| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2009 11:22:08 AM · #1 |
... nevermind.
Message edited by author 2009-11-20 16:46:03. |
|
|
|
11/20/2009 06:10:31 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by marcusvdt:
sorry, kind of translation from portuguese to something that does not exist in english hehehehehe...
criterious should mean having criteria, measures, standards, etc.
Next time I will use an existent word. |
Yeah....I knew what you meant. Just having a little fun. Some days I think English is a second language for me, too.
Originally posted by marcusvdt:
And regarding my scale, if I do what you said, I'd not be respecting the score difference between the very very bad photo (which I score 1) from the very very good and perfect photo (which I score 10). And between them there are many other photos that will follow the right scoring according to their quality and impact, in my opinion of course. So, a photo that I score with 3, for me, deserves 3 and not 2 or 4, because there are others that will fit on 2 or 4. And one which I score 9, deserves 9, not 10. If there is not a photo that deserves a 10 on a particular challenge, that's ok, I will still keep that 9 as 9, not 10.
You suggest kind of thing which is not logic for me and I repeat what I said before somewhere, if you will vote only from 5 to 10, why 1 to 4 exist at all? And if they remove 1 to 4, should we then vote only from 8 to 10 to avoid having a low vote cast average? |
Here's the thing.......I'm just offering a point of view, and an option to keep the dogs at bay.
Ultimately, you must be true to how YOU feel you should vote.
If someone gives you a rough time about it, ignore them, report them. or simply tell them that your vote/comment is as honest as you can be. Then let them deal with it or not.
Nobody can tell you how to vote.
What you're telling me is that you have a set system in place that works for you.
Stick to it!
Message edited by author 2009-11-20 06:11:47.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:24:01 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Jedusi:
And if the average is very low - then maybe it is right to wonder whether you should move it up ? It's always concerning if we have people who give out a low average score - but hope to receive a high one for their work so they can ribbon, how does that work ? |
Originally posted by marcusvdt:
I can speak only for myself, not sure about the others. My vote cast stats show average below 5. But it does not mean I don't vote high for many photos. I just consider the full scale when voting, from 1 to 10. If most photos are worthy of 5 to 10 scores in a particular challenge, my average vote cast at that challenge will be higher than 5. And vice versa. I'm just honest and criterious. |
But that's precisely the point. You use the words "worthy" "honest", and I'm, guessing that your invented word "criterious" means that you have a certain set of standards to judge images.......
If your worthy, honest & criterious standards garner you flak from the participants, then maybe it's worth a look to revamping your standards to a slightly higher scale.
Honest and worthy are quite subjective and relative......there's no shame, or compromise, in adjusting your relativity as it pertains to them.
The problem is that everyone has their standards of what the good, bad, and the ugly entail on their personal scale.......if you don't want to have to defend it, why not move the whole index up the scale? If you continue to vote consistently across the board, just a little higher, then you're just shifting the line, not actually changing your voting style. |
sorry, kind of translation from portuguese to something that does not exist in english hehehehehe...
criterious should mean having criteria, measures, standards, etc.
Next time I will use an existent word.
And regarding my scale, if I do what you said, I'd not be respecting the score difference between the very very bad photo (which I score 1) from the very very good and perfect photo (which I score 10). And between them there are many other photos that will follow the right scoring according to their quality and impact, in my opinion of course. So, a photo that I score with 3, for me, deserves 3 and not 2 or 4, because there are others that will fit on 2 or 4. And one which I score 9, deserves 9, not 10. If there is not a photo that deserves a 10 on a particular challenge, that's ok, I will still keep that 9 as 9, not 10.
You suggest kind of thing which is not logic for me and I repeat what I said before somewhere, if you will vote only from 5 to 10, why 1 to 4 exist at all? And if they remove 1 to 4, should we then vote only from 8 to 10 to avoid having a low vote cast average?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:03:42 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
And if the average is very low - then maybe it is right to wonder whether you should move it up ? It's always concerning if we have people who give out a low average score - but hope to receive a high one for their work so they can ribbon, how does that work ? |
Originally posted by marcusvdt:
I can speak only for myself, not sure about the others. My vote cast stats show average below 5. But it does not mean I don't vote high for many photos. I just consider the full scale when voting, from 1 to 10. If most photos are worthy of 5 to 10 scores in a particular challenge, my average vote cast at that challenge will be higher than 5. And vice versa. I'm just honest and criterious. |
But that's precisely the point. You use the words "worthy" "honest", and I'm, guessing that your invented word "criterious" means that you have a certain set of standards to judge images.......
If your worthy, honest & criterious standards garner you flak from the participants, then maybe it's worth a look to revamping your standards to a slightly higher scale.
Honest and worthy are quite subjective and relative......there's no shame, or compromise, in adjusting your relativity as it pertains to them.
The problem is that everyone has their standards of what the good, bad, and the ugly entail on their personal scale.......if you don't want to have to defend it, why not move the whole index up the scale? If you continue to vote consistently across the board, just a little higher, then you're just shifting the line, not actually changing your voting style.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 10:17:17 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
And if the average is very low - then maybe it is right to wonder whether you should move it up ? It's always concerning if we have people who give out a low average score - but hope to receive a high one for their work so they can ribbon, how does that work ? |
I can speak only for myself, not sure about the others. My vote cast stats show average below 5. But it does not mean I don't vote high for many photos. I just consider the full scale when voting, from 1 to 10. If most photos are worthy of 5 to 10 scores in a particular challenge, my average vote cast at that challenge will be higher than 5. And vice versa. I'm just honest and having criteria.
With that said, if one day I enter a photo that I really believe deserves a ribbon, I will then expect to be among the few stunning photos on that particular challenge, for most voters. What I mean is, if people vote with a reasonable criteria (read, 1 being bad and 10 being good), and if most people likes my photo, it will be scored high for most people and hence I'll probably win a ribbon. This does not mean I want to have a high score because people should vote high to keep their vote cast stat high. I want to be scored high and to win a ribbon because most voters stop and say "wow, what a wonderfull photograph!"
So, at least for me, there isn't a connection between my vote cast stat and my desire to win a ribbon.
I hope I was able to answer your question about how does that work.
Message edited by author 2009-11-20 06:04:57.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 05:48:47 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Jedusi:
Or maybe I've just had a long day and feel a bit cranky :-) |
If that's your "cranky", you must be very even-tempered. :-) |
Hey you know - I try - just don't ask my kids their opinion . .
:- ) |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 05:40:20 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
Or maybe I've just had a long day and feel a bit cranky :-) |
If that's your "cranky", you must be very even-tempered. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 05:34:19 PM · #8 |
5 pages on whether we should have a quiet unobtrusive stat removed ? Golly things must be quiet at the moment :- )
Personally I think it is quite an interesting stat, but like all stats is open to many interpretations - and I struggle to see why it is any more contentious than any other stat displayed . I'm sure there are people that look up how many challenges a person has won before deciding whether their opinion is 'worthy' or not, or how many ribbons they have won, challenges entered or whatever.
But at the end of the day it simply reflect your average vote given. This is the one you have chosen of your own free will to give in the quiet anonymity of your own home. It doesn't say what you gave to whom, just the average. And if the average is very low - then maybe it is right to wonder whether you should move it up ? It's always concerning if we have people who give out a low average score - but hope to receive a high one for their work so they can ribbon, how does that work ?
Maybe our average score given is a little bit like a public conscience - and maybe sometimes that is no bad thing. It doesn't mean you have to give artificially high scores to mundane picture .. just that maybe we should give good scores to good pictures, and if a picture is really that bad, give them a break and leave an instructive comment rather than slam them with a '1' and no explanantion.
Or maybe I've just had a long day and feel a bit cranky :-) |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 04:28:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Paul - I don't think that's what is being said here in general. In some cases, as people have pointed out in various threads, people have altered the way they vote BECAUSE of trying to keep their avg vote cast at a certain level or higher. For example, not using the entire scale anymore and only voting 5 or higher BECAUSE they don't want to lower their avg vote cast. |
I'm certainly one of these. In my particular aesthetic world, *most* of what is entered in DPC challenges is pretty average photography. Viewed on a "global" scale that's still pretty good; *most* photography, out in the real world, is pretty uninspiring except to those who are connected to it.
Anyway, what I have ended up doing is almost never voting lower than a 4, because when I used the 1,2, and 3 votes regularly I had a REALLY low average vote cast and it bothered me. I was asked to explain it more than once. So I just lump most work in the "average" and "not quite average" category and let it go.
Personally, I'd prefer that "average vote cast" was not a visible stat... |
Yeah, what Robert said!
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 04:26:33 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
It really is a stat that serves no purpose for the general public to see outside of using it as a tool against other users. |
I finally agree with you on something!
Instead of going back and reading over 100 posts in this thread, did  Langdon ever offer a reason why this stat is displayed?
Notice that I'm asking Langdon. Anyone else that answers would be speculating (unless he has told you himself, or his reason is posted and I didn't read it).
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 03:14:14 PM · #11 |
I like the average vote cast, because it is a reminder that a 3 from one person means something vastly different than a 3 from another person. I think that it's a fascinating stat that I would hate to see disappear.
I also do not alter my vote because of my average cast numbers. I'm curious, after I vote on a challenge, on how I voted on that particular challenge. But I don't pay attention to my overall average vote cast. I don't vote 1 2s and 3s often, because I don't think that the quality of the photos here are that low. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 03:11:32 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Didn't say it was widespread. I said that many voters are doing it, and there have been plenty of posts of late to back that up.
It really is a stat that serves no purpose for the general public to see outside of using it as a tool against other users. |
So you said. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 03:06:29 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Paul - I don't think that's what is being said here in general. In some cases, as people have pointed out in various threads, people have altered the way they vote BECAUSE of trying to keep their avg vote cast at a certain level or higher. |
I was disputing the assumption that such a practice is widespread, or has any appreciable effect on scores overall. |
Didn't say it was widespread. I said that many voters are doing it, and there have been plenty of posts of late to back that up.
It really is a stat that serves no purpose for the general public to see outside of using it as a tool against other users. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:49:58 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Paul - I don't think that's what is being said here in general. In some cases, as people have pointed out in various threads, people have altered the way they vote BECAUSE of trying to keep their avg vote cast at a certain level or higher. For example, not using the entire scale anymore and only voting 5 or higher BECAUSE they don't want to lower their avg vote cast. |
I'm certainly one of these. In my particular aesthetic world, *most* of what is entered in DPC challenges is pretty average photography. Viewed on a "global" scale that's still pretty good; *most* photography, out in the real world, is pretty uninspiring except to those who are connected to it.
Anyway, what I have ended up doing is almost never voting lower than a 4, because when I used the 1,2, and 3 votes regularly I had a REALLY low average vote cast and it bothered me. I was asked to explain it more than once. So I just lump most work in the "average" and "not quite average" category and let it go.
Personally, I'd prefer that "average vote cast" was not a visible stat, though I don't really care either.
R.
ETA: I think *most* of the images I enter in challenges are pretty average too, folks. I find some pleasure in depicting the mundane :-)
Message edited by author 2009-11-19 14:50:24. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:48:15 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Paul - I don't think that's what is being said here in general. In some cases, as people have pointed out in various threads, people have altered the way they vote BECAUSE of trying to keep their avg vote cast at a certain level or higher. |
I was disputing the assumption that such a practice is widespread, or has any appreciable effect on scores overall. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:45:19 PM · #16 |
Guess I better state my position. Not sure how I even ended up in this darn "discussion" anyway... :-)
Personally, I don't care if this stat is kept or not. If pressed for a decision I'd say keep it. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:08:01 PM · #17 |
I sure as heck don't care about my average vote cast, or yours, or anyone else's for that matter. I'll take what votes you give me, what comments you give me, and I'll keep doing whatever it is I do. I think, although my "can the forums" post was a tad tongue in cheek (but not much!) that we have totally nit-picked things to death in the past few weeks. Perhaps it's the colder weather keeping people indoors? Who knows. But for those of you wanting to drop the stats - DON'T LOOK AT THEM. It's just a thought.
And yes, someone will inevitably say "but your vote cast is only!..." Ignore them. Again, just a thought.
The mathematical median of our voting scale is 5.5. My vote cast is higher than that because a) I'm a nice guy, and I look longer at photos than most voters, I'd guess, and b) I don't think the photography on this site is "average" - I think it's generally better than that. THAT'S JUST ME! Do what you please. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:02:01 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
The inclusion of that stat has caused many people to use a modified scoring system that has inflated scores. |
I think this is an assumption you make with absolutely no evidence. The site's "overall average score" is (and has been practically forever) right around the statistical average score of 5.5. How many threads have been started complaining about how someone can't believe that some photo got voted too highly (compared to threads about "how could this have scored so low?")?
If there are people who vote "artificially high" they seem to be evenly balanced by those who vote "artificially low" ... I think the vast majority of people give the photos the vote they think it deserves -- that such votes may not be what you think the photos deserve is your problem, not the site's. |
Paul - I don't think that's what is being said here in general. In some cases, as people have pointed out in various threads, people have altered the way they vote BECAUSE of trying to keep their avg vote cast at a certain level or higher. For example, not using the entire scale anymore and only voting 5 or higher BECAUSE they don't want to lower their avg vote cast. Sometimes not voting on all photos, only casting a vote on the ones they feel deserve 5 or higher. Those kind of actions can skew voting. If these same voters didn't have to worry about their avg vote cast being displayed they may feel free to vote the entire scale (1-10) again and vote on all challenge entries.
Is this a rampant thing? I doubt it, but I do think that it could impact 10-15% of active voters. Again, JMO. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:36:30 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
The inclusion of that stat has caused many people to use a modified scoring system that has inflated scores. |
I think this is an assumption you make with absolutely no evidence. The site's "overall average score" is (and has been practically forever) right around the statistical average score of 5.5. How many threads have been started complaining about how someone can't believe that some photo got voted too highly (compared to threads about "how could this have scored so low?")?
If there are people who vote "artificially high" they seem to be evenly balanced by those who vote "artificially low" ... I think the vast majority of people give the photos the vote they think it deserves -- that such votes may not be what you think the photos deserve is your problem, not the site's. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:43:16 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time? |
I don't have a "beating a dead Kangaroo" icon. So now we need to beat whatever animal represents our part of the world?
Australia: beating a kangaroo
Texas: beating a longhorn steer
Tibet: beating a Yak
Canada: Beating a guy in a gorilla suit
New York: beating a cab driver |
I think we just found our next challenge topic! |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:21:04 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Is it time to break out the dead horse pics? |
Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Must be PC and think of our Southern Hemisphere friends as well! |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm calling PETA!!! |
Okay, let's beat a PETA member!
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:10:35 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time? |
I don't have a "beating a dead Kangaroo" icon. So now we need to beat whatever animal represents our part of the world?
Australia: beating a kangaroo
Texas: beating a longhorn steer
Tibet: beating a Yak
Canada: Beating a guy in a gorilla suit
New York: beating a cab driver
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:21:30 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Is it time to break out the dead horse pics? |
Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?
Must be PC and think of our Southern Hemisphere friends as well! |
I'm calling PETA!!! |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 10:55:14 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Is it time to break out the dead horse pics? |
Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?
Must be PC and think of our Southern Hemisphere friends as well!
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 10:54:05 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
bump...question in bold. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm not trying to single out Les as I get along quite well with him and respect him immensely as a person and a photographer...I would like to use his example however of how having/not having the avg vote cast statistic on the user profile page can be an influence to scores on DPC. I've seen others on DPC express pretty much the same opinion.
Jeb - Can you see this as artificial vote inflation? Yes/No, and why/why not? |
Originally posted by Photologist:
I don't want my Average Vote Cast metric to be low, so that is why I only vote 5 or higher (mostly 6 or higher). I started doing this a year or so ago. If I see an image that is "below average" (5), I simply skip it (usually) and only vote on those that are 6 or higher. That keeps my average up. My average vote that I have given out (as of today) is around 5.4. It used to be much lower! |
[/quote]
Actually, I see it as skewing the overall vote if he avoids voting on certain images altogether.
This system doesn't have anything to do with voting the images at all if he's not voting them all to keep his Average Vote Cast metric up.
I vote differently to keep mine up, but I vote 'em all, and I stick to the votes I cast. I force myself to comment on the low votes I cast to reconcile them in my own view.
If I give you a 3, I'll tell you I gave you a three, and I'll leave a comment as well trying to point out whatever I can find that is positive. That should give you my view on what you could develop to make your image make a better impression im my view.
I just don't believe in this whole aritificially inflated scale......you're the one that sets the bar.
Les has stated that he doesn't vote low 'cause he doesn't want the grief that can be associated with a low Average Vote Cast metric. That's his choice. It's his vote, he may cast it any way he wants. He doesn't want the grief, so he's doing it the way he does for that rewason.
What I see as a skewed system is irrelevant.
His system is right for him, my system is right for me, your system should be done so that it's right for you.
There are thoughts, suggestions, and guidelines up the wazoo, but ultimately, you MUST decide on a system that is a balance between being able to accurately express your views and not getting a bucket of crap.
|
|
