|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2006 05:55:11 PM · #26 |
For what it's worth, the Karma idea is simply a site specific metric, to assign you some points for participating. No one is really punished, if the criteria is not up to snuff, as long as you can "face" having less Karma than others. But if Karma points are given for the "right things", then I think that can motivate people (surprisingly, just like virtual ribbons).
Many sites use Karma as a way to inspire users to participate in positive ways. For example, UseFilm gives Karma points (or at least used to--I haven't been there for a while) everytime you write a critique/comment on a photo.
I'd love to see a Karma system in place here, whatever the definition. Remember, it's just an arbitrary rating scheme, but when done "right" can at least help steer people in the right direction.
I don't think there's a perfect solution to the problem (though I would support not letting people vote in the challenges they enter). But Karma could be an interesting one to try in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 05:57:10 PM · #27 |
The only sure fire way to prevent this, is to prevent people voting on challenges they have entered. Then you have to watch for ghost accounts. But other than that it's all honor system! ;o)
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 06:11:24 PM · #28 |
If I understand "karma" correctly (the site version, not the wonderdog), you lose karma when you deviate from the norm in either direction. is that correct? Personally I think that's a horrible idea, especially if it's set up so the votes of karma-heavy members carry more weight.
Think about it; we already have a situation where the consensus is sliding towards the lietral and obvious interpretation of challenges, and where, by and large, experimental work is not rewarded. The karma system will just reinforce that, pulling all voters towards the middle.
I think I'm a fair, if tough, voter. My average vote cast is slightly less than 5, and that's with very few 3-or-less votes handed out. But I have very high standards, and I apply them evenly across the board. I don't fixate on one "type" of photo and downgrade others. Still, one thing I do is seek out and try to encourage the more creative, risky work. So I end up giving some 6's and 7's to images that the voters collectively consider to be sub-5 shots. Should my votes count for less because I am applying a different sensibility to them than the "masses"?
I think one thing that's important is that when people take the risk of doing something different, and they do it well, they deserve to have a few high votes in their stack that tell them "all is not lost!" I'd hate to see our voters unwilling to offer that isolated affirmation for fear of what it might do to their karma. I'd hate to see our voters trying to "guess" which images will do well and which poorly, and then trying to "guess" which score to give that image to improve their karma, rather than just voting their hearts.
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 06:29:17 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If I understand "karma" correctly ... Robt. |
Yep. What he said. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 06:59:14 PM · #30 |
As to the definition of Karma, that's simply what I "proposed off-the-cuff" for the "formula". I'd hate to see the idea discarded simply because the initial "formula" had "problems".
Since the idea is to encourage people to vote high, rather than lowball, you could, for example, simply give more Karma for higher votes. Or something different.
In any case, all I was saying was that offering "Karma points" for whatever we (or the site council) decide is "positive" behavior may be a good thing. In my experience on other sites, "points" seem to motivate people.
I personally think the problem is better addressed by not allowing voting on challenges you enter (a long time ago, when we were discussing "exclusive" challenges, I had proposed you enter one but vote the other). But I still think the idea of Karma points can be used to benefit the site. All the other aspects of this site focus on "competition". And now we have "annual stats" on top of that, so people are competing in timeframes beyond weekly (where each week, we start "anew"). I think having a metric of "contribution" would be a good thing overall.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 06:59:59 PM · #31 |
What it is is jealousy. People in the challenge, I would imagine, go through and see something better than theirs and vote it down. Simple as that.
I myself do not think there are a lot of these imbasils, or at least not enough to make a gigantic difference, but there are a good 30 to 40 PER challenge. I just experienced one myself. Now, I have an entry that is climbing to ribbon status. I have 30 comments, and by those that are really experienced and respected here, those comments come from. They are all great comments. Someone in the last 30 minutes hit me with a (1) vote and didn't bother to leave a comment as to why. I don't really care much for comments anyway, but still, it just goes to show that in comparison to the comments I have and from who, those that troll on by and give ones to high scoring images do exist. Trolls. Imbasils. Nimrods. LOL....
In the end it really doesn't matter. I have noticed that once a challenge ends, the score you see on the "home" page is really not the final result as tallies are still being made. Usually it becomes higher than what you see, or at least it has for me. So an image, let's say, that is scoring a 6.789 may in final say 6.856. I am hoping for this at challenge end this time around too. But, those trolls who come by and vote that one CAN and do make a difference. I wish it was mandatory that whoever votes, WHAT they voted can be seen. That is how to wean out the trolls, and those that come to this site just to cause havoc during challenges.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 07:19:56 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
As to the definition of Karma, that's simply what I "proposed off-the-cuff" for the "formula". I'd hate to see the idea discarded simply because the initial "formula" had "problems".
Since the idea is to encourage people to vote high, rather than lowball, you could, for example, simply give more Karma for higher votes. Or something different.
In any case, all I was saying was that offering "Karma points" for whatever we (or the site council) decide is "positive" behavior may be a good thing. In my experience on other sites, "points" seem to motivate people.
I personally think the problem is better addressed by not allowing voting on challenges you enter (a long time ago, when we were discussing "exclusive" challenges, I had proposed you enter one but vote the other). But I still think the idea of Karma points can be used to benefit the site. All the other aspects of this site focus on "competition". And now we have "annual stats" on top of that, so people are competing in timeframes beyond weekly (where each week, we start "anew"). I think having a metric of "contribution" would be a good thing overall. |
I'm not worried about any ad hoc definition of "karma" you may have applied here; I based my comments on the way karma is used in another site with which I am familiar. I am, in general, against any sort of incentive that encourages homgeneity and, in general, in favor of any sort of incentive that encourages diversity. It's kind of like the freedom-of-speech issue; I'd rather put up with idiots on the airwaves (read "trolls") than have somebody telling me what I'm allowed to express.
I'm not exactly against motivating people to vote responsibly, of course, but I'm definitely against any system that takes the average and calls it the norm, then punishes whoever deviates from the norm. That's simple enough, right?
I've often fantasized about replacing the current voting system with a "jury duty" system. I'm not really proposing this for DPC, mind you, but the idea intrigues me nevertheless. Let there be a set of criteria established (probably activity criteria) for what makes an "eligible voter". Then for each challenge, let us randomly select 25 voters from the "pool" and notify them via e-mail that they have been selected for voter duty in the just-posted challenge. Let there be a dozen alternate voters in line. Let any member selected for voter duty have one free exemption (so if you selected me at random for Landscape IV I could opt out since I'm a landscape shooter). Prevent the selected voters from entering the challenge.
Repeat thrice weekly :-)
I'm all in favor of a "metric of contribution", incidentally; I'm just not sure the "reward" for it should be a higher weight placed on my votes because of it.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-01-06 19:21:34. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 07:30:25 PM · #33 |
Funny how you never hear anyone complaining about getting to many "undeserved" 10s.
There are as many of those as there are "undeserved" 1s. It all balances out in the end.
The concept that "trolling" is a common behavior lacks credibility. To be credible it would have to be statistically significant among all the top finishing images in a given challenge. That never happens.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 08:14:07 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Funny how you never hear anyone complaining about getting to many "undeserved" 10s.
There are as many of those as there are "undeserved" 1s. It all balances out in the end.
The concept that "trolling" is a common behavior lacks credibility. To be credible it would have to be statistically significant among all the top finishing images in a given challenge. That never happens. |
I agree with your second statement. It doesn't really make a difference in the end, but there are times it does make a difference. I have seen some challenges where what "I" think should have won did not, but that is just me. It is all personal preference.
However, trolling is common so it seems. I can personally speak for my own entries. I know when an entry of mine will most likely get between a 5 or 5.5 score. I don't presume to think that a photo I enter (yet) is a 10 entry. I think even in a current challenge the most I expect is a 6.5, only because I know it is that good to me. Now, what it is to others is certainly wide spread, as the comments show. About 20% of my 38 comments are "ok" with it, but the rest think it is awesome. It's just again, a personal preference.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 08:27:45 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
Solution: Vote for the challenge you did not enter. |
I like this idea, and would go even further and suggest that you should NOT be allowed to vote in any challenge that you enter, ONLY on the ones that you did not enter.
yeah, yeah, I know - there'd be problems with that too. *sigh* |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 08:29:05 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by lhall:
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
Solution: Vote for the challenge you did not enter. |
I like this idea, and would go even further and suggest that you should NOT be allowed to vote in any challenge that you enter, ONLY on the ones that you did not enter.
yeah, yeah, I know - there'd be problems with that too. *sigh* |
It would be an interesting experiment. I wonder how many votes we'd actually get. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:07:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by lkn4truth:
Is it possible that some really competitive people, those competing for a ribbon, are going out and finding the other great photo's in the contest and giving them a 1 just for the hopes of getting that measily 1/1000th of a percentage point that might be the difference between a blue or a red ribbon? |
This question got me thinking that I really should be flattered by the 1's and 2's I have received! |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:12:41 PM · #38 |
| This topic has come up so many times that it's begining to become cliche. There has been to my knowledge no proof of any troll voting. I have not seen any results ever come in that did not fit a general bell curve. I think that this is just paranoid people trying to fit a conspiracy around the fact the not all people see 'art' the same way they do... |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:14:22 PM · #39 |
Hey, leave the 1 voters alone... I've come to appreciate the fact I've offended them ... he he
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:27:25 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I wonder how many votes we'd actually get. |
If that means that we get only half the number of votes, but those votes are fair and honest votes, then we'd be better off with less votes.
I have been voting only on the "other" challenge for months now because I believe it is the fairest way. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:42:09 PM · #41 |
Wow..so much psycho babble :-/
Listen...everybody gets skanky votes and everybody gets high "favorite" votes.
The cute dog photo...I like good animal photos so you might get a good vote from me...BUT!!!...there are people that hate..with a purple passion..pet, baby and flower photos and vote 1 just cause they are sick of em...
Guess what....that is fair. If someone hates pictures of babies or pets or whatever..they have their right to vote it down.
I guess I am really sick of this constant whining about voting on a PUBLIC POPULARITY contest. This is not a juried site, we don't make people pass tests before joining and if people want to get their family and friends to gang vote for them..more power to them...it doesn't affect my enjoyment of MY PHOTOGRAPHY!
Oh....and to those people that think that your vote recieved should be equal to your vote given...What? There are a lot of beginner photogrpahers here..they generally outnumber the skilled..the odds are photo averages are going to be slightly below a 5...
Wow....this gets old year after year :-/ |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:44:59 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I wish it was mandatory that whoever votes, WHAT they voted can be seen. That is how to wean out the trolls, and those that come to this site just to cause havoc during challenges.
Rose |
This, in my humble opinion, would be a sure fire way to ensure that voting either comes to a grinding halt, or we see a scenario where only the really thick skinned, and outspoken, truly vote in accordance with their views on the photo.
I have no problems telling any person what score I gave a photo, but then again ... I couldn't care less about what people think of my voting patterns, nor do I feel a need to justify my position.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:57:47 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I wish it was mandatory that whoever votes, WHAT they voted can be seen. That is how to wean out the trolls, and those that come to this site just to cause havoc during challenges.
Rose |
This, in my humble opinion, would be a sure fire way to ensure that voting either comes to a grinding halt, or we see a scenario where only the really thick skinned, and outspoken, truly vote in accordance with their views on the photo.
I have no problems telling any person what score I gave a photo, but then again ... I couldn't care less about what people think of my voting patterns, nor do I feel a need to justify my position.
Ray |
Touche |
|
|
|
01/07/2006 12:34:33 AM · #44 |
I don't see the problem of people voting low if they do it consistently. Some people's scales are higher or lower than others. It's funny that things aren't said against people who give out scores that are higher than a standard deviation from the mean. It has the asme type of effect of making the compiled scores less accurate.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
On the bright side of things, their pathetic efforts have little effect overall in the long run and yes, they do spread their misery evenly.
General "low voters" bum me out the most. If their same keen, hyper-critical eyes were pointed back towards themselves by all the voters collectively, their own averages would most likely drop like stones.
(was that clear?) It's taking more than giving...
We need to weed them out...like the villagers in Frankenstein, with pitch-forks, torches and sickles...
(kidding, of course) |
|
|
|
|
01/07/2006 12:38:35 AM · #45 |
WHy do you want people to vote high? I thought the purpose of voting is to get an ACCURATE metric of what people think of your picture. I know I didn't register for this site to only hear or see nice things about my work and not learn at all.
Originally posted by nshapiro:
As to the definition of Karma, that's simply what I "proposed off-the-cuff" for the "formula". I'd hate to see the idea discarded simply because the initial "formula" had "problems".
Since the idea is to encourage people to vote high, rather than lowball, you could, for example, simply give more Karma for higher votes. Or something different.
In any case, all I was saying was that offering "Karma points" for whatever we (or the site council) decide is "positive" behavior may be a good thing. In my experience on other sites, "points" seem to motivate people.
I personally think the problem is better addressed by not allowing voting on challenges you enter (a long time ago, when we were discussing "exclusive" challenges, I had proposed you enter one but vote the other). But I still think the idea of Karma points can be used to benefit the site. All the other aspects of this site focus on "competition". And now we have "annual stats" on top of that, so people are competing in timeframes beyond weekly (where each week, we start "anew"). I think having a metric of "contribution" would be a good thing overall. |
|
|
|
|
01/07/2006 12:46:39 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by traser:
WHy do you want people to vote high? I thought the purpose of voting is to get an ACCURATE metric of what people think of your picture. I know I didn't register for this site to only hear or see nice things about my work and not learn at all.
|
Touche |
|
|
|
01/07/2006 02:28:05 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Funny how you never hear anyone complaining about getting to many "undeserved" 10s. .....
|
I wouldn't say never...remember this
thread
Message edited by author 2006-01-07 02:42:42. |
|
|
|
01/07/2006 03:48:03 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
There has been to my knowledge no proof of any troll voting. I have not seen any results ever come in that did not fit a general bell curve. I think that this is just paranoid people trying to fit a conspiracy around the fact the not all people see 'art' the same way they do... |
Then you might have been looking in the wrong place?
Look at a history of Blue Ribboners for the last month, there's your proof
Oops: 1x1s, 3x2s, 12x3s
Pattern: 1x1s, 2x2s, 2x3s
Phobia: 1x2s
Shallow DOF: 2x1s, 4x2s, 6x3s
Visual Puns: 1x1s, 3x2s, 3x3s
Holiday Catalogue: 2x1s, 2x3s
4-5am: 1x1s, 1x2s
Say Cheese: 1x1s, 2x2s, 8x3s
Candlelight: 3x2s, 2x3s
Too Early: 1x1s, 1x2s, 6x3s
Too Late: 2x2s, 4x3s
Knife Fork Spoon: 1x1s, 2x2s, 4x3s
Collections: 2x1s, 1x2s, 4x3s
Industrial: 1x1s, 1x2s, 4x3s
Adulthood: 5x3s
Even: 2x2s, 2x3s
Odd: 6x3s
Cheater: 1x1s, 2x3s
Singel Light: 2x2s, 9x3s
Camouflage: 1x2s, 7x3s
Triptych: 1x1, 1x2s, 3x3s
LandscapeII: 2x1s, 2x2s, 3x3s
GarbageII: 2x1s, 1x2s, 5x3s
Not one of those images deserves a 3, let alone worse! A 3 or less is a bad photo which is out of focus or has terrible exposure problems or is 100% off challenge.
Consider too that these are just the Blues and not every top 5 image. The Top 10 images are certainly fairly easy to spot during voting so it's not at all beyond belief that people who consider themselves in contention are voting down the obvious threats.
There is absolutely no other explanation for the above images getting a 3 or worse.
Brett |
|
|
|
01/07/2006 06:17:21 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
... it's not at all beyond belief that people who consider themselves in contention are voting down the obvious threats. There is absolutely no other explanation for the above images getting a 3 or worse. Brett |
Sure there is, Brett. They're just dickheads who vote low for the same vapid reason that idiots spray obscene graffiti and dogs piss on trees: to mark their territory. |
|
|
|
01/07/2006 06:51:25 AM · #50 |
Interesting thoughts in here. Being a new member who hasn't entered any challenges yet (and hence has no axe to grind), and also having some training in statistics, here's a couple of thoughts.
Warning: long post, includes some maths.
The idea of karma points is interesting. But the trouble is it penalises people who see things differently from average. Would this site be interesting or worthwhile if everyone thought the same? Particularly in areas of creativity, there will always be valid differences of opinion, sometimes widely divergent ones. The last thing any of us needs is for everyone to vote according to "do I think everyone else will like this?".
As someone else pointed out, when you've got 300+ votes, the impact of a couple of 1s and 2s is not going to make a big difference - although in some cases it could push you up or down a spot or two. If you want to protect the integrity of the vote numbers from people trying to rig it (either downgrading competitors' pictures, or cartel-like behaviour along the lines of "you vote mine up, I'll vote yours up"), there are two approaches I could suggest (one or the other, not both together).
1. Removal of extremes/outliers from the average calculation.
Suppose a photo receives 200 votes. Before calculating the score, the top and bottom 1% (or 2% or 5%) of votes are removed before calculating the score. In the display of statistics, still show all the votes, just don't count the 1% or 2% at extreme in the calculation. For example:
Angel flew too close to the ground //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=273193 received 433 votes. If we were cutting the top and bottom 1% this would be 4 votes at each end - the 1, the 3 2s, and 4 of the 55 10s. After removing these, the mean (average) is 7.056 rather than 7.035. On the stats page we'd still list the 1s, 2s, and all 55 10s, it's just that eight of these wouldn't figure in the calculation of the score. The same rule is applied to all photos in the challenge.
2. (a) Normalise everyone's votes cast to a mean of 5 before calculating the scores.
This one is a bit trickier. Suppose I'm a hard marker, and the average value of all my votes in a particular challenge is 3.5. Then, when it comes time to calculate a score, the system adds 1.5 to each of the votes I cast for others' photos. So if I scored a photo 3, it's vote becomes 4.5 (for calculation purposes, not for display purposes)). Suppose user FredBloggs is a generous marker, and his average vote is 7.3 - then the system subtracts 2.3 from each of his votes to make his the average 5. If he voted 7 for a photo, it'd get shifted to 4.7 for the purposes of calculating a score.
The consequence of this will be that if you take the average score of all photos in a single challenge, it will always be exactly 5, even if all of the photos were brilliant. This means that you couldn't compare scores from one challenge to another.
More importantly, if someone is voting 1s on a number of photos to try and increase their own chances, it'll backfire because they'll have a very low average vote cast, so several points will be added to every single vote they cast on that challenge. The more photos they try to drag down, the more each of their votes will be "bumped up" when it comes time to calculate the scores.
2 (b) Variation of 2(a) - normalise everyone's votes cast to a common average.
Suppose when we take the raw votes in a particular challenge, the overall average is, say, 6.8. Then we do something similar to option 2 (a), but instead of adjusting the average of each person's cast votes to 5 as before, we adjust it to the overall average of 6.8.
So if I'm a hard marker and voted an average of 4.5, then the system will add 6.8 - 4.5 = 2.3 points to each of my votes for others' photos. When we look at generous FredBloggs' average vote cast of 7.3, it's a little more generous than the average voter, 6.8 - 7.3 = -0.5 so we subtract 0.5 from each of his votes. The votes of someone whose range of votes was typical (i.e. mean very close to 7.3) wouldn't get adjusted much at all.
This requires more calculation than 2 (a) so it might be too difficult to show interim scores during the voting phase of the challenge. But unlike 2 (a) it would mean that the scores on different challenges were a bit more comparable. And still counteracts anyone who tries to vote others down to increase their own chances.
Anyway, that's my two bits worth, feel free to critique the ideas though. And they're only ideas, not recommendations.
Regards
Tim
Message edited by author 2006-01-07 06:56:52. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 04:39:18 PM  |
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 04:39:18 PM EDT.
|
