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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Voting Investigation Results
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 525, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/31/2010 11:15:50 PM · #226
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by posthumous:


I'd like these comments stricken from the record. Should I respond to the accusations that are real, i.e. the stuff I just admitted to about giving someone 10s, or should I respond to the made-up accusations, like voting everybody 3 except for a handful of pictures? I'd like to wait for the actual data and reasoning thank you.


You might have missed the term "(hypothetically now) in the submission made. There was no accusation made, but rather the presentation of a possible scenario that might give rise to suspicion.

Ray


Okay, next he will start talking hypothetically about your mother. Enjoy.


A rather childish response... but if this is how you normally deal with confrontational issues...who am I to stop you.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-03-31 23:20:38.
03/31/2010 11:20:56 PM · #227
This thread has spanned 10 pages already and not one comment from Art!!!! Am I the only one that finds this unusual?
03/31/2010 11:21:10 PM · #228
Originally posted by posthumous:

Okay, next he will start talking hypothetically about your mother.

No, I won't.

You are either completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the meaning of my post.

My "hypothetical" example has nothing whatever to do with your personal voting record, but is, as stated, an example of how the same voting pattern or style might be considered either fair or unfair, depending on other circumstances.

Message edited by author 2010-03-31 23:21:58.
03/31/2010 11:22:22 PM · #229
I really wonder what dilutes the voting process more, so-called "unfair" voting or an algorithm designed to scrub non-standard voting patterns and to prompt ejections of non-conformist voters.
03/31/2010 11:23:25 PM · #230
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Rather than resorting to spitting in the wind, while not let the SC present the evidence at hand and then make an informed decision on the merit of the process.


That's exactly what I want. I don't like all this spitting either.
03/31/2010 11:23:42 PM · #231
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by chromeydome:

Trading votes, or soliciting votes, etc, is one thing, and consistently voting favorably on a style, genre, characteristic, or quality of image is QUITE another. Comparing this to DQs is not appropriate. The SC is discerning "intent" from simple numbers and statistics, here, determining "fairness" based upon a member's taste in photographic imagery and art. To avoid falling prey to this flawed witch-hunt, must we toss a lot high votes out on images that mean nothing to us, low votes to those that do? How do we vote our consciences, our hearts, on images without being at risk here? I am dead serious in asking this, and hope to be taken seriously in return, with a thoughtful answer. I am not suggesting deliberate intent to squash the minority voters, but the consequence is there--how do you propose to address it (other than "suck it up" "let it go" "move on")?


Not being privy to the data gathered and the reasoning behind the decision rendered, I firmly believe that all we are achieving at present is getting a host of people upset and questioning the integrity of a variety of individuals.

Rather than resorting to spitting in the wind, while not let the SC present the evidence at hand and then make an informed decision on the merit of the process.

Ray


I think I have very specifically stated that I am not attacking the SC or questioning their integrity. I HAVE specifically stated the opposite, and specifically suggested that this could be an unintended consequence, and HAVE asked for an explanation of the methodology and HAVE asked how this could or could not eventually affect ANY of us. I also think that there has been very little response with any facts or data or discussion from the SC, and THAT is what could go a long way to addressing the concerns. If you read my post, you would see that I am ASKING questions, ASKING for explanations and reasoning. As have many of us in this thread. Maybe "spitting in the wind" is commenting without having read the thread....
03/31/2010 11:24:16 PM · #232
Originally posted by chromeydome:

Trading votes, or soliciting votes, etc, is one thing, and consistently voting favorably on a style, genre, characteristic, or quality of image is QUITE another. Comparing this to DQs is not appropriate. The SC is discerning "intent" from simple numbers and statistics, here, determining "fairness" based upon a member's taste in photographic imagery and art. To avoid falling prey to this flawed witch-hunt, must we toss a lot high votes out on images that mean nothing to us, low votes to those that do? How do we vote our consciences, our hearts, on images without being at risk here? I am dead serious in asking this, and hope to be taken seriously in return, with a thoughtful answer. I am not suggesting deliberate intent to squash the minority voters, but the consequence is there--how do you propose to address it (other than "suck it up" "let it go" "move on")?


Yes...I'd quite like to hear an answer to this as well. I've been halfway out the door for some time, but some of what I've read here will push me the rest of the way through. Seems that some are being penalized for voting their taste? Quite a different beast than the Rikki or Rose fiascoes.
03/31/2010 11:27:22 PM · #233
Originally posted by posthumous:

should I respond to the made-up accusations, like voting everybody 3 except for a handful of pictures?

He wasn't referring to you on that one. He was illustrating some of the situations we had to evaluate. Another situation (also not you) would be someone who almost always votes the ribbon winners 1-3 when entering the same challenge and 5-9 otherwise (resulting in averages of 3 or less for the likes of Lallisig, IreneM and AndrewT. What are we supposed to think?

While it's entirely possible that you voted on Pointandshoot's entries honestly, an average vote cast of 9.1 across the past 37 entries ranging from top tens down to brown ribbons certainly looks suspicious. When you say things like "I suspected it was him because of the cat-through-texture thing. I might have given a 10 if I didn't know it was him..." and "I didn't give him a 10 or a ribbon because I suspected it might be pointandshoot," you're flat out DECLARING that your votes are biased by the photographer rather than just voting on the merits of the entry. Having your wife listed as your second highest statistical favorite doesn't help dispel the appearance of biased voting, either.

This was supposed to be a Spring cleaning in advance of another DPL round. We've been working on it for four months now, and while it's possible for an innocent bystander with a really unusual pattern to get mixed in, we also cleared out some things like a group of a dozen related accounts voting themselves 10 on every single challenge while voting others down. We have been willing to reconsider these decisions, and I think we even changed a couple the last time we had such a roundup, but starting a forum storm right after Langdon specifically asked you to discuss it via ticket rather than airing dirty laundry in the forums isn't helpful.
03/31/2010 11:30:17 PM · #234
Originally posted by scalvert:

Having your wife listed as your second highest statistical favorite doesn't help dispel the appearance of biased voting, either.

You know darn well he hasn't cast any votes for my images since the last friend-voting witch hunt. Evidently husbands and wives aren't allowed to share an aesthetic either.
03/31/2010 11:30:20 PM · #235
Originally posted by posthumous:

Okay, next he will start talking hypothetically about your mother. Enjoy.

Ha, good one. You guys, cut posthumous some slack. It has been an emotional afternoon for him and others. It would have been better if my friend General E had included "and I don't mean posthumous" in his hypothetical example, but one can't cover all bases.

I believe posthumous' reasons, because for one thing I see the photos he submits. He rewards a certain style. Hmmm, I wonder if my many low votes for whiterook indicate a plot against him?
03/31/2010 11:30:43 PM · #236
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

should I respond to the made-up accusations, like voting everybody 3 except for a handful of pictures?

He wasn't referring to you on that one. He was illustrating some of the situations we had to evaluate. Another situation (also not you) would be someone who almost always votes the ribbon winners 1-3 when entering the same challenge and 5-9 otherwise (resulting in averages of 3 or less for the likes of Lallisig, IreneM and AndrewT. What are we supposed to think?

While it's entirely possible that you voted on Pointandshoot's entries honestly, an average vote cast of 9.1 across the past 37 entries ranging from top tens down to brown ribbons certainly looks suspicious. When you say things like "I suspected it was him because of the cat-through-texture thing. I might have given a 10 if I didn't know it was him..." and "I didn't give him a 10 or a ribbon because I suspected it might be pointandshoot," you're flat out DECLARING that your votes are biased by the photographer rather than just voting on the merits of the entry. Having your wife listed as your second highest statistical favorite doesn't help dispel the appearance of biased voting, either.

This was supposed to be a Spring cleaning in advance of another DPL round. We've been working on it for four months now, and while it's possible for an innocent bystander with a really unusual pattern to get mixed in, we also cleared out some things like a group of a dozen related accounts voting themselves 10 on every single challenge while voting others down. We have been willing to reconsider these decisions, and I think we even changed a couple the last time we had such a roundup, but starting a forum storm right after Langdon specifically asked you to discuss it via ticket rather than airing dirty laundry in the forums isn't helpful.


So, is this the data and methodology I asked for, or is it just an attack?

Have you checked how often I vote for my wife, and how recently?
03/31/2010 11:31:34 PM · #237
Originally posted by posthumous:

So, is this the data and methodology I asked for, or is it just an attack?

Neither. You're the one attacking here.
03/31/2010 11:32:14 PM · #238
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

So, is this the data and methodology I asked for, or is it just an attack?

Neither. You're the one attacking here.


Really? What have you been suspended from?
03/31/2010 11:35:36 PM · #239
Originally posted by scalvert:

...Langdon specifically asked you to discuss it via ticket...


I missed this emphasis in his message to me.
03/31/2010 11:36:43 PM · #240
21.gif posthumous and 21_N.gif skewsme are married? ;P
03/31/2010 11:39:42 PM · #241
Originally posted by scalvert:

and "I didn't give him a 10 or a ribbon because I suspected it might be pointandshoot," you're flat out DECLARING that your votes are biased by the photographer rather than just voting on the merits of the entry.

No, he was overcompensating in an attempt to vote fairly. That is obvious.

03/31/2010 11:40:37 PM · #242
Originally posted by Bugzeye:

This thread has spanned 10 pages already and not one comment from Art!!!! Am I the only one that finds this unusual?


LOL you have a VERY good point there, this is getting creepy :S
03/31/2010 11:40:55 PM · #243
Originally posted by Lonni:

21.gif posthumous and 21_N.gif skewsme are married? ;P

LOL! And don't tell Don, but his wife really is one helluva good photographer. :-)

By the way, one of my goals has been to have a shot guessed as being from 21.gif pointandshoot, but really he's just too good at being who he is.
03/31/2010 11:41:00 PM · #244
Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by scalvert:

...Langdon specifically asked you to discuss it via ticket...


I missed this emphasis in his message to me.


I did respond via ticket, and I was told the specific accusation, which I've brought up here. This is just another spurious accusation I have to sit through until I can see the actual data.

I just want to see the data, the reasoning, behind this decision.
03/31/2010 11:41:56 PM · #245
Originally posted by skewsme:

You know darn well he hasn't cast any votes for my images since the last friend-voting witch hunt. Evidently husbands and wives aren't allowed to share an aesthetic either.

Sure he has: 14 times, to be exact, but they didn't show any suspicious trends. However, before that last roundup you received 36 votes of 7+ in a row, hence the high statistical rating. Lots of people share an appreciation for the same style, but it's exceedingly rare to all be consistently high (nobody's perfect). Interesting that he apparently hasn't shared the same aesthetic since then...
03/31/2010 11:42:44 PM · #246
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by scalvert:

...Langdon specifically asked you to discuss it via ticket...


I missed this emphasis in his message to me.


I did respond via ticket, and I was told the specific accusation, which I've brought up here. This is just another spurious accusation I have to sit through until I can see the actual data.

I just want to see the data, the reasoning, behind this decision.


as do we all (or most of us, anyway!)
03/31/2010 11:45:34 PM · #247
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

So, is this the data and methodology I asked for, or is it just an attack?

Neither. You're the one attacking here.


With respect--are you here representing the SC, or are you here just to fan the flames?
03/31/2010 11:45:51 PM · #248
I am still hoping (even though it has been said that it isn't) that this is an April Fools joke. I guess we will know in 15 min when the "data" is posted.
03/31/2010 11:48:33 PM · #249
I am hoping they post the data before then, because in 15 minutes I have a freestudy image that I am rather fond of that I have to watch tank!!!! Then again if this latest sweep actually knocked out a few of the early voting trolls maybe I can wait until tomorrow to see my image bite the turf.

Originally posted by JokersSoul:

I am still hoping (even though it has been said that it isn't) that this is an April Fools joke. I guess we will know in 15 min when the "data" is posted.
03/31/2010 11:50:08 PM · #250
Sounds like facts to me. Thanks Langdon for cleaning house

Originally posted by chromeydome:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

So, is this the data and methodology I asked for, or is it just an attack?

Neither. You're the one attacking here.


With respect--are you here representing the SC, or are you here just to fan the flames?


Message edited by author 2010-03-31 23:51:31.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 03/20/2019 01:30:06 PM

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 © 2001-2019 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: 03/20/2019 01:30:06 PM EDT.