| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2004 10:17:01 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I agree it's not for everyone and if ever implemented should be entirely optional. Also I believe certain aspects of voting within this method should have voter assignable weighting; not every voter feels the same merit should be given to all the voting elements. |
I think the system also misses something like 'content emotion' if you get what I mean. Focus can suck, sharpening might be soft as hell, the exposure may not be all that good, but some photographs just grab you by the head and smack themselves right into your brain. "Appeal" just does not describe that. In my opinion the content/emotion of a photograph comes first (this is not about the cry-factor), how the photographer did that (technique) is of lesser importance. I have to admit that I don't always vote that way, but good content regardless of technique always gets a few points extra. If you get both right you are a winner. :)
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 11:42:16 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by orussell:
I agree it's not for everyone and if ever implemented should be entirely optional. Also I believe certain aspects of voting within this method should have voter assignable weighting; not every voter feels the same merit should be given to all the voting elements. |
I think the system also misses something like 'content emotion' if you get what I mean. Focus can suck, sharpening might be soft as hell, the exposure may not be all that good, but some photographs just grab you by the head and smack themselves right into your brain. "Appeal" just does not describe that. In my opinion the content/emotion of a photograph comes first (this is not about the cry-factor), how the photographer did that (technique) is of lesser importance. I have to admit that I don't always vote that way, but good content regardless of technique always gets a few points extra. If you get both right you are a winner. :) |
Composition: Subject Placement, Cropping, Background 8
Technical: Focus, Exposure, Lighting, Processing 8
Appeal: Is it Interesting, Motivating, Etc.? 3
How well does it meet the challenge: 7
Total Averaged Rating 6 Dick
Personally, I think this method perfectly demonstrates 'content emotion' analysis. Usings Dick's breakdown of my image as an example, it tells me that in his opinion, my image is strong in composition and technical aspects and meets the challenge well. What the image is lacking is appeal or WOW factor or 'content emotiom', if you will; in other words, my subject is just not strong enough. Granted this is one persons' opinion, but as stated before, with the potential for statistical breakdown, it could be a powerful tool if implemented site wide. It would show you the strong points and weaknesses in your images.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 12:15:01 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I agree it's not for everyone and if ever implemented should be entirely optional. Also I believe certain aspects of voting within this method should have voter assignable weighting; not every voter feels the same merit should be given to all the voting elements.
Owen |
Okay, so this could be an interesting addition if you can opt out of it.
You are suggestion we have 2-3 possible voting schemes? The first would be the basic system we use now. One through ten on a sliding numerical scale with the option to comment. The second would be some sort of automatically generating comment system, and the third would be using a weighted multi tiered voting system where each value's weight could be set by the individual user. Am I on the right track?
--Clara
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 12:27:27 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by orussell:
I agree it's not for everyone and if ever implemented should be entirely optional. Also I believe certain aspects of voting within this method should have voter assignable weighting; not every voter feels the same merit should be given to all the voting elements.
Owen |
Okay, so this could be an interesting addition if you can opt out of it.
You are suggestion we have 2-3 possible voting schemes? The first would be the basic system we use now. One through ten on a sliding numerical scale with the option to comment. The second would be some sort of automatically generating comment system, and the third would be using a weighted multi tiered voting system where each value's weight could be set by the individual user. Am I on the right track?
--Clara |
I like this one created by EddyG. It would give the option to vote/comment conventionally or vote/comment using the multi tiered method. A weighting option is the only thing that I could see that could be an improvement.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 12:50:02 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I like this one created by EddyG. It would give the option to vote/comment conventionally or vote/comment using the multi tiered method. A weighting option is the only thing that I could see that could be an improvement. |
Okay, again if there is an option to opt out of this, then in the long run is there really any difference between this and what we have now? Say one week you decide that you are in a hurry and do not want to take the time to vote in depth. This is really not too different from saying, "I'm in a hurry and do not want to comment this week."
Over time, you will still end up with people who do not get the type of comments that they want on their images. So does this really solve the percieved problem? It really looks like we are looking for a technical solution to a very human problem.
--Clara
Message edited by author 2004-05-08 12:50:38.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 01:27:09 PM · #106 |
| I want to know who's going to write the algorithm to combine and produce a weighted average of all the different voting schemes ... |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 01:54:53 PM · #107 |
GeneralE:
I tried a couple of things during this Rust challenge to try and understand whether this is a good idea or not. My short opinion is: This provides some capabilty we do not have, and more people than not will find this useful. If it is optional, it doesn't really hurt anyone and helps many.
What I think we should do is look at the results after this challenge is over, and figure out what the majority thinks (and remember, the majority isn't necessarily the people who post the most.)
If we believe that more people find this helpful than not, we can start working through the implementation issues. Statistical reporting and flexibilty on weighting are clearly some of the big issues.
But trying to solve them now has the horse a little before the cart. If people hate this, it will become apparent as the challenge wears on, we can all stop thinking about it and move to the next challenge.
On the other hand, if people like it, it will be up to Drew, Langdon, and the SC to decide if implementing a capability such as this is worth the effort. If yes, we go forward and start solving some issues.
Best
Bill M.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 07:37:32 PM · #108 |
I have been away from the computer all day, and I see that there has been further discussion on the proposed voting format. Discussion is good; it brings out new ideas, and especially answers some questions.
Up to this point I have voted on 113 pictures in the “Rusted” challenge, using my format, and hope to get through the whole bunch by Tuesday at Midnight EST. I would like to get feed back from as many of you as would like to contribute. :<)
Thanks,
Dick
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 09:04:48 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by autool:
I have been away from the computer all day, and I see that there has been further discussion on the proposed voting format. Discussion is good; it brings out new ideas, and especially answers some questions.
Up to this point I have voted on 113 pictures in the “Rusted” challenge, using my format, and hope to get through the whole bunch by Tuesday at Midnight EST. I would like to get feed back from as many of you as would like to contribute. :<)
Thanks,
Dick |
Stats: You have rated 233 of 444 images (52%) in this challenge.
You have commented on 233 images (52%) in this challenge.
I've already received some positive feedback on this via PMs. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 09:54:21 PM · #110 |
Having just gotten a comment with this type of scoring system, I find that in some ways it raises more questions than it answers.
For example, the "Technical/lighting/focus" category was rated a 6. Since, IMO that was not only a strong component of the photo, but also pretty much maxing-out the capabilities of my camera, now I want to know why it doesn't rate a 7 or 8, or if I have to resign myself to NEVER getting more than 6 for this ... I have no argument with a low score in another category, and a 4 or 5 average is no problem, but ...
Ultimately, I think every scoring system has good and bad points to it, and that this (or a similar) conversation will continue in perpetuity. |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 11:09:47 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Having just gotten a comment with this type of scoring system, I find that in some ways it raises more questions than it answers.
For example, the "Technical/lighting/focus" category was rated a 6. Since, IMO that was not only a strong component of the photo, but also pretty much maxing-out the capabilities of my camera, now I want to know why it doesn't rate a 7 or 8, or if I have to resign myself to NEVER getting more than 6 for this ... I have no argument with a low score in another category, and a 4 or 5 average is no problem, but ...
Ultimately, I think every scoring system has good and bad points to it, and that this (or a similar) conversation will continue in perpetuity. |
I think it's important to compare it, not to getting a detailed comment, but to getting a single score. So maybe overall they gave you a 5. What does that mean? Isn't it more meaningful to see 4 numbers rating it on technical, aesthetics, meeting the challenge, etc., so you can see why they think you rated low? Again, you have to remember that you don't get comments for 90% or fewer of your votes! |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 12:01:16 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Having just gotten a comment with this type of scoring system, I find that in some ways it raises more questions than it answers....
Ultimately, I think every scoring system has good and bad points to it, and that this (or a similar) conversation will continue in perpetuity. |
Ad nauseum apparently....I think that it great to get any comment even a systematic one. But I'm always looking to improve and the numbers just may not help me to do that. Further, and Thank you, I received a comment from Dick with the system. I have a question regarding the bottom line: Do the average of the catergory scores given round down? I mean the total was 23 and divided by 4 comes to 5.75 and a 5 score was given, not a 6. Or is your formula just using whole numbers and no decimals? Do you change the number down if you do not feel a rounded higher score is warranted? Thanks again for the comment, regardless. RoB
Message edited by author 2004-05-09 00:04:20.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2004 12:42:50 AM · #113 |
Ok, now, having gotten 2 of these type of comments, I am more confused than I was the first time around. I really really would like to know WHY you voted something the way you did. For example...
orussell
Composition: Subject Placement, Cropping, Background 6
Technical: Focus, Exposure, Lighting, Processing 6
Appeal: Is it Interesting, Motivating, Etc. 6
How well does it meet the challenge: 7
Total Averaged Rating(Rounded) 6
autool
Composition: Subject Placement, Cropping, Background 8
Technical: Focus, Exposure, Lighting, Processing 7
Appeal: Is it Interesting, Motivating, Etc.? 6
How well does it meet the challenge: 4
Total Averaged Rating 7 Dick
The first one I got from autool says that it doesn't really meet the challenge, while the second one from orussell says that that was my strong point. Everyone votes differently, while a 4 might be bad from some people, a 4 might be good from others.
In a challenge like this, it either meets the challenge or it doesn't. Photo must contain rust. It doesn't MAYBE have rust. lol
So while I appreciate the time, it didn't really help much at all other than to tell me it's an average photo, but I already know I'm not a pro. I guess it'd need some tweaking to work for me still, but I might try anything once. (as long as I have the option to keep commenting MY way.) :) |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 01:14:12 AM · #114 |
| It would be more likely to be an effective tool if it were the standard method, as we could then get some averaged values in the different categories, and maybe if the averaging of the overall score was computed rather than set by the voter (that's what the other categories are for). Its value is more limited if it is optional and each person votes their own set of scales. |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 02:47:04 AM · #115 |
It’s getting kind of late here and I just returned again. Weekends are sometimes hectic for me. I see there are a couple of questions that I will try to answer before turning in for the night.
First for GeneralE:
Without knowing which picture was yours I am unable todetermine why I might have scored it lower than you anticipated. You know as well as I do that there are a number of factors that could cause one person to view a picture differently than another. I am a firm believer that opinion more than any other factor rules in every evaluation here much more than skill or experience. I don’t completely buy monitor calibration to be much of a factor because if one persons monitor was so badly in need of calibration, everybody else’s pictures would look terrible, and only theirs would look good to them. It probably wouldn’t take them too long to decide something was wrong and fix it. That probably didn’t help, but I did say it was getting late.
Next is for banmorn:
I have my spreadsheet to work with whole numbers, I assumed it would round up as is the normal direction. I will set it to do 2 decimals and I will round up (when it is .5 or more) before placing my vote. Like an old doctor once told me “Remember we are only practicing medicine”.
And last is hbunch:
It appears to me that orussell sees rust playing a bigger part in the main subject of the picture than I do. I asked myself “would I think of rust” when I first opened the picture to evaluate it. If it wasn’t a particularly strong point in my opinion, I would lower the score respectively. Of course in my opinion again, I thought it was stronger in your composition and technical attributes than he did.
No matter how we shake it this whole thing comes down to opinion. :<)
Dick
Message edited by author 2004-05-09 02:50:25. |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 02:48:27 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It would be more likely to be an effective tool if it were the standard method, as we could then get some averaged values in the different categories, and maybe if the averaging of the overall score was computed rather than set by the voter (that's what the other categories are for). Its value is more limited if it is optional and each person votes their own set of scales. |
I agree 100% |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 10:05:11 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by autool:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It would be more likely to be an effective tool if it were the standard method, as we could then get some averaged values in the different categories |
I agree 100% |
And I think this may be one reason why you won't see this style of "alternative voting methodology" implemented any time in the near future.
Although it has been demonstrated that a simple HTML/JavaScript "applet" can be inserted into the voting page to allow this type of tiered-scoring to be inserted as comment, even if it was made available (via user preference setting) as an option, there would inevitably be much whining about "why can't it average all the sub-categories" (read: a lot more work for D&L). And unless a lot of voters used this optional voting methodology, the "average" of the tiered-votes would only be from the (small) percentage of voters who chose to score photos that way.
The other reason I can think of is that if D&L implements one "alternative voting strategy", what happens when JoeUser comes up with his own strategy, gets several users to show support for it, and then "demands" that their strategy be offered as an option as well? |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 10:37:36 AM · #118 |
Eddy,
I know nothing about making something like what you put together, just how difficult would it be to incorporate into the voting page? If it is too demanding to be implemented, why not simply say: “It can’t be done”. In my opinion that would be sad, your latest version filled the bill very well, and as I have already stated I appreciate your contribution very much.
I think sub categories beyond Composition, Technical, Appeal, Fits Challenge, for example, would be making it cumbersome and time consuming. With just those few categories, and a hint that further comments could be made, would be adequate.
Oh, by the way, how does a “JoeUser” “demand” that a strategy be offered as an option?
Dick
|
|
|
|
05/09/2004 11:01:00 AM · #119 |
If it were just adding the "optional voting interface" to the voting page (which simply inserts text into the comment box -- nothing more), it would be a fairly trivial change. Where the time and effort comes in is with the fact that this would need to be a user-settable preference that could be turned on and off at a minimum. The suggestion that it have user-settable "weighting" would further complicate the implementation even more. And the idea that each sub-category vote be stored and stats computed would really increase the use of resources.
When I said "demand" (in quotes), I was referring to the fact that once precedent is set by having one type of user-suggested alternative voting interface implemented on a site-wide basis, what is to prevent JaneUser from coming up with a different voting interface, posting about it in the forums, garnering similar support, and then saying "you implemented JoeUser's strategy, so implement mine". Then the allegations of favoritism and all of that stuff happens and it turns in to a mess... which is never fun, especially for Drew, Langdon and the members of the SC.
That may never happen, but it could. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Perhaps it was a mistake to code up what I did and show it publicly, especially since I wear a purple shirt. I did it on my own behalf, and did not mean to imply any kind of endorsement -- I just needed a little diversion from work last week and the "challenge" of seeing if I could come up with something sounded like a fun way to spend a couple hours.
Message edited by author 2004-05-09 11:02:48. |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 11:11:21 AM · #120 |
The more pressing question is, will this actually fill a need for the site? Do we need tiered voting? Or do we need more people on the site to make a committment to taking time to make quality comments on images in every challenge?
This type of voting really is not addressing what people want. It's a mechanical solution to a human problem.
Clara
|
|
|
|
05/09/2004 11:38:19 AM · #121 |
Eddy,
So, the “optional voting interface” that you made would be a fairly trivial change. Does that include the 1 through 10 check boxes in four categories, the comment sections for each and the three options at the bottom? If so this gives the voter every opportunity to “weight” each category, and add sub-categories in the comments, or just simply vote, or any combination. I don’t see why it would need to be more complicated than that.
I also don’t see anything wrong with Joe or Jane User throwing out their ideas to the user/participants of the site. As the site grows and develops it might want to look at alternatives, and there can be none better than those of a fresh mind.
A well spent couple of hours in my opinion.
Dick
|
|
|
|
05/09/2004 11:52:37 AM · #122 |
Clara,
“Will it actually fill need for the site?”
I certainly think so, as there are those that have great difficulty in generating useful comments.
“Do we need tiered voting? Or do we need more people on the site to make a commitment to taking time to make quality comments on images in every challenge?”
If more people would make quality comments, this thread would have never been started. Past practices has proven that there has been no way to encourage voters to make more of them.
“It's a mechanical solution to a human problem.”
Not exactly so, it leaves all options open to the voting public.
Dick
|
|
|
|
05/09/2004 10:18:24 PM · #123 |
Stats: You have rated 442 of 443 images (100%) in this challenge.
You have commented on 442 images (100%) in this challenge.
Hope I haven't alienated too many people in the process. Thanks for indulging me and many thanks to those who PMed.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
05/09/2004 10:22:53 PM · #124 |
| Well-done! Congrats. I've appreciated the additional comments. |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 10:34:01 PM · #125 |
orussell:
You da man! (Do they still say that over there in North America?)
FWIW: You were right on for my image (my opinion.)
Bill M.
|
|
