| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 02:40:34 AM · #301 |
Site Council should have all our support for all the hard work and effort they put into all of this. Thank you to them and Landon!
I am going to try and vote on as many entries as possible this weekend as I am going to Zimbabwe for a month on family business and will have no internet access.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:45:29 AM · #302 |
Welcome to the Party Art...
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Holeee Sh*t!
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? |
So the first day in awhile that I decide to stay away and get some work done. I was going to check in this evening and then go back to work - so much for that. Popcorn? I went through 3 family size buckets! It was all I could do to refrain from impulsively respond before I finished reading.
On one hand, I am hugely dismayed at this whole fiasco. On the other hand, I see an overwhelming amount of material to have fun with here. For now, all I can do is utter some thoughts (in no particular order because that's how my thoughts are).....
- Why??
- Hey Waz, wassssup??!
- I am not now, nor was I ever a member of the posthumous party
-  posthumous and  skewsme are married?? Seriously, I had no idea.
- I might quit this place but I kind of feel like it's a game of "Last Man Standing" and I have a good chance of winning.
- I wish I still worked for the DPC Enquirer!
- trying to remember what the road to hell is paved with...
- wondering if this thread shouldn't have been titled "There will be blood"
- I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue
I have to get myself another beer or three. I'll be back later. |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:51:52 AM · #303 |
Instead of suspending suspects we should try a different method by how we tabulate votes.
-> There will always be some kind of buddy voting regardless how much SC are trying to battle it and as a result, upset members either way. I.e. the SC/Langdon can't win.
-> There will always be ppl purposely voting down great shots in order to either sabotage or simply as an attempt to protect their own entry.
-> The score on your shot should be consensus from the voters.
So in light of this; how about trying to battle the issue by using a slightly different tabulation methodology:
Let's say that all votes that are a score of more than 3 away from the average get scrubbed. I.e. if an image is at 6.5 only votes up to and including 9 upwards and 4 downwards will count.
SO all votes of 3 and lower will be scrubbed. Same thing goes for 10's for this particular image. Scrubbing should happend at the end of tabulation.
The scores on images would not differ too much from what we have today. But I think it will generally make many of the members happier.
This methodology will be like having a narrower voting range but at the same time floating which ensures a reasonable delta between the best and worst liked (by consensus) images.
If we then in our stats could be presented (hidden if you like) with which percentage of our shots were scrubbed, it would IMO be perfect. It would be fun, interesting, in addition to a valuable learning experience. It would also alleviate all the crap that surfaces way to often around high and low voters.
The consensus will still rule!
And images should as far as I can see get a fair score based on consensus of the voters. More fair than the way we're doing it now since we know for a fact that unfair voting happens. Of course; someone that feels 9 about an image could still vote it a 4, but the 'error rate' would be much smaller and the incentive for sabotage would be smaller AND a lot of the griping might disappear.
I realize that what's a 2 for you may be a 7 for me or vice versa. BUT it's the consensus that should matter and I think this might help us to evaluate the images a bit more before voting. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:55:13 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I have to get myself another beer or three. I'll be back later. |
I just got out of bed. But it looks foggy and damp outside so I'll join you with a wee shot of Jägermeister (great medicine for lousy days!). Cheers! :P |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:55:48 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Instead of suspending suspects we should try a different method by how we tabulate votes.
-> There will always be some kind of buddy voting regardless how much SC are trying to battle it and as a result, upset members either way. I.e. the SC/Langdon can't win.
-> There will always be ppl purposely voting down great shots in order to either sabotage or simply as an attempt to protect their own entry.
-> The score on your shot should be consensus from the voters.
So in light of this; how about trying to battle the issue by using a slightly different tabulation methodology:
Let's say that all votes that are a score of more than 3 away from the average get scrubbed. I.e. if an image is at 6.5 only votes up to and including 9 upwards and 4 downwards will count.
SO all votes of 3 and lower will be scrubbed. Same thing goes for 10's for this particular image. Scrubbing should happend at the end of tabulation.
The scores on images would not differ too much from what we have today. But I think it will generally make many of the members happier.
This methodology will be like having a narrower voting range but at the same time floating which ensures a reasonable delta between the best and worst liked (by consensus) images.
If we then in our stats could be presented (hidden if you like) with which percentage of our shots were scrubbed, it would IMO be perfect. It would be fun, interesting, in addition to a valuable learning experience. It would also alleviate all the crap that surfaces way to often around high and low voters.
The consensus will still rule!
And images should as far as I can see get a fair score based on consensus of the voters. More fair than the way we're doing it now since we know for a fact that unfair voting happens. Of course; someone that feels 9 about an image could still vote it a 4, but the 'error rate' would be much smaller and the incentive for sabotage would be smaller AND a lot of the griping might disappear.
I realize that what's a 2 for you may be a 7 for me or vice versa. BUT it's the consensus that should matter and I think this might help us to evaluate the images a bit more before voting. |
Thumbs down, personally. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:59:28 AM · #306 |
This might have gone better if the SC had been ready to give prompt responses to the people they notified. Cudos to those who tried appropriately to contact their accusers directly rather than airing their dirty laundry. Those who defend themslves publicly so early and loudly are usually deserving of the punishment in my experience.
People will keep joining the site so long as the contests are interesting, the images are a higher quality and there is integrity in the voting. As such, they have a right and, in fact, an obligation to look for and stop voting issues. It would seem, based on the first comments in this thread, that many agree that there are voting issues.
I'm interested to see how many who said they'll quit actually will. If the site causes you so much stress, then go. It'll be more pleasant for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:01:07 AM · #307 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Thumbs down, personally. |
I bet if he was your buddy, you would give it a thumbs up. :P |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:02:07 AM · #308 |
Another thought that I forgot to list:
- Baby, bathwater |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:02:10 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Site Council has my full support for the hard work and honest effort they put into all of this. It's a thankless job, and I admire each and every one of them for it. Thank you. |
very well said and I'm in total agreement. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:03:20 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Site Council has my full support for the hard work and honest effort they put into all of this. It's a thankless job, and I admire each and every one of them for it. Thank you. |
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction? ;-) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:04:55 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ursula:
Site Council has my full support for the hard work and honest effort they put into all of this. It's a thankless job, and I admire each and every one of them for it. Thank you. |
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction? ;-) |
LMAO :D |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:06:00 AM · #312 |
I can't shake the feeling that this is AF joke. I don't think they have ever managed to run the joke ON April 1st. It's the only way to keep us guessing.
I'm not saying it isn't in bad taste but they(Langdon, or whomever) never let that stop them...although this edition appears to be more sadistic.
p.s. Is it "whoever" or "whomever"?
If this is not an AF joke, I'll send a can of California almonds to the first 3 people who PM me and one hardboiled egg each, hand-wrapped with care, to the next 7. Seriously. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:06:05 AM · #313 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ursula:
Site Council has my full support for the hard work and honest effort they put into all of this. It's a thankless job, and I admire each and every one of them for it. Thank you. |
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction? ;-) |
It's the three beers you just had. You need a few more to see things clearly. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:28:47 AM · #314 |
| Has no one thought to consider that it's possible that a specific photographer will appeal to a specific voter and the the average vote for that photog from that voter would be higher? There may be a correlation, but that doesn't prove causation. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:52:10 AM · #315 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
For consideration, Don's voting pattern on Pointandshoot from the beginning of 2009 to present:
This sort of consistency is practically unheard of on entries that vary so widely in placement. Such a narrow, high range is historically indicative of voting on the photographer rather than the images. For comparison, here's Melethia's votes (with permission) on the same group. Melethia doesn't give out as many 10's, but notice how the votes vary considerably from challenge to challenge. While Don's pattern could be attributed to an appreciation of this particular style, it seems unlikely when the votes stand out as aberrant both among his own favorites and among others voting on pointandshoot who might share a similar appreciation. So what were we supposed to think? |
As SC, you are supposed to think, that's why you make the big bucks. You should think to ask questions: How did posthumous know the images were mine? I had to tell him, how else would he know. Why did I tell him? To raise my score? How bizarre. Have you checked my scores lately? For the period of time when I entered to win DPC ribbons what was my vote from Don? What score did he give my most DPC faved entry (Zen)? Back when my photos didn't fit his style, what was my score from him?
Don votes on photos, not photographers. I promise.
Shannon, we're talking about people here, not stats. I'm pretty sure if I had access to the database I could find a user who consistently gave you 10's. You were playing the DPC ribbon game, I am playing the Posthumous ribbon game. You used your children, I use my goat. No difference. No cheating.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:52:15 AM · #316 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Has no one thought to consider that it's possible that a specific photographer will appeal to a specific voter and the the average vote for that photog from that voter would be higher? There may be a correlation, but that doesn't prove causation. |
I think that argument has been presented - at least in the case of posthumous. And it makes a lot of sense. Unlike the idea that you can presume intent by voters.
But just for fun, let's take this witch hunt to the next level: Go through all the Woody entries in all challenges and check the votes given by each voter. Voters who consistently vote woody entries down are engaging in "unfair voting practices" and should be banned.
It seems to me that only the most extreme or blatant cases should be cause for suspensions (i.e. ghost accounts, etc.) I believe this whole thing could have been resolved to a great extent with a general warning / reminder to voters to be fair. What is at stake here anyway? The loss of lots of good contributors to the community vs. various differences in challenge placement and/or virtual ribbons. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:58:08 AM · #317 |
I don't think posthumous is guilty of cheating. He just has a bad different taste.
Not really unhappy if he can't vote for a while, though.
(It's April, 1st, after all) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:59:34 AM · #318 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
I'm pretty sure if I had access to the database I could find a user who consistently gave you 10's. |
*raises hand* Guilty. Shannon is one of my top statistical fav's with an average of 7.39 out of 48 votes - I believe this is much higher than anything I have given others on that list (for that many votes), and if not, then they must be my buddies as well. Sorry Shannon, I couldn't take the guilt any longer. I think you and I should accept our banishment with dignity. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:20:02 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
I'm pretty sure if I had access to the database I could find a user who consistently gave you 10's. |
*raises hand* Guilty. Shannon is one of my top statistical fav's with an average of 7.39 out of 48 votes - I believe this is much higher than anything I have given others on that list (for that many votes), and if not, then they must be my buddies as well. Sorry Shannon, I couldn't take the guilt any longer. I think you and I should accept our banishment with dignity. |
Only 48 votes to Shannon? I've made 64, average 7.6250. (All the averages higher than that are to photographers I've voted on no more than 6 times.) And I would say that I've rarely recognised a photo as being Shannon's during voting. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:27:42 AM · #320 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
I'm pretty sure if I had access to the database I could find a user who consistently gave you 10's. |
*raises hand* Guilty. Shannon is one of my top statistical fav's with an average of 7.39 out of 48 votes - I believe this is much higher than anything I have given others on that list (for that many votes), and if not, then they must be my buddies as well. Sorry Shannon, I couldn't take the guilt any longer. I think you and I should accept our banishment with dignity. |
Only 48 votes to Shannon? I've made 64, average 7.6250. (All the averages higher than that are to photographers I've voted on no more than 6 times.) And I would say that I've rarely recognised a photo as being Shannon's during voting. |
But clearly there is an unfair pattern. Join me in exile! |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 05:41:03 AM · #321 |
| I'll go on record as a skeptic. This has all the earmarks and timing of an AF joke. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:05:54 AM · #322 |
pointandshoot gets a 7.6500 average from me over the same period as posthumous's vote. He's statistically my favourite photographer here with mostly 8 or 9s off me, three 10s and some 7s. Even a couple 4s. Bear in mind though, that i think i tend to vote differently from many here, including posthumous, as i only ever give out one 10 for each challenge and tend to try to limit my 9s to a small handful. Basically so that i can pick my own ribbons. I think if i'd voted as many do i would give out more 10s and that average would be much higher. I really do think that the suspension of posthumous to be completely unfair, badly thought out and unwarranted.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 06:16:17. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:13:10 AM · #323 |
This would be the first time I'm sitting infront of my laptop screen without moving away for this long since a very long while.
First of all, this shouldn't have been aired in public and should have been resolved through PMs. But since the damage is already done, I would like to say some:
I've been a registered user of DPC for too long (from Oct 2003) to understand that DPC were never about a niche style of photography. While I would love to have a posthumous award for some of my photos, I never take all my photographs in a single style. I am no way a professional to specialize on a particular type of photography. However, the fact still remains that not all challenges require photographs to captured in a special style which would receive extra high votes from people who are more inclined towards the same.
And although however small the minority group is, voting based on a particular style for any/all challenges and voting low for a different style would definitely be considered as a biased voting, and needless to say would have its effect on the overall voting system. I am not by any chance referring to any person in particular, but I believe votes should be cast based on how well the photo connects to the challenge along with technicals involved.
Just because I love wildlife photography, I shouldn't vote high for wildlife images irrespective of whichever challenge it appears.
I second SC for this. It is the integrity of system that we need to protect. No Exceptions. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:15:05 AM · #324 |
| Still waiting for my response from the SC...18 hours later. At least posthumous knows what he is accused of and has known since yesterday afternoon. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:18:49 AM · #325 |
Originally posted by kleski:
Still waiting for my response from the SC...18 hours later. At least posthumous knows what he is accused of and has known since yesterday afternoon. |
You might find a lead in your voting stats. |
|
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: 04/18/2024 10:18:48 PM EDT.
