DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Rating DPC'rs
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/20/2006 12:53:49 PM · #1
Many years ago I played a lot of chess. After a couple of tournaments I got a rating from the US chess federation. It was helpful and fun. I could compare my rating with my friends, and also could see if I was improving. I would like to suggest a system where every member at DPC recieve a ranking. There could be many ways to do it. I would take the last 100 challenges and use the percent finish and assign points for that...79 points for 79%. Would assign more points for top ten finish, and of course a lot of points for a ribbon. You could give extra points for other accomplishments, for example, favorites. Once everyone has a rating, we could all be ranked #1, #2 etc. Wouldn't it be awesome to be one of the top ten photographers at dpc? What do you think?
06/20/2006 01:08:00 PM · #2
Whereas in concept I think this is an interesting idea, it would be very depressing to some, I would imagine. Who would want to be in the bottom ten, and what would that do to their confidence level? Yes, to some, it would make them seek to be better, but to others, it would obliterate their interest in the site, and in photography.

That's not to say one should cater to every personality, but there's already a competitive nature to the site with the challenges that seems to bring people down.

Having said that, I think it's an interesting idea. :) I also think it could be done many ways, so that everyone starts with a certain rating that places them somewhere smack dab in the middle, and challenge results push them in either direction (not dependant on number of challenges entered).
06/20/2006 01:21:40 PM · #3
This has been debated many times before, and given the subjective nature of photography there's just no "acceptable" way to rank people. How could you reasonably compare one person with a lucky first entry with another who has been consistently excellent for years? Many people here would consider Dax and Anastasia among the best photographers on DPC even though their ribbon count is very low (and the reverse is probably true in my case). No matter how the rankings are determined, few will agree with them- we each have our own favorites regardless of score.
06/20/2006 01:23:00 PM · #4
something like "Avg Vote Received"
but weighted with number of entries and number of days joined

that way people who only enter few but steller images don't dominate and eventually drift off the map with more time passed

06/20/2006 01:28:29 PM · #5
Sometimes I enter something that's as gross as possible, like road-kill, or puking in a toilet. I know I'll score a 3 or 4 for these shots, but I just get a kick out of the comments. Other times I enter something I think will get a high score, because I get a kick out of getting a high score too.

This behaviour adjusts my overall average to the middle, but overall average is not what I'm after. :-)
06/20/2006 01:29:32 PM · #6
Originally posted by scalvert:

This has been debated many times before, and given the subjective nature of photography there's just no "acceptable" way to rank people. How could you reasonably compare one person with a lucky first entry with another who has been consistently excellent for years? Many people here would consider Dax and Anastasia among the best photographers on DPC even though their ribbon count is very low (and the reverse is probably true in my case). No matter how the rankings are determined, few will agree with them- we each have our own favorites regardless of score.

Well we rank photos everyday, even though they are subjective. We compile tons of statistics on everyone. There should be an acceptable way to give everybody a rating and rank. I agree it furthers competition, but as Louis said, this is a competitive web site. I bet Dax and Anastasia would rank high with any method we choose. Wouldn't you like to see which one is ranked higher? Wouldn't you like to see who is number one?
06/20/2006 01:36:20 PM · #7
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Wouldn't you like to see which one is ranked higher? Wouldn't you like to see who is number one?


IMHO, no, I wouldn't. I know, in my mind, who is ranked highly. I don't need stats telling me who IS ranked higher, or number one.

And has been said time and time again, there are amazing photographers on here whose stuff doesn't get voted highly because it's not what DPC voters like. I like their stuff, and Iin my mind, they are ranked higher than some people who consistently win ribbons. As scalvert said, it's all subjective.

Now slippy, on the other hand, is an entire ranking system unto himself :P
06/20/2006 01:37:58 PM · #8
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Wouldn't you like to see who is number one?


Honestly? Not really. The best photographers are more than an algorithm IMO, and a high score or average here has little bearing on where I personally would "rank" that person.
06/20/2006 01:39:05 PM · #9
Originally posted by pidge:

Now slippy, on the other hand, is an entire ranking system unto himself :P


Yes, he's quite rank. ;-)
06/20/2006 01:57:20 PM · #10
just don't see any feasibility to this--it would be too hard to come up with something that most people would buy into. there are just too many factors.

decades ago, i worked with a company who's CEO decided he was going to program the company's job tracking system. at that time, that made him one of the highest paid computer programmers in the country. was he one of the best? nada chance...
06/20/2006 01:59:59 PM · #11
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by pidge:

Now slippy, on the other hand, is an entire ranking system unto himself :P


Yes, he's quite rank. ;-)

Haha! :-D
06/20/2006 02:01:51 PM · #12
Just compare yourselves to me...I'll be number 1...

Decide how much worse everyone is than me, and go from there.

For example, say you suck pretty bad...you'd be like 1000th...if you're pretty damn good, you can be 2nd, etc.
06/20/2006 02:06:35 PM · #13
Chess is clear cut - you win or you lose. There are legal and illegal moves. Easy to rate.

Photography is way too subjective to rank, far too many aspects influence the outcome.
06/20/2006 02:10:12 PM · #14
The best way is to have an individual league that people can join. People would go head to head with other people as they want. They "register" their match before the challenge starts and the results determine your score based on a formula which is well known and used widely to rank players in tournaments from Scrabble, Chess or card games like Magic: The Gathering. The amount of points you win or lose depends on how much higher or lower your ranking is compared to your opponent. If you are ranked 1500 and beat a 1700 opponent, you get many more points than if you beat a 1400 player. The average score is 1600.

It could be done, but would take work by someone to organize and keep track of the results. Actually it could mainly be done on a voluntary basis with self reporting. There is no schedule to set up either as people can play whomever they want.
06/20/2006 02:11:32 PM · #15
Originally posted by Beetle:

Chess is clear cut - you win or you lose. There are legal and illegal moves. Easy to rate.

Photography is way too subjective to rank, far too many aspects influence the outcome.

Actually, in chess you can (and frequently do) have a draw as well ... but I otherwise agree with your point.

People keep forgetting that the original point of this site is mutual education, and that the competitions are merely the format or means used to achieve that end, not an end in themselves.

And as someone pointed out, why not just figure out who has the highest average vote received?
06/20/2006 02:12:00 PM · #16
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The best way is to have an individual league that people can join. People would go head to head with other people as they want. They "register" their match before the challenge starts and the results determine your score based on a formula which is well known and used widely to rank players in tournaments from Scrabble, Chess or card games like Magic: The Gathering. The amount of points you win or lose depends on how much higher or lower your ranking is compared to your opponent. If you are ranked 1500 and beat a 1700 opponent, you get many more points than if you beat a 1400 player. The average score is 1600.

It could be done, but would take work by someone to organize and keep track of the results. Actually it could mainly be done on a voluntary basis with self reporting. There is no schedule to set up either as people can play whomever they want.


Good idea, sorta like the ladder rankings in pool or gin games online...I'd be game if someome implemented this, but that'd be rather complicated.
06/20/2006 02:44:42 PM · #17
Originally posted by cloudsme:

... Wouldn't you like to see which one is ranked higher? Wouldn't you like to see who is number one?

It seems it would just be another way of looking at the stats we already have; highest average, most favorited, most favorited photos, etc.

What I think would be interesting is a ranking of site participation. Base it on things like length of time registered/member, challenges entered, votes cast, comments left, critiques left, forum posts, tutorials and how-to's -- all weighted against each other and how long ago they occured. That is, overall rank would decrease if participation slowed down. I would find it interesting to see who is actively participating in building the community, and if that became competitive -- so much the better.

David
06/20/2006 02:57:33 PM · #18
I think the statistical calculations aren't really worth much. It seems like a lot of people here are more concerned with stats than anything though. There are countless forum threads here about them.

These statistics don't mean much because of the diversity of the people they are applied to.

Who has sold more CDs in the last 5 years? Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, or Rachmaninoff? I like Beethoven the best out of the group, so it doesn't really matter about any statistical analysis that determines which one of them is the best.

I guess it's a simple shortcoming of mathematics. Emotional value can't be caluclated with algebra.
06/20/2006 03:19:55 PM · #19
Originally posted by David.C:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

... Wouldn't you like to see which one is ranked higher? Wouldn't you like to see who is number one?

It seems it would just be another way of looking at the stats we already have; highest average, most favorited, most favorited photos, etc.

What I think would be interesting is a ranking of site participation. Base it on things like length of time registered/member, challenges entered, votes cast, comments left, critiques left, forum posts, tutorials and how-to's -- all weighted against each other and how long ago they occured. That is, overall rank would decrease if participation slowed down. I would find it interesting to see who is actively participating in building the community, and if that became competitive -- so much the better.

David


While I think encouraging site participation is good, I don't agree with making it competitive. Leave comments, vote, write tutorials because you want to and you enjoy helping other people...not so that you can see yourself listed number one on a list. I think that the majority of times that things like that are made competitive, it just cheapens it.
06/20/2006 04:44:38 PM · #20
Originally posted by skiprow:

just don't see any feasibility to this--it would be too hard to come up with something that most people would buy into. there are just too many factors.

decades ago, i worked with a company who's CEO decided he was going to program the company's job tracking system. at that time, that made him one of the highest paid computer programmers in the country. was he one of the best? nada chance...


The military tries to rank officers for promotion, never has worked, the idiot butt kissers get promoted while the logical take no BS thinkers and doers get passed over. In that system it is easier to get promoted by making your buddy look bad than doing a good job yourself. Sorry for the very small few percentage of great people who do get promoted, you did do a good job getting there. Ratings nev er work unless it's based on strickly objective measurements, photography is too much like art. Some of the worst art work is rated the highest because they had the right publicist.
06/20/2006 04:55:30 PM · #21
I got myself into a tussle yesterday over at another photo website where the complaint was about photos rated 1, 2, or 3 getting a one word REQUIRED checkbox comment of "boring". I was playing Devils Advocate and something I said prompted another user to block me from rating thier images!

All for the sake of keeping their HIGH site ranking untouched.

Hey-ho... Let's keep it FUN! Now where's the "Threads Killed" thread? Oh yea...
06/20/2006 04:59:01 PM · #22
Originally posted by mk:


While I think encouraging site participation is good, I don't agree with making it competitive. Leave comments, vote, write tutorials because you want to and you enjoy helping other people...not so that you can see yourself listed number one on a list. I think that the majority of times that things like that are made competitive, it just cheapens it.


I have ceased participation in sites specifically because I disagreed with the rigidness of their ranking system. While I've been shooting for years, I consider myself a newbie. My sole purpose for participating in a site such as this is to improve myself. So, while I submit to challeneges (I just entered my first challenge last night), the only thing I'm looking for is feedback. If participation, voting "quality", and the like are going to be ranked, or if my ability to post and/or vote are going to be affected by how "normal" my voting history is, I'm outa here.
06/20/2006 05:11:34 PM · #23
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Many years ago I played a lot of chess. After a couple of tournaments I got a rating from the US chess federation. It was helpful and fun. I could compare my rating with my friends, and also could see if I was improving. I would like to suggest a system where every member at DPC recieve a ranking. There could be many ways to do it. I would take the last 100 challenges and use the percent finish and assign points for that...79 points for 79%. Would assign more points for top ten finish, and of course a lot of points for a ribbon. You could give extra points for other accomplishments, for example, favorites. Once everyone has a rating, we could all be ranked #1, #2 etc. Wouldn't it be awesome to be one of the top ten photographers at dpc? What do you think?

Personally, I'm satisified with the ranking system already in place, called Avg Vote Received. It's not totally comprehensive but it's enough for me. If something like what cloudsme has suggested were to be implemented, I'd ask that it's ingredients be limited to things generated by challenge voting where we are anonymous. If you include things like how many times someone has been selected as a Favorite Photographer, the rankings lose objectivity and start to move in the direction of a popularity contest. Overall, I fear it might become counterproductive to the educational mission of the site as people would enter only when they thought they had a really good shot. The challenge entries from which people (especially beginners) learn the most don't usually score real well.

As always, just my two cents.
06/20/2006 05:16:20 PM · #24
Originally posted by _eug:

I got myself into a tussle yesterday over at another photo website where the complaint was about photos rated 1, 2, or 3 getting a one word REQUIRED checkbox comment of "boring". I was playing Devils Advocate and something I said prompted another user to block me from rating thier images!

All for the sake of keeping their HIGH site ranking untouched.

Hey-ho... Let's keep it FUN! Now where's the "Threads Killed" thread? Oh yea...


That'll learn you to go to those other photography sites.
06/20/2006 05:17:59 PM · #25
Originally posted by coolhar:

Overall, I fear it might become counterproductive to the educational mission of the site as people would enter only when they thought they had a really good shot.


Let's do it then :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/23/2019 10:32:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/23/2019 10:32:06 AM EDT.