| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2005 11:17:07 AM · #1 |
My suggestion to change the voting to a 1-7 scale didn't get a lot of support, and that's understandable. Even so, responses to that thread suggest to me that I am not alone in thinking that there is room for improvement in the way we vote. What about this:
Keep the current 1-10 scale, but refine it so that when you click on a number, say 5, a drop-down menu appears offering:
(5.0)--(5.1)--(5.2)--(5.3)--(5.4)--(5.5)--(5.6)--(5.7)--(5.8)--(5.9)
Someone else suggested in the previous thread that we have a box that we can type the numerical vote into instead of clicking on the bar. That also sounds like a good idea to me. In this case, the decimal could be inserted automatically for quick and easy use. Except for the fact that change is involved, anybody see any downside? |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 11:56:22 AM · #2 |
Too many options. Maybe 5.0. 5.3, 5.5, 5.7?
Or just have one, 5.5... So the options are 1, 1.5; 2, 2.5; 3, 3.5 etc...
But this will mess up the displaying of the images after, currently sorted by whole numbers...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 11:58:32 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
But this will mess up the displaying of the images after, currently sorted by whole numbers...
Robt. |
Sorry Robert, I don't understand what you mean. (Thanks for the input). |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 12:02:02 PM · #4 |
After you vote, the images display sorted into 10's, 9's, 8's etc according to the scores you gave them.
That gives you 10 separate "groups" of images to look back at when you consider moving some up and down on the second pass-through. If we used your "fully expanded" scale, that would be 90 different numbers to sort votes into.
This might make things a tad complicated for those who like to move scores around as they fine-tune votes? I donno.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 12:02:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Too many options. Maybe 5.0. 5.3, 5.5, 5.7?
Or just have one, 5.5... So the options are 1, 1.5; 2, 2.5; 3, 3.5 etc...
Robt. |
I would agree. I mean, what's the difference between a 5.1 image and a 5.2 image? I would stick with whole or half numbers only. People have a hard enough time picking a score between 1 and 10 let alone deciding on something with about 100 choices (1.0-10.0). I personally would like to see the choices stay the same or decrease. I though some of the suggestions in the other thread were pretty good. jmo, of course.
Jen
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 12:08:11 PM · #6 |
I agree, I think the real issue is feedback, not numbers...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 12:15:11 PM · #7 |
A 100 point scale would also change the look of our results graphs.
I'm with ButterflySis on the discreteness of the scale--what woud make you assign a 1/10th point difference to two images?
As discussed regularly here, people use different voting methods. I try to look at major elements such as composition, originality and technical mastery. With a few sub-categories added in I still have enough numbers to distinguish good from great and average from poorly done. |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 12:21:42 PM · #8 |
heh how about just click on the nearest whole number instead. :-D
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 12:28:30 PM · #9 |
| you would be able to include a minus system quite easily, and have them lumped into 10-, 9-, 8-... where 10- includes 9.5 and 10. Or you could do it with a plus system. 8+, 9+, 10 where 8 includes 8 and 8.5. Although I'm not sure we need more flexibility in voting? |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 12:33:48 PM · #10 |
How about a radically different way of thinking about things...I'm sure this one will go over well LOL:
How about instead of scoring, ranking them? We could let you order them all, or only require that you rank the top 30. The rest of the scoring is basically comments.
The numbers don't mean much, since in the end, it's a "relative" competition. People are adjusting the scores to rank them anyway, recognizing you can assign a tie. Maybe if you couldn't score them, you might be more willing to put a comment.
Just a wild thought, and I'm curious how others feel.
Aside from that, my other thought would be to show the user "descriptions" of the scoring categories rather than the scores. For example:
- Nothing to do with the challenge, very poor technical capture which has no hope of being fixed other than reshooting
- Meets the challenge theme, but not strongly, poor technical capture
- Meets the challenge theme, below average technical capture
etc.
Now one thing I immediate see when writing this goes back a while to something I've thought from day 1 of my membership. There should be TWO measurement/assessment scales: one for meeting the challenge, and one for technical and aesthetic qualities. It's really difficult to blend the two into one scale. And if you don't meet the challenge well in someone's eyes, as it is now, you might get a 1, which actually gives you no feedback about the photo itself. And before you argue that you were supposed to meet the challenge, I agree, but it may simply be that the "judge" in this case just didn't see it because they only spent 2 seconds scoring it. And you are left with a flat 1.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 01:38:26 PM · #11 |
"meeting the challenge" is such a damned subjective thing anyhow. It's not so much that some images get 1's and 2's for "not meeting the challenge", I get a lot of those and I bring 'em on myself I guess. What bugs me is when pictures that only peripherally meet the challenge but are otherwise excellent score very highly, beating out some very nice images that show a great deal of thought in their response to the challenge.
I have in mind, for example, that "sunsets" and "scenics" can score spectacularly well when it's sometimes obvious that they make only a token nod to the the challenge theme. I'm not sure this is a "problem", exactly, but it does tend to distort the "problem solving" aspect of the sire, which is basically what it's supposed to be about. (I think)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-02-19 13:39:24.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 01:57:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
How about a radically different way of thinking about things...I'm sure this one will go over well LOL:
How about instead of scoring, ranking them? We could let you order them all, or only require that you rank the top 30. The rest of the scoring is basically comments.
The numbers don't mean much, since in the end, it's a "relative" competition. People are adjusting the scores to rank them anyway, recognizing you can assign a tie. Maybe if you couldn't score them, you might be more willing to put a comment.
Just a wild thought, and I'm curious how others feel. |
Neil, I wouldn't be opposed to ranking. Like you said, in the end the results would be the same anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 03:00:52 PM · #13 |
Oh I see what you mean, Robert. Kyebosh' idea of grouping all the 1+, 2+, 3+ etc photos might be an answer to that. I can then see, too, if on the first run-through (it seems like you've said you vote using that system; I know sometimes i do) you might just use whole #s like deapee suggests, then if you take the time to make a 2nd pass, refine all the 5-6 photos a bit more to your liking, for example. Of course nothing would say you had to do that... if you'd rather just vote using round / whole #s and leave it that way, that would be fine.
ButterflySis- I can see your point, too, that 1/10th of a point gradations is some extremely fine voting! You asked what's the difference in 5.1 and 5.2... probably not much :) Adopting a 1/2 point scale such as you suggest would be an improvement over the current 1-10, in my opinion.
But again, having the 1/10th point voting available wouldn't mean everyone would necessarily have to vote every photo that way every time. But it would give you the flexibility to differentiate between very close challenge entries if you wanted to. As it is now, when I vote, it isn't that all my 9's are exactly equal. But the worst of these may not really need to be bumped into the 8 category either. By just making available (not requiring) the 1/10th point scale, if someone wanted to, they could indicate finer distinctions.
And KaDi- Took a look at the graph you referenced... wow! Is that the score from one of your entries? I can't imagine such a score :0) But seriously, the graph is something I hadn't considered. That would take some thought.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 05:02:10 PM · #14 |
How about a voice recognition system.
Wo ... dat sux dood (2)
euh .... nice pic ... euhh (5)
Heeeyyyyy ... not baddd (7)
Wow, that's a great shot of a dead bug (10)
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 05:08:15 PM · #15 |
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29
Personally, I think we should vote in primes--screw up everyone's math for awhile. =o) |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 07:09:26 PM · #16 |
I would LOVE to see the user interface design for a website that allows you to browse 500 photos and rank them in order from best to worst without simply scoring each one.
Dazzle me.
John
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 07:12:03 PM · #17 |
Ain't no such interface, LOL. Unless you have a wall of screens maybe?
The only way to do it would be by sorting on multiple pass-throughs. Keep going back to each discrete bloc and sort them further.
Robt.,
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 07:19:06 PM · #18 |
Sort of like a human bubble-sort. Yeah that works :)
John
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 07:54:07 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Aside from that, my other thought would be to show the user "descriptions" of the scoring categories rather than the scores. For example:
- Nothing to do with the challenge, very poor technical capture which has no hope of being fixed other than reshooting
- Meets the challenge theme, but not strongly, poor technical capture
- Meets the challenge theme, below average technical capture
etc.
|
think it would be great too ! |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 08:02:16 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
How about a radically different way of thinking about things...I'm sure this one will go over well LOL:
How about instead of scoring, ranking them? We could let you order them all, or only require that you rank the top 30. The rest of the scoring is basically comments....
|
Exactly what I have been thinking for some time now. That would force some meaningful decisions to be made.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 08:15:33 PM · #21 |
Speaking personally, I've observed a lot more complaints about the lack of comments than about the need for adjustments to the scoring system. Given this, I'm generally against anything that will make it take more time to vote and leave less time for commenting.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 08:29:19 PM · #22 |
Why is it people keep talking about scoring it based on if it meets the challenge to them. READ THE RULES for voting people.
You should then vote on the photo as if the rule was not broken, and leave the determination up to the Site Council.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 09:03:57 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by rex07734:
Why is it people keep talking about scoring it based on if it meets the challenge to them. READ THE RULES for voting people.
You should then vote on the photo as if the rule was not broken, and leave the determination up to the Site Council. |
James, they are not talking about DQ requests. They are talking about meeting the challenge. Meeting the challenge is one part of of the final score given on a photo but does not and should not be considered as a reason for a DQ request.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 09:14:36 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by rex07734:
Why is it people keep talking about scoring it based on if it meets the challenge to them. READ THE RULES for voting people.
You should then vote on the photo as if the rule was not broken, and leave the determination up to the Site Council. |
The rules for voting people also state: While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly, and Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered. Please do not request disqualification for these reasons, as such requests will not be considered.
If you believe an entry has violated the rules, you should recommend it for disqualification, but vote assuming no rules were broken. Simply not meeting (or misinterpreting) the challenge is not grounds for disqualification, however. Whether an entry meets the challenge can and should be considered in your vote.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 09:38:44 PM · #25 |
yeah, im thinking people should make a more profound effort in voting according to the current challenge also. However I don't think the voting system should be altered to this half point system either, I mean seriously this already happens when people in numbers are voting. I mean you give them a 7, and joe blow gives them a 6, and it equals 6.5 correct, and on down the line. As a callout to ALL DP members though, PLEASE KEEP THE CURRENT CHALLENGE'S THEME IN MIND, IT IS OF UPMOST IMPORTANCE FOR US TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE THEME WHEN VOTING, or else we should all go out and take the same picture of the same mountain side with a rainbow behind it.
Message edited by author 2005-02-19 21:40:18. |
|
