| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/24/2007 06:08:28 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
"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 one month will be imposed to both parties.
Is that better? |
10, 10, 10, 10, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8, ...
~Terry
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 18:09:00.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:09:01 PM · #277 |
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Langdon and the SC (sounds bit like a band doesn't it) ..... you have my utmost admiration. If you don't address the ongoing problem with the voting (and there have been numerous *rolleyes* threads about this) you're criticized. Now that you have addressed the problem you're taking the heat again.
Supspending the rights of a few members of this community must have been a very difficult decision, one that none of you would have taken lightly. Thank you all for the hard work and commitment you make. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:09:33 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
"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 one month will be imposed to both parties.
Is that better? |
I appreciate what you are trying to get at Steve, and I see your point, but won't this cause just as many questions of another flavor? "Does this mean I can cast 4 votes in a row and then skip one?" "How do I know if it's 3 points or more than my average?" etc.
One question I have is how many accounts actually got suspended in this round up? Are we talking 2? 5? 20?
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:10:30 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
There are a couple points I would like to clarify:
First, please be aware that we are not issuing warnings and penalties based solely on automated reports. In the past, we have relied on users to report suspicious activity they observed. Also, as users ourselves, we have also reported suspicious activity we observed. Any report is investigated thoroughly, and appropriate action taken based upon the evidence available.
When a user or Site Council member reports a specific suspicion of improper voting, we (as a group) investigate the allegation, using a variety of tools and reports. In many cases, we find either that the evidence shows conclusively that there is no wrongdoing, or that it is inconclusive. In those cases, the issue is dropped with no further action taken. Other time, we are able to determine conclusively, from all the evidence available (and believe me, there is a lot of data we look at), that friend voting is happening and issue appropriate sanctions.
These automated reports are intended supplement the reports currently received from site participants. They do not replace the investigative process in any way. Information gathered from the automated reports is subjected to the same level of scrutiny as that provided from participants, and penalties are only applied after a thorough, manual review shows clear and convincing evidence that votes were knowingly cast based upon the photographer rather than the photograph.
Second, regarding the suggestion that we increase the minimum voting percentage, I compiled some statistics on this which may shed some light on why we have not pursued this. To compile these statistics, I compared those found to have given friend votes to the general population for two recent challenges (one member and one open challenge).
For the purposes of this calculation, a "friend voter" is one who:
- was sent a warning or suspension notice yesterday for giving or trading votes with another person (those who were identified as just receiving biased votes from another person were not included), and
- cast one or more votes in Night Shot IV (Challenge 662) and/or Insects II (Challenge 667).
My analysis showed that "friend voters" voted on an average of 52.4% of entries in Night Shot IV, and 71.3% of entries in Insects II. This are both marginally higher than the 47.2% and 69.7%, respectively, voted upon by the general population, suggesting that increasing the minimum voting percentages would do as much or more to inconvenience the general population than it would to reduce friend voting.
Those who wish to discuss further modifications to the voting system are encouraged to start a new thread in Website Suggestions, so as to keep this one on-topic.
Third, we are looking at the big picture while making our decisions. We take great care not to legislate opinions or to penalize someone for their taste in photography. Penalties are enacted only when it is overwhelmingly clear, from the entire body of evidence, that votes were cast based solely on who the photographer was, rather than the quality of the photograph itself.
Participants who are not sharing entries should go about voting as normal, and stand reassured that we are doing our best to make sure the value of your vote is not diluted. Those who are sharing entries with others should keep in mind their obligations to vote on the entries, not on the individuals -- and if they feel they cannot do that, it may be best to skip those entries. Even if you may occasionally recognize a photographer's style, you really have nothing to worry about from this change.
Fourth, we are looking for patterns of abuse, not single votes. If you happen to give your friend, spouse, or father's uncle's sister's cousin's brother's former roommate a 10, we don't care. Do it in every challenge, and we're eventually going to take notice. This is no different than our existing vote-monitoring tools, except that while the existing tools look at individual challenges in isolation, these new tools look across multiple challenges.
~Terry |
I think everyone needs to RE-READ this.. it seems that many questions or thoughts after this post were squashed with this post from Terry. I just don't see what all the discussion is for. You can't get much clearer. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:11:11 PM · #280 |
How about: "You're expected to vote on the image, not the person who took it."
That way friends and trolls are both covered.
:) |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:12:07 PM · #281 |
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 18:12:27. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:21:29 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by suemack:
Langdon and the SC (sounds bit like a band doesn't it) ..... |
The best of Langdon and the SC, featuring such hits as
DQ It For Love, 99 Bad Photos and (Next Time He'll Think) Before He Cheats
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:23:05 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
"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 one month will be imposed to both parties.
Is that better? |
10, 10, 10, 10, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8, ... |
If you don't like those numbers then make them small enough to eliminate their effect on challenge results even if people do try to circumvent them. Statiscal analysis will tell you what those limits should be. Then set the limits BELOW the level where they can affect challenge outcomes by an individual voter or pair of voters.
To keep the definitions of cheating secret and penalize voters for violations in the manner done yesterday is an error and will generate more voter paranoia than already exists and will decrease site morale.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:25:19 PM · #284 |
The DPC general society think that a photo will win when the majority of that same society say it deserves to, by means of voting. There is no campaigning nor advertising, the resized, sharpened and titled image will have to do the work all by itself. "Friendly voting" is a nice way of saying that some people are doing more than it is allowed to try to win, what the whole society do not think they deserve.
Some claim that they did not know it was not ok to do so! Well, will they be courageous enough to show us all the 9 and 10 they gave and received? For us to decide whether their voting was appropriate or not? Have they, anyone of them, told anybody outside their voting ring(s) about their practice? I think not; I would not.
If I had the say, I will clear all penalties recently imposed, make it know the system is there and give the friendly fire voters the chance to reflect on their higher than deserved scores.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:26:19 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The best of Langdon and the SC, featuring such hits as DQ It For Love, 99 Bad Photos and (Next Time He'll Think) Before He Cheats |
I just downloaded the single "Voter Paranoia" from iTunes. It's fwiggin OXSOME! |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:30:28 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
If you don't like those numbers then make them small enough to eliminate their effect on challenge results even if people do try to circumvent them. Statiscal analysis will tell you what those limits should be. Then set the limits BELOW the level where they can affect challenge outcomes by an individual voter or pair of voters. |
That's just where we are right now.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
To keep the definitions of cheating secret and penalize voters for violations in the manner done yesterday is an error and will generate more voter paranoia than already exists and will decrease site morale. |
Keep the definitions of cheating secret? A reasonable person with a modicum of common sense would understand that constantly and repeatedly giving high votes to friends - regardless of image quality - is vote manipulation.
It's never ever been a secret that you can't cast biased votes. The voting rules are pretty clearly stated and always have been. It sounds like you think the average reasonable person wouldn't "get" that you can't cast only 10's to your pals - I don't think that is true.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:31:38 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
10, 10, 10, 10, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8, ... |
Oh, btw, I like the way you used an "8" to example the way someone would try to circumvent the rule. Shows you understand the problem.
Terry, you are a smart guy. There is little doubt in my mind that you are smart enough to be able to set limits on cheating behavior that even when attempts are made to circumvent them they will have a statistically insignificant effect on the outcome of a given challenge.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:39:42 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Is that better? |
I just wanted to say yes, thank you and I appreciate that you posted a specific change. How I feel about the actual proposal has already been fairly well covered so I'll leave that as is. But I think it's beneficial to both parties when, if clarification or improvement is suggested, actual suggestions accompany it. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 06:51:51 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Is that better? |
I just wanted to say yes, thank you and I appreciate that you posted a specific change. |
I want you all to know that I am on your side. The SC has a terribly difficult job when dealing with negative issues and imposing sanctions for rules violations is the toughest.
I'm not gonna get all fired up, hate anyone on the SC or stomp off saying DPC "sucks" just because my suggestions are ignored. I'm not smart enough to always be right. :)
My duty as a good DPC citizen is to point out inequities when I see them. You guys have the tough job, you have to make the decisions and live with them.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:00:17 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
[quote=ClubJuggle] [quote=stdavidson]To keep the definitions of cheating secret and penalize voters for violations in the manner done yesterday is an error and will generate more voter paranoia than already exists and will decrease site morale. |
Give me a break!
The SC is not keeping the definitions of cheating secret. The have (what appears to me and apparently to the majority of the people on this thread) to be a standard based upon the publicly available rules that have been quoted several times above. Standards assume that the population to which they are being applied operate in good faith. This seems to not only be the case (offenders, per the SC were less then .5% of participants), but would also seem to be a desireable assumption.
Technically rigid rules are clear, but they are flawed in two respects: 1) Their technical percision makes them inflexible, allowing people who really are trying to "game the system" ways to find loopholes around the letter of the law while simultaneously being protected in their violations of its spirit; and 2) by laying down a sharp line (one side being a "cheater" and one side being "fair") they actually encourage everyone to push their behavior right to the very edge of acceptable behavior. The focus becomes "what can I get away with?" rather than "am I living up to the standard?"
As a newer member it is this attention by the SC to the integrity of the site that lets me feel good about the challenges that are at the heart of the DPC community.
By any reasonable reading of the OP's message, and the further clarifications by various SC members, what the SC has done should not be the source of any voting paranoia, and I doubt it will be. What will generate voter paranoia is people coming on threads like these and distorting the SC's actions and working to stir up the very paranoia that they loudly and continuously accuse others of creating.
I know stdavidson is a long-time member, and I'm just a noob, so this post will probably be dismissed by him and many others here. But, for me, the SC's action represents what's best about DPC. The actions of the people being so hysterical about it? Well, they represent something else.
edit: typo
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 19:11:50.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:03:15 PM · #291 |
You better believe it. Blue ribbon winner is a man picking his teeth with a human finger bone and the runner up is a crap eating dog.
Of course, both could actually be a self portrait of a very special person here. You know who you are. 
Originally posted by rosiehall:
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 07:07:38 PM · #292 |
To be fair, having met  stdavidson personally, I have no doubt that he has the best interests of the community at heart.
I also have no doubt that if I say I think he's misguided, that he'll pick up the pun. ;o)
~Terry
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:07:49 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
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? |
I, personally, feel that the rules are quite clear as is. What is unclear about them?
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.
Both of those squarely cover the issue at hand. "Friend Voting" doesn't have to be named explicitly, the same way that "Intentionally stabbing someone with a knife with the intent to kill" is murder, whether the law explicitly calls out knives or not.
If you give someone high (or low) votes based on nothing more than who they are, you are "offer[ing] or cast[ing] biased votes for [another] user".
By getting too specific you are either offering people information about how to bypass the system, or excluding other potential violations. It's a very near-sighted approach.
"No running on the pool deck" doesn't mean "No running on the pool deck unless your friend waves to you". |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:08:21 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Technically rigid rules are clear, but they are flawed in two respects: 1) Their technical percision makes them inflexible, allowing people who really are trying to "game the system" ways to find loopholes around the letter of the law while simultaneously being protected in their violations of its spirit; and 2) by laying down a sharp line (one side being a "cheater" and one side being "fair" they actually encourage everyone to push their behavior right to the very edge of acceptable behavior. The focus becomes "what can I get away with?" rather than "am I living up to the standard?"
|
Absolutely true and an excellent point, noob. ;-) This has been true of editing rules as well. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:25:54 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
To be fair, having met stdavidson personally, I have no doubt that he has the best interests of the community at heart.
I also have no doubt that if I say I think he's misguided, that he'll pick up the pun. ;o)
~Terry |
Well, as long as he can find some cacti to eat while he finds his way, we'll all be okay... as long as he shares. :) |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:35:36 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
10, 10, 10, 10, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8, ... |
Oh, btw, I like the way you used an "8" to example the way someone would try to circumvent the rule. Shows you understand the problem.
Terry, you are a smart guy. There is little doubt in my mind that you are smart enough to be able to set limits on cheating behavior that even when attempts are made to circumvent them they will have a statistically insignificant effect on the outcome of a given challenge. |
Thanks, Steve!
The dilemma is that while making a more restrictive filter makes it difficult to circumvent, it also increases false positives. Go too far the other way, and you let too many people game the system. The bottom line is that there is no way to fairly assign penalties based solely on an automated report.
Recognizing that, we designed the new reports simply to alert us to potential trouble areas, so that we can research them. Fundamentally, the process is no different than when a user reports a suspicion to Site Council. When a user reports that they believe JohnDoe and MaryRoe are trading tens, it's accepted at face value that we will investigate that. No one seems to expect that we will disclose what criteria the user applied to determine that John and Mary needed to be checked out.
I'm sure I speak for all of Site Counil when I say that while we fully recognize the need to maintain a fair and level playing field for everyone, that we also recognize that it is critical not to wrongly penalize everyone, and when errors are made, to right them as quickly as possible. We recognize that the vast majority of users do read and follow the rules, and will not conclude that a user has violated the voting rules unless the evidence is clear and compelling.
As to what constitutes clear and compelling evidence, probably all I can say is that if there were a single, simple answer to that, our jobs would probably be a lot easier. A bunch of tens from one user might be suspicious, where from another user who hands them out like so much candy, they are perfectly normal and acceptable. The best I can say is that our investigation process remains completely unchanged from what it was, for example, at the time of the WPL investigation late last year. I believe we were fair and even-handed with that investigation, and it is our intention to remain so.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:45:15 PM · #297 |
I still didn't hear how many people we are talking about? Can't someone tell me? 2? 10?
If you want to keep it private, send me a PM...
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:48:38 PM · #298 |
OK, I've just now found and read the "bans" thread, and while most people here and in that thread agree that friend voting should be discouraged or punished in some fashion, there are a couple of overarching concerns people have expressed:
1. The process by which decisions about friend voting have been made seem arbitrary or unfair
2. The punishments are unduly harsh and unexpected.
Both points have some validity, imo, which I think are reflective of the lack of transparency that stdavidson points out. To my mind, it all comes down to a question of due process -- notice and an opportunity to be heard. Before punishments are meted out, the accused should, at a minimum, be told what they are alleged to have done wrong (notice) and given the chance to explain their conduct or attempt to rebut the accusation (an opportunity to be heard) before their right to vote or submit is taken away.
Without condoning the conduct, it troubles me that the first time the violators have heard of the problem is in an email telling them they've been suspended, and that most appear not to have even been told whose images they are alleged to have voted up. It appears that violators are all being charged, tried and convicted behind the scenes, based on conclusions drawn from voting patterns and judgments about why certain votes were made without any input from the person actually casting the votes. That system is not fool proof, and there is at least one instance where someone has been "wrongly convicted" and had their sentence reversed.
Most legal systems give due process rights to the accused before harsh punishments are handed out not because they are concerned with the rights of the criminals, but in order to protect the innocent. Due process is necessary to foster community support for any system of justice (which, lets face it, is what we're talking about). Here, if members and users knew they would have a chance to explain their conduct before being suspended, I think you would see a lot less concern arising from such actions. I think many of the comments made in these thread spring from fear that the commenter, too, could be suspended for innocent votes that someone else wrongly interprets to be the product of friend voting etc.
I am NOT attacking SC here or suggesting that they are acting precipitously or the final outcome on any of the current suspensions would be any different. By all accounts, SC has done everything it can to reach the right result, and give members the benefit of the doubt where the evidence is uncertain. I'm just suggesting that the process should be changed to provide an opportunity for the accused to confront the evidence, plead their case, and offer any mitigating circumstances before being suspended.
edit -- typos
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 19:49:42. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:54:10 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
OK, I've just now found and read the "bans" thread, and while most people here and in that thread agree that friend voting should be discouraged or punished in some fashion, there are a couple of overarching concerns people have expressed:
1. The process by which decisions about friend voting have been made seem arbitrary or unfair
2. The punishments are unduly harsh and unexpected.
Both points have some validity, imo, which I think are reflective of the lack of transparency that stdavidson points out. To my mind, it all comes down to a question of due process -- notice and an opportunity to be heard. Before punishments are meted out, the accused should, at a minimum, be told what they are alleged to have done wrong (notice) and given the chance to explain their conduct or attempt to rebut the accusation (an opportunity to be heard) before their right to vote or submit is taken away.
Without condoning the conduct, it troubles me that the first time the violators have heard of the problem is in an email telling them they've been suspended, and that most appear not to have even been told whose images they are alleged to have voted up. It appears that violators are all being charged, tried and convicted behind the scenes, based on conclusions drawn from voting patterns and judgments about why certain votes were made without any input from the person actually casting the votes. That system is not fool proof, and there is at least one instance where someone has been "wrongly convicted" and had their sentence reversed.
Most legal systems give due process rights to the accused before harsh punishments are handed out not because they are concerned with the rights of the criminals, but in order to protect the innocent. Due process is necessary to foster community support for any system of justice (which, lets face it, is what we're talking about). Here, if members and users knew they would have a chance to explain their conduct before being suspended, I think you would see a lot less concern arising from such actions. I think many of the comments made in these thread spring from fear that the commenter, too, could be suspended for innocent votes that someone else wrongly interprets to be the product of friend voting etc.
I am NOT attacking SC here or suggesting that they are acting precipitously or the final outcome on any of the current suspensions would be any different. By all accounts, SC has done everything it can to reach the right result, and give members the benefit of the doubt where the evidence is uncertain. I'm just suggesting that the process should be changed to provide an opportunity for the accused to confront the evidence, plead their case, and offer any mitigating circumstances before being suspended.
edit -- typos |
This post runs on the assumption that DPC is in any way a democratic type governmental entity.
It is not. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 07:58:18 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
...Before punishments are meted out, the accused should, at a minimum, be told what they are alleged to have done wrong (notice) and given the chance to explain their conduct or attempt to rebut the accusation (an opportunity to be heard) before their right to vote or submit is taken away... |
No punishments go into effect until midnight tonight.
~Terry
|
|
