Nit-Pickers, 1's and 2's and "Distracting"

01/30/2009 10:49:55 AM · #176

If each photo gets 100 votes, and an average score of 5, the "voting average of 3" guy might alter your score by 0.02. To which I ask - so what? Everybody gets one vote per picture, 1-10, do with it what you will. Personally, I strive for a normal distribution with an average of 5.5 (my actual average is 5.65 - how does one see the overall distribution of votes?).

Right now I have a picture that I thought was ok (~5.5) scoring at 4.5; I'd be delighted to know why people don't like it. I'm certainly getting 1's, 2's, and 3's. I'd like feedback! But I don't suggest that the voters are wrong, they're just voters. I obviously didn't give them something that worked for them. That's my problem, not theirs.

One thing that's very consistent with DPC is how the pictures get sorted pretty well. There might be some nitpicks here and there, and there are styles that don't do well, but for the most part the winners are really good and the ones at the bottom are pretty bad. So what's the big deal? All these complaints seem to come down to "I want a higher score than I got!" Well, tough. If you want a higher score, learn how to take the sorts of pictures that get better scores.

01/30/2009 10:58:36 AM · #177

Originally posted by eamurdock:

If you want a higher score, learn how to take the sorts of pictures that get better scores.

But then you're selling yourself out to be a "Score-Whore" and you have no artistic integrity!...........8>)

I think that's the issue. The artists, (Surprise!) want to be recognized, and the rest of us are Philistines who wouldn't know Art.......if he burned our village.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 10:59:07.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/30/2009 11:07:05 AM · #178

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by eamurdock:
If you want a higher score, learn how to take the sorts of pictures that get better scores.

But then you're selling yourself out to be a "Score-Whore" and you have no artistic integrity!...........8>)

I think that's the issue. The artists, (Surprise!) want to be recognized, and the rest of us are Philistines who wouldn't know Art.......if he burned our village.

Of course the 'artists' (meaning people who shoot artistically worthy pictures that don't happen to be score-friendly) do get recognized, through the posthumous ribbons, side challenges, and such.

I'll say it again, if all you want is pats on the back and no criticism, go to flickr. I personally love the fact that my shots get criticized here, even if not every criticism is useful to me.

ETA - I know you were joking, Jeb ;)

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 11:08:00.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

01/30/2009 11:13:15 AM · #179

Originally posted by eamurdock:

I'll say it again, if all you want is pats on the back and no criticism, go to flickr.

That's an interesting thing. I've sometimes entered a photo here that got a lot of positive attention on Flickr, only to find it comes in mediocre on DPC. The thing is on Flickr, you only get feedback from those who like it, while on DPC you hear from everybody in the form of votes. On the flip side, sometimes a shot that has done well here gets almost ignored when I put it on Flickr afterwards.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2009 11:19:57 AM · #180

Originally posted by eamurdock:

If you want a higher score, learn how to take the sorts of pictures that get better scores.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by eamurdock:

Yeah.....knew you were kidding.....

Truly, I consider myself to be one of the Philistines.....I have *NO* training or education whatsoever in art, history of the arts, or photography.

I know what I like, and for the most part why, but the main reason I don't comment too much on technicals is because I'm so woefully inept in my own case that I certainly don't feel qualified to comment on anyone else's skills.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/30/2009 11:19:59 AM · #181

Originally posted by eamurdock:

I don't suggest that the voters are wrong, they're just voters. I obviously didn't give them something that worked for them. That's my problem, not theirs.

Out of curiosity, how would this apply to, say, a voter who gives a total of 14 votes above 5 (all of them sixes) over ten challenges? Literally every single entry this person touches will take a hit if it's scoring over 6. Sure, it might only affect your vote a little, and if consistent, then everyone is taking the same hit. However, if the voter is only clobbering some of the entries, wouldn't you hate to be part of that group? I've seen ribbons decided by a single vote. It's only a game, but is it not reasonable to raise an eyebrow at someone who believes only 14 out of 1000+ entries are slightly above average?

01/30/2009 11:30:36 AM · #182

Originally posted by eamurdock:

I don't suggest that the voters are wrong, they're just voters. I obviously didn't give them something that worked for them. That's my problem, not theirs.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Aren't you supposed to be calming the waters rather than stirring.......the pot?....8>)

Doesn't that same question apply to someone who had an average vote above 7.5 for the 20% of the images he (or she) voted in a challenge?

I'm not sure where this line of thought is going........it pretty much just sounds like a review of what's been discussed.

The system works pretty well, don't you think?

How many possible explanations can there be for that one vote differential?

The one vote that was made when someone was upset for an irrelevant reason, like the wife chewed him out ten minutes ago? Just lost 50% of your portfolio 'cause your broker's a drunk? Stomach cramps?

All in all, I think it works pretty well. I looked back through my middle of the road portfolio and I don't have any more 1s, 2s, and 3s than I think I should given the nature of the entries, and truth be told, probably more 10s than I should.

see

Canon PowerShot S95

01/30/2009 11:33:05 AM · #183

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by eamurdock:
I don't suggest that the voters are wrong, they're just voters. I obviously didn't give them something that worked for them. That's my problem, not theirs.

Originally posted by scalvert:
Out of curiosity, how would this apply to, say, a voter who gives a total of 14 votes above 5 (all of them sixes) over ten challenges? Literally every single entry this person touches will take a hit if it's scoring over 6. Sure, it might only affect your vote a little, and if consistent, then everyone is taking the same hit. However, if the voter is only clobbering some of the entries, wouldn't you hate to be part of that group? I've seen ribbons decided by a single vote. It's only a game, but is it not reasonable to raise an eyebrow at someone who believes only 14 out of 1000+ entries are slightly above average?

Aren't you supposed to be calming the waters rather than stirring.......the pot?....8>)

Doesn't that same question apply to someone who had an average vote above 7.5 for the 20% of the images he (or she) voted in a challenge?

I'm not sure where this line of thought is going........it pretty much just sounds like a review of what's been discussed.

The system works pretty well, don't you think?

How many possible explanations can there be for that one vote differential?

The one vote that was made when someone was upset for an irrelevant reason, like the wife chewed him out ten minutes ago? Just lost 50% of your portfolio 'cause your broker's a drunk? Stomach cramps?

All in all, I think it works pretty well. I looked back through my middle of the road portfolio and I don't have any more 1s, 2s, and 3s than I think I should given the nature of the entries, and truth be told, probably more 10s than I should.

Well said!!

01/30/2009 11:33:53 AM · #184

Originally posted by scalvert:

Well, similarly there are many voters who don't thing the 1,2 and 3 buttons exist. Besides, I only rarely score above 6 ;)

Any individual voter only has limited power. Of all the photos on the front page, the smallest number of votes was 157. Could they have an effect? Sure. Can you raise an eyebrow? Sure. But they have the same ten buttons I have, and I'll fight for their right to use them as they see fit, same as I fight for my right to use mine as I see fit. The problem isn't solved by changing the number of buttons, or their arrangement, or forcing people to comment, or any such thing.

If someone came by my photo and gave it a 10 right now (which it wouldn't deserve) my score would jump to 4.6. Would I prefer that? Sure. Will it fundamentally change the outcome of the contest? Not a whit.

The people who score at the tops of these challenges are (a) extremely talented (b) put a lot of work and time into it. If I want to do better I should work harder (which, BTW, I'm doing). But whining about people giving me low scores isn't going to help that.

01/30/2009 11:35:13 AM · #185

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Aren't you supposed to be calming the waters rather than stirring.......the pot?....8>)

Eh, it's in rant. I'm pretty sure the rule of law doesn't apply here!

01/30/2009 11:46:31 AM · #186

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Aren't you supposed to be calming the waters rather than stirring.......the pot?....8>)

Originally posted by eamurdock:

Eh, it's in rant. I'm pretty sure the rule of law doesn't apply here!

Just doing a little.......*pot*....stirring meself!.....8>)

01/30/2009 11:48:35 AM · #187

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
So, I shall have to decline your wonderful offer.

Yes, I thought you might.
And thus is the OP revealed: â��It is a tale â�¦ full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.â��

ROFL!

Once upon a time, there was a girl who set out with some coins, given to her by her mother, to buy some seeds to improve their food supply. The girl set out but soon encountered a man, who offered her a dozen loafs of bread in exchange for the coins. The girl thought it through and figured that she couldn't eat seeds and it would take a long time to grow anything from them, but she could eat the bread right away. She took the bread and gave the man her coins.

When she brought the loaves of bread home, her mother was in total dismay!

"What have you done? You have given away all of the money that we had, in exchange for this bread!"

"But, Mother" replied the girl, "we can eat the bread, we can't eat the seeds!"

"Yes," replied the mother, "but the bread will be eaten and we will have nothing else. We will still hunger for more to eat. This will have solved our immediate hunger but, the seeds would provide for a for a bounty of food that will feed us and make us happy for a long time to come."

So, with that, I shall say that my "sound and fury" have a future signification. Doing otherwise, is tossing away my coins. :)

01/30/2009 11:58:16 AM · #188

Originally posted by tnun:

And I sigh in sorrow at Photointerest's self imposed obligation to rate polish above preference.

Tnun...I understand that you have been unable to read the entire thread and it is time consuming but, in only reading certain portions of this thread, you have missed a great deal of other posts that I've made and are therefore, misinterpretting my full set of points. You will find that I am not indeed, promoting polish above preference as you have put it. It's more of a mixture of things. You have picked up on one "tangent" only and therefore, have misintepretted my meaning. So, please don't feel "sorrow". There is no need. :)

01/30/2009 12:00:52 PM · #189

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

So, with that, I shall say that my "sound and fury" have a future signification. Doing otherwise, is tossing away my coins. :)

Or you could use the coins intended for seeds to buy cookies.

Then you could......toss your cookies!

01/30/2009 12:03:36 PM · #190

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by yospiff:
My only beef is I would love to get that feedback along with the low vote. If you low vote my entry with a 2 because you feel it has no deeper meaning or social value, then tell me so.

That's kind of what I'd like to see, too......the problem is that some people would get so upset at getting a 2, they wouldn't care what the basis was, or worse, would argue that it's not jusifiable.

I had a problem for a long time with a pretty well-regarded member of the community.....he has a 3-something voting average which to me *was* appalling.

Now that I have a better understanding in general of various methods of image rating, the most important point is his consistency.

He's more accurate and careful than I, because for starters, I'm much more visceral and subjective in my views. He's much more consistently analytical.

I think it's probably fair to say that this thread has actually opened some doors to understanding for many of us, yes?

Yospiff and

NikonJeb

I so agree with both of you! I'm really glad that I did have this little "rant" and vented because I also have found my eyes opened and a new understanding of just how people are voting for the most part and why.

While there are people who don't like to see anyone say anything "against" DPC, sometimes, a discussion like this can open doors to new facts, ideas and perhaps, improve something for someone, somewhere, somehow. :)

01/30/2009 12:04:27 PM · #191

Originally posted by scalvert:

I'd consider the possibility that this voter is ranking images on an absolute scale, where high votes are reserved for work the quality of the best of, say, Cartier-Bresson's or Edward Weston's or (name your own demigod of photography here) work, that this is a voter who thinks "commercial quality" photography has little or no redeeming value; a voter, in short, who operates from a highly-developed, very personal aesthetic platform and is consistent about it to boot.

I have no argument with this voter at all. It's not how *I* vote, but there are elements of that in my approach for sure. I *do* give out a few 8, 9, and 10 votes and quite a few 6 and 7 votes, but in the main I consider the bulk of the work we see in our challenges to be at be at best technically accomplished, and of little "enduring value" in the long run: and my voting reflects that. Furthermore, this is about all I *expect* from the site, and it doesn't particularly bother me.

I can think, offhand, of only a small handful of ribboning images from DPC that I consider to have crossed the line from "accomplished work" to "work of a deeper value". As an example, this one by

jjbeguin strikes me as an utter masterpiece, and in this case the voters agreed with me, giving it an extremely high score:

By way of comparison (and I mean absolutely NO disrespect to

andrewt, who gave us a stunningly well-made, even breathtaking, fireworks shot in a "Fireworks" challenge and totally deserves his blue ribbon), I don't see how this shot "deserves" the same score as JJ's in any objective world:

Now, I *DO* understand that a lot, maybe even most, of the voters rank images within their respective challenges, and give very high scores to the "best" images in each challenge with no regard for how those images would rank on a more global scale like "all images submitted this year", and I absolutely understand that and have no quarrel with it.

But at the same time, I'm completely sympathetic to those who, like me, use a more global scale in their voting. In my case, it goes roughly like this: the images I consider to be the best in the challenge receive the highest votes from me, but I reserve the really high votes (9 and 10, basically) for images that manage to transcend the challenge topic to achieve something memorable in their own right. As a consequence, my average on votes given is on the low side, being just a bit north of 5.0, and this despite the fact that I only rarely give a vote lower than 4...

I'm curious if anyone has a problem with this?

R.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 12:05:12.

see

Canon PowerShot S95

01/30/2009 12:19:36 PM · #192

Not at all, LOL, in fact honored to have received a ten from you..

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2009 12:28:39 PM · #193

Originally posted by alans_world:

Not at all, LOL, in fact honored to have received a ten from you..

I gave two 10's in that "Street Photography" challenge; the other went to JJ's "Sticks", coincidentally enough. Both of you finished with 5.7+ averages. For whatever that's worth...

R.

see

Canon PowerShot S95

01/30/2009 12:45:18 PM · #194

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alans_world:
Not at all, LOL, in fact honored to have received a ten from you..

I gave two 10's in that "Street Photography" challenge; the other went to JJ's "Sticks", coincidentally enough. Both of you finished with 5.7+ averages. For whatever that's worth...

R.

From the student looking for the approval of other students not much, but of the student looking for the same of the teacherâ�¦ the world.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/30/2009 12:59:37 PM · #195

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Aren't you supposed to be calming the waters rather than stirring.......the pot?....8>)

Few things cause as much stress and complaints here as troll voting, so addressing that issue could be considered calming the waters.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's probably true, and perfectly reasonable, but while few DPC photos reach "master" levels, voting almost exclusively 5 or less is a slap to the face of the DPC community. It's effectively declaring that 99% of our work is below average in the world of photography. Are we not entitled to be insulted? Even on an absolute scale, how do the likes of De Sousa, Kiwiness and Librodo garner average votes below 5? I'm not saying people don't have the right to vote on a strict personal scale, but if a wildly aberrant voter (in either direction) routinely hits less than half the entries, it DOES skew the results.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

01/30/2009 01:24:36 PM · #196

Photointerest, for the sake of brevity I omitted a specific reference for my sorrow: it was where you quote Posthumous, admit his point, but then go on to say that if a photo you really liked was really poor quality, you would have to vote it lower than a perfect but unappealing ice cube. It just seemed like you were giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I do not feel obliged to read the whole thread in order to enjoy and celebrate what it offers, nor to lament a general human tendency to judge a package by its wrappings instead of its contents.

01/30/2009 01:36:47 PM · #197

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sure, but those are two separate issues:

1. The right of the voter to establish and adhere to his/her standard, be it relative or absolute, without feeling "persecuted" because that standard is not even close to the local norm, and

2. The fact that when any voter with outlier standards votes in less than 100% of the challenge, images not voted on are either punished or rewarded relative to images voted on.

I'd submit that even to hint that those with outlier standards have more of an obligation to vote the entire challenge if they vote at all is venturing into dangerous waters. But that's just me, thinking out loud...

R.

01/30/2009 01:37:29 PM · #198

Originally posted by tnun:

Amen to that!

R.