| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2010 05:31:50 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by SDW:
No other way to explain some users with only x number of votes that matches the amount of comments. |
You can comment on portfolio photos that weren't entered in a challenge. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:35:12 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
if you all knew how conscientious don is about the huge number of votes he casts, and how he sweats over the 10's (his ribbons), you would never feel confident enough to cast another vote here. |
From what i know of Don i totally agree. I've noticed numerous times his comments on photos where he has said he isn't giving a vote or one of his ribbons because he suspects who the photographer is. Recently i got a comment saying such a thing because he'd noticed my image on Facebook.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 17:36:27. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:35:52 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I've never heard of votes with comments not being scrubbed when failing to meet the 20% threshold for any reason. Are you sure about that? |
Neither have I. If you vote on less than 20% of the entries, ALL the votes are tossed, comment or not. |
I once spent making long comments on 20% of a Free Study only for one of those to be DQ'd making me fall under 20% - all images had comments from me and all of my votes were scrubbed - I actually had quite a moan about it, Langdon referred to it as a bug and kindly fixed it. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:35:54 PM · #79 |
Seeing stuff like this, especially with  vawendy and  posthumous, both who have been very kind and helpful to me and whom I know are not interested in cheating, they are more about the art and shooting what they like regardless of their score, makes a newcomer like me afraid to vote. I almost want to stop voting and commenting for fear that a style I prefer and may look like I am only voting high because of the photographer. What is to happen if we all stop voting from this and we loose out on a variety of opinions. I think this needs to be handled more carefully. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:42:19 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by skewsme:
if you all knew how conscientious don is about the huge number of votes he casts, and how he sweats over the 10's (his ribbons), you would never feel confident enough to cast another vote here. |
From what i know of Don i totally agree. I've noticed numerous times his comments on photos where he has said he isn't giving a vote or one of his ribbons because he suspects who the photographer is. Recently i got a comment saying such a thing because he'd noticed my image on Facebook. |
I second that - I have numerous personal anecdotes that testify to how seriously Don takes his voting process. His suspension in particular (not knowing much about any of the others), is outrageous. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:46:44 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by skewsme:
if you all knew how conscientious don is about the huge number of votes he casts, and how he sweats over the 10's (his ribbons), you would never feel confident enough to cast another vote here. |
From what i know of Don i totally agree. I've noticed numerous times his comments on photos where he has said he isn't giving a vote or one of his ribbons because he suspects who the photographer is. Recently i got a comment saying such a thing because he'd noticed my image on Facebook. |
I second that - I have numerous personal anecdotes that testify to how seriously Don takes his voting process. His suspension in particular (not knowing much about any of the others), is outrageous. |
Unless there's something we're not being told, which I strongly doubt, I agree. Especially since a warning was given to ZZ. In effect, they are punishing those who live outside their comfortable lines, is how it seems to me, by basing decisions on numbers and ignoring personalities. I could be wrong about this, but that's how it feels...
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:48:09 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by skewsme:
if you all knew how conscientious don is about the huge number of votes he casts, and how he sweats over the 10's (his ribbons), you would never feel confident enough to cast another vote here. |
From what i know of Don i totally agree. I've noticed numerous times his comments on photos where he has said he isn't giving a vote or one of his ribbons because he suspects who the photographer is. Recently i got a comment saying such a thing because he'd noticed my image on Facebook. |
I second that - I have numerous personal anecdotes that testify to how seriously Don takes his voting process. His suspension in particular (not knowing much about any of the others), is outrageous. |
If this is an April Fools joke, then it is in extremely bad taste! If not, then someone has their voting pattern analysis programme very wrong. This was a similar thing to why I quit commenting, now it looks like I will be quitting voting as well, in case my voting pattern shows up as cheating! I fully support don and wendy, if anyone has a problem with that, tough! |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:49:18 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by skewsme:
if you all knew how conscientious don is about the huge number of votes he casts, and how he sweats over the 10's (his ribbons), you would never feel confident enough to cast another vote here. |
From what i know of Don i totally agree. I've noticed numerous times his comments on photos where he has said he isn't giving a vote or one of his ribbons because he suspects who the photographer is. Recently i got a comment saying such a thing because he'd noticed my image on Facebook. |
I second that - I have numerous personal anecdotes that testify to how seriously Don takes his voting process. His suspension in particular (not knowing much about any of the others), is outrageous. |
Unless there's something we're not being told, which I strongly doubt, I agree. Especially since a warning was given to ZZ. In effect, they are punishing those who live outside their comfortable lines, is how it seems to me, by basing decisions on numbers and ignoring personalities. I could be wrong about this, but that's how it feels...
R. |
here's hoping in little more than 24 hours we find out it's a joke |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:53:33 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
someone has their voting pattern analysis programme very wrong. |
How have you guys determined this without actually seeing the pattern? This one would be REALLY hard to attribute to coincidence. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:55:10 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by love:
haha I love how all the squirmers are trying to validate their behavior. Bye bye cheaters... you'll be back I'm sure. : ) |
No, if I'm being suspended for 30 days, I won't be back. |
I wasn't referring to you Don. I know for a fact that one person on here is a liar. I can't wait to see what happens! |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:55:16 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I received a warning. I am extremely upset.
...
I don't think I want to play anymore. |
I don't like this at all.
I hope that this is not an April Fool's Day joke. |
I'm having a hard time believing vawendy or posthumous "cheated" therefore, if this is a joke, It's NOT FUNNY! I find that kind of humor mean-spirited and juvenile. If they are in on the joke, OK, then I guess the joke is on the rest of us who did not get a "notice". I can see where this might seem like a great joke to play on us as here seem to be voting issues that we all complain about but, if you have indeed investigated them and found nothing, then thanks for looking. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:58:14 PM · #87 |
are we really trying the SC (and posthumous) in the court of public opinion without actually looking at the numbers? I can see that Don is disappointed and upset by the decision, but its soundly based. If he wants to discuss it fully with us, he knows how to reach us. I doubt he wants us to post those numbers here, thought it certainly would "exonerate" SC from malfeasance as we have been accused of here.
This is not an April Fool's joke. We got so much grief for just moving the update button one year, I can't imagine what we'd see if we accused people of this sort of thing falsely as a "joke" |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:58:47 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
someone has their voting pattern analysis programme very wrong. |
How have you guys determined this without actually seeing the pattern? This one would be REALLY hard to attribute to coincidence. |
I stand corrected. The correlation between votes and comments is inaccurate. But I don't see how someone could have as little as 11 votes and that make up 20% of a challenge.
Sorry for the miss-information. I should have double checked the accuracy of my statement.
Sorry everyone. I will own up to a mistake or misstatement on my part.
Scott |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:00:55 PM · #89 |
I just noticed... posthumous has shifty eyes.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:03:55 PM · #90 |
This is utterly appalling. If the cheat screen is netting this kind of fish maybe you should stop fishing. I really don't care that much about the "real" cheating, especially not if it results in a witch hunt.
What should be cause for celebration here is that Don is so consistent. (I will try not to be jealous that pointyshooty got way more 10's than me - assuming he did, haha).
One of the things not enough emphasized is the development of personal style. - The challenge on that topic was wonderful, by the way. There is a lot of righteous talk about this being a learning site: I just wish it recognized the importance of finding your own way to say the things in photo-ing that feel right to you. What has been wonderful for me is that people have responded to a lot of stuff I have felt doubtful about. (No, this doesn't make me feel like a great photographer, but it staves off the voice of darkness that wants to convince me that I am much ado about nothing. - We all have that voice: the grand purpose of life is to learn how to deal with it).
Wendy's "offenses" simply don't register on my radar. I like most of her stuff, I love her participation.
So tell us, peeps and vips and jokesters, what is all this in aid of? |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:06:08 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by frisca:
are we really trying the SC (and posthumous) in the court of public opinion without actually looking at the numbers? I can see that Don is disappointed and upset by the decision, but its soundly based. If he wants to discuss it fully with us, he knows how to reach us. I doubt he wants us to post those numbers here, thought it certainly would "exonerate" SC from malfeasance as we have been accused of here. |
Well, then we have no choice but to accept that on face value. I don't mean to be "trying" anyone, I'm just used to trusting Don. And if there IS more to it than we've heard, well it's none of our business I suppose, so soldier on. But either way I'm bitterly disappointed. I don't want this to be happening, or to have happened, whatever. I'm sad.
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:09:56 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
someone has their voting pattern analysis programme very wrong. |
How have you guys determined this without actually seeing the pattern? This one would be REALLY hard to attribute to coincidence. |
It is a co-incidence of aesthetic. Look at his voting pattern with respect to his aesthetic. Do you abstain from voting high on anonymous amazing wildlife photos? |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:14:06 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by frisca:
are we really trying the SC (and posthumous) in the court of public opinion without actually looking at the numbers? |
I don't think we are trying anybody here, but we are discussing the limits of specificity of such a number based exercise - I still don't see how it would be possible to differentiate between non-anonymous high votes and a (perfectly proper) favouring of images which are more eclectic in style; unless there is a depth of evidence that, in similar proportion, relates to what we might call the more 'vanilla' entries of the same photographer. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:15:55 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by frisca:
are we really trying the SC (and posthumous) in the court of public opinion without actually looking at the numbers? I can see that Don is disappointed and upset by the decision, but its soundly based. If he wants to discuss it fully with us, he knows how to reach us. I doubt he wants us to post those numbers here, thought it certainly would "exonerate" SC from malfeasance as we have been accused of here. |
Well, then we have no choice but to accept that on face value. I don't mean to be "trying" anyone, I'm just used to trusting Don. And if there IS more to it than we've heard, well it's none of our business I suppose, so soldier on. But either way I'm bitterly disappointed. I don't want this to be happening, or to have happened, whatever. I'm sad.
R. |
So am I, bitterly disappointed, and sad. The world doesn't make sense sometimes. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:17:05 PM · #95 |
if one of the punished violations is "to you consistently and regularly vote high for pictures for whom you know the photographer" in the words of OP, then why is it your fault that one of the photographers has a very unique style which you also happen to love?! Are you and all others who can recognize his/her style supposed to NOT vote on his/her images?! would not THAT be biasing the results? And more to the point, where is this written in the rules which some of the members presumably violated?
I am sure that lots of people consistently vote high for images of certain photographers knowing or guessing who they are (think of librodo, IreneM, to name just two), but that "pattern" is not detected just because LOTS of people vote high for them, so their votes do not deviate from the distribution. But if people with a different set of aesthetic values do the same, i.e. vote high for images they love, whether or not they suspect the author (think of  zeuszen, posthumous), that is detected as unlikely "irregularity" and prompt the red flag. I haven't seen the algorithm but I suspect that's what happened, and I think it is VERY WRONG.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 18:21:59. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:21:23 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
if you all knew how conscientious don is about the huge number of votes he casts, and how he sweats over the 10's (his ribbons), you would never feel confident enough to cast another vote here. |
I haven't felt confident in voting ever since I first heard of these investigations years ago. I have no doubt had I first started voting with the appreciation of photography I have now I would have given photographers like pointandshoot lots of high marks and would probably be subject to suspension as well. I guess it pays to remain a noob.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 18:24:12. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:23:18 PM · #97 |
| If Posthomous was a lover of sunsets we probably wouldn't be having this problem.. his tastes are pretty specific and unfortunately only small group of people cater to them. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:25:06 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by tnun:
This is utterly appalling. If the cheat screen is netting this kind of fish maybe you should stop fishing. I really don't care that much about the "real" cheating, especially not if it results in a witch hunt. |
A good time to quote myself.
Yes, we need to understand the limitations of the application of this OR ANY algorithm, especially in this situation. Good God, we might wind up sending Aryans to the camps! |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:25:19 PM · #99 |
Check my voting stats. I think you'll find I tend to vote Nick high, and Steve high. I sometimes even leave a comment saying "I'm betting this is..." and not just for those two. I do NOT vote on shots if I have seen them before the challenge, but I DO vote on shots even if I think I may know who shot it. You can also check my record with respect to Rachel (RKT) whose style I can recognize (and like) very often. This doesn't mean I throw 10s to these people but that's because it isn't my style to do that. It IS Don's style to give 10s to his top picks, regardless of who they are. He likes Pointy's style. Granted, that may be a character flaw, but it's not cheating.
I'm sure the stats bear out the decision, but I'm equally sure it is for the wrong reason. It is NOT because Steve sends Don money. Or chocolate. Or even hints to which entry is his. It is simply because Steve shoots something that resonates with a small bunch of folks. And maddingly (maddeningly?) can do it with suprising regularity.
Come to think of it, it's Steve who should be banned! He's evil! :-)
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 18:26:10. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 06:26:05 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by LevT:
if one of the punished violations is "to you consistently and regularly vote high for pictures for whom you know the photographer" in the words of OP, then why is it your fault that one of the photographers has a very unique style which you also happen to love?! Are you and all others who can recognize his/her style supposed to NOT vote on his/her images?! would not THAT be biasing the results? And more to the point, where is this written in the rules which some of the members presumably violated?
I am sure that lots of people consistently vote high for images of certain photographers knowing or guessing who they are (think of librodo, IreneM, to name just two), but that "pattern" is not detected just because LOTS of people vote high for them, so their votes do not deviate from the distribution. But if people with a different set of aesthetic values does the same, i.e. votes high for images they love, whether or not they suspect the author (think of zeuszen, posthumous), that is detected as unlikely "irregularity" and prompt the red flag. I haven't seen the algorithm but I suspect that's what happened, and I think it is VERY WRONG. |
''
IF that's what happened, it is indeed very wrong. Staggeringly wrong. Note this comment from Frisca, below:
"I doubt he (Don) wants us to post those numbers here, thought it certainly would "exonerate" SC from malfeasance as we have been accused of here."
The key thing here is the use of the word "malfeasance". I don't see anyone "accusing" SC of "malfeasance"; no, what I see is a gut reaction from many people that maybe the numbers don't necessarily mean what SC thinks they do, and this, if true, would be a "mistake", not some sort of deliberate attempt to do somebody wrong...
R.
|
|
