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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Update Regarding Vote Monitoring
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 361, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/24/2007 05:00:00 AM · #226
I wouldn't call it manipulation to vote by your opinion, and I don't think that's an issue. If they choose to vote higher due to a perceived bias against the image, that's their choice. They're not doing it due to a knowledge of the photographer and they're not trying to influence the outcome unfairly. We _all_ vote with the intent that the images we like are the ones that will win.
04/24/2007 07:36:21 AM · #227
There are a couple points I would like to clarify:

First, please be aware that we are not issuing warnings and penalties based solely on automated reports. In the past, we have relied on users to report suspicious activity they observed. Also, as users ourselves, we have also reported suspicious activity we observed. Any report is investigated thoroughly, and appropriate action taken based upon the evidence available.

When a user or Site Council member reports a specific suspicion of improper voting, we (as a group) investigate the allegation, using a variety of tools and reports. In many cases, we find either that the evidence shows conclusively that there is no wrongdoing, or that it is inconclusive. In those cases, the issue is dropped with no further action taken. Other time, we are able to determine conclusively, from all the evidence available (and believe me, there is a lot of data we look at), that friend voting is happening and issue appropriate sanctions.

These automated reports are intended supplement the reports currently received from site participants. They do not replace the investigative process in any way. Information gathered from the automated reports is subjected to the same level of scrutiny as that provided from participants, and penalties are only applied after a thorough, manual review shows clear and convincing evidence that votes were knowingly cast based upon the photographer rather than the photograph.

Second, regarding the suggestion that we increase the minimum voting percentage, I compiled some statistics on this which may shed some light on why we have not pursued this. To compile these statistics, I compared those found to have given friend votes to the general population for two recent challenges (one member and one open challenge).

For the purposes of this calculation, a "friend voter" is one who:

- was sent a warning or suspension notice yesterday for giving or trading votes with another person (those who were identified as just receiving biased votes from another person were not included), and

- cast one or more votes in Night Shot IV (Challenge 662) and/or Insects II (Challenge 667).

My analysis showed that "friend voters" voted on an average of 52.4% of entries in Night Shot IV, and 71.3% of entries in Insects II. This are both marginally higher than the 47.2% and 69.7%, respectively, voted upon by the general population, suggesting that increasing the minimum voting percentages would do as much or more to inconvenience the general population than it would to reduce friend voting.

Those who wish to discuss further modifications to the voting system are encouraged to start a new thread in Website Suggestions, so as to keep this one on-topic.

Third, we are looking at the big picture while making our decisions. We take great care not to legislate opinions or to penalize someone for their taste in photography. Penalties are enacted only when it is overwhelmingly clear, from the entire body of evidence, that votes were cast based solely on who the photographer was, rather than the quality of the photograph itself.

Participants who are not sharing entries should go about voting as normal, and stand reassured that we are doing our best to make sure the value of your vote is not diluted. Those who are sharing entries with others should keep in mind their obligations to vote on the entries, not on the individuals -- and if they feel they cannot do that, it may be best to skip those entries. Even if you may occasionally recognize a photographer's style, you really have nothing to worry about from this change.

Fourth, we are looking for patterns of abuse, not single votes. If you happen to give your friend, spouse, or father's uncle's sister's cousin's brother's former roommate a 10, we don't care. Do it in every challenge, and we're eventually going to take notice. This is no different than our existing vote-monitoring tools, except that while the existing tools look at individual challenges in isolation, these new tools look across multiple challenges.

~Terry
04/24/2007 08:27:04 AM · #228
Very well explained Terry, Thank you.
04/24/2007 08:29:49 AM · #229
nice. i have no problems with that.
04/24/2007 08:43:18 AM · #230
Would it help, maybe, if any member who has entered a competition, is not permitted to vote for other entries in the same competition.

That way, only people who have not entered the competition can vote.

This may appear restrictive, but it should be easy to set up and will prevent those who have a vested interest from giving biased scores to those in competition against them.
04/24/2007 08:43:44 AM · #231
Don't worry about it. If I recognize the model from several of an individuals challenge entries, he/she automatically gets a one from me. Their attempt at vote swaying worked. It swayed me to give them a 1. :D

Originally posted by pccjrose:

My concern is that several photographers on this site have VERY distinctive styles or use certain models or locations that are very noticeable. With the current voter monitoring situation, I know I will be very reluctant to vote on any entries from these photographers (good or bad) because I don't want to be banned. I am sure others feel the same way. I can think of many photogs such as ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' chele, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' larus, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' toyan, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' xXxscarletxXx, and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' escapetooz and others that are extremely easy to pick out due to subject matter or their face. I must admit that I will likely no longer vote on their entries due to concerns that I will be singled out for voting favoritism. I find this an extreme shame.

My opinion is that this new edict from the SC has put an unnecessary and unfortunate pressure on people who vote in challenges. This is making the voting process an unhappy occurence. I probably will end up voting and commenting less. A true shame...

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by liltritter:

My Statistically Favorite Photographer has never won a ribbon...... cool

But Question, alot of my favorites appear to have not won a ribbon and I have alot of 10s on my statistically favorite photos.... Now I am not voting because I knows whos photo is whos, but by what I like am I in danger of a ban, cause I think I voted like i take pictures, outside the box. (or outside of the room the box is in, or maybe outside the house the room with the box is in). Just a question. I like it here to much to be banned.


Nobody is saying you can't vote high on photos that finish poorly.
04/24/2007 08:57:45 AM · #232
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I don't know what psychotropic drugs you people are on

Used to be the psychotropical drugs that come with a little umbrella, but that was before "the accident" - now I limit myself to smoking pineapple.

Here's some (on-topic) food for thought - regarding a comment on a photo that indicates the voter is giving extra points to compensate for all the bad votes they think the image will get (i.e. nudes in a non-nude challenge) - does that not constitute vote manipulation?


Wouldn't PM's to low voters, pleading for a higher score also fit the bill? If not manipulation, then attempted manipulation.
04/24/2007 09:09:34 AM · #233
Actually, I don't think I did say that the photographs of the photogs listed all deserve a 10 on each photo. What I said is that I would be concerned that since I recognize the artists work and I did vote them high on a routine basis because a good set of images on their part, that I might be subject to sanction in some way.

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/1054.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/1054.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Clubjuggle did an excellent job of explaining the approach to sanctioning/ warning and I am now happy to vote without concern. Thanks to the SC for providing more clarity about the approach.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by pccjrose:

My concern is that several photographers on this site have VERY distinctive styles or use certain models or locations that are very noticeable. With the current voter monitoring situation, I know I will be very reluctant to vote on any entries from these photographers (good or bad) because I don't want to be banned. I am sure others feel the same way. I can think of many photogs such as ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' chele, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' larus, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' toyan, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' xXxscarletxXx, and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' escapetooz and others that are extremely easy to pick out due to subject matter or their face.

Do you truly believe that every submission by one of these folks deserves a ten? I sincerely doubt that a pool of "objective" voters would think so, evidenced by the fact that not one of these fine photographers has ever had a photo finish with a final score even of nine. So if you vote them tens across the board, you are voting with bias towards the (supposed) photographer, and not on the merits of the individual photo -- that is what we are asking you not to do.

If you can just bring yourself to ignore who took the photo and rate it the same way you are scoring all the other entries -- and some of them will deserve tens -- you will have no problems.


Message edited by author 2007-04-24 09:10:30.
04/24/2007 09:09:37 AM · #234
Originally posted by PILOTDC:

Would it help, maybe, if any member who has entered a competition, is not permitted to vote for other entries in the same competition.


Not likely. Friend votes wouldn't be affected by such a restriction, you can't vote on your own entry anyway, and consistently voting everyone else down would be caught eventually.
04/24/2007 09:11:53 AM · #235
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Wouldn't PM's to low voters, pleading for a higher score also fit the bill? If not manipulation, then attempted manipulation.


Yes. Anyone who receives such a PM should forward it to Site Council (via the Contact page) and we will take appropriate action.

~Terry
04/24/2007 09:21:00 AM · #236
Originally posted by dudephil:

Don't worry about it. If I recognize the model from several of an individuals challenge entries, he/she automatically gets a one from me. Their attempt at vote swaying worked. It swayed me to give them a 1. :D

Voting a photo low based solely on who took it rather than the photo's merits is not legal either : (
04/24/2007 09:25:22 AM · #237
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

There are a couple points I would like to clarify ...


Thanks, Terry. Your explanations and comments should go a long way towards calming some of the fears and over-reactions earlier in this thread. The more information SC can provide without compromising its ability to detect improper votes, the more the membership will trust that SC is doing the right thing, and the less traction some of the wild conspiracy theories will get.

Your comments also demonstrate the hard work and dedication of the SC members in maintaining the integrity of DPC, in what must sometimes seem a thankless job. So thanks for that, as well.
04/24/2007 09:28:36 AM · #238
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dudephil:

Don't worry about it. If I recognize the model from several of an individuals challenge entries, he/she automatically gets a one from me. Their attempt at vote swaying worked. It swayed me to give them a 1. :D

Voting a photo low based solely on who took it rather than the photo's merits is not legal either : (


Unless it's ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' dudephil, in which case, vote as low as possible. PM me if you want to know which entry is his.

(For the humor impaired among us, that was a joke. I would never divulge someone's entry. Except my own. Vote me ten, please!)
04/24/2007 09:29:44 AM · #239
Originally posted by crayon:

this "friend voting" issue is nothing new. it has been debated and discussed before in the past, and the answer was a ban. so why not just continue using the same punishment without making it appear like a new problem?


Has anyone ever been banned for friend voting? I know of only a few cases where a user was given a LONG suspension due to the large number of fraudulent votes or ghost accounts. If practical, we'd rather give people a second chance to be productive and fair. The offenders in this particular sweep generally involved only one or two friend voters, which have a negligible impact on the scores (hence no recalculations and relatively light punishment). It's more of a stern warning to them and others to vote fairly. Repeat offenses would be unwise.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Wouldn't PM's to low voters, pleading for a higher score also fit the bill? If not manipulation, then attempted manipulation.


Yes, that would likely result in a suspension.
04/24/2007 10:06:02 AM · #240
My $.02, minus things like ghost accounts and friend networks of vote trading, why can't the judging system here operate like a real art show where people are free to vote all works how ever they want, for any reason they want?

How is a high vote on a crappy photo given only because the photographer is my buddy any different then a high vote on a crappy photo of a cat given only because it's a cat and I really love cats?
04/24/2007 10:11:32 AM · #241
Originally posted by LoudDog:

How is a high vote on a crappy photo given only because the photographer is my buddy any different then a high vote on a crappy photo of a cat given only because it's a cat and I really love cats?


It's not. High votes on ALL of your buddy's photos, whether they're crappy or not, is what we care about.
04/24/2007 11:14:08 AM · #242
The problem is that one persons idea of a CRAPPY shot is another's idea of perfection. How can anyone quantify ART. Does everyone want Picasso hung on their wall. The real problem here is that most people do not vote (Free Challenge 550+ entries and average 150 votes)and when they do it is not on 100% of a challenge entry's. I feel that the few votes given by friends would not counteract the troll votes but if moor people voted it would dilute the effects of both.
04/24/2007 11:20:52 AM · #243
Originally posted by rosiehall:

I feel that the few votes given by friends would not counteract the troll votes but if moor people voted it would dilute the effects of both.


I seem to remember a challenge ending in a tie not too long ago. In that case, a few friend votes would have swung the scores enough to differentiate.
04/24/2007 11:22:41 AM · #244
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by rosiehall:

I feel that the few votes given by friends would not counteract the troll votes but if moor people voted it would dilute the effects of both.


I seem to remember a challenge ending in a tie not too long ago. In that case, a few friend votes would have swung the scores enough to differentiate.

so would the trolls
04/24/2007 11:26:20 AM · #245
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

How is a high vote on a crappy photo given only because the photographer is my buddy any different then a high vote on a crappy photo of a cat given only because it's a cat and I really love cats?


It's not. High votes on ALL of your buddy's photos, whether they're crappy or not, is what we care about.


OH.
Scalvert, you just made EVERYTHING clear to me.
XD
Thankyou.
Okay.
I get it now.
That still leaves my earlier question in the blue though.
04/24/2007 11:31:46 AM · #246
So, I'm just curious... in this case is it better to give or to receive?
04/24/2007 11:36:18 AM · #247
I think its just..
Don't vote on a photo if you have seen the photo before or you know who took it.
Right?
Or don't tell people who took it?
Or something..
=x
04/24/2007 11:41:39 AM · #248
Can of worms anyone?
04/24/2007 11:42:56 AM · #249
Originally posted by David Ey:

Can of worms anyone?


Can I have chips with mine
04/24/2007 11:47:04 AM · #250
No thanks. I preferr leeches.
=P
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 02/18/2020 08:50:58 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 © 2001-2020 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: 02/18/2020 08:50:58 AM EST.