| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2009 01:20:44 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
My Statistics
Challenges Entered: 73
Votes Cast: 16,847
Avg Vote Cast: 4.9934
Votes Received: 12,268
Avg Vote Received: 5.1748
Okay tell me, in plain terms, how these stats are perceived.
I vote lots of 7s and 8s, but I also give out 4s and some 3s (but only if it appears there was no effort put into the shot at all) - in the end, it evidently all averages out. To read here that people would judge me by what I vote? I'm curious.
I have six days left to decide whether to renew my membership for a second year. |
Okay......well, the first thing I did was to go back and look at your profile 'cause these aren't the only thing that I use in my forming of my opinion.
You haven't even been here a year, yet you've participated in 73 challenges. That tells me you're very serious about diving in and getting the max out of this site. You've paid for a membership to support the site and you've got some port images.
16K votes??? Holy Sh*t, girl! Do you have a life outside DPC????LOL!!!
Seriously, you seem to be averaging a comment for every 100 votes so I'm thinking that you only comment when something strikes you as very good, very bad, or just weird crosses your screen.
You don't have a profile pic, or much in the way of personal info outside of your basics, so I'm assuming you're cautious about a Web presence which is normal, and smart, for women in general.
You also have one heck of an equipment list!
It's not just the stats block, it's the whole profile for me that helps me to gauge where the person may be coming from.
I discovered through a thread a while back from a couple of people whom I admire greatly that the number isn't always important......it's a matter of consistency & style. Both the people I am referring to had voting averages less than 4.0, yet during the thread, they explained how they arrived at their style, and it made perfect sense, especially when it was being applied with unerring consistency.
So for me, it's not just the stats block, but the cumulative information from the profile page.
The same stats from someone who had been here since 2002 IMO would paint a slightly different picture.
Is that helpful?
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 01:47:59 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
I have six days left to decide whether to renew my membership for a second year. |
Please don't go anywhere Penny...your shots are solid and I love your work and your opinions on the forum...well, I appreciate that as well. You would be missed |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 01:48:19 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
AJ since you opened this can of worms, if one goes to your profile page, what kind of impression should one get?
You've participated in one challenge, voted maybe a dozen or so, depending on the 20% criteria, made a comment for every five or six, yet you've posted over 2100 times and started 88 threads.
You don't pay for membership to support the site, or put up a portfolio, yet you don't hesitate to tell the site how you think it should be changed.
Shouldn't that indicate that you're pretty much not here for the photography contest?
|
If this isn't a good example of abuse of information contained in the statistics of the site, I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 01:50:53 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Personally, I'd rather see them expanded with a graph that breaks down votes just like the challenges. A voter with a 5.5 average and a big peak in the middle of the graph isn't quite the same as one with the same average, but all votes of 1 or 10. No need for a public battle over such a pattern, but like the entries themselves, a graph would offer some insight into how photos are received. |
You mean adding up the graphs on the individual images to make one big graph of scores? Seems pretty easy to me. (this is for "average vote received"... "average vote cast" would be a bit harder, but nothing a good programmer would find impossible)
Also, whenever I have no images in voting and add up all my votes from all my challenges, my "average vote received" is not the same as the official "average vote received." I'm assuming the official one either (a) includes DQ'd images (I self-DQ'd one) or (b) includes votes thrown out by the AntiTroll. Why does it do this? Since those votes were thrown out b/c of various reasons that made them unfair, why keep them when calculating average vote received?**
**I may be completely wrong on this, but I've done the math countless times and it never added up perfectly.
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 13:59:46. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 01:51:06 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Okay tell me, in plain terms, how these stats are perceived. |
Avg vote cast seems a little harsh, but not terribly so. One thing I try to keep in mind is that whatever score I think a photo deserves should get the next vote up. So an image that I think is about average gets a 6 because a 5 would actually drag down a 5.1 score. |
Any advice on how to vote is a mistake, IMO. I don't think it's a road most of us want to travel. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:23:26 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
If this isn't a good example of abuse of information contained in the statistics of the site, I don't know what is. |
So is intentionally excerpting people's quotes out of context an example of abuse.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:24:24 PM · #32 |
| Actually Jeb, I took it as an attack, and apparently Firebird felt the same way. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:26:13 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Okay tell me, in plain terms, how these stats are perceived. |
Avg vote cast seems a little harsh, but not terribly so. One thing I try to keep in mind is that whatever score I think a photo deserves should get the next vote up. So an image that I think is about average gets a 6 because a 5 would actually drag down a 5.1 score. |
Any advice on how to vote is a mistake, IMO. I don't think it's a road most of us want to travel. |
None offered. I only noted something that *I* keep in mind. Whether you want to give every image a 5 or throw darts at the keyboard is your business. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:27:36 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by george917:
You mean adding up the graphs on the individual images to make one big graph of scores? Seems pretty easy to me. (this is for "average vote received"... "average vote cast" would be a bit harder, but nothing a good programmer would find impossible) |
Average Vote Cast graphs already exist. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:31:11 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Average Vote Cast graphs already exist. ;-) |
Really? Where do I see mine that shows my average vote cast in each challenge, without having to click on each individual challenge, sort of like a line graph? Also, where do I see my complete "vote cast" graph, that shows how many of each vote I gave? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:33:11 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by george917:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Average Vote Cast graphs already exist. ;-) |
Really? Where do I see mine that shows my average vote cast in each challenge, without having to click on each individual challenge, sort of like a line graph? Also, where do I see my complete "vote cast" graph, that shows how many of each vote I gave? |
You don't. They're only visible to SC if we check a user's voting pattern. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:37:14 PM · #37 |
Min is bell curvey, left skewed, average mid.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:40:14 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Average Vote Cast graphs already exist. ;-) ........ They're only visible to SC if we check a user's voting pattern. |
Why do you need to check a user's voting pattern? Do you ever use them to determine whether or not a voter's votes should be scrubbed? I feel now like I want to justify my own voting! |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:41:00 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Average Vote Cast graphs already exist. ;-) ........ They're only visible to SC if we check a user's voting pattern. |
Why do you need to check a user's voting pattern? Do you ever use them to determine whether or not a voter's votes should be scrubbed? I feel now like I want to justify my own voting! |
For buddy voting and shit like that. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:46:35 PM · #40 |
| I don't have the ability to scrub a user's votes. Only Langdon (or his scripts) can do that. SC checks voting patterns for discussion purposes if there's a question of abuse. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:56:12 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Is that helpful? |
Oooh! Oooh! Do mine, now!!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:57:53 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Okay tell me, in plain terms, how these stats are perceived. |
Avg vote cast seems a little harsh, but not terribly so. One thing I try to keep in mind is that whatever score I think a photo deserves should get the next vote up. So an image that I think is about average gets a 6 because a 5 would actually drag down a 5.1 score. |
I disagree 100% with that logic!
What you are telling me is that you are not voting what you think the image deserves. Any attempt to manipulate the results (e.g. "...would actually drag down a 5.1 score") is a blantant attempt to augment the results. If you think an image is average (5), then why wouldn't you want the 5.1 to drop to a 5.0? The resulting 5.0 would be what you think is deserving of that image--you just said so. It seems you are trying to offset the possibility of someone voting below the average (4).
I am against displaying the average vote cast for each person.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:59:03 PM · #43 |
yeah DO MINE too !
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that helpful?
Oooh! Oooh! Do mine, now!! |
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:05:19 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
averaging a comment for every 100 votes so I'm thinking that you only comment when something strikes you as very good, very bad, or just weird crosses your screen. |
Is that accurate (1 comment per 100 votes)? The number of comments made include comments on non-challenge images, right?
In addition, I've often commented on an image during challenge but did not vote on that particular image.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:05:36 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
If you think an image is average (5), then why wouldn't you want the 5.1 to drop to a 5.0? |
5 is not the center of the 1-10 voting scale -- 5.5 is. So, if you think a photo is "average" you have a choice of voting 5 ("slightly below average") or 6 ("slightly above average"), and that choice is purely one for each voter to make; neither choice would constitute "manipulating" the vote/score. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:09:03 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Why do you need to check a user's voting pattern? Do you ever use them to determine whether or not a voter's votes should be scrubbed? I feel now like I want to justify my own voting! |
The system has been abused by at least one of our members and it really is a good thing that Langdon is checking the voting patterns.
I hope I'm not breaking any code of conduct for posting the link. But it is available to anyone in the forum archives so I'm taking the chance. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:14:26 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
What you are telling me is that you are not voting what you think the image deserves. Any attempt to manipulate the results (e.g. "...would actually drag down a 5.1 score") is a blantant attempt to augment the results. If you think an image is average (5), then why wouldn't you want the 5.1 to drop to a 5.0? The resulting 5.0 would be what you think is deserving of that image--you just said so. It seems you are trying to offset the possibility of someone voting below the average (4). |
Quite the opposite. If I think an image is exactly average, then that should be a 5.5 (NOT 5.0). Since 5.5 isn't one of the choices, I can either vote 5 or 6. If I believe the image deserves a score over 5.0, then that would be a 6 since a 5 drags down anything higher. That's my logic anyway. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:35:03 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
AJ since you opened this can of worms, if one goes to your profile page, what kind of impression should one get?
You've participated in one challenge, voted maybe a dozen or so, depending on the 20% criteria, made a comment for every five or six, yet you've posted over 2100 times and started 88 threads.
You don't pay for membership to support the site, or put up a portfolio, yet you don't hesitate to tell the site how you think it should be changed.
Shouldn't that indicate that you're pretty much not here for the photography contest?
|
If this isn't a good example of abuse of information contained in the statistics of the site, I don't know what is. |
It's also a good example of when to step away and not feed things. :D |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:10:55 PM · #49 |
| Why hide everything from us? Why not give me charts? It'd be possible for me to track the scores I give out, so why can't you just let me see my summary so I don't have to go through that? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:14:35 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
AJ since you opened this can of worms, if one goes to your profile page, what kind of impression should one get?
You've participated in one challenge, voted maybe a dozen or so, depending on the 20% criteria, made a comment for every five or six, yet you've posted over 2100 times and started 88 threads.
You don't pay for membership to support the site, or put up a portfolio, yet you don't hesitate to tell the site how you think it should be changed.
Shouldn't that indicate that you're pretty much not here for the photography contest?
|
Originally posted by FireBird:
If this isn't a good example of abuse of information contained in the statistics of the site, I don't know what is. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's also a good example of when to step away and not feed things. :D |
But then we can't be all whiny, pissy, and pedantic and keep this thread alive for 97 pages for no good reason besides trying to irritate the snot out of each other, assume the worst, and decide on that basis alone who is and isn't a jerk.
What would be the fun in THAT???????
|
|
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: 04/25/2024 03:45:21 AM EDT.
