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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Multiple family accounts
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 39, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/27/2003 03:05:49 PM · #1
Is this a big problem?
Is this an easy way to cheat on scores?
Is it any way to control this and maybe disable multiple users of voting on each others photos?
10/27/2003 03:10:01 PM · #2
Maybe if you have a family of, oh say, 20 or 25. I am one voter. I'm not sure of the numbers, but even if I vote a 10 or so, it will raise the score like .005ish, depending on the total of numbers.

I don't think it is a big problem, but then, I don't think it is a problem at all. It is not an easy way to cheat on scores, for the above mentioned reasons.

If we controlled it by disabling voting on eachothers photos, what about friends or coworkers or "virtual friends" that see pictures before the challenge. Also included would have to be the pairs of mentor/mentoree system Swash started.

Message edited by author 2003-10-27 15:11:39.
10/27/2003 03:13:55 PM · #3
I think that is mostly an honor system, similar to the hope that people do not spot edit their challenge entries. And where do you draw the line? Friends, whether 'real life' or 'cyber', could vote high just as much as family members. Sometimes you just have to rely on the morals of other people, and if that fails, you can always hope that karma gets its revenge!
10/27/2003 03:16:00 PM · #4
If the voting is restricted only to the users who submited photo to the challenge maybe it isn't a problem,but who can stop me of signing my mother,father,grandmother,uncle,newborn baby and even my dog as registered users and get extra 6-7 10's ?
10/27/2003 03:17:36 PM · #5
noboby can stop you. that is why it is called an honor system -- we are trusting "you" to have honor.

and why would I get revenge. :-P hahah
10/27/2003 03:17:50 PM · #6
Of all the paranoid things I've read on these boards of late....this one takes the blue ribbon. ;-)
10/27/2003 03:25:54 PM · #7
Originally posted by karmat:

and why would I get revenge. :-P hahah


Now that was freaky timing! I wasnt talking about you, but if you want to take revenge too all the better! They say things come back to you threefold so maybe you can have a relative Karmax to help you too! :P
10/27/2003 04:22:15 PM · #8
Originally posted by pitsaman:

If the voting is restricted only to the users who submited photo to the challenge maybe it isn't a problem,but who can stop me of signing my mother,father,grandmother,uncle,newborn baby and even my dog as registered users and get extra 6-7 10's ?


I like this suggestion. I would love to only receive votes from people who have entered the challenge. However, that would keep me from being able to vote in challenges that I'm not participating in... that would be OK too as long as I could still comment.

10/27/2003 04:26:19 PM · #9
My two girls are really hard on me, they give me low scores when they vote on my pictures. So I rather they didn't vote :))
10/27/2003 05:32:23 PM · #10
There are a lot of merits to only being able to vote if you have entered a challenge.

There is also a down side as well though.

There would be less votes, so the influence of any given vote is greater. There will always be some people who will vote down a photo simply as they think it may assist their's getting ahead, sadly it is human nature (look at some past winners which have received 1's, I would challenge anyone to honestly justify a 1, even if they hated it, on some on the past winners).

At least with more voters, and one could argue that those without a photo in the competition are completely unbiased, the odd vote by someone trying to influence the scores is felt less.

Besides, for the non members challenges, if people are registering multiple usernames to vote, they could still enter a heap of shoddy snapshots, not caring how they do, and still influence the scores that way if they wanted.

10/27/2003 06:02:04 PM · #11
Originally posted by pitsaman:

Is this a big problem?
Is this an easy way to cheat on scores?
Is it any way to control this and maybe disable multiple users of voting on each others photos?


mmm.. very good point to raise.

I am currently designing (and implementing) my own website for photo competitions and I hope to announce it in a few weeks time.

I am mentioning it because most of the "fun" of doing it, it is in defining the guidelines for the community which, ultimately, will influence the website scope as well.

One of my major focuses is in avoiding any sort of "conflict of interest" and, going in such direction, there will be two major category of users: judges and challengers, and an individual cannot be both.
(Being the webmaster, I will not be allowed <!!> to partecipate
as judge or challenger, so it is probably time to become a DPC member to have access to the member only challenges too!)

Then I started considering families and I decided to restrict the registration to the site (challenger or judge) to one member per family.

Why should I do that? Of course I do not hate families.
But I believe that a family-likee environment would somehow spoil which is the intended scope of my site, which may well not be the same scope of DPC.

In conclusion, I do not think it makes sense to talk of families and makes considerations like cheating on scores and things like that.
It's completely out of point. DPC goes for making it very open and easy to subscribe and partecipate and that, as for anything else, has its strong assets and liabilities.

I had some difficulty myself to undestand what sort of community was around DPC and it took a while to realize that I was wrong in worryng too much about the voting system and things like that.

DPC is not exactly, or exclusively, designed to compete IMHO, but it offers many different opportunities to enjoy photography in different ways (lots of forums, prints etc..).

Ultimately when you win a ribbon (if you are good/lucky enough to win one), that ribbon is given to you not by a selected (and ultimately small) panel of experienced judges but a general public made of hundreds of votes coming from very different sort of people with all sort of experiences.

It's a bit like if the Oscars were assigned not by the Academy but a public poll via TV.

We could discuss all night about what's the most rewarding among the two options and just waste our time because they are too different to be compared.

Eventually, my suggestion is that we just have to stop worrying about the voting system and get whatever comes from it knowing that votes are from 10 to 1 so to have a result which rates in 4.something is pretty normal and that a ribbon is an unpredictable special event.
10/27/2003 06:09:42 PM · #12
How do you plan on finding out who's related ?

Blood tests ?
10/27/2003 06:11:47 PM · #13
It looks like there are so many photos in some of these challenges at a good number of the photographers don't vote on all of them anyway. I think photographers should be required to vote on more than 20% if they want their votes to count... maybe 75% instead.
10/27/2003 06:12:54 PM · #14
Originally posted by Gordon:

How do you plan on finding out who's related ?

Blood tests ?


Membership Fee
10/27/2003 06:16:44 PM · #15
Originally posted by pitsaman:

Originally posted by Gordon:

How do you plan on finding out who's related ?

Blood tests ?


Membership Fee


and that helps how ? so you know their surname and their address - still not enough to establish if people are related. Names change, people move around.
10/27/2003 06:18:58 PM · #16
Originally posted by Gordon:

How do you plan on finding out who's related ?

Blood tests ?



I just asked.

Message edited by author 2003-10-27 18:21:03.
10/27/2003 06:38:29 PM · #17
Or put it another way, for a scale of
1 BAD... 10 GOOD

What's wrong with the idea that if someone I'm related to is in the picture or took it, its good, and if not, then its bad ?

10/27/2003 06:52:12 PM · #18
I have already had discussions with my 11 year old. He wants to be a registered user of the site. (He's not yet. He has homework issues to work out before he adds more extra curricular activities!) We have already discussed the voting issues and he would NOT be allowed to vote on my images and I wouldn't be able to vote on his! That is because there is almost no way with one camera and one computer (and his being 11 and needing some image editing help) that we could be annonamous during the voting process. I would hope that that would be the way with all single house families here. Honor system does after all include honor, and that needs to be taught to our younger family members!!!
10/27/2003 06:56:04 PM · #19
Originally posted by Gordon:

How do you plan on finding out who's related ?

Blood tests ?


I do not plan to screen too much on the rules.

I will put it simply in a sort of "Reference Guide":
it is advised to have only one user account per family.

As per the remaining rules, I don't find it helpful to strive to avoid people cheating by enforcing all sort of controls.

I find it easier to create the conditions that make to cheat meaningless.

Families are not a problem at all. The reason for the restriction would be to be in scope with the site mission statement which is just to compete aiming to achieve the highest standards possible which in a family-like environment is just not possible.

On the other end, it would be pretty wrong to "demonize" families because they offer lots of different benefits that is not up to me to list.

It's just about the site's scope and identity really.. and there can be many different ones. Also, I believe the more the better because, IMHO, there are too few of them.

edited to correct a mistake

Message edited by author 2003-10-27 19:11:20.
10/27/2003 07:02:02 PM · #20
I believe most people are here to learn. Bringing your friends and family here to give you higher scores doesn't help to learn.

Some people will store pictures here for relatives and friends to look at and they don't even vote.

I don't think it makes to much difference if family members vote. It would have too much of an effect on scores. Unless you have all your invites from your wedding sign-up or something ;)

Message edited by author 2003-10-27 19:06:09.
10/27/2003 07:07:57 PM · #21
Originally posted by Gordon:

Or put it another way, for a scale of
1 BAD... 10 GOOD

What's wrong with the idea that if someone I'm related to is in the picture or took it, its good, and if not, then its bad ?


That's not the point. Of course there is nothing bad at all.

The major point about what I was talking about is considering Digital Photography (and the related disciplines) as:

[1] an hobby
[2] a study
[3] a profession

Families sit between [1] and [2] and IMHO, DPC developed in a way that sits there too.

[3] stands far out from [1] and [2], it is a completely different thing.

Even if we want to include "2and a half" as those who wants to be professionals, still we are in a different ground.

If you narrow the scope, you will get something and lose something else.

By chosing how to "cut", it is possible to design many different kind of identities.

That's why it would be good if there were many different kind of sites about photographic competitions. People would stop complaining because they would see and understand the differences and they would pick the sites which are closer to their taste or even to their mood.

Also, it does not take a lot of time to post a photo, so it is very likely that each site can contribute to increase the population of users. Hopefully, even the quality of Photography.
10/27/2003 07:12:26 PM · #22
I agree theer with faidoi. There will always be a tiny majority out to cheat, and if that's what they need to do then well, good for them. I can't realistically see it making too much difference.

We have 2 people in my house, myself and my partner. She doesn't enter challenges but loves to join in with setting up photos, and starred in an entry I have for Grace. She votes on some open challenges, I have no idea how she votes as I've never checked.

I also have a 9yo, who loves the photos but isn't going anywhere near voting on them. Partly the same issues as toocool, homework etc, and partly as I know his voting strategy would simply be .... "cat, boring, 1; flower, boring, 2; Racing car, exciting, 7; boobs, exciting 10000000!!!
10/27/2003 07:17:40 PM · #23
Originally posted by natator:

I agree theer with faidoi. There will always be a tiny majority out to cheat, and if that's what they need to do then well, good for them. I can't realistically see it making too much difference.

We have 2 people in my house, myself and my partner. She doesn't enter challenges but loves to join in with setting up photos, and starred in an entry I have for Grace. She votes on some open challenges, I have no idea how she votes as I've never checked.

I also have a 9yo, who loves the photos but isn't going anywhere near voting on them. Partly the same issues as toocool, homework etc, and partly as I know his voting strategy would simply be .... "cat, boring, 1; flower, boring, 2; Racing car, exciting, 7; boobs, exciting 10000000!!!


Problem is not with the real people who participate in challenges and vote,but the fictional users! IMO
10/27/2003 07:20:30 PM · #24
Fictional users? What, like Shrek, Mickey Mouse, and Bugs Bunny?

Surely, you are not trying to imply that Bugs Bunny, a long term upstanding bunny of the community, would stoop to cheating!
10/27/2003 07:22:06 PM · #25
My brother Beagleboy gives me 10s. That's why I win ribbons.

shhhh. don't tell him I don't return the favor. :P

Message edited by author 2003-10-27 19:22:22.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/20/2021 12:49:07 PM

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 © 2001-2021 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: 01/20/2021 12:49:07 PM EST.