| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2009 06:06:06 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
I am not making a broad sweeping statement of "changing the voice of the site" at all, I'm saying pare down the least favorable in an orderly manner and allow the effort to remain focused on what the voters have determined to be the "cream".
I'm sorry if my big idea frightened everyone. ;-) |
I guess I don't see the advantage. Why pare down the entries at all? We already have a system that allows the most popular to get the most attention - they're on the front page, they're the top however many in the results. What does paring down early gain? If it is just a means to reduce the number of challenge entries to vote on, there really haven't been that many lately to vote at all, except free studies. And you're always welcome to just vote 20% and be done if voting on 400 is too many. Heck, you can even cherry pick that 20% worth.
I do not want to be restricted to voting on those that are "most popular", thanks. I *like* the crap - it's where I find a lot of hidden gems, and that's part of the site's appeal for me. :-)
Message edited by author 2009-07-30 08:25:20. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 09:32:51 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
The challenges are popularity contests for a certain image and/or style. Nothing wrong with that as long as it is not implied that one style is better than another. It is simply more popular. That aspect is deserving of greater recognition IMO. |
But they DO get the recognition. As soon as a challenge is over, everyone rushes to congratulate the ribboners. I was naturally pleased with all the attention my one ribbon winner got, but I am even more pleased when 10 minutes after rollover, someone takes the time to comment on my mid-pack shot that they loved. I generally prefer do the same and I look through the rankings for how my friends did and the shots I personally feel need some special notice.
On another related note, the mention of the "elite" got me thinking about something else. I was telling my daughter,  Hey_You_3000, last night about how my entries were doing. I had one a 5.18 and another at 5.44. To her, these are great averages that she has only hit a small handful of times. She would be thrilled to come in mid-pack most of the time. It's a relative thing. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 10:05:13 AM · #53 |
I like voting on the challenges I'm in, and I vote fairly. I vote often on challenges I don't enter, and often times, the averages are the same, it just depends on the quality of the entries.
What I would like to see: One challenge a year where only the SC votes on the entries!!! The SC on this site are all avid photographers with a good judge of what a quality image is. I think that would be fun, even if we only did it once a year. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 11:28:50 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
What I would like to see: One challenge a year where only the SC votes on the entries!!! The SC on this site are all avid photographers with a good judge of what a quality image is. I think that would be fun, even if we only did it once a year. |
Please no. We catch enough flak as it is.
As to the "paring down" idea.
A challenge has 200 entries. I vote through so that I can help decide what stays and what goes. Votes cast = 200.
50 are eliminated.
Now, do I have do vote on the remaining 150 again? or does voting continue with whoever is left?
If the former, I have a hard enough time allowing the time I want to spend on voting. Now, I'm going to have to vote more?? on the same images??
OR
If the latter, I've already voted on the original 200. My favorite 40 were in the 50 that were outcast. Great. If I didn't vote, I can now, but I only get to see what others thought was good. :( Or in an even worse, though not totally inconceivable situation, of the 220 possible votes that I may get in any challenge, 150 vote my picture "passable" in the first round. In the second round, 50 more people vote. That means that a very small handful of people get to decide whether or not my picture is good.
The idea may have merit for some shows, or sites, but for the purpose of this site, and how it is set up, I really don't see it being workable and being truly effective. I think what would happen is that "dpc friendly" would become even MORE than what it is now. And while those are good pictures, there are some "unfriendly" images that are also merited in their own right. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 11:45:48 AM · #55 |
Actually, all I was asking if we just not be able to vote to a challenge we also entered...
Other ideas here suggested 5 billions of time, including this one most likely, and thought about... and rejected.
Avg (participants): 5.4615
Avg (non-participants): 6.6168
this got my attention, and when I checked the other entries, I saw similar voting pattern for most. Could be percentage thing, I don't know. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 11:51:57 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Actually, all I was asking if we just not be able to vote to a challenge we also entered...
Other ideas here suggested 5 billions of time, including this one most likely, and thought about... and rejected.
Avg (participants): 5.4615
Avg (non-participants): 6.6168
this got my attention, and when I checked the other entries, I saw similar voting pattern for most. Could be percentage thing, I don't know. |
If your referring to this image, there were a few typos in your stats:
Avg (all users): 6.5123
Avg (participants): 6.4615
Avg (non-participants): 6.5168
You participant and non-participant average are quite close. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 11:55:52 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
...If your referring to this image, there were a few typos in your stats... |
No, it was a close one, but I changed to make a point (not knowing someone actually check it)
The point is, if you check others, and maybe yours... most have the same pattern. Low vs. High scores. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 11:59:08 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
...If your referring to this image, there were a few typos in your stats... |
No, it was a close one, but I changed to make a point (not knowing someone actually check it)
The point is, if you check others, and maybe yours... most have the same pattern. Low vs. High scores. |
Mine did have a larger discrepancy. Participants voted mine a half point lower on average than non-participants. In this case, there were over 300 votes, and only 42 entrants, so the participants had a small impact on my average overall.
But, for the most part, the averages are pretty close. I have never seen a discrepancy like you mentioned above, the most I have seen in my own images is the half point difference I mentioned. As such, I dont think it has a huge impact on the overall average. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:09:01 PM · #59 |
To me, those averages would be more indicative if I knew that the number of non-participants equaled the number or participants. Or
If I knew the number of each, at the very least, it would help in deciding if it was something to be concerned with. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:09:16 PM · #60 |
The current non-member challenges out of voting are an anomaly (re: number of entrants) so using that as an example only shows that in challenges with a small number of entries are likely to have a lot more non-entrant voters.
In a lot of the large challenges, the number of non-entrant voters can usually be counted on one hand. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:16:23 PM · #61 |
Here are my AWARDS, in order of merit, for this thread's participants:
persistent valour in the face of persistant incoherence: BeeCee
persistent incoherence:  Ivo
benign deception: FocusPoint
Edited for spelling
Message edited by author 2009-07-30 12:48:50. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:16:31 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
 by bspurgeon, finished two places below mine and was my top pick of the challenge - and the top pick by a few others as well. This definitely doesn't suck and deserves to be seen, not tossed aside in favor of something more appealing to the masses.
Do you see where I'm coming from with this? |
Certainly, and I agree. Unfortunately the voters do not.
This is where the disconnect is in my opinion. The challenges are "photo competitions". Are they not? This is why ribbons are awarded. Look at that simple aspect.
I too am puzzled why some of my shots have scored low before. Obviously, the majority of the voters did not share my surprise.;-) That's okay ...... it happens. I'd rather the attention be given to those photos which earned the affection of the voters. Good for them and let them bask in the recognition. It is a success and serves to encourage greatness. The present voting method does little more than distribute votes between those shots deserving attention and those which receive attention through obligation. |
So it's been a kinda crappy day. I'm going to go for a bike ride shortly to improve my mood, but on the way home I got to thinking about your answer. Basically you're saying, "Yeah, OK, I see your point, but really it doesn't matter. The voters don't want to see this stuff so let's take it away after the first few votes." Is that basically correct? OK, fine - I don't mind if mine goes bye-bye - I mean, sure, it'll piss me off, hurt my feelings, and make me wonder why I bother entering, but woah Nellie - if it means that Ben's shot goes bye-bye, well that's unacceptable, because that would mean I would not find my favorite in this challenge at all! Nor would a whole bunch of other voters who rated it 7 or higher. And hey, we're voters, too! Or are we not the right kind of voters?
Anyway, I'm still befuddled as to what the paring down accomplishes and figure the same could be done via thumbnail voting if you just don't want to deal with the "crap". |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:28:37 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Or are we not the right kind of voters?
|
In my opinion, this is what it all boils down to, in the end. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:30:20 PM · #64 |
Cool awards! Maybe Leo has some more hats to give away! |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:32:28 PM · #65 |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:33:07 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
...Cool awards! Maybe Leo has some more hats to give away! |
maybe ;)
 |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:36:52 PM · #67 |
| I generally vote on ONLY those challenges I've entered. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:41:19 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Or are we not the right kind of voters?
|
In my opinion, this is what it all boils down to, in the end. |
Wow, we need to get you folks some thicker skin. ;-)
How the heck did this go from the elimination of the lowest percentile images in a challenge to questioning whether "I am the right kind of voter"?
Where the heck is Dr. Phil when we need him.
Is there some bigger social issue we need to address here????
This is getting to be like a daytime soap. I wonder what "Stefano" would do with you guys right now?? Maybe "Kate" can let you all have a bite of an apple. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:43:07 PM · #69 |
| Maybe Jerry Springer would be a more suitable venue. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:44:50 PM · #70 |
I don't know who the daytime soap people are, nor do I watch Dr Phil (though I think I know who he is?) but I still wanna know what the paring down of the entries provides.
Oh, and for the participant/non-participant crowd:
Avg (commenters): 7.9000
Avg (participants): 5.6765
Avg (non-participants): 5.1236
Message edited by author 2009-07-30 12:46:21. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:55:31 PM · #71 |
i made a graph of all my entries. blue is participants, red is non-participants, and green is the overall average. in nearly every case the participants voted lower, but only in a couple would i say it's significant. no, i didn't do any statistical analysis, i forget what formulas are for what when it comes to stats and prob ;)
eta there is a very slight trend upward with my scores, but it's really just a rollercoaster. i feel like i should be improving more :P
Message edited by author 2009-07-30 12:56:48. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:57:01 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I don't know who the daytime soap people are, nor do I watch Dr Phil (though I think I know who he is?) but I still wanna know what the paring down of the entries provides. |
My wife records my daytime soaps for me, you really are missing out. ;-)
Look at it this way:
Lets say on the last two days of voting, there are 50 images remaining from the original field of 500.
These last 50 images are considered to be the most popular, not necessarily the "best", but the most popular.
All other images are still visible but have been removed from voting. The last 50 get the balance of the votes and most likely the balance of the comments. Good and Bad. I'd say if the image I wanted to see in the top 50 was not there, I'd be a bit more critical of the remaining images with my comments. Maybe I'd review the remaining images and see some things I would have breezed over first time round?
All in all, it would remove the unpopular distractions from the "competition" and allow concentrated focus on the remaining images which have "passed the grade".
I think it would be heck of a lot more efficient and offer greater reward for those striving for excellence ON THIS SITE.
I hope that clears things up? |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 01:01:31 PM · #73 |
If that's what you're after, then, well, yuck. Nothing against you or Dr Phil or the daytime soaps, but that sure as heck isn't my idea of how I'd like the site to be at all. Then again, my votes are usually outliers, so I'm not the audience you seek in the first place.
Really crappy day. argh. Going out. Turning off the freakin' computer. Have a nice evening, kids. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 01:05:03 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
If that's what you're after, then, well, yuck. Nothing against you or Dr Phil or the daytime soaps, but that sure as heck isn't my idea of how I'd like the site to be at all. Then again, my votes are usually outliers, so I'm not the audience you seek in the first place.
Really crappy day. argh. Going out. Turning off the freakin' computer. Have a nice evening, kids. |
Well, you have nothing to worry about as the site is not like that at all. It was just a concept and there are some of us that would probably enjoy some of "that" on this site. It is here for all of us after all, is it not? Gnite. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 01:07:21 PM · #75 |
Ivo wrote: "How the heck did this go from the elimination of the lowest percentile images in a challenge to questioning whether "I am the right kind of voter"?"
It's called creative imaginative shift. I think I have an award for that one too. (It's the propeller without the hat - stuck persistently [note the spelling correction] on the top of the skull. Very very cool). |
|
