| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2007 02:35:28 PM · #26 |
Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe that whole friends voting witch hunt might have had a negative effect? Hmmmmm
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:35:59 PM · #27 |
Hey! And he got a comment from a psycho too! |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:37:20 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Hey! And he got a comment from a psycho too! |
Uhhh, yeah, I forgot that she dwelled in those wastelands.
Message edited by author 2007-06-22 14:37:36.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:38:12 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Hey! And he got a comment from a psycho too! |
i didn't realize she was there:/
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:43:17 PM · #30 |
All you folks who want to change around the voting system might want to remember that any significant change will render comparison of new results to past challenges impossible.
As long as photos continue to end up ranked where they should, I think we should avoid changes, and not fix what's still working. |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:44:31 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I don't think you have a statisticly significant trend there, frankly. Polynomial fits are famous for allowing the illusion of trends where there are none; this is particularly true at the ends of the data (notice the same problem exists at the beginning of the graph, where it is ignored becuase it makes no sense there.
I think you could argue a slight decrease in votes since the 300 mark; I would be loath to claim any trend in entries without looking more closely at the data, but I certainly don't see a dramatic upswing. |
The problem does not exist at the beginning. At the beginning of the graph there are more votes than entries, directly opposite, which would not pose a problem. |
The issue with fitting a polynomial trendline to this data is that both data sets undergo a step function change. The polymonial fit cannot accommodate this, and so response of the fit after the change is highly suspect.
A better course of action is to analyze the driver(s) for the step function change, and ask whether this change is permanent, or temporary, and whether the observed effects are even real.
In the case of the reduced number of votes per image, the net impact is essentially zero, since images are still receiving enough votes for accurate scoring. I remember when receiving 100 votes on an image was quite normal.
There are still more total votes being cast now than before, so the reduced votes/image is purely the result of the increased number of submissions, given a constant pool of voters. |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:46:17 PM · #32 |
My feeling is that total votes have actually gone UP, although the # of entries has outpaced that and thus the votes/entry has gone down.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:47:38 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The issue with fitting a polynomial trendline to this data is that both data sets undergo a step function change. The polymonial fit cannot accommodate this, and so response of the fit after the change is highly suspect.
A better course of action is to analyze the driver(s) for the step function change, and ask whether this change is permanent, or temporary, and whether the observed effects are even real.
In the case of the reduced number of votes per image, the net impact is essentially zero, since images are still receiving enough votes for accurate scoring. I remember when receiving 100 votes on an image was quite normal.
There are still more total votes being cast now than before, so the reduced votes/image is purely the result of the increased number of submissions, given a constant pool of voters. |
Translation: No matter how many votes are cast, I'm still going to come in fourth...
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:47:44 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The issue with fitting a polynomial trendline to this data is that both data sets undergo a step function change. The polymonial fit cannot accommodate this, and so response of the fit after the change is highly suspect.
A better course of action is to analyze the driver(s) for the step function change, and ask whether this change is permanent, or temporary, and whether the observed effects are even real.
In the case of the reduced number of votes per image, the net impact is essentially zero, since images are still receiving enough votes for accurate scoring. I remember when receiving 100 votes on an image was quite normal.
There are still more total votes being cast now than before, so the reduced votes/image is purely the result of the increased number of submissions, given a constant pool of voters. |
Off to search for an online translator to get this in English.
:P
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:49:54 PM · #35 |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:50:05 PM · #36 |
I believe the original poster was simply asking if the system was still working?
I like the voting system, but I think hiding scores (until say 100 votes) would improve the site ... but without testing it, there's no way to know for sure.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... and not fix what's still working. |
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:55:06 PM · #37 |
I recognise the individual words, it's just the construction :-) Looks like my stats books from Uni and since I didn't have a clue then, time has not helped. :-)
To take the maths a little further: I think it would be interesting to compare that trend against the individual biorhythms of the voters to determine if there is a statistically significant correlation. I.e - Do grumpy voters vote lower :-)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:58:12 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by robs:
I recognise the individual words, it's just the construction :-) Looks like my stats books from Uni and since I didn't have a clue then, time has not helped. :-) |
Try this one: How To Lie With Statistics |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 02:59:58 PM · #39 |
There is so much crap entered that I do not find it interesting anymore to vote / go trough 85% crap to get to 14% good and 1% really good. DPL certainly didn't help there. Some people should realistically vote and comment on their own photo before they enter it (think twice before they enter crap, I do not have to tell them it is crap, a quick read in a basic book or a glance trough the top 100 of the challenges should tell them enough).
I also find that creativity here is stuck (shoot for dpc) and therefore spent a lot of time on other sites now (non competitive).
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:00:35 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by robs:
I recognise the individual words, it's just the construction :-) Looks like my stats books from Uni and since I didn't have a clue then, time has not helped. :-) |
Try this one: How To Lie With Statistics |
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:02:46 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by hopper:
I believe the original poster was simply asking if the system was still working?
I like the voting system, but I think hiding scores (until say 100 votes) would improve the site ... but without testing it, there's no way to know for sure.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... and not fix what's still working. |
|
Exactly! I'm not suggesting a change but a debate (DPC wouldn't list to me :P). The reason I brought this up is simple; Can the site maintain itself with the amount of entries increasing at a large rate while voting remains level.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:06:46 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Brad:
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. |
42.68174% to be more precise : ) |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:06:48 PM · #43 |
I didn't see if this was mentioned before, but these stats are misleading. Unless you calculated the sum number of votes on every image in every challenge separately, you're relying on a data point that doesn't mean THAT much on its own.
It's very likely that the number of voters/votes hasn't change significantly in either direction. The difference is that with so many more images to vote on, those votes are getting spread around much thinner because people are less likely to vote 100% on a challenge with 500+ entries. If they tend to vote 200 times per challenge, that can be 100% of one challenge, and 40% of another. |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:26:44 PM · #44 |
It would probably be helpful to hear from people who used to vote, but haven't for a month or more. Why have they stopped voting?
I am one of those people. When I vote, I spend quite some time on each photo. At first I stopped voting for a period of time because my early low scores made me feel unqualified to judge anyone elses photo. As my confidence grew, I started voting again, and I decided that since what I personally value most is comments, that I should attempt to comment on every photo I vote on. Also, I feel if I don't know what to say about a photo, that maybe I shouldn't give it a vote at all. So, not only do I look at a photo for a while, I also leave a comment which takes even more time. Back in January, I took some time off of DPC because I didn't have much to photograph in the dead of winter and I was getting frustrated that what I did submit wasn't doing all that well. I decided I needed a break and have only submitted relatively few photos this year. Now that the weather is nicer and I can get out more, I started to participate again the same week that DPL started and I intended on voting on a regular basis. However, since I can barely get through 25% of one challenge when DPL isn't happening, I was quickly overwhelmed by the vast number of entries. I have been thinking about commenting, but not voting, so that I am at least contributing something; I know that I wouldn't make it through the required 20% for my vote to count anyway.
So, I would like to vote, but just don't have time to vote enough for my vote to count. I would be disappointed if voting were a requirement for making a submission, because as things are, I would then not be able to participate at all. I could however see a minimum number of votes per month in exchange for some sort of site benefit.
More challenges would spread out the total entries/challenge into more manageable sizes as well as offer more variety of topics to chose from. I wonder if those who always try to vote 100% on challenges get exhausted by voting on so many photos of the same topic?
Maybe SC could make a list of potential solutions and put it up for a vote?
Anyway, I agree the trend is a problem, but I am also in support of DPL, and I hope to participate in the leagues sometime in the future (when my three young children and part-time job aren't consuming so much of my time). |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:37:48 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
A better tactic might be to hide scores until 75% of the entries have received 100 votes. |
a new idea ... and one that i like
:) |
I agree. |
I don't like this at all. Punishing people by taking away scores and then placing the onus on the community to get the scores back (i.e. 100 votes on 75% of the entries) isn't going to spur individuals to go out and vote. All that will happen is people will eventually expect scores to show up 1-2 days after voting has started since they themselves can't really do anything to speed things up.
The only way you are going to get more individuals to vote is to reward the individual with their actions and not the actions of the community at large. |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:38:25 PM · #46 |
We don't just want more low votes just to fill some kind of a quota.
Comments, and constructive comments are what we thrive on.
Yes, obviously just getting anything in for the DPL Team members is better then a forfit and getting zero.
REWARD, REWARD, AND RECOGNITION (Do not penalize)
1) Reward those who vote and their "Comment was helpful" was checked.
If it was "A bad picture", just say why, in 4 words.
Eventually they'll improve or quit.
2) Start putting the names of the TOP 3 voters at the top of each challenge.
I haven't voted much recently, but early on I realized the importance of it.
Commenting/Reviewing, is beneficiial to BOTH the Submitter and the Voter. You can learn a lot from the good and the bad, thus increasing your knowledge for youself.
Put youself in BOTH shoes.
I, as most others, do View the Top 20 and Bottom 20.
I'll try and change that, soon
MAKE COMMENTING EASIER
Add some canned Technical-Critique Check-boxes for voters, such as "OOF", "No-WOW", "CROOKED", "NOT-VIVID", "REJECT" etc.
Message edited by author 2007-06-22 15:40:25. |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:50:28 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by fencekicker:
It would probably be helpful to hear from people who used to vote, but haven't for a month or more. Why have they stopped voting? |
Too many entries per challenge. That simple.
edit: A possible way to alleviate this situation would be to impose a week's 'pause' on people who have pulled sub-5.0 scores for 4 challenges in a row. Start a new forum category called 'Penalty Box' where people who have to sit out can ask for insight, guidance, etc. Some people do this already, and I have never seen a request for help go unanswered - but the amount of people doing this versus the amount of crap being entered in challenges is miniscule. It's just an idea. I'm equally happy to continue with the status quo.
Message edited by author 2007-06-22 15:53:53. |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:52:29 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
MAKE COMMENTING EASIER
Add some canned Technical-Critique Check-boxes for voters, such as "OOF", "No-WOW", "CROOKED", "NOT-VIVID", "REJECT" etc. |
Let me offer a "hhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllll no" to that one. Comments like that are useless enough without making them even _easier_ to give. |
|
|
|
06/22/2007 03:56:44 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
2) Start putting the names of the TOP 3 voters at the top of each challenge.
I haven't voted much recently, but early on I realized the importance of it.
|
How do you determine "top 3 voters" - there are many people who routinely vote 100% on any challenge they vote on. Another few who vote 100% on every challenge, come hell or high water. (One of the SC does this... scalvet? GeneralE? I'm not going to look it up right now.)
Originally posted by justamistere:
Commenting/Reviewing, is beneficiial to BOTH the Submitter and the Voter. You can learn a lot from the good and the bad, thus increasing your knowledge for youself.
Put youself in BOTH shoes.
I, as most others, do View the Top 20 and Bottom 20.
I'll try and change that, soon
|
Yes, commenting and reviewing are good. Not sure where the top and bottom 20 come into play... there are no top or bottom until voting has ended.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2007 04:02:36 PM · #50 |
as I said earlier...
voting decreased tremendously from me because I can't vote 20% in challenges that have so many entries....dialup YOU try it..I ALWAYS ALWAYS try to give back twice what I get...now, sadly, I've received more votes than given cause i can't keep up!!!
edit to ask..should we start seperate link like "20% plus vote"? or something...to poll how many don't vote cause they can't vote 20%+?
Message edited by author 2007-06-22 16:03:56. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 12:29:30 PM EDT.
