| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2006 09:47:39 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
But if you extrapolate that, and with the post-Xmas boost in new camera owners finding us what we'll have by april is two weekly challenges of 400+ entries. |
But it's still more feasible to vote 20% of 400 entries (80 images) than vote 20% of 1000 entries (200 votes). It may mean that I don't vote on every challenge. BUT...it does mean that I can vote enough for my votes to count. Thus I will vote...
(I have been voting more since the exclusive challenges came into existance, I know that much.) |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 09:41:36 AM · #2 |
Sweet. I just learned a new word. But I think "Exclusive Open" sounds more like a good old-fashioned oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 09:35:48 AM · #3 |
Well, speaking as one of the post-Christmas new camera owners (the DSLR I've been eyeing off was on special :) this explains what the "Exclusive" means. Until I saw this forum topic, I was unsure why it was called "Exclusive Open Challenge" - you have to admit, it does sound oxymoronic.
Perhaps something could be added to the FAQ to explain this?
Regards
Tim
Edit: Replaced "tautological" with "oxymoronic" ... well it was about 3am local time. :)
Message edited by author 2006-01-06 15:35:05. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 01:01:20 AM · #4 |
A brief review of the old method and new method entries shows that overall more people are entering now than before, but each challenge has smaller number of entries.
So it seems like a success in two ways. But if you extrapolate that, and with the post-Xmas boost in new camera owners finding us what we'll have by april is two weekly challenges of 400+ entries.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2005 12:31:02 AM · #5 |
Since they've been continued and are no longer labeled an experiment, have any conclussions been made from the quantified data of this experiment regarding the purposes put forward?
Not against them, more challenges are always good -- but curious if they have answered the questions posed in the originating post. That and waiting for the paying member's experiment. :D
David
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 06:22:32 PM · #6 |
(note: Since these challenges have been continued, this thread has been renamed from September Open Challenge Experiment to Exclusive Open Challenges for ease of reference and searching.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
10/26/2005 12:44:18 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
Experiment update or oversight? |
Oversite, thanks for pointing it out. |
|
|
|
10/26/2005 12:26:30 AM · #8 |
Gotta be an oversight; if one's "exclusive" how can the other not be?
R.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2005 12:22:17 AM · #9 |
Experiment update or oversight?
Exclusive Open Challenge: Busy
Rules: Basic Editing (Updated 1/5/05)
Submission: Oct. 26th - Nov. 1st
Submissions: 0
View Details and Submit
Open Challenge: Shutter Speed
Rules: Basic Editing (Updated 1/5/05)
Submission: Oct. 26th - Nov. 1st
Submissions: 0
View Details and Submit
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:14:44 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:59:03 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Have we learned anything from it? |
I think it worked out pretty well. Just wondering if its permanent now, or is it still on probation :)
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:40:29 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
Is the experiment permanent now? |
Have we learned anything from it?
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:17:55 AM · #13 |
Is the experiment permanent now?
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 08:07:30 PM · #14 |
I am for the unrestricted voting - let everyone vote on what they want and do not hide scores on their images until after they vote.
There seems to be a lot of supposition of how people will vote based on what they know about their own score. But the same can happen based on what they do not know. Suppose I want to know my score but have entered a particular challenge and cannot see that score until I lock my votes.
I can see a couple of outcomes. First since I am on a dial-up connection it is likely to be at least a few days before I finish voting. Having to wait that long I'm just going to opt out of voting at all on that challenge. Some may see that as good. Others will not. Second I can see people rushing thorough the voting just so they can watch their score - people are addicted to the update button - they are going to act so that the button works. This will almost certainly result in some considered voting that is not well thought out.
Then there are other things that also effect the voting. The discussion of how the images and what kind of images meet the challenge can certainly impact how people vote. These discussion usually start as soon as the challenge is announced. They effect the image that are submitted and likely effect the voting as well - do we ban those discussions. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 07:30:00 PM · #15 |
Another possible restriction on voting (not my idea--someone suggested it in a thread I read a while ago, but it makes sense) is to only allow the user to see their score once they "finalize" their votes in a challenge, and then they are not allowed to change them.
I think that works, if it can be programmed easily, but I wouldn't have any objection to not allowing you to vote on a challenge you entered, either.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 07:23:20 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ldowse:
I propose both trials as well as a third option that provides a choice (which I also had suggested earlier). That is the "update option" choice. It is as follows:
If you enter a challenge, you may only vote on that challenge if you are not able to see your own score in that particular challenge.
If you opt to have the "update" button, then you waive your right to vote on that challenge. This will essentially eliminate one's score from having a direct impact on his/her voting strategy. The decision to vote or not vote (update or not update) would be made at the time the photo was submitted to the challenge with the option to change your mind up until voting begins. |
To me this seems like it would discourage voting even further. It seems like almost everyone here is obsessed with their update button. I don't envision them giving it up in order to vote. I would wager that doing this would cause votes per image to drop drastically.
In my opinion limiting the way people vote is a bad idea. The more votes an image gets, the more representative the score is, so I think it's best to encourage people to vote on as many things as possible regardless of which challenge they enter, as it's really hard for one person to skew the system in favor of their image anyway. The brave souls who are willing to vote on all 500+ images within both challenges should be applauded, not discouraged. One of the main goals of this site (it seems to me) is learning and getting feedback on your photos (and feedback includes a numeric score), so limiting the amount of feedback people can recieve seems contrary to the site's mission. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 04:53:46 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
...it is safe to assume an individual will enter the one they are more interested/knowledgable at. By requiring them to vote only on the challenge they were less interested/knowledgable about, not only are they less likely to vote at all -- and if they do, I fail to see how doing so would make their vote more valuable.
... |
Actually this is a very interesting point I had not considered. Personally I'm in favor of muckpond's suggestion (mainly because I had suggested it earlier ;-P ), but I must admit that your theory does have merit.
I propose both trials as well as a third option that provides a choice (which I also had suggested earlier). That is the "update option" choice. It is as follows:
If you enter a challenge, you may only vote on that challenge if you are not able to see your own score in that particular challenge.
If you opt to have the "update" button, then you waive your right to vote on that challenge. This will essentially eliminate one's score from having a direct impact on his/her voting strategy. The decision to vote or not vote (update or not update) would be made at the time the photo was submitted to the challenge with the option to change your mind up until voting begins.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 04:50:30 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
... And finally, given a choice between two challengs with differnet topics, it is safe to assume an individual will enter the one they are more interested/knowledgable at. ... |
David - In principle I agree with much of what you've said. I have to disagree with your assumption on deciding which challenge people enter.
Rule of Thirds (ROT) vs Bubbles: I chose Bubbles because I felt ROT was going to be more of a free study (subject matter). I like using the rule of thirds, but I felt that an entry in ROT was going to get lost easier because of the number of entries. So in this case I went against interest/knowledge.
From the Ground Up II (FGU) vs Beverages: Similar case here. I thought FGU would be fun, but overpopulated because of the ease of subject.
I don't know if I made my point very well here.
Originally posted by Britannica:
... By requiring them to vote only on the challenge they were less interested/knowledgable about, not only are they less likely to vote at all -- and if they do, I fail to see how doing so would make their vote more valuable. ... |
Because of what I mentioned above the interest/knowledge POV may not apply. I agree that if I was forced to vote on the challenge not entered there would be times I wouldn't vote (i.e. - Darkness challenge), but most of the time it wouldn't be an issue. And as I stated earlier, I find it easier to vote objectively on the challenge not entered anyway. ;^)
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 02:58:31 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... i do like at least TRYING the concept of only getting to vote in the challenge in which you did not enter. if you didn't enter either, you could continue to vote on both challenges. that might eliminate some bias, as was suggested. it would be an interesting experiement, nonetheless. |
Not crucifying, just voicing and oppossing view -- but, would you also be interested in TRYING the concept of only being allowed to vote on the challenges entered. Let me give my pitch before tuning me out.
First, although there is a lot of discussion about troll voters (can't remember a time there wasn't at least one active thread), I am yet to see any solid indication they exist. Just because someone could do something does not indicate someone is doing it. But I suppose it is more comfortable for some to assume there are evil intentions behind low scores on images they like, than to accept the opinion of others do differ.
Second, even if someone does have the voting method of looking at their image, deciding what score they would give it, and then using that as the ruler to measure all other images from -- it is as valid a voting method as any other I have seen presented.
Third, currently there is no minimum level of knowledge or sophistication required to place a vote -- the voting process is a polling of opinions, and even if an opinion is formed by viewing the world thru rose-colored glasses, it is still an opninion. I feel placing restrictions on the type of opinion that is desired also raises the level of knowledge required for voting. That is fine, there is nothing wrong with juried competitions -- which is the end result of such thinking. In my opinion, DPC would loose a lot of what makes DPC what it is if opinions were to become regulated.
And finally, given a choice between two challengs with differnet topics, it is safe to assume an individual will enter the one they are more interested/knowledgable at. By requiring them to vote only on the challenge they were less interested/knowledgable about, not only are they less likely to vote at all -- and if they do, I fail to see how doing so would make their vote more valuable.
Not at all opposed to trying either out -- or anything else for that matter -- I just don't see how trying it will answer questions raised by the baseless accusations of troll voters that is constantly raised in the forums. The votes given will still be unjustified anonymous opinions -- and no substantial conclusions can be drawn from such blind data.
David
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 12:03:12 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by ldowse:
I hope you won't get crucified for it muckpond! |
wouldn't be the first time :/ |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 12:01:17 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
...i do like at least TRYING the concept of only getting to vote in the challenge in which you did not enter. if you didn't enter either, you could continue to vote on both challenges. that might eliminate some bias, as was suggested. it would be an interesting experiement, nonetheless. |
Yeah, what he said... that's what I've been trying to say in other threads. I hope you won't get crucified for it muckpond!
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 11:58:31 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by SCI 009:
I'm not sure on the 2 challenge thing. I have noticed there has been a dramatic decrease on voting. There just hasn't been as many votes. |
there have been a number of posts from people more mathmatically-inclined than i that show your score changes very little after the first 50 (or so) votes, so i don't think that a decrease in the number of votes matters all THAT much. it does reduce the number of comments and the amount of exposure you get, though.
i do like at least TRYING the concept of only getting to vote in the challenge in which you did not enter. if you didn't enter either, you could continue to vote on both challenges. that might eliminate some bias, as was suggested. it would be an interesting experiement, nonetheless. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 11:46:16 AM · #23 |
I don't think there should be any restrictions on voting (except for the 20% rule).
Some people like to vote on the challenge in which they have an entry. Personally, I only like to look and maybe comment when it's a challenge I'm participating in. With the two challenge (opens at same time) venue I'm voting more because I feel free to vote without any preconceived notions or bias when I don't have an image in the challenge. I doubt that I'm alone - but perhaps one of the few that will share that thought openly.
I would hazard a guess that if this double open challenge format remains, you will see higher scores overall for open challenges.
Just my 2 cents for what it's worth. ;^)
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 11:23:24 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by SCI 009:
I'm not sure on the 2 challenge thing. I have noticed there has been a dramatic decrease on voting. There just hasn't been as many votes. But, what does this say when I can't think of a reason to fix the problem? |
But not everybody has time to vote on the challenges even if they did enter. Perhaps a forgivness of 1 challenge if you do not vote and the second time you enter you'd have a manditory 100% voting or a DQ. This way you'd force people to at least make the 20%. Now that the challenges are smaller in size/entries I might even suggest a manditory voting of 25% unless it hits over 300 or whatever.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2005 10:35:56 PM · #25 |
I'm not sure on the 2 challenge thing. I have noticed there has been a dramatic decrease on voting. There just hasn't been as many votes. But, what does this say when I can't think of a reason to fix the problem?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:51:05 PM EDT.
