Idea how to fix voting arguments

08/11/2003 09:43:53 AM · #1

I propose new calculation of the votes.Users who earned three or more ribbons should have their votes weighted in separate score and all other votes in second group!(like camera owners and non-camera owners).
Then A+B should be added and divided by 2!
I consider those photographers with ribbons should have more weight in criticizing mine and other works!
This way ribbon holders will be rewarded and malicious self serving 1 givers will loose some of the power that have now!

basia03

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

08/11/2003 09:51:47 AM · #2

Originally posted by pitsaman:

... malicious self serving 1 givers ...

the voting scale is 1 to 10, isn't it???

tarique

Nikon Coolpix 5700

08/11/2003 09:54:53 AM · #3

Originally posted by pitsaman:

This way ribbon holders will be rewarded and malicious self serving 1 givers will loose some of the power that have now!

Good suggestion!! More ribbons more is your weight for scores.

Also there should be a way to penalise voters (by lowering their voting weightage) who vote any picture much lower (2 standard deviations?) than the average score it recieves after deducting the 1s and 10s

There are some sites out there who call this your karma rating...

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

08/11/2003 09:56:30 AM · #4

Originally posted by basia03:

Originally posted by pitsaman:
... malicious self serving 1 givers ...

the voting scale is 1 to 10, isn't it???

For some is 1-5,or 6-10 don't know about you!

basia03

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

08/11/2003 09:59:26 AM · #5

my voting scale is 1 to 10, thank you!

myqyl

Nikon D3100

08/11/2003 10:00:36 AM · #6

[sarcasm]I like it! A little mini caste system all our own!!! Kind of like Jim Crow laws of digital photography! Or as an alternative, we can vote on a scale of 5 to 5, so no one's self esteem will be at risk of getting a lower score than someone else...[/sarcasm]

Another approach to fixing voting arguments is to realize that everyone gets to vote as they see fit...

08/11/2003 10:04:57 AM · #7

Originally posted by basia03:

my voting scale is 1 to 10, thank you!

For my mother Rock is just a noise ,but, she doesn;t go to the concerts!

basia03

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

08/11/2003 10:06:35 AM · #8

Originally posted by myqyl:

Another approach to fixing voting arguments is to realize that everyone gets to vote as they see fit...

exactly! some bad pictures get a few 10s but that only means that some people liked them... same goes for the people that give 1s, if they don't... those are the breaks!

roleychiu

Canon EOS-D30

08/11/2003 10:11:31 AM · #9

Had the same thoughts a couple weeks ago but realized that the DPC system is fundamentally dependant on voters voting. If people especially new users, felt their vote was worth crap-all, nobody would vote. bye bye dpc.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

08/11/2003 10:15:41 AM · #10

Originally posted by roleychiu:

With 3-4000 $ equipment you shouldn't worry about been put down!

craigant

Nikon D70

08/11/2003 10:20:34 AM · #11

Why is everyone being so precious lately? Come on how about we all grow a skin and get over our egos about getting a few 1s on our picture submissions. I was reading a thread titled �Six one�s�.why?� This person was complaining that their picture got six ones, however I noticed it also got six tens. I don�t believe there is any need to change the voting system. If we look at the total votes it should be obvious that the 1s we get for our precious pictures are cancelled out by the 10s that we receive at the opposite end. Also if 6 voters out of 200 voters or 3% hate the picture then 97% is not a bad approval rate hey? Does anyone else agree?

glimpses

Sony DSC-F707

08/11/2003 10:24:15 AM · #12

I raised the "weight of vote" issue in another post precedently and somebody observed that it would not be in the democratic spirit of this website.

I respect that.

In the mean time, I realized that the problem is not in 1s or 10s but in the true identity of whoever gives a vote.

The site should do is best to avoid any sort of malicious voting because that is the major danger for the survival of the site itself.

It claims to implements some analysis of voting pattern but if it is a good intention more than a reality, then the voting system is under threat of the most unfair manipulation.

I think it would be of some importance to propose (and implement) ideas to enforce an identity check on whoever is voting.

The first ideas who come to my mind are:

- confer the right to vote only to whoever has partecipated to a challenge at least once
- confer the right to vote to frequent users only (ie: users who have logged in at least ten times in the past months)
- trace IP addresses and do not accept more than one vote per IP address (this may create some problem with couples but that can easily be resolved if the couple makes an average of their two votes and post it as one vote)

To do not implement techniques like these ones and to do not try to enforce identity check it is going to constitute a threat to the quality of this website and to its survival in the long term.

Also, it is unfair to raise the shield of democracy because in any democracy a strong proof of identity (not just a username and password) is required whenever you cast your vote.

Message edited by author 2003-08-11 10:26:23.

BLEE

Canon PowerShot A70

08/11/2003 10:28:26 AM · #13

I agree. This is the system. Live and die with it. Tough titties. Everyone gets delt the same crap therefore creating a level playing field. Any replacement system will be screwed too. Cant please everyone all the time. I dont think the main aim here is to win but learn. Winning would be good bonus and addition to what I learn along the way.
Who cares really?
What is the meaning of life?
IT JUST IS!

Thats all folkes.

glimpses

Sony DSC-F707

08/11/2003 10:28:30 AM · #14

Originally posted by craigant:

No will of being offensive, but please let me say that your interpretation of maths is a little bit naive. =)

muckpond

Nikon D200

08/11/2003 10:30:16 AM · #15

giving select photos a "1" is NOT malicious voting -- it's voting the way you see fit, fair and square.

giving EVERY photo a "1" IS malicious scoring, and there's already a procedure in place to take care of that.

if we're going to give weight to certain votes, lets give more power to the people who submit comments and actually attempt to improve the site and less weight to the people who just sit around and complain about it. that would be just as fair as any other option submitted.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

08/11/2003 10:35:59 AM · #16

So idea of "House of Lords" or Senate is not flying,then let's close this thread!

glimpses

Sony DSC-F707

08/11/2003 10:39:06 AM · #17

Originally posted by muckpond:

giving select photos a "1" is NOT malicious voting -- it's voting the way you see fit, fair and square.

I agree assuming that whoever casts that vote has voted only once in the specific challenge.

If by any means (and there are easy means to do that), that person is able to vote more than once, then it's no more about 1s and 10s but it is just about VERY malicious voting.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

08/11/2003 10:42:33 AM · #18

Why don't we just remove '1' from the voting scale and vote 2-10 instead?

BLEE

Canon PowerShot A70

08/11/2003 10:44:11 AM · #19

By the way pitsaman I lover your IR shots. Went and got me a Hoya R72 today. Good Stuff. Cant wait to try it.