| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/23/2007 06:36:39 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
I think you're being unduly harsh here, Steve. It's been in the site rules all along:
You may not:
* offer or cast biased votes for any other user.
* attempt to alter the point totals for any entry in any way.
We will:
* use automatic and manual methods to actively monitor voting patterns for abuse.
* disqualify challenge entries from, suspend or ban anyone who abuses the voting system in any way.
Edited down to relevant passages, of course. |
A lot of voters, particularly those now unexpectedly punished, might legitimately question what constitutes a "biased vote". That has never been defined.
The WAY the "new tools" were implemented is the problem, not the goal.
A better approach:
1-Install the "new tools".
2-Publicize to all DPCers that the "new tools" are being implemented.
3-Publish a date when repercussions for violations will begin.
4-Send WARNINGS to violators until a published cutoff date.
5-THEN implement punishment for violations AFTER that time.
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 18:49:47.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 06:41:12 PM · #152 |
Do we get to know what percentage of these "friend voting rings" were between WPL team members?
Also .5% is a single vote if you receive 200 votes, all this work to try and re-organize seems like alot of work to fix a single person from voting on a couple of friends images which are now able to be found anyway with new supersecret algorithms. Alot of people come to DPC just to look at photos that are in challenges and never vote, and I think you would lose alot of traffic if the only way that someone could browse through all the photos in a challenge was the order of their finish when the challenge is over. And what if you are not registered into the site, wouldn't you have to have to ways to present the images, one for those who can't vote and stopping by, and one for the rest of voting types? Just some thoughts...
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 06:44:35 PM · #153 |
I'm not trying to be rude... but you are saying that you should be Warned that you are cheating and it is wrong before you are punished??? YOU KNOW that you are giving scores that are not deserved to people who do not deserve that score, period. Its simple.
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 18:46:47. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 06:45:49 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Do we get to know what percentage of these "friend voting rings" were between WPL team members?
Also .5% is a single vote if you receive 200 votes, all this work to try and re-organize seems like alot of work to fix a single person from voting on a couple of friends images which are now able to be found anyway with new supersecret algorithms. Alot of people come to DPC just to look at photos that are in challenges and never vote, and I think you would lose alot of traffic if the only way that someone could browse through all the photos in a challenge was the order of their finish when the challenge is over. And what if you are not registered into the site, wouldn't you have to have to ways to present the images, one for those who can't vote and stopping by, and one for the rest of voting types? Just some thoughts... |
Please clarify, ".. the only way that someone could browze .... was the order of their finish when the challenge is over"? Are you talking about the prior mention of not presenting thumbnails at voting time? That would be a different thing from how the images are presented in the challenge results, and having or not having thumbnails on the voting page doesn't have anything to do with it. Or am I misunderstanding your thinking? |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 06:57:36 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Please clarify, \".. the only way that someone could browze .... was the order of their finish when the challenge is over\"? Are you talking about the prior mention of not presenting thumbnails at voting time? That would be a different thing from how the images are presented in the challenge results, and having or not having thumbnails on the voting page doesn\'t have anything to do with it. Or am I misunderstanding your thinking? |
Yeah, let me try and clarify. I was responding to the posts that thought it was a good idea to not see thumbnails and vote on what they choose. If non-registered people come by to look through all the challenge entries before voting was finished how would they do that? I would think you would need to have two ways to present the photos, one for registered voters and one for those who just pass by the site and don\'t log in. Who knows if this makes sense either, lol.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 06:59:07 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A lot of voters, particularly those now unexpectedly punished, might legitimately question what constitutes a "biased vote". That has never been defined. |
All votes will be biased, to an extent, yes. But the spirit of the rule is addressing situations in which you know that a photo belongs to someone in particular and vote according to your feelings about that person instead of on the merits of the photo.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 06:59:26 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by ursula:
Please clarify, \".. the only way that someone could browze .... was the order of their finish when the challenge is over\"? Are you talking about the prior mention of not presenting thumbnails at voting time? That would be a different thing from how the images are presented in the challenge results, and having or not having thumbnails on the voting page doesn\'t have anything to do with it. Or am I misunderstanding your thinking? |
Yeah, let me try and clarify. I was responding to the posts that thought it was a good idea to not see thumbnails and vote on what they choose. If non-registered people come by to look through all the challenge entries before voting was finished how would they do that? I would think you would need to have two ways to present the photos, one for registered voters and one for those who just pass by the site and don\'t log in. Who knows if this makes sense either, lol. |
Ah, OK, makes sense now. I hadn't thought about non-registered people wanting to see challenge entries while the entries are in the voting stage. I wonder if that happens a lot .... hmmmmm. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:04:54 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Ah, OK, makes sense now. I hadn't thought about non-registered people wanting to see challenge entries while the entries are in the voting stage. I wonder if that happens a lot .... hmmmmm. |
I know I looked through entries quite abit before I joined the site and started votingm thats what made me think of it.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:06:06 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I'm not trying to be rude... but you are saying that you should be Warned that you are cheating and it is wrong before you are punished??? YOU KNOW that you are giving scores that are not deserved to people who do not deserve that score, period. Its simple. |
You are not being rude at all. I will attempt to explain my suggestion using an analogy with a real traffic violation system put in place in Arizona.
A new freeway was built through Scottsdale, Arizona and speeding on it became a problem, but there were not enough police patrols to ticket all the violators and it continued to be a problem.
So, the city installed "new tools" to catch violators; automated radar/camera systems that photograph violators and automatically ticket them based on how fast they are going. No officer necessary.
The news media in the Phoenix Metro area publicized that these "new tools" were installed and that they would be writing WARNINGS for violaters caught with the "new tools" for something like 4 months before they became effective. The date they became effective was published as well. After that tickets were written "for real".
An approach like that would have been a better implementation of the DPC "new tools".
Oh, and in the Scottsdale case, the speed limit was already clearly defined, "biased" voting at DPC is not.
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 19:15:02.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:12:41 PM · #160 |
I respectfully but strongly disagree with you, Steve.
The rules are clear.
They've been discussed repeatedly.
End of story.
That said, I don't think particularly badly of the examples I've heard of. I think they made a mistake, they're being punished, and they won't do it again.
But that's based on my understanding they just did it with a few people. As opposed to, say, 30 people all voting one guy's shots higher than others because of who he is.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:13:56 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I'm not trying to be rude... but you are saying that you should be Warned that you are cheating and it is wrong before you are punished??? YOU KNOW that you are giving scores that are not deserved to people who do not deserve that score, period. Its simple. |
You are not being rude at all. I will attempt to explain my suggestion using an analogy with a traffic violation system.
A new freeway was built through Scottsdale, Arizona and speeding on it became a problem, but there were not enough police patrols to ticket all the violators and it continued to be a problem.
So, the city installed "new tools" to catch violators; automated radar/camera systems that photograph violators and automatically ticket them based on how fast they are going. No officer necessary.
The news media in the Phoenix Metro area publicized that these "new tools" were installed and that they would be writing WARNINGS for violaters caught with the "new tools" for something like 4 months before they became effective. The date they became effective was published as well. After that tickets were written "for real".
No posted speed laws were changed as a result of the "new tools".
An approach like that would have a better implementation of the "new tools".
Oh, and in the Scottsdale case, the speed limit was already clearly defined. |
I don't agree with that approach, personally.
Also, what you don't seem to be grasping, is that people *have* already been warned. Multiple times. In multiple threads. I've seen it repeatedly. You act like this is a phenomenon that has happened right out of the blue, catching everyone completely off-guard. Entirely inaccurate.
Quite frankly, I think we've already hummed and hawed over things like this for long enough, and it's about time a hammer has fallen. Even for the miniscule percentage of people and votes that it's happening to.
This whole atmosphere of entitlement and self-interest really needs to end. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:15:04 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
I have to chuckle over this. Every time someone brought up that there was a problem with the way voters were voting, the steadfast response has been, "we don't have a problem". Now it's changed to "we've fixed the problem".
Mike |
I invite you to show me one SC post that says there were NO problems. I suspect what you will find is that our response is largely of the "the problem is not widespread, IF it is happening, it is on a very small scale" nature. If you look closely at a lot of them, we did say we were working on it (thus the word "update" in this thread's title). :)
|
While I don't attempt to ready all threads on here, in all the threads that have popped up about voting patterns being a problem or people have suggested that the way people vote might be an indication of a problem, has the SC said that they recognize there is a problem and are working on it? Saying a problem is "not widespread" is the petty much the same as "we don't see a problem" or "yes, there is a problem but it's not big enough to do anything about."
Anyway, I still find this humorous. That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't have been done, just that the way it's gone about after all the discussions about it and the responses of people, just strikes me as funny. Of course those of us that deal with computers, databases, statistics and such know that it's more like putting a suitcase lock on your suitcase... it's to keep the suitcase from coming open rather than keep anyone out. This will stop those with no malisious intentions or the very young or old and feeble, but it won't stop those that are determined to go against the letter as well as the spirit of the rules on voting.
Mike
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:18:59 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I'm not trying to be rude... but you are saying that you should be Warned that you are cheating and it is wrong before you are punished??? YOU KNOW that you are giving scores that are not deserved to people who do not deserve that score, period. Its simple. |
You are not being rude at all. I will attempt to explain my suggestion using an analogy with a traffic violation system.
A new freeway was built through Scottsdale, Arizona and speeding on it became a problem, but there were not enough police patrols to ticket all the violators and it continued to be a problem.
So, the city installed "new tools" to catch violators; automated radar/camera systems that photograph violators and automatically ticket them based on how fast they are going. No officer necessary.
The news media in the Phoenix Metro area publicized that these "new tools" were installed and that they would be writing WARNINGS for violaters caught with the "new tools" for something like 4 months before they became effective. The date they became effective was published as well. After that tickets were written "for real".
No posted speed laws were changed as a result of the "new tools".
An approach like that would have a better implementation of the "new tools".
Oh, and in the Scottsdale case, the speed limit was already clearly defined. |
I understand your point, but to simplify the matter, if the speed limit is 50mph and you are driving faster than that, I don't think that a ticket should be "right" only if you were told in advance what system was used to catch violators. If you are breaking a rule you are wrong, no matter what system is used to spot your violation. The only thing that should be known in advance is the consequence of that violation and this has always been in the voting rules (we will disqualify challenge entries from, suspend or ban anyone who abuses the voting system in any way) |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:19:16 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Also, what you don't seem to be grasping, is that people *have* already been warned. Multiple times. In multiple threads. |
Are you talking about specific people being directly being warned by SC or just people in general being warned like in threads?
I was never warned by SC until last night with my 4 week suspension.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:22:19 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A lot of voters, particularly those now unexpectedly punished, might legitimately question what constitutes a "biased vote". That has never been defined. |
I can assure you that no one was contacted for anything less than a consistent, repeated voting pattern over a period of time. Without getting into specifics, let's just say that no reasonable person could have concluded the voting patterns were, in fact, biased.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The WAY the "new tools" were implemented is the problem, not the goal. |
The tools weren't new, they always existed. The only part that was new was the automation of them. In fact, the automation came at the vociferous insistence of a number of members of the SC, with the idea that it wasn't fair to only check the voting patterns of certain people and not apply the same criteria to everyone. By automating the tools that were already present, it was felt that no particular person would be singled out for review based on unfair suspicion.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A better approach:
1-Install the "new tools". |
Addressed above - the tools were not "new" - only the automation part of it was different.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
2-Publicize to all DPCers that the "new tools" are being implemented. |
How many instances of public announcement would you feel is fair? One? Or maybe two?
Originally posted by stdavidson:
3-Publish a date when repercussions for violations will begin. |
This date was obvious.
Originally posted by langdon:
While it's understandable that family members or friends might know which entry is yours, attempts to influence their votes are not tolerated on this site.
We hope this serves as a warning to others, and that this never happens again. As always, if you know of or have reason to suspect any specific instances of cheating, please contact Site Council with any information you have. We take the integrity of the challenges very seriously. We have always thoroughly investigated any evidence or allegation of foul play, and will continue to do so. |
(Emphasis added.)
Originally posted by stdavidson:
4-Send WARNINGS to violators until a published cutoff date. |
See above. At least two public warnings were given previously.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
5-THEN implement punishment for violations AFTER that time. |
This is the punishment under discussion now.
Edited to fix quotes. Doh!
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 19:24:04.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:23:23 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by ursula:
otherwise my attempt at being a smart-ass will be foiled.) |
You're just not very good at it ursula. You're just too nice a person. If I'd known you were looking for smart asses in the SC I'd have applied last recruiting session. But, alas... I didn't meet the minimum time requirements. :P
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:23:49 PM · #167 |
I believe a lot is covered here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php?RULES_ID=13
Saying you were never warned personally is like telling the officer who has just stopped you for speeding that no officer personally told you the speed limit. ;o)
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 19:28:25.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:26:46 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Also, what you don't seem to be grasping, is that people *have* already been warned. Multiple times. In multiple threads. |
Are you talking about specific people being directly being warned by SC or just people in general being warned like in threads?
I was never warned by SC until last night with my 4 week suspension. |
In general. You don't need to have specific, personal warnings. If the general warning is "Don't vote higher based on the photographer" or some variation thereof.. then it's obvious that you *don't do it*. No?
You shouldn't have to be told on an individual scale. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:26:54 PM · #169 |
First, I am not trying to excuse anything I have done. But I wanted to say that you cannot rely on these instances as solid warnings. All of these threads were started right before I joined and at that point, I may or may not have been working my way thru the threads. Since I initially came here to just explore and did not even think about voting at that time, these threads would not have caught my attention.
Originally posted by L2:
How many instances of public announcement would you feel is fair? One? Or maybe two?
Originally posted by stdavidson:
3-Publish a date when repercussions for violations will begin. |
This date was obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:28:10 PM · #170 |
But before you are given a license to drive, you go thru driver's ed training which covers the rules and laws governing speeding.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I believe a lot is covered here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php?RULES_ID=13
Saying you were never warned personally is like telling the officer who has just stopped you for speeding that no officer personally told you the speed limit. ;o)
|
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:29:15 PM · #171 |
That's why I also included the link to the challenge voting guidelines.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:31:12 PM · #172 |
And I think my reference to driver's licensing applies to that as well. I did not read the rules before voting. And no, I am not saying that this is an excuse for me. I am saying that although it is there, I just never read them. I have not read a lot of the rules and regs here except for Basic, Advanced, and Expert Editing.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
That's why I also included the link to the challenge voting guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:34:38 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
And I think my reference to driver's licensing applies to that as well. I did not read the rules before voting. And no, I am not saying that this is an excuse for me. I am saying that although it is there, I just never read them. I have not read a lot of the rules and regs here except for Basic, Advanced, and Expert Editing.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
That's why I also included the link to the challenge voting guidelines. |
|
Site Council recommends you read all the rules. It helps to understand when things happen around here that aren't immediately comprehensible to you. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:34:39 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
But before you are given a license to drive, you go thru driver's ed training which covers the rules and laws governing speeding.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I believe a lot is covered here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php?RULES_ID=13
Saying you were never warned personally is like telling the officer who has just stopped you for speeding that no officer personally told you the speed limit. ;o)
|
|
But that sounds like you're saying that in order to vote on challenge entries here people would need to pass a course, or take a test first? That's just not doable on a website like this. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:36:13 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Site Council recommends you read all the rules. It helps to understand when things happen around here that aren't immediately comprehensible to you. |
After being smacked with a 4 week suspension it becomes quite comprehensible.
|
|
