| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/06/2005 12:57:19 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Larger challenges are not a problem if the average person votes on 20-50% of the entries -- scores change little once there's 150-200 votes entered.
What DOES matter is people attempting to defeat the random voting presentation by "cherry-picking" photos to vote on via the thumbnails page, which gives some photos an unfair advantage and more votes. If people would follow the random list, then its likely that all the photos would get a fair chance. |
Yep. You get skewed results if it's anything but a random selection. With random selection you can even add in an arbitrary maximum number of votes as well, and it should still be fair as long as the max and min are high enough. This might be a problem for those who do want to vote for every image however. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:02:40 PM · #102 |
The truth of the matter is that the heavy overload of entries is certain to affect and defeat the purpose of the challenges. Very difficult for any good image to bubble to the top. Yes, many will but many will also fall by the wayside. This condition is good news for the site itself since growth is always desired. However, when the growrg factor begins to add anxiety on the completion of the members duty to vote and comment, where does one start and what kind of quality time are we to devote.
I am a stickler for voting on each image and commenting on at least 20 percent but the massive, gargantuan weight is now more than I can bear and I will carry on until I can't no more and that moment is approaching. I feel bad for the many good images which are certain to die because they are in the heart of 400-500 entries. So what started as a pleasurable experience has now turned into a nightmare.
Now, I am not so anxious to make a deadline for a challenge because of the amount of entries. I have heard others express similar feelings.
Some time ago I subscribed to the idea of a creating a random division into two camps. You enter an image in your own camp but you are not allowed to vote in it. You vote on the images of the other camp. So, you have a challenge, "Silver-one," and "Silver-two" if you are in the Silver one, you enter your image there and then you vote on Silver two. Silver two enter in their camp and vote only in Silver one.
This idea drew a lot of heat because there is a desire to maintain the vested interest in the vote. We all complain about the vested interest vote but no one wants to address it except with bandaid fixes which solves nothing.
If you have a horse in the race you have the ability to affect the outcome to some degree. It is the vested interest that is removed when the challenges are split into two camps. Again you enter in one camp and vote on the other.
The above will immediately cut down the entries by half which will restore order.
Challenges with qualification are not very good because camplaints arrive at once. Remember the masters? Well a group got together and forced the site to make one for non-ribbons winners and they could not even see that this non-ribbon category is a handicapped contest.
It does not matter whether you select groups with highest comments, with highest voting average or whatever. Those left out will rise to force a leveling of the playing field.
To avoid all this and to cut down the entries in half I suggest the consideration of the split camp. Yes, I realize that there are smarter people on this site and in the site council and I ask them to come forward and make a gesture to resolve this problem. And yes, whichever way we go will rise the ire of many but things will suffer if nothing is done.
Message edited by author 2005-07-06 13:04:54. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:03:34 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Well, members get many features that registered users don't get: Portfolio space, that addiction called the update button, etc.
The solution might involve allowing registered users to enter no more than a set number of challenges, say five or ten, and after that, they need to become a member to continue participation.
OR, the site can limit registered users to a maximum of two challenges per month, and their reward if they join is the freedom to enter up to four. |
I don't think either of your "solutions" are fair.
If i signed up it would be for the sxtra challeneg - and i know i am not alone on that. But i can't afford to sign up - it is against the law for me to work, and because of that youre wanting to kick me off the site. Because that is essentically what you are suggesting. That i cant participate anymore because i am in a bad situation.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:08:48 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by yeoua:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Larger challenges are not a problem if the average person votes on 20-50% of the entries -- scores change little once there's 150-200 votes entered.
What DOES matter is people attempting to defeat the random voting presentation by "cherry-picking" photos to vote on via the thumbnails page, which gives some photos an unfair advantage and more votes. If people would follow the random list, then its likely that all the photos would get a fair chance. |
Yep. You get skewed results if it's anything but a random selection. With random selection you can even add in an arbitrary maximum number of votes as well, and it should still be fair as long as the max and min are high enough. This might be a problem for those who do want to vote for every image however. |
edit: to fix the placement of the quote
One option is to only show the images that have already been rated on the thumbnail page. Then everyone is forced to go through the images randomly.
Message edited by author 2005-07-06 13:09:24.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:09:00 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What DOES matter is people attempting to defeat the random voting presentation by "cherry-picking" photos to vote on via the thumbnails page, which gives some photos an unfair advantage and more votes. If people would follow the random list, then its likely that all the photos would get a fair chance. |
Which is why you should get rid of the thumbnail views until one has voted on them like muckpond or someone has suggested before. I myself never do thumbnail voting. I always just click the first thumbnail and start voting.
Message edited by author 2005-07-06 13:09:38. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:11:25 PM · #106 |
I'm going to take some time to whine about people whining about whining. I think the observation that a lot of people have been whining about all sorts of things on this site is a valid one. I do, however, think this is a real problem with which the DPC community must deal and not merely a passing whining whimsy.
The volume of entries is a problem for the following reasons...
1) It makes the challenge oversized and impersonal.
2) It makes it unpleasant for the people that LIKE to vote on all images in any given challenge . Once you've reached your 150th flower in the macro challenge, subconsciously or not you're, going to be less than inclined towards the 10 end of the scale.
3) It makes comments less likely . If people know they're voting on 300-500 images then that's enough of a task. Commenting seems so much less unattractive when you've come across a number of similar images and/or you know you have about 200 images upon which you still need to vote.
A number of solutions that preclude having more challenges have been suggested. I'd like to see those included (no thumbnails, compulsory amount of comments per challenge, etc.) and perhaps incorporated into a newer system that includes 4 challenges per week. The 4 challenge system will have 2 challenges available to members only and 2 challenges available to everyone (open challenges). Members would be able to choose to enter one of the open challenges and one of the member challenges while non-paying members would be allowed to enter either one of the two open challenges. This could, as well as easing numbers, mean the all round quality of shots could improve (maybe not technically but conceptually). I think this may happen because, as it stands, DPCers just try to get their entries in on time, often regardless of quality, because it's the only challenge in which they can enter each week! Two topics = two sets of ideas, and with a larger range of ideas from which to choose the chances of seeing original entries increases
These challenges will have to have similar 'desirability' - that is, based on past experiences, the SC will have to choose concurrent topics of similar popularity. For example they should chose the concurrently run open topics of 'Black & White' and 'Macro' as opposed to running 'Pain' and 'Portrait' (everyone would enter the portrait challenge). This could be decided upon by the SC by taking a small sample group (ie: themselves) and voting upon which contest they'd rather enter, if the numbers are similar than the challenges can run concurrently, if not then it's back to the drawing board.
Dual challenges could even be a possiblity - by this I mean that they could concurrently run antonymous challenges like 'Darkness' and 'Light', or synonymous/metonymous challenges such as 'Hope' and 'Glory'.
Personally I don't see WHY anyone would be dead against more challenges. This site will continue to grow as people refer their friends, digital cameras keep selling and this site keeps rocking (unless they want it to become less pleasant and thin out the numbers a bit!) I think it'll be more fun and less monotonous if there are more challenges and it'll help break down the volume into manageable chunks.
Open to suggestions, I thought I'd just clarify my thoughts as much to myself as anyone else. I just can't conceivably see how having 2 hugely anonymous challenges each week is better than more choice and more 'individual attention'.
Alex
PS: Apologies for some badly worded sections, but this was a bit of a mission to compose and I'm too tired to be grammatically precise. Hopefully I've communicated the gist of things.
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 01:18:18.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:14:34 PM · #107 |
It could also lead to people picking out what they think would win and voting it low to give thier 5 range image a better chance at a ruibbon
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by muckpond:
then what motivation do i have to vote during the first 3 days? not me personally, but that's the argument you're going to get. |
That was my first thought: 'Ho ho, I won't wade through the pics - I'll just wait for the cull'.
Looking at it now.. Voting early gives you chance to make a bigger influence, because your vote could get a shot culled. That's not necessarily a good thing because it could lead to witch hunting bad photos and voting harshly. |
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:16:10 PM · #108 |
| Would there be a way to be able to see the thumbnail pages while being logged out, but to vote you need to log in, then the thumbnail view would dissapear? That way if you wanted to just check them out (say if you weren't gonna vote at all, but wanted to see them anyway), you could just log out. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:19:21 PM · #109 |
I think all of these are excellent ideas. More challenges would be cool, and I think they would cut down on the amount of entries per challenge. I also think that there may need to be a rule that if you didn't participate in a challenge you shouldn't vote in that challenge (let the yelling commence). Eliminating the thumbnail view until after voting is also an excellent idea. I think there will have to be some changes made soon, or the site will suffer because of it. BUT...I also imagine the DPC crew are probably working as hard as they can to keep up with the growth and formulate ideas to remedy the situation.
I myself LOVE to vote on every entry, and find no problem whatsoever since it is broken up into a full WEEK of voting. I just vote on the entries when I have time. It breaks up the monotony, and makes it a bit more fun!
Message edited by author 2005-07-06 13:20:15. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:21:17 PM · #110 |
When the site implimented a paid-membership plan, the owners made a commitment (moral, not legal) to continue to offer the registered users the same services as were available originally, that is, one open challenge/week and limited participation in the forum. Regardless of any other changes/improvements to the site, I expect there will continue to be a weekly challenge open to anyone who registers and agrees to the TOS.
Maybe this is a self-regulating problem, too. If the challenges get too big, some people won't enter, and they'll get smaller. I see this as kind of like the problem of freeways ... when the commute gets too slow, some people don't go to work or change their hours or something. Eventually, they build another lane, more people take advantage and drive, and in a few months you're back to the same degree of congestion as previously. It is truly a case of "build it and they will come."
To me, the most practical and fairest approach is to lower the expectation that people vote on every entry, while increasing the randomness of the photos on which they vote. Perhaps this could be done by offering up photos to vote on in smaller blocks: finish voting on half the photos—picked randomly for you by the site—and then you can (if you want) start on the second chunk. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:22:09 PM · #111 |
I vote on a lot of challenges I don't participate in. Why limit the number of voters?
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:28:00 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The truth of the matter is that the heavy overload of entries is certain to affect and defeat the purpose of the challenges. Very difficult for any good image to bubble to the top. Yes, many will but many will also fall by the wayside. This condition is good news for the site itself since growth is always desired. However, when the growrg factor begins to add anxiety on the completion of the members duty to vote and comment, where does one start and what kind of quality time are we to devote.
I am a stickler for voting on each image and commenting on at least 20 percent but the massive, gargantuan weight is now more than I can bear and I will carry on until I can't no more and that moment is approaching. I feel bad for the many good images which are certain to die because they are in the heart of 400-500 entries. So what started as a pleasurable experience has now turned into a nightmare.
Now, I am not so anxious to make a deadline for a challenge because of the amount of entries. I have heard others express similar feelings.
Some time ago I subscribed to the idea of a creating a random division into two camps. You enter an image in your own camp but you are not allowed to vote in it. You vote on the images of the other camp. So, you have a challenge, "Silver-one," and "Silver-two" if you are in the Silver one, you enter your image there and then you vote on Silver two. Silver two enter in their camp and vote only in Silver one.
This idea drew a lot of heat because there is a desire to maintain the vested interest in the vote. We all complain about the vested interest vote but no one wants to address it except with bandaid fixes which solves nothing.
If you have a horse in the race you have the ability to affect the outcome to some degree. It is the vested interest that is removed when the challenges are split into two camps. Again you enter in one camp and vote on the other.
The above will immediately cut down the entries by half which will restore order.
Challenges with qualification are not very good because camplaints arrive at once. Remember the masters? Well a group got together and forced the site to make one for non-ribbons winners and they could not even see that this non-ribbon category is a handicapped contest.
It does not matter whether you select groups with highest comments, with highest voting average or whatever. Those left out will rise to force a leveling of the playing field.
To avoid all this and to cut down the entries in half I suggest the consideration of the split camp. Yes, I realize that there are smarter people on this site and in the site council and I ask them to come forward and make a gesture to resolve this problem. And yes, whichever way we go will rise the ire of many but things will suffer if nothing is done. |
To me a great Idea! I would like to add that DPC have a system that would place your entry in “Silver I” or “Silver II” randomly. In other words you would not be able to pick which camp to place your picture, the site would do it automatically you would know which camp your in when voting begins. This would keep some from wanting to be in one camp or the other.
Another is the >> button after the 10 on the voting page. I think it should be done away with so you can’t skip a picture; you have to vote on it. This would IMO keep from “cherry-picking”.
Just my opinion...
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:35:33 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by papa:
Would there be a way to be able to see the thumbnail pages while being logged out, but to vote you need to log in, then the thumbnail view would dissapear? That way if you wanted to just check them out (say if you weren't gonna vote at all, but wanted to see them anyway), you could just log out. |
If they go with the no thumbnails until after the image is voted on, they could add a button that says "I will not not vote for this challenge" which would bar you from voting on the challenge completely, but then you can see all the images. Otherwise, you only see what you have voted on. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:40:58 PM · #114 |
Why not just split the basic rules challenge into member and non-member? Same topic but only members can enter the member group and only non-members can enter the non-member group. Members could vote on both groups, non-members could vote only on the non-member group. Perk of membership and all...
Members would still have 2 challenges per week, non-members would still have one.
d
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:41:49 PM · #115 |
I don't think the problems is all about the huge number of entries in any challenge. I think it's more about how you participate. The way things are now, you can keep entering every challenge and not vote or comment on a single image. Is that fair? Under the current system it is. But most of the people here see DPC as a community. That's how a lot of people refer to it.
What if there's a requirement that you need to vote on a certain number of images in every challenge you enter? What if we make it a commitment on the part of the person who decides to 'participate' in any given challenge? Would that make things better? Just a thought. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:42:22 PM · #116 |
| Well, I see no problem in being able to see them, but not vote for them, and vise versa, I can vote on them as they pop up, but not see a thumnail page. This could be easily accomplished by logging in and out. Since you you can only see the one your voting on when it pops up, there would be no cherry picking. There is nothing wrong with being able to look at them all first or whenever, but when you go to vote for them, you would have to do that on a completely random basis. Seems fairly easy and effective to me. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:53:24 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
Originally posted by papa:
...I think there is a lot of whining that goes on here, and I could care less if you get offeneded by that. As a photographer, you need some thicker skin to survive this site. The critique process can be worse than the most intimate physical examination at your doctor. Compete, vote, comment, but for crying out loud, have fun and learn too... |
BRAVO - standing ovation! |
It's not that I need thicker skin, especially becuase the original whining labels weren't applied to me. What bothers me is that there is no point in telling people in a forum that they are whining if not to offend or stop the discussion? I interject on that the same reason I interject when people complain about the comments they received. All you do is discourage people from expressing their opinion in the forums.
Why would you want to stop a perfectly constructive discussion? Is it less interesting than the score posting discussions? There are quite a few discussions going on that are pretty trite or unnecessary in the forums, but that's why the forums are there, so people can discuss issues that may be important to them.
If you don't like something, there's no harm in speaking out and indicating that, especially in a discussion group. I'd protect your right just as I'd protect Mandy's and the follow ups in this thread.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:53:33 PM · #118 |
I have an easy solution to this problem...
Remove the thumbnail views as previously mentioned
AND
*gasp*
...hide the number of entries in a challenge until voting is finished.
What purpose, other than to scare off potential participants, is there in knowing how many entries there are for a given challenge? If you tell me it helps "know your chances" then I'd say you need to reevaluate why you are entering in the first place. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 01:57:05 PM · #119 |
| Well said bledford! I never thought of that. Not knowing would really ease the mind. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 02:01:31 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by bledford:
...hide the number of entries in a challenge until voting is finished.
|
good idea - but would have to change the qualification for comments to a fixed number (say 75), or v hard to know when 20% has been achieved.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 02:12:08 PM · #121 |
Yeh there are a LOT of entries to vote on but thats the price you pay for success and DPC is a fast growing community.
If you can vote then vote if you cant, then you cant, its not life threatning, its not the end of the world!!
Relax, this is a fun site, so sit back and enjoy
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 02:18:41 PM · #122 |
| I really don't get this idea of too many entries so I can't vote on them all. You have a whole week to vote on them. Nowhere does it say you have to do them all at once. Everyone seems to have enough time to post multiple times in the forums throughout the week. As far as I am concerned, there is no excuse other than laziness/just don't care. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 02:23:33 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by bledford:
...hide the number of entries in a challenge until voting is finished.
|
good idea - but would have to change the qualification for comments to a fixed number (say 75), or v hard to know when 20% has been achieved. |
that would be easy to fix...just leave a little note at the bottom of the preview that says "just keep voting, just keep voting" until it goes away...
;-) |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 02:36:10 PM · #124 |
I think the largest problem with the challenges is NOT the number of voters or how they vote. The largest problem is that after a couple hundred images, voters tend to get bored - after all, they may have just seen the 50th flower in a macro contest, and good or not, by damn this one's getting a 5. Period.
I think perhaps this site has grown in numbers (I don't know, really, I'm new) and 2 challenges just may not be enough. I believe more challenges, with a restriction on the number you can join, would cut down the numbers in each challenge. Fewer good photos would get lost in the shuffle. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 09:50:04 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Two-tiered voting IMO shows great promise, though. It could be as simple as "keep it / toss it" in the screening process. This would have the effect of rapidly weeding out, early on, images that have no chance of ribboning, and the side benefit, as it were, of keeping real "why did I enter that" clunkers from dragging down your average. Any image with more "keep it" votes than "toss it" votes would make the final stage.
Such an approach would even provide two tiers of goals to shoot for: as it stands now, people establish those for themselves "I want to break 5.0", "I want a top-20 finish", "I want a ribbon", etc. Add to this the goal: "I want to consistently make the finalists group". Once you've done that, you get to work on scoring.
Seems doable to me.
Robt. |
I really like this idea. These are the kind of ideas that I wanted to hear. This would be a quick way to weed through some entries into different challenges for the same theme. |
|
