/27/2008 08:47:48 AM · #40
Originally posted by ace flyman:

It has been interesting around here lately. About year ago I did a spread sheet on the average vote per-challenge that went back a year. At that time the average challenge entry vote was just over 5.5. I just averaged out the last 15 challenges, the average is down to 5.38.

So what's up?
Nothing
Trolls
Challenge Topic
Lower Quality shots
Stronger photographers leaving
More people new to photography (dpc style)

Or is this topic a dead horse that will never ride again....Lol


Oh, it's quite simple. I let my membership lapse about 2 years ago. (Lost job, moved 2,000 miles to new job, etc. etc.) So About two months ago, now that things are better and we are settled in, I got active again.

So the answer would be nobody gets my images, and they vote me lower cause they are trolls, and the stronger photographers are leaving, but not in sufficient numbers to where I can win a ribbon, and the challenge topics won't come around to meet my abilities, and too many new people who are better than me, and other than that nothing is wrong at all.... ;-)

-alex

08/27/2008 08:57:26 AM · #41
Originally posted by SnapperL:

I do think however that anyone that scores say a 1-3 or a 9-10 should HAVE to post a comment. Atleast then the person knows why the person hated there foto or loved it.


I both like and don't like this idea. I want to get feedback from the low voters, but I think it would have the effect of making them just give whatever was the lowest vote not requiring a comment. I believe my own scores have taken a dip (relative to what they may have otherwise received) since the nag window for giving a vote of 3 or less went away. People were less inclined to leave a low vote when they were being politely reminded, and that affected the averages. If a comment were required for a low vote, it would probably result not in comments, but in raising the average scores. 5 1/2 is the new 6. I am certain my photography has improved over the last few months, but getting the high 5's and 6's has become harder. I think the lack of a nag message is part of it.

Or, I could just be totally deluded and my entries just suck...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 07:35:18 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/29/2025 07:35:18 AM EDT.