| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/24/2007 11:48:17 AM · #251 |
I think everyone will be safe using the standard DPC voting method.
Give crappy pictures crappy votes, then give really good pictures crappy votes else they'll get better scores than your crappy picture.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:08:29 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by rosiehall:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by rosiehall:
I feel that the few votes given by friends would not counteract the troll votes but if moor people voted it would dilute the effects of both. |
I seem to remember a challenge ending in a tie not too long ago. In that case, a few friend votes would have swung the scores enough to differentiate. |
so would the trolls |
But they're just voting low based on their own opinions of the photo, which likely don't agree with yours. They're not voting based on who pressed the button. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:18:26 PM · #253 |
But they're just voting low based on their own opinions of the photo, which likely don't agree with yours. They're not voting based on who pressed the button. [/quote]
Do you seriously think that a vote of 1 on the blue ribbon is just someones opinion of a shot....... If it is then what are we all doing here. Votes must be cast with technical merrit along with likes/dislikes and a good technical shot cannot by anyones standards warrant a 1 vote |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:23:37 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by rosiehall:
But they're just voting low based on their own opinions of the photo, which likely don't agree with yours. They're not voting based on who pressed the button. |
Do you seriously think that a vote of 1 on the blue ribbon is just someones opinion of a shot....... If it is then what are we all doing here. Votes must be cast with technical merrit along with likes/dislikes and a good technical shot cannot by anyones standards warrant a 1 vote [/quote]
Well spoken, especialy if it fits the challenge.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:25:44 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Don't worry about it. If I recognize the model from several of an individuals challenge entries, he/she automatically gets a one from me. Their attempt at vote swaying worked. It swayed me to give them a 1. :D |
Voting a photo low based solely on who took it rather than the photo's merits is not legal either : ( |
Hence the ":D" smilie after my post.
However, the more I think about it, would a low vote based on a heavily used model be wrong? Not necessarily voting against the photographer but the subject. Are we not allowed to vote based on the creativity of the image, or lack thereof? |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:29:11 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Don't worry about it. If I recognize the model from several of an individuals challenge entries, he/she automatically gets a one from me. Their attempt at vote swaying worked. It swayed me to give them a 1. :D |
Voting a photo low based solely on who took it rather than the photo's merits is not legal either : ( |
Unless it's  dudephil, in which case, vote as low as possible. PM me if you want to know which entry is his.
(For the humor impaired among us, that was a joke. I would never divulge someone's entry. Except my own. Vote me ten, please!) |
Trust me. If anyone here wanted to get to me the first person to help you would be that &%^*  mk. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:38:17 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Don't worry about it. If I recognize the model from several of an individuals challenge entries, he/she automatically gets a one from me. Their attempt at vote swaying worked. It swayed me to give them a 1. :D |
Voting a photo low based solely on who took it rather than the photo's merits is not legal either : ( |
Hence the ":D" smilie after my post.
However, the more I think about it, would a low vote based on a heavily used model be wrong? Not necessarily voting against the photographer but the subject. Are we not allowed to vote based on the creativity of the image, or lack thereof? |
if the shot fits the challenge, even a very bad shot, it is at least a2 in my book, there are many angels to shoot the same thing, some better than others, so you should judge each on its owm merit, focus, the way the light falls and so on, not oh it's her again 1.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 01:01:48 PM · #258 |
Look at it this way. The challenge is "Natural". I open an image and technically it is the most perfect shot DPC has ever seen. The lighting is exquisite, composition is flawless, exposure is dead on, etc. Did I mention the subject just happens to be a poodle eating his own crap? Is that shot worthy of a 10 to the majority here? Of course, I'd give it a ten but what would you score it? The subject definitely met the challenge and the light fell on this crap eating dog like no other. Surely it deserves to stand on technical perfection. What if it was a technically perfect image of a cannibal killing and eating another human?
Originally posted by Grandad:
if the shot fits the challenge, even a very bad shot, it is at least a2 in my book, there are many angels to shoot the same thing, some better than others, so you should judge each on its owm merit, focus, the way the light falls and so on, not oh it's her again 1. |
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 01:05:07 PM · #259 |
| This has gotten RIDICLIOUS. The morally challenged will never understand, and will always find something to rant on about. The voting rules are simple, the violators visibly went against the spirit of the website, and they KNEW it when they were doing it. SC should refresh memories by posting the rules here in this thread then close it. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 01:18:47 PM · #260 |
Did I mention the subject just happens to be a poodle eating his own crap? Is that shot worthy of a 10 to the majority here? Of course, I'd give it a ten but what would you score it? The subject definitely met the challenge and the light fell on this crap eating dog like no other. Surely it deserves to stand on technical perfection. What if it was a technically perfect image of a cannibal killing and eating another human?
I would have a wow factor |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 01:21:36 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
This has gotten RIDICLIOUS. The morally challenged will never understand, and will always find something to rant on about. The voting rules are simple, the violators visibly went against the spirit of the website, and they KNEW it when they were doing it. SC should refresh memories by posting the rules here in this thread then close it. |
Not so, I have a month ban, and no explanation why, other than the software has alerted us to the fact that you have been engaging in "friend voting," consistently voting abnormally high on the images of at least one other user in a manner that is not consistent with your normal voting scale. I do not vote friends up, I do not go dishing out lots of 1 votes either, what is ridiculios is the sc playing god.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 01:31:37 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
This has gotten RIDICLIOUS. The morally challenged will never understand, and will always find something to rant on about. The voting rules are simple, the violators visibly went against the spirit of the website, and they KNEW it when they were doing it. SC should refresh memories by posting the rules here in this thread then close it. |
Agreed. This thread has given me an immense appreciation for the difficulty of the SC's job.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 01:35:18 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by Grandad:
Originally posted by aerogurl:
This has gotten RIDICLIOUS. The morally challenged will never understand, and will always find something to rant on about. The voting rules are simple, the violators visibly went against the spirit of the website, and they KNEW it when they were doing it. SC should refresh memories by posting the rules here in this thread then close it. |
Not so, I have a month ban, and no explanation why, other than the software has alerted us to the fact that you have been engaging in "friend voting," consistently voting abnormally high on the images of at least one other user in a manner that is not consistent with your normal voting scale. I do not vote friends up, I do not go dishing out lots of 1 votes either, what is ridiculios is the sc playing god. |
Grandad, please check your email. You were flagged in error and no suspension is following for you. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 02:24:27 PM · #264 |
Hey you guys, give the site and councilers a break, a fantastic job has been done here that should be lifting the morale of all that enter photos into chalenges now, knowing that the friend vote is gone, and the photos are on show universally. So what if you recognize a style or whatever, vote on the photo and let the new software do its job. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE WHY WORRY.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 02:33:17 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
I think everyone will be safe using the standard DPC voting method.
Give crappy pictures crappy votes, then give really good pictures crappy votes else they'll get better scores than your crappy picture. |
A college professor I had used to say, "Much truth is spoke in jest!"
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 03:12:00 PM · #266 |
| I feel as if some of the posts are getting off topic in regards to the way people judge a "great" photo from a "bad" photo. I believe the purpose of the thread was the SC exposing an issue of fraudulant purpose driven vote tampering. And I applaud them for their efforts in stopping it. But all the references to individuals personal voting habits...well of course everyone is differnt...to me thats the point of this site, i am very new here, but what has attracted me is the fact that I am showing my art work to hundreds of people who are gonna vote based on their own ideals and opinions. That way i can be a more productive and effective photographer. So for me, i hope everyone sticks with thier true voting style, whether its concept based, or stricktly photographic quality based...or both. Thats what i think the "challenge" is all about. Creating a photograph that a majority can appreciate, no matter which way they look at it. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 04:25:21 PM · #267 |
I renew my call for transparency. If my vote is discarded for any reason, I would like to know.
Didn't vote above 20%? I'd like to get a PM telling my all my votes were discarded for that challenge.
Vote discarded because of "friend voting" or any other reason for that matter? I would like to get PM telling me my vote was discarded and the reason.
We have this transparency for disqualification and it works terrifically well. Why not for voting?
It's not that I mistrust the SC, I don't. And in fact I believe they are doing a great job and D&L are, too!
But I made my living designing and building software for more than 3 decades and sometimes software (i.e. filtering scripts in this case) contains errors and only through transparency can we be sure we weed them out.
I believe it was Karl Marks who said, "He who casts the vote decides nothing. He that counts the vote decides everything." By adopting transparency, we can re-establish trust and confidence in those whocount the votes,even if "those" are software scripts.
Further, I would suggest that occasionally (at least once a year) a panel of non-SC members be given the opportunity to "audit" the voting systems, mechanisms, and the votes themselves. We do this routinely when it comes to financial records. This would also have the benefit of helping to build trust and confidence.
Admittedly, if there are voting irregularities, D&L won't go to jail for life as Bernie Ebbers did for his Worldcom scandal. And votes are just tick marks in the checklist of life for a lot of photographers' . No Nobel Prizes, no Pulitzers, no chance to gain serious wealth.
But folks do care that this is an honest and honestly administered site. I renew my call for transparency.
When I have called for transparency before, I have taken some heat for it and seen some defensiveness. Please accept this post at face value. No shouting here. No calling anyone out. Just a reasoned post explaining how I feel about the issue, why, and what I would like to see going forward.. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 05:13:18 PM · #268 |
As far as throwing your vote out if you don't vote on 20%: It is in red while you are voting. Until it turns black you already know that your vote is discarded. If you have an extreme vote pattern (you vote only 1s on every image, etc), the vote scrubber will cut those. A normal voting pattern will never be flagged or votes discarded.
The only other way it would be discarded is if an image is dq'ed, and even then, you can see it at the end of the challenge. No votes were thrown out for anyone suspended. If you are flagged/suspected of vote tampering, we will let you know, not just eliminate your votes.
In this way there is transparency, as you call it, already in place.
As far as an audit, that is an interesting idea, but frankly I wonder what is at stake. The site is free for most people, so it is not money. For others, there is a $25 fee to join, so I guess that could be a reason.
I don't know, it just seems like a lot of work to ensure that people trust the script to be doing what it is programmed to do. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 05:17:01 PM · #269 |
The short answer to your question, Kelly, is that Site Council is not concerned with this sort of behaviour UNLESS it is a determined pattern of irregular voting designed to manipulate the rankings. We determine this based on the voting pattern itself over time and not based on comments or the odd single vote.
Originally posted by klstover:
Can I address something that might be a little touchy? I wanted to find a good way to word this but I think I'm going to have to name names, hope this is okay.
If there's a picture that's out of focus, bad composition, etc... a voter might look at that and say, "I really like how this is unique and unconventional" and give it a high score.
But I really am not comfortable with the "oh, this looks like a whiterook shot, so I'm going to give it a 10." There have been plenty of comments like this on his shots.
It is not as big of an issue specifically as it was a little while ago but I would still love a coment from SC as to the acceptability of this. |
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 05:21:46 PM · #270 |
Okay, cool. Thanks.
I guess I was thinking that the whitrook thing would lead people into a pattern... but I guess that would be picked up as usual!
Tankoo for the answer :-) |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 05:37:46 PM · #271 |
This was posted in the "bans" discussion but it is more appropriate for this discussion. It was in reaction to a posting by Roz relating her experience and parts of that experience are included below. Applogies to those who are seeing this long message again after having seen it in the other discussion.
Note these facts from Roz's experience:
1-Roz was accused, tried, convicted and punished without her knowledge or input.
2-She was convicted of "friend voting", a crime she'd never heard of.
3-She would not have committed the crime if she'd known it was a crime.
4-The specific evidence that convicted her was not identified before sentencing.
Roz suggests that this action goes against the grain of "the supposedly friendly site that i thought dpc was".
Roz further suggests that, "rules are totally necessary, but they have to be obvious".
There undoutedly are many others at DPC that share her view.
Nobody questions that catching vote cheaters as a laudable goal, but the "sweep" complete with sanctions for violators was probably not the best approach to the problem.
MK commented:
Originally posted by mk:
So, let's come up with suggestions as to how to do it better. |
These are my initial suggestions:
1-Immediately recind the sanctions levied against the violators. Call it amnesty.
2-Create and implement a challenge system for violators to question the sanctions and see the actual evidence in order to defend themselves BEFORE sanctions are imposed.
3-Update challenge rules to CLEARLY define "friend voting" and all other manner of cheating in unambiguous ways. Currently they do not.
It has been said numerous times in this in other discussions that the rules are well known and written but that is not true. You need to have quantitative definitions, like a speed limit, so voters clearly understand when a violation has been commited and cannot reasonably deny the violation they are sanctioned for.
You can define violations in quantitative terms without giving away monitoring methods, much like you do with date tampering. Everyone knows that they must take their pictures during the challenge week. The violation is CLEARLY defined and you don't have to reveal your methods for violation detection. That is the way is should be for all cheating.
Below are selected parts of Roz's posting:
Originally posted by roz:
Originally posted by aerogurl:
it might be none of my business... but I would be interested in seeing what these emails from DPC exactly said.. did people get different emails or did everone get the same? did some get only warnings while others for bans? |
Roz,
Our vote monitoring software has alerted us to the fact that you have been engaging in "friend voting," consistently voting abnormally high on the images of at least one other user in a manner that is not consistent with your normal voting scale. In addition, you have been receiving abnormally high votes from at least one other user. Attempts to abuse the voting system in this manner are strictly prohibited and as a result, you will be suspended from entering and voting on challenges for a period of one month, to begin with Tuesday's challenges. After that point, we welcome your continued participation at DPC with the understanding that you are to vote fairly on every image or refrain from voting on images that you feel you cannot fairly assess. In addition, you will use caution when sharing your challenge images with other DPC voters, keeping in mind that any sort of vote solicitation is strictly prohibited. Thank you for your cooperation.
DPC Site Council
this is wot i replied ........
hi ...
well thats a bummer .... and extremely upsetting ....... but if i'd known
about this 'friend voting' rule and the penalties, there's no way i'd'v
voted on other 'friends' images ...
...
i have loved my time in dpc and this sudden action i feel goes against the
grain of the supposedly friendly site that i thought dpc was ... rules are
totally necessary, but they have to be obvious ... |
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 05:39:59 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I really love cats? |
Heh. LoudDog loves cats. heh. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 05:46:04 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
This was posted in the "bans" discussion but it is more appropriate for this discussion. |
So, I reply there and now I reply the same here:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
3-Update challenge rules to CLEARLY define "friend voting" and all other manner of cheating in unambiguous ways. Currently they do not.
It has been said numerous times in this in other discussions that the rules are well known and written but that is not true. You need to have quantitative definitions, like a speed limit, so voters clearly understand when a violation has been commited and cannot reasonably deny the violation they are sanctioned for.
|
Okay, so here is the applicable portion of the voting rules.
You May Not:
- vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system.
- offer or cast biased votes for any other user.
- attempt to alter the point totals for any entry in any way.
We Will:
- disqualify challenge entries from, suspend or ban anyone who abuses the voting system in any way.
Now, to me, those seem pretty clear but I understand that while I was not involved in the writing of the rules, maybe being on the SC gives me special insight. So what exactly needs to be said to make it more clear?
"It is not okay to vote only tens for your friends and family?"
If we are going to continually call for "better" or "clearer" rules, specific examples of how they could be clearer would be most helpful.
I'm also curious at what point responsibility transfers from the SC to the user. It hasn't been my experience very often, in the case of infractions such as this (we'll leave "major elements" out of this), that people just do not understand the rules. Many conversations are:
user: But I didn't knooooowwwww!
SC: Did you read the rules?
user: No.
SC: ... |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 05:51:40 PM · #274 |
1) Click here to vote in this challenge!
2) This page is to inform you in great detail (that you will still argue about) that cheating is not ok. (Print it in every language known to man)
Click here to ackowledge that cheating is not ok and begin voting!
3) Voting entries page.
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 17:52:29. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:06:35 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
3-Update challenge rules to CLEARLY define "friend voting" and all other manner of cheating in unambiguous ways. Currently they do not.
It has been said numerous times in this in other discussions that the rules are well known and written but that is not true. You need to have quantitative definitions, like a speed limit, so voters clearly understand when a violation has been commited and cannot reasonably deny the violation they are sanctioned for. |
Okay, so here is the applicable portion of the voting rules.
You May Not:
- vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system.
- offer or cast biased votes for any other user.
- attempt to alter the point totals for any entry in any way.
We Will:
- disqualify challenge entries from, suspend or ban anyone who abuses the voting system in any way.
Now, to me, those seem pretty clear but I understand that while I was not involved in the writing of the rules, maybe being on the SC gives me special insight. So what exactly needs to be said to make it more clear?
"It is not okay to vote only tens for your friends and family?"
If we are going to continually call for "better" or "clearer" rules, specific examples of how they could be clearer would be most helpful.
I'm also curious at what point responsibility transfers from the SC to the user. It hasn't been my experience very often, in the case of infractions such as this (we'll leave "major elements" out of this), that people just do not understand the rules. Many conversations are:
user: But I didn't knooooowwwww!
SC: Did you read the rules?
user: No.
SC: ... |
Fair enough... here is one example of a clear rule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Friend Voting" Violation:
You may not cast 5 votes in a row for a voter known to you that is 3 or more points above your average vote given. Sanction for a violation is a 1 month voting restriction penalty. If "friend voting" is reciprocated by another user known to you then both voting and submission restrictions for 1 month will be imposed to both parties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that better?
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 18:08:54.
|
|
