| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 06:21:23 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by keyz:
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. |
Believe me I did that last night and if you go back three pages you might see the pattern yourself. If 15 votes over a period of two years is my crime then it's time to go... |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:26:44 AM · #327 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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? |
This is a *really* bad example!
I can think of no less than a dozen people who have *zero* use for the type of easily recognizable DPC standard eye-candy images who might intentionally vote them low because of *what* they are, not who they're from.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:28:48 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by kleski:
Originally posted by keyz:
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. |
Believe me I did that last night and if you go back three pages you might see the pattern yourself. If 15 votes over a period of two years is my crime then it's time to go... |
Voting seems dangerous right now ...
Originally posted by The Unauthorized Beginner's Guide to DPC:
1. DPC is not a democracy [...]
|
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:30:33 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by ace flyman:
Sounds like facts to me. Thanks Langdon for cleaning house |
Then you obviously know nothing of either  zeuszen or posthumous if you think they should have been part of a purge for improper voting techniques.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:35:37 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by amateurboi:
First of all, this shouldn't have been aired in public and should have been resolved through PMs. |
I disagree with this. Nothing is more frustrating than secret processes and hidden rules and no public explanation of people disappearing. Besides, this administration promised transparency. oh, wait, I was thinking of someone else for a second. Anyway - it certainly should be aired out in the open so everyone has a voice and everyone understands exactly what is going on.
Originally posted by amateurboi:
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. |
If this were the case, many waterdrop, sunset, kitty cat, and child haters would be getting the boot. As I mentioned previously, everyone has biases and they could all be shown in voting patterns over time. Frankly, I think this whole fiasco is going to unfairly influence the voting in all challenges. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:38:32 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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? |
This is a *really* bad example!
I can think of no less than a dozen people who have *zero* use for the type of easily recognizable DPC standard eye-candy images who might intentionally vote them low because of *what* they are, not who they're from. |
I think Shannon's point was that their taste seems to change depending on whether or not they themselves have entered the same challenge. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:38:37 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
But I really think this should be an issue between the SC and the members who are accused (wrongly or not).
Everyone else should stop posting. Really, it is none of our business. |
Uh.....yes, actually it is. The community is what makes up this site, and things like the Posthumous Ribbons are very much a part of this community. I know that this supposed impartial review of the trends makes for some odd conclusions, and that the study is supposed to be objective, but certainly when this set of statistics makes two of the people on this site out to be violaters by voting pattern, well, it would seem to me that it'd make sense to look a little more closely to the accuracy of the test.
I am again, completely flabbergasted that posthumous and zeuszen would be called into question. Their allegiance is to the aesthetic quality of the imagery, and the art of photography, and any idea that they have any interest in the voting is absurd.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:40:48 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Btw, I still appreciate the SC's efforts, and I still think anyone who was suspended should have a right to make an appeal. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
They do, and did (via the Ticket system), and then, instead of waiting for discussion/resolution, themselves brought the issue here to the public forum, despite a specific request not to do so. The site didn't "out" or accuse anyony publicly. |
Oh.....so they were just supposed to be quietly tarred and not talk about it?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:48:46 AM · #334 |
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. |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction? ;-) |
Originally posted by ursula:
It's the three beers you just had. You need a few more to see things clearly. |
If *ever* there was a need for a smiley at the end of a statement.
[sarcasm]I'm *so* shocked you can't see either contradiction or the irony.[/sarcasm]
No smiley.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:51:59 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by citymars:
Btw, I still appreciate the SC's efforts, and I still think anyone who was suspended should have a right to make an appeal. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
They do, and did (via the Ticket system), and then, instead of waiting for discussion/resolution, themselves brought the issue here to the public forum, despite a specific request not to do so. The site didn't "out" or accuse anyony publicly. |
Oh.....so they were just supposed to be quietly tarred and not talk about it? |
Quiet Jeb, some of us are still being tarred with no explanation...just waiting for the feathers...
and as for waiting to hear from the SC or Langdon, my wife and I are on hour 19. We did lose sleep over this and she has requested to be removed from the site. Regardless of anything the SC might decide at this point there are fifty or so people who have been affected by this and they deserve to know why. Not a form letter followed by hours of wondering...but I'm sure they all slept well last night. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 07:32:21 AM · #336 |
If you've been reading this thread from the beginning, you know that I received one of these messages. And I have multiple points to make
1. There was no request to deal with this privately, so I didn't break any confidences. I immediately responded to Langdon and never heard anything back. Later an SC member was kind enough to respond to a ticket. But I joined this thread because I was upset and had no clue as to what was going on. It's not fair to accuse someone and disappear. People have the right to know what's going on, and if it takes a public forum, so be it.
2. I have been told, since then by an SC member, that the issue is NOT with my voting. That my voting is perfectly fine and that there were problems with my husband's voting and to a lesser extent, my 10 year old son's. My husband spent the evening searching through his voting record and I also received a copy from the SC. It does look suspicious. However, there was no ban on voting on family members, he liked the photos and voted accordingly. There was no manipulation going on -- he saw that I was turning out better photos than before, got interested in my photos and the site and voted accordingly. I didn't look at every single instance, because I already spent too much time doing that on my own votes last night, but it looks like over half of the photos he voted on were my best work. Top 10s, hm's and ribbons. Is it manipulation when a family member gives a 10, even if it's a challenge where the same photo receive 27 9s and 13 10s. Was he biased? It certainly appears so, but he was voting what he thought the photo was worth.
This is rambling, so I'll get to the point (yay!!)
1. Married couples, family members, friends may definitely be casting biased votes while feeling that they are giving an honest opinion. Instead of accusing them of cheating and manipulating, put it in the site rules that you can't vote on an image if you know to whom it belongs. Assuming they're doing it to thwart the system is unfair. They may honestly believe that's what the photo is worth. Ban the practice instead of seeing conspiracies.
2. This warning should have been sent out WITH THE INFORMATION! How was I supposed to know that the problem was with my husband, not myself, when it was addressed to me and accusing me of aberrant votes and manipulation? He never even received an email, and I was accused of cheating.
btw, he hasn't voted in 7 months, so it was all moot to begin with. I guess that's why I wasn't suspended.
It was heavy-handed, accusatory, handled extremely poorly, and caused very bad feelings. A simple: "look, I don't think you can handle voting on family members without being biased. Look at the record: here it is. We recommend that you no longer vote for your husband/wife" would have been so much more appropriate. And send it to the right person! To assume that a wife knows how a husband is voting is extremely naive.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 07:41:37 AM · #337 |
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. |
I think i would like some clarification of the SCs views on this. Are you saying that if a photographer gets a long string of 10 votes off a member, but that photographer consistently ribbons and scores highly, then that is fine and understandable with SC? But if the photographer varies in placement, even though to some people he is consistently excellent, the only explanation the SC can see is cheating or 'unfair voting'?
I do appreciate the work that SC does, and what a hard job it is, but i honestly can't see how this is fair if thats the case.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 07:43:57. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 07:41:54 AM · #338 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It was heavy-handed, accusatory, handled extremely poorly, and caused very bad feelings. A simple: "look, I don't think you can handle voting on family members without being biased. Look at the record: here it is. We recommend that you no longer vote for your husband/wife" would have been so much more appropriate. And send it to the right person! To assume that a wife knows how a husband is voting is extremely naive. |
As a recipient of one of the warning messages, I agree wholeheartedly.
Joe |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 07:42:45 AM · #339 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
If you've been reading this thread from the beginning, you know that I received one of these messages. And I have multiple points to make
1. There was no request to deal with this privately, so I didn't break any confidences. I immediately responded to Langdon and never heard anything back. Later an SC member was kind enough to respond to a ticket. But I joined this thread because I was upset and had no clue as to what was going on. It's not fair to accuse someone and disappear. People have the right to know what's going on, and if it takes a public forum, so be it.
|
Do not worry  Vawendy I feel with you I got a message too, I do vote every bluemoon, BUT know this
When great success brings arrogance and tyranny instead of humility and consideration the dawn of fall and self-destructions becomes imminent.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 07:47:08. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 07:44:23 AM · #340 |
Its interesting reading my 'favourite' photogs - There are only 3 people I can honestly say that I would probably recognise in a challenge, but even then I have made mistakes
 DrJOnes Not that hard :-) whiterook and heida
My fav photog is shetland 4 votes and an avg of 8
In 7 years I have only given out 5 10's - yes I am mean
Sorry just rambling now....think I have OD'd on coffee !
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 08:36:41.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 08:57:09 AM · #341 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
If you've been reading this thread from the beginning, you know that I received one of these messages. And I have multiple points to make .... |
Good post. You know, I thought it was a rule already not to vote on family members, etc. I agree that it should be strongly discouraged.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
- Baby, bathwater |
Succinct; right on.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
- I wish I still worked for the DPC Enquirer! |
Special edition? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 09:47:28 AM · #342 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Instead of accusing them of cheating and manipulating, put it in the site rules that you can't vote on an image if you know to whom it belongs. |
Although I totally agree with your post, I wonder how this rule could be realized... People who do want to favor people they know, will probably never admit they know the person.. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 09:54:53 AM · #343 |
Originally posted by Maartenvanast:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Instead of accusing them of cheating and manipulating, put it in the site rules that you can't vote on an image if you know to whom it belongs. |
Although I totally agree with your post, I wonder how this rule could be realized... People who do want to favor people they know, will probably never admit they know the person.. |
that'd be funny for couples ;D |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:02:15 AM · #344 |
While not the popular thing to say in this thread ... I don't know how anyone can look at these numbers and NOT think there's a problem. If I were on the SC, I'd have done the same thing (speaking of this example only, as it's the only example where the stats have been made known).
Originally posted by scalvert:
|
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:06:37 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by hopper:
While not the popular thing to say in this thread ... I don't know how anyone can look at these numbers and NOT think there's a problem. If I were on the SC, I'd have done the same thing (speaking of this example only, as it's the only example where the stats have been made known).
Originally posted by scalvert:
|
|
I understand your argument, but without seeing all his votes over several challenges, it's hard to come to a conclusion in my opinion. How he votes compared to another participant is in some ways comparing apples to oranges. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:09:12 AM · #346 |
| Did anyone of the SC confirm that this is not an April fools prank? cant be asked to read the 14 pages ;o |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:11:43 AM · #347 |
Originally posted by ahmadbaara:
Did anyone of the SC confirm that this is not an April fools prank? cant be asked to read the 14 pages ;o |
It's NOT a joke. Confirmed by  Frisca |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:12:30 AM · #348 |
We lost  Mark1966 again. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:18:12 AM · #349 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ahmadbaara:
Did anyone of the SC confirm that this is not an April fools prank? cant be asked to read the 14 pages ;o |
It's NOT a joke. Confirmed by Frisca |
Hark! my schemes and plots to cheat in DPC have failed!!
no matter now i have 6 months to think of a plan and pursue my obsessions of bringing my friends scores up and everyone else down!!
Fare thee well DPC may the sun always flare in your pictures! (sarcasm) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:20:37 AM · #350 |
Originally posted by jeger:
I understand your argument, but without seeing all his votes over several challenges, it's hard to come to a conclusion in my opinion. How he votes compared to another participant is in some ways comparing apples to oranges. |
I also felt this way about a comparison to Melethia's stats.
Since I teach math, I'm curious about the rest of the numbers. Where there any consistencies with Don's 7, 8, and 9 votes? Or how about votes below 5? One thing I wish we could see is his histogram for each of the challenges listed in Shannon's post.
I can totally understand that when you look at just a single vote, how a "voting irregularity" would jump out at you - especially when the vote is a 10. I was just wondering how the rest of the numbers looked.
BTW - I think "voting irregularity" is a great term to use. But what I'm sensing here is that some people are also equating that to the word "cheating", and I don't think they are one in the same for some of the cases here. |
|
