Elimination of Average Vote Cast stat...

11/19/2009 09:52:49 AM · #101

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

I think then that commenting would have to be anonymous, or you would see grudges emmerging. Plus so many people have already said that they look at someones profile and portfolio in order to judge how much weight to put on their comment, so the risk for someone to look at my work and say eww I dont like it, 1 for his comment.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What's wrong with being accountable for your votes and comments?

If I give you a 1 and tell you your image sucks, why shouldn't you be able to ask me to explain that?

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

The comments would have to be anonymous for voting purposes, much like voting in challenges is done.

Why?

You can always hide who you are 'til the challenge is over.

You still didn't answer as to why you don't want to be responsible for your comments.

Is that a problem?

11/19/2009 09:57:58 AM · #102

Originally posted by citymars:

Some say that statistic is artificially inflating scores, but others might call it keeping voters honest. Since its presence is not a big problem that needs fixing, I say leave it as it is.

I don't buy the artificial inflation. If you vote on a set pattern, what difference does it make where it sits in the curve?

Where is the scale for what constitutes a vote that's too high?

Again.......this is all about how YOU, the voter, vote to get your message across and live with the responses and reactions that you get.

What difference does the actual number make?

If it offends youi sensibilities to vote over a 6, DON'T, but then stick to your guns and ignore the comments.

BUT......if you want to be a part of this community, there's a certain amount of concession you must make if you don't want a bunch of crap.

So be it.....so make YOUR scale suit your stats. Vote the good ones higher as well.....it averages out.

11/19/2009 10:05:46 AM · #103

Originally posted by Photologist:

I don't want my Average Vote Cast metric to be low, so that is why I only vote 5 or higher (mostly 6 or higher). I started doing this a year or so ago. If I see an image that is "below average" (5), I simply skip it (usually) and only vote on those that are 6 or higher. That keeps my average up. My average vote that I have given out (as of today) is around 5.4. It used to be much lower!

AJSullivan

11/19/2009 10:06:08 AM · #104

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I think then that commenting would have to be anonymous, or you would see grudges emmerging. Plus so many people have already said that they look at someones profile and portfolio in order to judge how much weight to put on their comment, so the risk for someone to look at my work and say eww I dont like it, 1 for his comment.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What's wrong with being accountable for your votes and comments?

If I give you a 1 and tell you your image sucks, why shouldn't you be able to ask me to explain that?

Originally posted by AJSullivan:
The comments would have to be anonymous for voting purposes, much like voting in challenges is done.

Why?

You can always hide who you are 'til the challenge is over.

You still didn't answer as to why you don't want to be responsible for your comments.

Is that a problem?

Dude was saying that he would want to see voting done on comments. Voting should be done on content of the comment alone, not comment + portfolio + avg vote cast + that time he told you he didn't like that one picture you took 3 years ago. So if they can clearly see all of that info, then they aren't voting on the merit of your comment, but on all of that. So if that was the case, if we were to vote on comments, then it should be done in the same fashion that challenge voting is done: anonymous comments until after the voting. So once you "lock in" your vote, then you can see who left it for you, and then of course you can respond to that person if you deem fit, and they can ultimately be held responsible for their comments.

If you still don't get what I'm saying, I honestly cannot make it any simpler than I just did. Shit, whats great is that since you are picking and choosing pieces of my responses, you didn't see where I said that voting on comments wouldn't work and is a bad idea. But since you obviously have a little man crush on me, cougar, I'll let you pass.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/19/2009 10:11:31 AM · #105

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

But since you obviously have a little man crush on me, cougar, I'll let you pass.

Oh, that MUST be it!

marcusvdt

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/19/2009 10:15:57 AM · #106

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I don't buy the artificial inflation. If you vote on a set pattern, what difference does it make where it sits in the curve?

For me, the difference is that I use the whole scale. If I could show my voting for the rainbow challenge for example, I've scored on all the numbers of the scale and I'm commenting on all the photos, trying to give useful comments. My average score is 4.xx on this challenge and this is my real overall perception of this challenge (without second intentions other than improving my analysing skills). I've given many 7's and 8's but there are many other photos in my opinion that suffer from many techincal problems and then some of them are not appealing in any way for me. So why should I score these bad photos from 5 to 10 if I believe they deserve, for example, a 1 to 4?
I got surprised when I read that some people (how many, majority?) votes from 5 to 10 only with the objective of keeping their own stats high. Wheren't the votes about the photo? Or the concept changed in most minds and they are all about having our own average vote stats high? I would feel myself an idiot then putting some effort to vote with real criteria and using the whole scale.

I still believe that implementing an evaluation for each vote itself would be the better way to look on the profile of someone and say:
"well this guy commented on my photo and the overall evaluation of his votes is very good, so he probably knows what he is saying."
Very different from judging someone for the average votes he gives.

11/19/2009 10:19:39 AM · #107

Originally posted by marcusvdt:

You have a system that works, and you utilize it.

Then there isn't a problem for you, right?

AJSullivan

11/19/2009 10:26:24 AM · #108

The only reason I could see people being against the elimination of this stat is the fear of seeing a lower score on their entries. SC still will be able to see the voting trends and such, the vote scrubber will still be working, etc, so its not like its going to open up the door for scandalous voting. The only thing that could come from the elimination of this stat from public consumption is people voting based off the image, instead of the image and how thier vote will effect thier avg vote cast (as plenty of people have admitted that they use this stat to pass judgement on other peoples opinions, etc)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/19/2009 10:40:43 AM · #109

bump...question in bold.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I'm not trying to single out Les as I get along quite well with him and respect him immensely as a person and a photographer...I would like to use his example however of how having/not having the avg vote cast statistic on the user profile page can be an influence to scores on DPC. I've seen others on DPC express pretty much the same opinion.

Jeb - Can you see this as artificial vote inflation? Yes/No, and why/why not?

Originally posted by Photologist:
I don't want my Average Vote Cast metric to be low, so that is why I only vote 5 or higher (mostly 6 or higher). I started doing this a year or so ago. If I see an image that is "below average" (5), I simply skip it (usually) and only vote on those that are 6 or higher. That keeps my average up. My average vote that I have given out (as of today) is around 5.4. It used to be much lower!

marcusvdt

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/19/2009 10:42:59 AM · #110

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by marcusvdt:
For me, the difference is that I use the whole scale. If I could show my voting for the rainbow challenge for example, I've scored on all the numbers of the scale and I'm commenting on all the photos, trying to give useful comments. My average score is 4.xx on this challenge and this is my real overall perception of this challenge (without second intentions other than improving my analysing skills). I've given many 7's and 8's but there are many other photos in my opinion that suffer from many techincal problems and then some of them are not appealing in any way for me. So why should I score these bad photos from 5 to 10 if I believe they deserve, for example, a 1 to 4?

You have a system that works, and you utilize it.

Then there isn't a problem for you, right?

Would work if I can learn and improve with it.

Now, if someone beats me in the forums because my vote average is too low, like making it look like something very wrong, I'd say I'm in the wrong site, since I'm here to learn helping others learn.
Since I can't stop them from judging myself based on my vote cast, why not remove their ability to see my vote cast?

And how can I improve my analysing skills? I want to compare my voting scale with the challenge results, but now that I'm aware that people don't vote honestly and they are more concerned about keeping their own stats high, I doubt this kind of study is valid... Am I in the wrong site then?

This is the whole point for me.

Message edited by author 2009-11-19 10:50:20.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

11/19/2009 10:43:10 AM · #111

Is it time to break out the dead horse pics?

11/19/2009 10:54:05 AM · #112

Originally posted by glad2badad:

bump...question in bold.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Photologist:

[/quote]
Actually, I see it as skewing the overall vote if he avoids voting on certain images altogether.

This system doesn't have anything to do with voting the images at all if he's not voting them all to keep his Average Vote Cast metric up.

I vote differently to keep mine up, but I vote 'em all, and I stick to the votes I cast. I force myself to comment on the low votes I cast to reconcile them in my own view.

If I give you a 3, I'll tell you I gave you a three, and I'll leave a comment as well trying to point out whatever I can find that is positive. That should give you my view on what you could develop to make your image make a better impression im my view.

I just don't believe in this whole aritificially inflated scale......you're the one that sets the bar.

Les has stated that he doesn't vote low 'cause he doesn't want the grief that can be associated with a low Average Vote Cast metric. That's his choice. It's his vote, he may cast it any way he wants. He doesn't want the grief, so he's doing it the way he does for that rewason.

What I see as a skewed system is irrelevant.

His system is right for him, my system is right for me, your system should be done so that it's right for you.

There are thoughts, suggestions, and guidelines up the wazoo, but ultimately, you MUST decide on a system that is a balance between being able to accurately express your views and not getting a bucket of crap.

11/19/2009 10:55:14 AM · #113

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Is it time to break out the dead horse pics?

Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?

Must be PC and think of our Southern Hemisphere friends as well!

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

11/19/2009 11:21:30 AM · #114

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Is it time to break out the dead horse pics?

Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?

Must be PC and think of our Southern Hemisphere friends as well!

I'm calling PETA!!!

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

11/19/2009 12:10:35 PM · #115

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?

I don't have a "beating a dead Kangaroo" icon. So now we need to beat whatever animal represents our part of the world?

Australia: beating a kangaroo
Texas: beating a longhorn steer
Tibet: beating a Yak
Canada: Beating a guy in a gorilla suit
New York: beating a cab driver

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/19/2009 12:21:04 PM · #116

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Is it time to break out the dead horse pics?

Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Must be PC and think of our Southern Hemisphere friends as well!

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I'm calling PETA!!!

Okay, let's beat a PETA member!

albc28

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/19/2009 12:43:16 PM · #117

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Can we beat a dead kangaroo this time?

I don't have a "beating a dead Kangaroo" icon. So now we need to beat whatever animal represents our part of the world?

Australia: beating a kangaroo
Texas: beating a longhorn steer
Tibet: beating a Yak
Canada: Beating a guy in a gorilla suit
New York: beating a cab driver

I think we just found our next challenge topic!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/19/2009 01:36:30 PM · #118

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

The inclusion of that stat has caused many people to use a modified scoring system that has inflated scores.

I think this is an assumption you make with absolutely no evidence. The site's "overall average score" is (and has been practically forever) right around the statistical average score of 5.5. How many threads have been started complaining about how someone can't believe that some photo got voted too highly (compared to threads about "how could this have scored so low?")?

If there are people who vote "artificially high" they seem to be evenly balanced by those who vote "artificially low" ... I think the vast majority of people give the photos the vote they think it deserves -- that such votes may not be what you think the photos deserve is your problem, not the site's.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/19/2009 02:02:01 PM · #119

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by AJSullivan:
The inclusion of that stat has caused many people to use a modified scoring system that has inflated scores.

I think this is an assumption you make with absolutely no evidence. The site's "overall average score" is (and has been practically forever) right around the statistical average score of 5.5. How many threads have been started complaining about how someone can't believe that some photo got voted too highly (compared to threads about "how could this have scored so low?")?

If there are people who vote "artificially high" they seem to be evenly balanced by those who vote "artificially low" ... I think the vast majority of people give the photos the vote they think it deserves -- that such votes may not be what you think the photos deserve is your problem, not the site's.

Paul - I don't think that's what is being said here in general. In some cases, as people have pointed out in various threads, people have altered the way they vote BECAUSE of trying to keep their avg vote cast at a certain level or higher. For example, not using the entire scale anymore and only voting 5 or higher BECAUSE they don't want to lower their avg vote cast. Sometimes not voting on all photos, only casting a vote on the ones they feel deserve 5 or higher. Those kind of actions can skew voting. If these same voters didn't have to worry about their avg vote cast being displayed they may feel free to vote the entire scale (1-10) again and vote on all challenge entries.

Is this a rampant thing? I doubt it, but I do think that it could impact 10-15% of active voters. Again, JMO.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

11/19/2009 02:08:01 PM · #120

I sure as heck don't care about my average vote cast, or yours, or anyone else's for that matter. I'll take what votes you give me, what comments you give me, and I'll keep doing whatever it is I do. I think, although my "can the forums" post was a tad tongue in cheek (but not much!) that we have totally nit-picked things to death in the past few weeks. Perhaps it's the colder weather keeping people indoors? Who knows. But for those of you wanting to drop the stats - DON'T LOOK AT THEM. It's just a thought.

And yes, someone will inevitably say "but your vote cast is only!..." Ignore them. Again, just a thought.

The mathematical median of our voting scale is 5.5. My vote cast is higher than that because a) I'm a nice guy, and I look longer at photos than most voters, I'd guess, and b) I don't think the photography on this site is "average" - I think it's generally better than that. THAT'S JUST ME! Do what you please.