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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Voting down others to improve your rank
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 80, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/07/2008 04:38:10 PM · #51
Doesnt probability theory apply to mechanical systems and the relationship to randomness?

A human decision is not random but deliberate so wouldn't game theory better apply to this issue?
 05/07/2008 04:41:11 PM · #52
That last post nearly made my head explode. (edit: the post before Waz's)

I really hate to believe people are voting other images low on challenges they enetered themselves, but it is possible and maybe likely. I almost exclusively vote in challenges I entered, but I don't have anything important vested in winning and I tend to forget I even entered a challenge. Even when I put effort into the entry, the thought doesn't even occur to me to cheat. It's beyond my comprehension that people would, but there are many human behaviors beyond my comprehension. ;-)

How about this: provide the SC with a mechanism that detects a highly abnormal voting average for a person who has entered a challenge. i.e. they're running avg is 5.5, but for a challenge they entered, it is 3.2. Not sure what to do with the info - maybe a PM / warning, maybe suspension, maybe electrocution. ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-05-07 16:41:52.
 05/07/2008 05:39:34 PM · #53
^That prevents honest voting.

My idea was voting nullification if voter consistantly votes more than 2 standard deviations from mean then nullify all of his votes and perhaps if entered in the contest, given a DQ. Consistantly being defined as 40-50%

Each photo has a variance which is found by: subtracting the photos average score from every submitted score.... then squaring the difference.... and dividing by total number of votes. this gives the variance of a photos score. (google it if you need.)

If we take the square root of the photos variance, we now have the standard deviation (SD) of the voting in a photo. This is useful bc statistically, 68% of you will vote within one SD above or below the mean. 95% should vote within 2 standard deviation above or below the mean.

So to rephrase first line:
"If during the voting process, If a voter does not vote the way 95% of us did half of the time, all of there votes are nullified."

we could adjust 95% to higher or lower too.

WOW what a typo..... thank you whoever pointed it out

Message edited by author 2008-05-07 19:36:10.
 05/07/2008 05:44:04 PM · #54
Originally posted by FourTDSean:
IF PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING and voting with honesty

This would be due to people on average valuing the photo similarly.


These are the two flaws in your assumptions.

People can perfectly honestly vote on an image and value it completely differently to the next person.

There is no impartial 'standard' defined. There is no meaning other than 1-BAD 10-GOOD. You can value
any image you like within that scale, any way you like and it will almost certainly vary wildly between voters.

And suggesting some sort of enforced groupthink is missing the point even more. Is someone automatically
cheating or being dishonest if they happen to not like the same images that most people like ?

Message edited by author 2008-05-07 17:47:14.
 05/07/2008 05:48:21 PM · #55
I am a deviatnt so if I have already voted the only choice of votes they should get is the same number I already voted! Or any number they press would result in their vote being changed to the same as my vote. Only draw back would be the ties and I am not sure how to handle those....
 05/07/2008 05:56:37 PM · #56
well I just tested the above formula to prevent down voting, and it seems to work on past challenges. but I am wasting my breath anyways.
 05/07/2008 06:43:00 PM · #57
Originally posted by FourTDSean:
"Karma will get you"
-Earl


This is so true what ever bad you do will come back on you double.
 05/07/2008 06:56:24 PM · #58
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by FourTDSean:
IF PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING and voting with honesty

This would be due to people on average valuing the photo similarly.


These are the two flaws in your assumptions.

People can perfectly honestly vote on an image and value it completely differently to the next person.

There is no impartial 'standard' defined. There is no meaning other than 1-BAD 10-GOOD. You can value
any image you like within that scale, any way you like and it will almost certainly vary wildly between voters.

And suggesting some sort of enforced groupthink is missing the point even more. Is someone automatically
cheating or being dishonest if they happen to not like the same images that most people like ?


I completely agree with this.
 05/07/2008 07:32:53 PM · #59
Originally posted by FourTDSean:
^That prevents honest voting.

My idea was voting nullification if voter consistantly votes more than 2 standard deviations from mean then nullify all of his votes and perhaps if entered in the contest, given a DQ. Consistantly being defined as 40-50%

Each photo has a variance which is found by: subtracting the photos average score from every submitted score.... then squaring the difference.... and dividing by total number of votes. this gives the variance of a photos score. (google it if you need.)

If we take the square root of the photos variance, we now have the standard deviation (SD) of the voting in a photo. This is useful bc statistically, 68% of you will vote within one SD above or below the mean. 95% should vote within 2 standard deviation above or below the mean.

So to rephrase first line:
"If during the voting process, If a voter does not vote the way 95% of us did, all of there votes are nullified."

we could adjust 95% to higher or lower too.


This may not prevent honest voting but it would make it pointless.
(But it would mean souls like Posthumous wouldn't have to spend time voting...)

Message edited by author 2008-05-07 19:37:30.
 05/07/2008 07:34:24 PM · #60
oops, meant to hit edit and hit quote instead.

Message edited by author 2008-05-07 19:35:49.
 05/07/2008 07:36:37 PM · #61
that was a typo ^^ now fixed, my bad.
 05/07/2008 07:40:24 PM · #62
A little better, but I guess I just don't like being squished into a statistical mold when it comes to emotions and personal preferences. If I don't have the same visceral reaction to an image at least half the time that everyone else has, my opinion is invalid?
 05/07/2008 08:25:36 PM · #63
I think people missed it.... too bad

but breifly, only certain votes are in this range, usually 10,3,2,1 and sometimes 4. no one deals out constant tens so thats not a prob. Also, this does not eliminate votes outside of 95%, feel free to vote as normal, It would only catch repeat offenders, ie voting 3,3,3,3,3 ect. for most challenges, 55+ of your votes can be outside 95%. It is designed to catch repeated votes outside 95%, and how often does this happen. Someone pmed me a question about challenges with overall horrible scores/submissions like the recent triangles. If everyone is voting low, then the 95% is shifted and if 20 people have voted 1 out of 200, then a score of 1 is safe as 5% of 200 is 10, and this is less than the 20 voted. so the low numbers would now be in range. It is very flexible, and not designed to mold voting at all. 99% of us would never be affected, just the 1% who are sandbagging would get hit.

^an understandable concern, but actually just a misunderstanding. just ask yourself, are 50% of my votes in any challenge 1,2 or 3. I hope not bc if so your the reason for this thread.... but it doesnt matter if you do vote in that range, its only a problem when the voting is repetitive.

Message edited by author 2008-05-07 20:30:26.
 05/07/2008 08:34:13 PM · #64
We are not missing the point.

There is already a vote scrubber algorithm in place for such a thing. Stick around for a while and you start to see that there are some challenges that just suck and the scores are low. I appreciate your feeling on this, however this is not a new discussion and the powers that be are pretty smart people and work very hard to keep it fair. Then best thing to do is grin and bear it.

Message edited by author 2008-05-07 20:34:48.
 05/07/2008 08:42:13 PM · #65
Im not trying to change anything, I just though it was fun. It could never be used IRL on such a fast moving site, I dont think. Each equation relays on others, so it would probably crash immeadiatly. We were just bored in my lab and did this instead of grading papers.
 05/07/2008 08:45:07 PM · #66
Bored? Go take a picture of a hot girl! ;-P
 05/07/2008 08:46:33 PM · #67
I was stuck at work all day, and had to play around on here, It was horrible...... horrible
 05/07/2008 10:59:49 PM · #68
hey,did you really score 4 td's?
 05/07/2008 11:43:39 PM · #69
Originally posted by jonnienye:
hey,did you really score 4 td's?


You are so-o-o-o bad, lol!!! :P
 05/07/2008 11:52:34 PM · #70
Yeah you gotta keep trying i suppose. I just want to develop myself as a photographer
 05/08/2008 01:04:20 AM · #71
Originally posted by FourTDSean:

the model predicts that the each vote has a 50% chance of being higher.


You're making the mistake of thinking that the votes you receive in a serial order over 168 hours will be random, or approach random. But damn, that was a great explanation. I'll give you an 8 for that! heheh
 05/08/2008 01:06:13 AM · #72
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Originally posted by jonnienye:
hey,did you really score 4 td's?


You are so-o-o-o bad, lol!!! :P
i couldnt help it! :)
05/08/2008 01:09:02 AM · #73
Originally posted by FourTDSean:

22 votes one way this far into voting seems to be statistically imposible and seems to point to 22 non conventional consecutive votes to purposely lower scores. But Im not even good at math, this is just an idea.


Maybe you should submit a ticket to SC about this. They've got some statistical types in there that might really enjoy investigating something like this. You never know what they might find.
 05/08/2008 01:10:38 AM · #74
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Not sure what to do with the info - maybe a PM / warning, maybe suspension, maybe electrocution. ;-)


Maybe we could...... burn them at the stake! Yeah! That's it!
 05/08/2008 01:13:19 AM · #75
Originally posted by FourTDSean:

My idea was voting nullification if voter consistantly votes more than 2 standard deviations from mean then nullify all of his votes and perhaps if entered in the contest, given a DQ. Consistantly being defined as 40-50%



Pluuuuuuuuuuuuu-eeeeeZzzzz. If you want to go that way maybe this placewould be more
to your liking. They already do something along those lines.
But... they run the images for much longer periods than DPC.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/01/2025 06:46:35 PM

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: 06/01/2025 06:46:35 PM EDT.