| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2005 01:41:42 PM · #1 |
| Hello all, me again. Please note: I thought this thread had died a quiet death! I made my suggestion, it was politely but firmly shot down, and I thought to myself, "Good, won't do that again." So, at least for me, please consider the suggestion withdrawn and the idea dead. Long live 1 to 10! |
|
|
|
03/13/2005 01:28:29 PM · #2 |
| In the end changing the voting is not going to end the fact that some pictures will be scored low. This is just making voting more of a pain. |
|
|
|
03/13/2005 12:47:27 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by nova:
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? |
Sorry, what problem are we trying to solve? |
|
|
|
03/13/2005 12:43:35 PM · #4 |
When we consider changing the scoring system, it is useful to consider the purpose of the change. I participate in the site because I want to learn about how people react to my photos and how my photos could be made better so that more people react positively. The site council is interested in a scoring system that meets users needs but also one that is simple to program, easy to understand, and easy to use. They want to encourage as many good photos at this site as possible. Simplicity is a compelling argument in any scoring system. So is inclusiveness.
As a user, I would be happy to see a system that scored the photo on its separate merits, for instance: composition, lighting and exposure, how well the photo fit the challenge, and overall impact. I believe that such a system would allow me to focus on the areas in my own practice that need the most improvement. I think it would be too difficult to score each of these areas on a 10 pt scale, but perhaps a five point scale would work for each area - assuming the areas are of equal importance. This makes scoring seem a little more objective, it takes just a little more time to do, and it provides infinitely more information to the user than does a score without a comment.
I find it is useful to think of the competition as a tool for encouraging competition, but to take winning and not winning as being interesting artifacts of the competition. But that's because I have so far to go before winning is a relevant idea. That said, if the challenge is to be more than just a beauty contest, but a place where people refine their skills, some of these ideas might prove helpful.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 11:40:49 PM · #5 |
| Sorry if I'm repeating anything already said but, I think splitting it up to tenths of a point would be too complex. What's the difference between 7.1 and 7.2? Also, the average score in the end will be about the same if we had scores by 1.0pts or 0.1pts because we have a sufficiently large sample of scores per image. |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 11:25:48 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
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. |
Ooooops sorry.... I broke my number 2 rule and didn't read the whole thread....sorry
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 10:57:01 PM · #7 |
I thought for a while about taking the black/white approach to voting: you only have two choices, Do you like this photo? Yes/no. The one with most Yes-es wins :) Of course it wouldn't work, but it's just a thought...
Reading through this, I tend to agree to the ranking proposal. The last open challenge, Pain, revealed this best, but scoring a photo is completely relative to all the other photos submitted in that certain challenge. So it's only logical to move fom voting to ranking. Maybe even make a little javascript arrow and have the user click on where he'd place that certain photo, then have it show as a line which shows the title when you hover over it. That way you remember which photo you placed where and can place the next photo before or after one of the little lines you placed before. |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 09:38:44 PM · #8 |
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. |
|
|
|
02/19/2005 09:14:36 PM · #9 |
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 09:03:57 PM · #10 |
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 08:29:19 PM · #11 |
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 08:15:33 PM · #12 |
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 08:02:16 PM · #13 |
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 07:54:07 PM · #14 |
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 07:19:06 PM · #15 |
Sort of like a human bubble-sort. Yeah that works :)
John
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 07:12:03 PM · #16 |
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 07:09:26 PM · #17 |
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 05:08:15 PM · #18 |
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 05:02:10 PM · #19 |
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 03:00:52 PM · #20 |
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 01:57:23 PM · #21 |
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 01:38:26 PM · #22 |
"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 12:33:48 PM · #23 |
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 12:28:30 PM · #24 |
| 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 12:21:42 PM · #25 |
heh how about just click on the nearest whole number instead. :-D
|
|
