| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2004 05:20:56 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...That would imply that personal taste is the only real consideration and the other elements are trivial. |
There is nothing whatsoever in the rules or voter guidelines that suggests that that is not a valid and reasonable way to vote. |
Sure there is- "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly." The challenge topic, not personal taste, is the highest consideration. This is a direct contradiction of your assertion, and it's emphasized in bold on the voting page. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:25:24 PM · #27 |
I onced wondered why I got so many ones on an image. So I started a thread and found out that the main reason was people did not like the content. As soon as they saw the content nothing else mattered. The composition, lighting and idea for the challenge went straight out the window and a one was given out.
I am in no way trying to compare this image to a ribbon winner, but is just another example as to how people vote. If you are curious, the link below goes to the image.
(Because it has been posted in at least two other threads as a thumbnail I will just give the link so that only the people that want to view it can.)
The pic |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:27:00 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...That would imply that personal taste is the only real consideration and the other elements are trivial. |
There is nothing whatsoever in the rules or voter guidelines that suggests that that is not a valid and reasonable way to vote. |
Sure there is- "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly." The challenge topic, not personal taste, is the highest consideration. This is a direct contradiction of your assertion, and it's emphasized in bold on the voting page. |
Not at all. it certainly does not contradict my assertion. You should have included this little slice prior to that:
Users should rate each and every photograph in the challenge on a scale of 1 to 10 (with "1" being a "bad" photo and a "10" being a "good" photo)
There is also an assertion that you should (note should - not can, not are asked to) use a scale of 1 to 10. ) 'Bad' and 'good' isn't defined. It is deliberately left to the view of the voter - and that is a good thing in my opinion, and obviously not in those who organise these witch hunts.
The scale is 1 to 10. Meeting the challenge is part of the process and should certainly be considered. Don't vote pictures of flying pigs high in the botany challenge. Then if it meets the challenge, and you still think its bad - give it a 1 - for whatever you personally think 'bad' means.
it does not say, for example, that if you think it meets the challenge, thou shalt not vote lower than a 5. It is left to your discretion to still vote 1 bad, 10 good, without boosting totally of topic images.
Or put it another way - if you think the section you quoted is the most important part of voting - I assume you ordered all of the entries from the highest magnification to lowest and scored them that way ? After all, that takes the challenge as the highest consideration and anything else would be trolling - considering lighting, image quality, originality - all trolls, following your logic.
Message edited by author 2004-08-11 17:33:16.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:27:02 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...That would imply that personal taste is the only real consideration and the other elements are trivial. |
There is nothing whatsoever in the rules or voter guidelines that suggests that that is not a valid and reasonable way to vote. |
Sure there is- "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly." The challenge topic, not personal taste, is the highest consideration. This is a direct contradiction of your assertion, and it's emphasized in bold on the voting page. |
scalvert
good find
Thanks
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:38:22 PM · #30 |
He should have gotten many more low scores! no ones, one two and no threes! this will keep the shot from ever being in the same league as these shots;
 Two 1s Five 2s and 4 threes, and a site favorite.
 a one two twos and a three, and still scores over an 8.
The better shots attract some degree of envy I guess. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:43:19 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
He should have gotten many more low scores! no ones, one two and no threes! this will keep the shot from ever being in the same league as these shots;
Two 1s Five 2s and 4 threes, and a site favorite.
a one two twos and a three, and still scores over an 8.
The better shots attract some degree of envy I guess. |
Not to pick on Kiwi, but that image is another example of people voting down because it looks like a famous National Geographic cover. Some might say that it is not original.(I personally like the shot though:)) |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:48:25 PM · #32 |
Maybe they should just not count 1's or 2's unless there is a legitimate comment left. I know it's been beat to death, but it really does take away from the credibility of the contests to see blue ribbon winners whose average score was in the 6's because there are so many "troll voters" (I like that label). Anyway, just a thought. I also liked the comment that the real solution is to not personally invest so much in the voting.
That's my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:49:48 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Some might say that it is not original.(I personally like the shot though:)) |
I don't think anyone would say it was original, unless they were unaware of contemporary photography - Gary even said himself he was trying to copy that particular Steve McCurry image in his comments.
That certainly doesn't make it a bad image.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:53:26 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Every time I've done an analysis, I've come back with this same conclusion. Voters are individuals, that is why the standard deviation for an image tends to run in the range of 2.5, meaning that voting will normally span nearly the whole range. Just my mathematical 2 cents. |
Kirbic is correct. If you look at the bar graph accompanying any photo in a completed challenge, the distribution of votes creates a very nice bell-shaped curve (albeit on its side). This is true of the top images, the bottom images, and those in the center (a few exceptions may be the genuinely "bad" brown ribbons that are sometimes intentional, or the occasional genius shot, e.g., see Jacko). That is the nature of population-based traits or behaviors. There will always be two tails to the curve, thus some outlying votes at the top and bottom, but the consensus around the mean will be unmistakable. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:55:29 PM · #35 |
| If I were king of the world, in the same way that your votes evaporate if you don't vote on at least 20% of the shots, I would not count any vote of anyone who's average vote was below 3 (and there are a lot of them) or above eight (and there are not very many of these). What does it say about human nature that people find it easier to be casually cruel, than to be causally kind. God, I hate those kind of people. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:57:13 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Some might say that it is not original.(I personally like the shot though:)) |
I don't think anyone would say it was original, unless they were unaware of contemporary photography - Gary even said himself he was trying to copy that particular Steve McCurry image in his comments.
That certainly doesn't make it a bad image. |
No it doesn't. But like your example before, "it looks like an image that won a previous challenge" it is such a viewed image that the people that gave it low scores might have been thinking, I have seen this done before so it gets a 1,2,3... |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 05:59:13 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Some might say that it is not original.(I personally like the shot though:)) |
I don't think anyone would say it was original, unless they were unaware of contemporary photography - Gary even said himself he was trying to copy that particular Steve McCurry image in his comments.
That certainly doesn't make it a bad image. |
No it doesn't. But like your example before, "it looks like an image that won a previous challenge" it is such a viewed image that the people that gave it low scores might have been thinking, I have seen this done before so it gets a 1,2,3... |
I'm sorry - I should have been clearer- I was agreeing with you :)
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:04:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
Maybe they should just not count 1's or 2's unless there is a legitimate comment left.
That's my 2 cents. |
Totally Agree
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:06:12 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is the Macro VI winner going to be a close up head shot of a dragonfly tilted 45 degrees the other way ? |
What will the Macro V winner be? : )
Originally posted by strangeghost:
... the distribution of votes creates a very nice bell-shaped curve (albeit on its side). |
I like breast-shaped curves best - more 7s, 8s, 9s with a nice little recession of 10s. But I'd be even happier with a bottom-heavy wedge.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:07:23 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by MatrixReloaded:
Originally posted by SandyP:
Maybe they should just not count 1's or 2's unless there is a legitimate comment left.
That's my 2 cents. |
Totally Agree |
and 9's and 10's too ?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:08:52 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Some might say that it is not original.(I personally like the shot though:)) |
I don't think anyone would say it was original, unless they were unaware of contemporary photography - Gary even said himself he was trying to copy that particular Steve McCurry image in his comments.
That certainly doesn't make it a bad image. |
No it doesn't. But like your example before, "it looks like an image that won a previous challenge" it is such a viewed image that the people that gave it low scores might have been thinking, I have seen this done before so it gets a 1,2,3... |
I'm sorry - I should have been clearer- I was agreeing with you :) |
OH, but just so you know, I wasn't trying to defend myself or anything. I was just trying to be more clear about what I was saying. Just a slight miscommunication.
I would also hope that anyone on this website would recognize kiwi's image as being an interpretation of McCurry's and not original. I was just giving the general public a benefit of a doubt:) |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:12:10 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
If it were that simple I would agree. The problem is that trollers do not smack all images. It goes something like this. They have an entry and they troll those images which they feel will beat them. The reason I say this, is that a voter registered me a one. Was even kind to leave a comment. After the event, I see this member giving high praise and promising a seven to an image that ended near the bottom.
It is simple trollers are protecting their interest by attacking images which may beat them. There is a simple way to prove this..their records are permanent with the DPC archives. But then, this will tend to develop a bad relationship. Instead, I say, eliminate the vested interest and you solve the problem. |
I don't think it is a simple as you state. For one thing, you are coming from the assumption that because an image finishes low, it couldn't possibly be appealing enough for someone to give it a 7. I've looked through your portfolio Daniel, and your favorites and notice that you favor studio set-ups and the occasional landscape. However, there are lots of people who like photos which result from careful seeing of an existing object, moment, or sight. A photo like this may not get high marks from you but very high marks from someone else. It seems to me that studio set-ups and bug macros (it's been said a million times before) are what impress the majority of voters on DPC so this will push other types of photos toward the bottom. That doesn't invalidate those photos as your post (and other posts made by you on similar threads) implies. I've placed low with good images that have gotten decent handfuls of 7's, 8's, and the occasional 10, and 9. By your reckoning, those were all troll votes. I can't help resent that kind of thinking.
There are people who will give a 2 simply because they find originality important. Lets face it, we've all seen those giant bug eyes many times. I would have liked to have seen something different place first. I didn't vote on Jacko's image because, frankly, I was so sick of looking at bugsin this Challenge, I only voted the 20% maximum, if I even managed that. I'm sure I would have given the shot a 6 but perhaps not much more because I've seen it before in one form of bug or another. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:12:43 PM · #43 |
So ya wanna wrassle, do ya Gordon?
You said that there is nothing in the rules or guidelines to contradict using personal taste as the only real consideration for voting. The voting guidelines plainly state in bold text that users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly. I never said anything about not using the whole scale, and indeed I do. If a photo clearly meets the challenge, but you give it a 1 just because you think it's bad, then you aren't following the voting guidelines (a bad photo that meets the challenge well doesn't automatically get a 10 either).
No, I didn't put the Macro entries in order of magnification because "highest magnification" wasn't the challenge. The challenge description called for a macro or closeup. Unless you're an Apollo astronaut, a picture of the moon is going to get a low vote from me in a close-up challenge. If the image quality, lighting, originality, etc. are excellent, then that low vote won't be a 1, but it'll still be low. By the same token, any reasonable effort at a close-up photo won't get a one from me even if it's not a great shot. That doesn't mean that a lousy photo through a microscope will outscore a good shot from 6 inches away. They both meet the challenge, but the better shot gets the better score. This is pretty much common sense, and I'm surprised to find you on the other side of the debate.
The Balance challenge offers a good example...
 This ribbon-winner isn't technically perfect (blown highlights, little shadow detail, excess noise...), yet it's an excellent and appealing interpretation of the challenge, and the voters responded accordingly.
 This shot, on the other hand, might be technically superior in some ways, but there is no obvious connection to the challenge, so it finished near the bottom.
As usual, some people gave the ribbon-winner ones and twos, while the shot with no connection to the challenge got some high marks. Let's all try to remember that this isn't a post-whatever-you-want contest. Most of the name DPChallenge is Challenge. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:17:08 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So ya wanna wrassle, do ya Gordon? |
Not really no.
But I also don't want to see yet another witch hunt that tries to get rid of people that don't agree with the mass view of 'good'.
Originally posted by scalvert:
[...]The better one gets the better score[...]This is pretty much common sense, and I'm surprised to find you on the other side of the debate. |
I'm not on the other side. I'm just not on the side that assumes that you can't ever vote a one or a two on a winning image, just because other people think they are good. The rules say nothing about voting the same way as everyone else. They only say '1' bad, '10' good. Your point about meeting the challenge being important is true. However, it doesn't mean that a picture that meets the challenge can not get a 1.
I'd actually prefer a '0' vote too, just for the shots that I think are wildly off topic. Maybe we should consider that.
Message edited by author 2004-08-11 18:19:37.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:21:56 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MatrixReloaded:
Originally posted by SandyP:
Maybe they should just not count 1's or 2's unless there is a legitimate comment left.
That's my 2 cents. |
Totally Agree |
and 9's and 10's too ? |
No...have you not read what thie topic of this whole post is about
If someone gave a 1 or 2 on a winning or any good photo..they should give a comment as to why..lol
you seem to be defending the trolls.
You said
(I can think of several perfectly valid reasons to give Jacko's picture a low score. It is almost a straight copy of what won the previous macro challenge.)
so this is a valid reason to give it a 2 ? ( Maybe a +1 for rotating the subject - bumping the score up to 2)
All I'm saying is It would be nice to know why a photo that is on topic with almost flawless could get a vote of a 1 or 2..lol
simple question should be simple to tell why the person voted a 1 or 2..lol
Done
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:26:33 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by MatrixReloaded:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MatrixReloaded:
Originally posted by SandyP:
Maybe they should just not count 1's or 2's unless there is a legitimate comment left.
That's my 2 cents. |
Totally Agree |
and 9's and 10's too ? |
No...have you not read what thie topic of this whole post is about
If someone gave a 1 or 2 on a winning or any good photo..they should give a comment as to why..lol
you seem to be defending the trolls.
You said
(I can think of several perfectly valid reasons to give Jacko's picture a low score. It is almost a straight copy of what won the previous macro challenge.)
so this is a valid reason to give it a 2 ? ( Maybe a +1 for rotating the subject - bumping the score up to 2)
All I'm saying is It would be nice to know why a photo that is on topic with almost flawless could get a vote of a 1 or 2..lol
simple question should be simple to tell why the person voted a 1 or 2..lol
Done |
That's the beauty of having our own opinions. Anyone on this site can give a score for any reason they deem worthy.
Message edited by author 2004-08-11 18:28:29. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:35:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... I also don't want to see yet another witch hunt that tries to get rid of people that don't agree with the mass view of 'good'. |
Me neither.
Originally posted by Gordon:
However, it doesn't mean that a picture that meets the challenge can not get a 1. |
If it's a good photo that obviously meets the challenge, then yeah, I think it does. With a ribbon winner, the quality of the photo and challenge context are rarely in doubt. What you are suggesting is that personal taste can be such an overwhelming consideration that technical perfection and exceptional challenge interpretation don't even merit a 2. The guidelines clearly state that the challenge topic is the main consideration.
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion of what is good or bad, but that opinion must take into consideration the context of the challenge. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:45:35 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
... I also don't want to see yet another witch hunt that tries to get rid of people that don't agree with the mass view of 'good'. |
Me neither.
Originally posted by Gordon:
However, it doesn't mean that a picture that meets the challenge can not get a 1. |
If it's a good photo that obviously meets the challenge, then yeah, I think it does. With a ribbon winner, the quality of the photo and challenge context are rarely in doubt. What you are suggesting is that personal taste can be such an overwhelming consideration that technical perfection and exceptional challenge interpretation don't even merit a 2. The guidelines clearly state that the challenge topic is the main consideration.
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion of what is good or bad, but that opinion must take into consideration the context of the challenge. |
again I totally agree
personal taste should not be a reason to vote a 1 or 2.You vote on if the photo meets the challenge and quality.Not "it's been done before ,even though it's a great photo and meets the challenge I'm giving it a low score also I really don't like bugs...or flowers" That is no reason to give it a 1 or 2..lol
if you do...then you have no respect for the photographer.
and thats that !
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:54:49 PM · #49 |
I guess that is just the harsh reality of things. No matter how good the image is, people can give it a 1 if they want to. And I still feel that if someone votes a 1 because they don't like it, we should accept their opinion even if we don't like it.
I mean what is the point of having a 1-10 scale if people aren't allowed to vote a 1 just purely on their opinion? How else could an image get a 1?
Message edited by author 2004-08-11 18:55:42. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:56:25 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
But I also don't want to see yet another witch hunt that tries to get rid of people that don't agree with the mass view of 'good'.
|
Absolutely correct, and I think the majority are of the same view...we seem to be confusing "voting system abuse" with the "discerning" voter who happens to have a low average. Two totally different things. |
|
