| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2004 03:16:02 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by autool:
I went outside and did some work in the yard, and it gave me time to think of another idea.
Let’s say there were three challenges at the same time all with the same topic, open for everyone.
When you submit your entry it automatically goes into the challenge with the least entries, this would keep them the same size.
When you vote you would be limited to the two challenges that you are not entered in.
After the challenge is over there could be three sub winners (not divulged at this time) in each one, and then the top 50 from each challenge would be lumped together and every one would be allowed to vote for the final winners. The length of time for voting could be adjusted to from a week each to something less for convenience and to appease those anxious ones. |
I don't think the submital time should be shortened, a week is just right IMO.
I thought of an additional thing. Your original vote would still stand for the final round, so theoretically one might only have 100 new pics to vote on. :<)
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 03:23:43 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Shorten the time limit for entries in the basic editting challenges, but not the time to vote of course. ;) |
I'd love to see suggestions that improved quality, rather than just reduced quantity.
Shorter submission times just mean we get fewer entries, all with less care than before.
As to why this matters, as coolhar asked. 200+ votes as a minimum to get a score registered means either even less time spent considering the image or a whole lot fewer votes.
I remember 200 was a huge number of entries about 6 months to a year ago. We aren't far away from 600 now. Other similar sites that are more popular/ visible top about 10,000 entries.
We aren't a victim of our own success yet, but at some point some changes are ineviable. It doesn't hurt to think what would be good ahead of that change.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:15:19 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by autool:
I went outside and did some work in the yard, and it gave me time to think of another idea.
Let’s say there were three challenges at the same time all with the same topic, open for everyone.
When you submit your entry it automatically goes into the challenge with the least entries, this would keep them the same size.
When you vote you would be limited to the two challenges that you are not entered in.
After the challenge is over there could be three sub winners (not divulged at this time) in each one, and then the top 50 from each challenge would be lumped together and every one would be allowed to vote for the final winners. The length of time for voting could be adjusted to from a week each to something less for convenience and to appease those anxious ones.
I need to type faster, good idea OnesweetSin ! |
I think we might just be on the same wave length
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:29:11 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I am working on a piece of software more like a meat grinder. It will analyse 500 entries at amazing speed and will spit out all inferior entries. The beta is working fine. I have tried it on my port and it has spit out the entire set. ROFL |
No it didn't!! graphicfunk!!
It left mine and I'm gonna win the ribbon...damn it's the brown one! |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:34:36 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by orussell:
Shorten the time limit for entries in the basic editting challenges, but not the time to vote of course. ;) |
I'd love to see suggestions that improved quality, rather than just reduced quantity.
Shorter submission times just mean we get fewer entries, all with less care than before.
As to why this matters, as coolhar asked. 200+ votes as a minimum to get a score registered means either even less time spent considering the image or a whole lot fewer votes.
I remember 200 was a huge number of entries about 6 months to a year ago. We aren't far away from 600 now. Other similar sites that are more popular/ visible top about 10,000 entries.
We aren't a victim of our own success yet, but at some point some changes are ineviable. It doesn't hurt to think what would be good ahead of that change. |
200 votes minimum for your votes to count is, IMHO, not that much of a burden. Remember we are talking primarily of the Open challenges which are populated largely by the newcomers who tend to vote more than the old timers. But if it is the minimum requirement that is the problem, as opposed to voting all entries, then maybe we should consider lowering that threshold for the large field challenges. Something like 20% or 150 images (whichever is less) needed to make them count. The 20% minimum was, I think, put in place to prevent the cherry-picking voters from selecting a few images to award high votes to themselves and friends. A 150 minimum would probably serve that same purpose. And do so with a very much smaller impact on the structure of the challenges and the voting system. Wouldn't that be a preferable way to deal with it if the 20% min is the problem? Unless, of course, it is someone's agenda to make some major changes to the structure; and the increasing field issue is a smokescreen to disguise some other changes desired by a few but unlikely to be popular on their own merit. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:36:33 PM · #81 |
tinfoil hats at the ready!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:48:12 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by autool:
...Let's say there were three challenges at the same time all with the same topic, open for everyone.
When you submit your entry it automatically goes into the challenge with the least entries, this would keep them the same size.
When you vote you would be limited to the two challenges that you are not entered in.
After the challenge is over there could be three sub winners (not divulged at this time) in each one, and then the top 50 from each challenge would be lumped together and every one would be allowed to vote for the final winners. The length of time for voting could be adjusted to from a week each to something less for convenience and to appease those anxious ones. |
If the idea is to reduce the numbers of votes a person has to cast, why not, in Autool's proposal, just combine all the scores from the three separate divisions into one ranking to get the final results? |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:53:55 PM · #83 |
Separate the different levels...novice, intermediate and master.
Voting allowed according to your average.
Or just disallow all those who finish below top 100?
In fact, don't let anyone who doesn't have a DSLR enter?
Limit entries to only those who have ribbons?
Just let me and graphicfunk enter!
You post an open challenge, you have hundreds of members and registered users, it's obvious what's gonna happen! The bigger the site gets, the more people enter each challenge.
Only 100% voters count! |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 05:36:03 PM · #84 |
It ain't broke... Enter when you want, vote on what you want, comment on what you want.
... let's not fix it
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 05:56:00 PM · #85 |
It LOOKS overwhelming to have so many entries to vote on but it isn't really. Just vote on a few each time you check your score and it doesn't take that long to vote on all of them.
Just think how many pictures one could vote on in the time it took to read this entire thread! All the time spent fussing back and forth could have been time spent voting.
I don't think it's a good thing to limit entries, lots of the entries in this challenge are beginners and sometimes they might not be that great - everyone has to start somewhere though. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 06:08:04 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Sammie:
Just think how many pictures one could vote on in the time it took to read this entire thread! All the time spent fussing back and forth could have been time spent voting. |
You mean spent commenting! (C: That is where my time is usually spent. I went into a funk of not voting, but just commenting instead. I liked that. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 06:08:45 PM · #87 |
One of the things that concerns me, Sammie, is that with so many shots those new photographers aren't getting a fair and reasoned assessment of their shots.
And whilst you may well be able to vote on a heap of shots in the time it takes to read this, there are a couple of other things to consider: those on dial-up, which remains a large part of the users, and those who like to review all images they vote on in greater depth - it's asking a lot of busy people to get to the 108 votes mark like that. So we'll all get a lot more hurries votes, and a lot fewer in depth votes.
E |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 06:12:17 PM · #88 |
Shortening the entry time would be counter-productive and too easy to get around. It would be counter-productive because it would force people to 'hurry hurry' and could produce overall lower quality images. We could also upload a 'place holder' image the way the site is coded now and change it out right before the challenge starts with whatever we came up with that may be better.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 06:28:30 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by e301:
One of the things that concerns me, Sammie, is that with so many shots those new photographers aren't getting a fair and reasoned assessment of their shots.
|
So, do you think there should be a seperate challenge for beginning photographers? It would be very hard to set up criteria for something like that.
Yes, I do know that dial-up internet connection is a problem for lots of people. We have only had high speed for a short time and it seems wonderful compared to the slow speed connection. However, it just doesn't seem fair OR practical to limit the number to entries in a challenge - to me, anyway. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 05:04:29 PM EDT.
