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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Voting Investigation Results
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 525, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/31/2010 10:28:33 PM · #201
This is not, I repeat, this is NOT an April Fool's Joke.

Today is not April 1st (in the server's part of the country). It is NOT an AF joke.

Not.
03/31/2010 10:29:20 PM · #202
Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by vlado:

This HAS to be an April Fools joke. Has to be. Do people not remember last years OUTRAGE?

Actually, no. I'm old and feeble-minded. I do remember it really p1ssed people off, though. What the heck was it?


Everyone got an email informing them that their FS entry was DQed.
03/31/2010 10:29:58 PM · #203
Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by vlado:

This HAS to be an April Fools joke. Has to be. Do people not remember last years OUTRAGE?

Actually, no. I'm old and feeble-minded. I do remember it really p1ssed people off, though. What the heck was it?


Didn't someone just comment "DNMC" on every entry in a challenge, then remove them all before the day was done? Seems waaaaay different than this. Plus, SC is on the record denying it is an AF thing--I'd think a real AF would mean they would just be silent.
03/31/2010 10:30:31 PM · #204
Originally posted by posthumous:

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.

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"


It's annoying to see people arguing over something they can't see. Please post the data.


Just to be sure, and for clariy, do you want us to post the data and the reasonings that led us to decide as we decided?
03/31/2010 10:31:08 PM · #205
Originally posted by vlado:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by vlado:

This HAS to be an April Fools joke. Has to be. Do people not remember last years OUTRAGE?

Actually, no. I'm old and feeble-minded. I do remember it really p1ssed people off, though. What the heck was it?


Everyone got an email informing them that their FS entry was DQed.


OK thats kind of funny. This wouldn't be even a little funny if it turns out to be a joke.
03/31/2010 10:31:53 PM · #206
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by posthumous:

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.

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"


It's annoying to see people arguing over something they can't see. Please post the data.


Just to be sure, and for clariy, do you want us to post the data and the reasonings that led us to decide as we decided?


Yes, again, please!! It's the last bit of business before I can have my going away party.
03/31/2010 10:32:01 PM · #207
Originally posted by vlado:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by vlado:

This HAS to be an April Fools joke. Has to be. Do people not remember last years OUTRAGE?

Actually, no. I'm old and feeble-minded. I do remember it really p1ssed people off, though. What the heck was it?


Everyone got an email informing them that their FS entry was DQed.


Oh yea, that was it. Old? Check! Feeble-minded? Check!
03/31/2010 10:33:24 PM · #208
That is why I submitted an original of my freestudy for this month because I wanted to be one step ahead of the game.

Originally posted by vlado:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by vlado:

This HAS to be an April Fools joke. Has to be. Do people not remember last years OUTRAGE?

Actually, no. I'm old and feeble-minded. I do remember it really p1ssed people off, though. What the heck was it?


Everyone got an email informing them that their FS entry was DQed.
03/31/2010 10:33:37 PM · #209
I feel like i'm waiting for the release of the Starr Report...
03/31/2010 10:34:02 PM · #210
Originally posted by Sirashley:

Ummm.... I don't know what to say to this thread... I want to fill it full of expletives but as I have learned from Andrew Jackson's mistakes, I'll keep my temper in check... I guess the best I can hope for is that this is an April Fool's joke, but its seems a long way to go for a joke, and if it is, I think its gone too far for my liking... Posthumous has done more for this site than anyone I can think of, and yes, that includes the SC... There, I said it... Now, having said that, if he is suspended... CANCEL ME!!!... I'm out... Has anyone stopped to question why membership is down??? Its garbage like this...I come here because I enjoy entering challenges and voting. I love the comments I get, good and bad... I don't care about RIBBONS!!! If I did, I wouldn't enter the shots that I do... BUTTTT... and a huge BBBUUUUTTT... If a few jackasses were cheating to try to get a ribbon, or win some stupid league... I DON"T CARE!!!... especially if the cost is someone like Posthumous... If the suspension sticks... I'm out... simple as that... Cancel me and delete my portfolio...


Thank you. I agree with your sentiments and am in accord with your style.

We Are Who We Are. (I'm starting a secret and exclusive club and you are invited).
03/31/2010 10:38:52 PM · #211
There is no way they can legitimately penalize anyone for voting on known images unless they are willing to completely ban self portraits.
03/31/2010 10:38:55 PM · #212
Just to play the Devil's advocate ...or a SC advocate...or whatever...

All SC has to go on is the numbers. If you gave out 20 votes of 10 in the last 10 challenges and half of them went to one person wouldn't that be the least bit suspicious? I mean you could say that you didn't know who it was and I would believe you entirely but the person who was actually buddy voting could say the exact same thing couldn't he? And if I believe you and don't believe him that would be exactly the type of favoritism we're trying to avoid. Unfortunately, in light of that both parties need to be treated the exact same way.

I think that the problem in this case might be that the sample size might have been too small. Judging from the fact that there was a manual process involved I am pretty certain it was. Looking at the numbers Don provided (thanks by the way), you would probably see that if you went back further you'd see that he probably had given pointandshoot some more 6 and even some 5s at some point. Of course this is just a guess.

To those that are looking at quitting. I understand you are hurt and frustrated and this sort of thing takes a lot of fun out of this site. I can't tell you to stay and you know you'll be missed by a lot of people on this site. Just remember that this place is more than just the challenges and the voting and that might be enough of a reason to stay.
03/31/2010 10:39:33 PM · #213
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by posthumous:

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.

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"


It's annoying to see people arguing over something they can't see. Please post the data.


Just to be sure, and for clariy, do you want us to post the data and the reasonings that led us to decide as we decided?


Yes, again, please!! It's the last bit of business before I can have my going away party.


Okay, give us a bit to compile it and we will.
03/31/2010 10:39:41 PM · #214
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by posthumous:

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.

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"


It's annoying to see people arguing over something they can't see. Please post the data.


Just to be sure, and for clariy, do you want us to post the data and the reasonings that led us to decide as we decided?


For myself, I want to understand how, under the rules and reasoning the SC applied, ANY of us can consistently vote for images we like, without risk that down the road the SC will say we voted too many times, too highly/generously, for the images we like that happened to be created by certain (consistent) photographers? And further, how posthumous can be considered to be somehow secretly unfair, when he posts his favorites and awards his "ribbons" in a very public thread?

Message edited by author 2010-03-31 22:41:19.
03/31/2010 10:49:02 PM · #215
Originally posted by Citadel:

Just to play the Devil's advocate ...or a SC advocate...or whatever...

All SC has to go on is the numbers. If you gave out 20 votes of 10 in the last 10 challenges and half of them went to one person wouldn't that be the least bit suspicious? I mean you could say that you didn't know who it was and I would believe you entirely but the person who was actually buddy voting could say the exact same thing couldn't he? And if I believe you and don't believe him that would be exactly the type of favoritism we're trying to avoid. Unfortunately, in light of that both parties need to be treated the exact same way.

I think that the problem in this case might be that the sample size might have been too small. Judging from the fact that there was a manual process involved I am pretty certain it was. Looking at the numbers Don provided (thanks by the way), you would probably see that if you went back further you'd see that he probably had given pointandshoot some more 6 and even some 5s at some point. Of course this is just a guess.

To those that are looking at quitting. I understand you are hurt and frustrated and this sort of thing takes a lot of fun out of this site. I can't tell you to stay and you know you'll be missed by a lot of people on this site. Just remember that this place is more than just the challenges and the voting and that might be enough of a reason to stay.


I think I gave you at least 3 PostLumies back in 2008, some in sequential challenges. Clearly, with enough digging, they will ban my keester, too. How dare either of us be consistent in our style and taste? It is lucky for me that over the last year I simply have not had time to vote and award the lumies, or I'd be on the block, too.
03/31/2010 10:55:12 PM · #216
Originally posted by posthumous:

I went thru the last 20 of pointandshoot's photos, and here's what I came up with:

5 I didn't vote on. Now let's go over the 15 I did vote on, in order.

10 and a posthumous blue ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

10 and a posthumous red ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

8 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, but I have high standards for pointy.

10 and a posthumous blue ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

7 I didn't know it was him.

10 - this was the style challenge. I thought it might be him, and eventually I figured out it was a goat, so probably him. By then, the 10 was given.

10 and a blue ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

10 and a blue ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

10 I suspected it might be him so I didn't give him a ribbon. Still the best shot in the challenge, though. Him and cutout.

10 and a yellow ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

10 and a blue ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

10 and a blue ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

9 I didn't give him a 10 or a ribbon because I suspected it might be pointandshoot. I'm tired of giving him 10s and ribbons. So is the SC, obviously. But voting is anonymous, so I can't stop.

6 yeah, that's right. a 6. Didn't turn me on as much as usual.

10 and a yellow ribbon. I didn't know it was him.

So, there are some numbers for you.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Notice 11 10's and 9 ribbons. I do NOT recommend this strategy for you buddy voters out there!

OK -- so, if you were to take an objective look at someone's voting record, and they had a quite reasonable overall average vote given of around 5.5, and then you see that one particular photographer has been given eleven votes of 10 in the past fifteen challenge, what would you deduce? Even you seem to think it "looks like" buddy voting.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt your statement that you didn't "know" whose photo you were voting on, although your own declarations that sometimes you could tell or make an educated guess somewhat undermines that assertion, but I also have a hard time saying some folks should be treated differently because of who they are -- I think that's a worse "slippery slope" to abuse than sometimes penalizing someone who might not "really" deserve it. I've had a couple of recent DQ's which I still find wholly undeserved and wrongly-decided, but they were honestly decided, and at some point it's necessary to just let go and move on.

Now, I was not directly or highly involved in the discussions/calculations which went into this batch of actions -- I've been distracted preparing a memorial for my dad -- so I'm pretty much going by what I read in this thread and looking over some previous SC discussion. I do know there are clearly two categories of "problems" being dealt with -- some people who are clearly trading high votes with each other and/or voting all except a few select photos exceptionally low, and some other people who are not "cheating" and yet may have a voting style or pattern which ends up being "unfair."

For example, the 20% vote requirement is dependent on each voter having a "somewhat normal" vote distribution across a random selection of photos. However, in the case of someone who (hypothetically now) votes all pictures a 3 except for those which "spark a connection" and get a 9, then voting on 20% really penalizes those images in comparison to the 80% not subject to such a stringent review; yet the same "voting style" would be perfectly fine if applied to 100% of the entries.

I really think quite a few people are over reacting. No one here has any evil intent -- I'm sure there are more reasonable and amicable resolutions available.
03/31/2010 11:00:10 PM · #217
Originally posted by GeneralE:

OK -- so, if you were to take an objective look at someone's voting record, and they had a quite reasonable overall average vote given of around 5.5, and then you see that one particular photographer has been given eleven votes of 10 in the past fifteen challenge, what would you deduce? Even you seem to think it "looks like" buddy voting.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt your statement that you didn't "know" whose photo you were voting on, although your own declarations that sometimes you could tell or make an educated guess somewhat undermines that assertion, but I also have a hard time saying some folks should be treated differently because of who they are -- I think that's a worse "slippery slope" to abuse than sometimes penalizing someone who might not "really" deserve it. I've had a couple of recent DQ's which I still find wholly undeserved and wrongly-decided, but they were honestly decided, and at some point it's necessary to just let go and move on.

Now, I was not directly or highly involved in the discussions/calculations which went into this batch of actions -- I've been distracted preparing a memorial for my dad -- so I'm pretty much going by what I read in this thread and looking over some previous SC discussion. I do know there are clearly two categories of "problems" being dealt with -- some people who are clearly trading high votes with each other and/or voting all except a few select photos exceptionally low, and some other people who are not "cheating" and yet may have a voting style or pattern which ends up being "unfair."

For example, the 20% vote requirement is dependent on each voter having a "somewhat normal" vote distribution across a random selection of photos. However, in the case of someone who (hypothetically now) votes all pictures a 3 except for those which "spark a connection" and get a 9, then voting on 20% really penalizes those images in comparison to the 80% not subject to such a stringent review; yet the same "voting style" would be perfectly fine if applied to 100% of the entries.

I really think quite a few people are over reacting. No one here has any evil intent -- I'm sure there are more reasonable and amicable resolutions available.


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.
03/31/2010 11:03:24 PM · #218
I believe he was speaking in General (No Pun Intended) He did say example.. I don't think he was directly referencing your voting style methods or habits.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

OK -- so, if you were to take an objective look at someone's voting record, and they had a quite reasonable overall average vote given of around 5.5, and then you see that one particular photographer has been given eleven votes of 10 in the past fifteen challenge, what would you deduce? Even you seem to think it "looks like" buddy voting.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt your statement that you didn't "know" whose photo you were voting on, although your own declarations that sometimes you could tell or make an educated guess somewhat undermines that assertion, but I also have a hard time saying some folks should be treated differently because of who they are -- I think that's a worse "slippery slope" to abuse than sometimes penalizing someone who might not "really" deserve it. I've had a couple of recent DQ's which I still find wholly undeserved and wrongly-decided, but they were honestly decided, and at some point it's necessary to just let go and move on.

Now, I was not directly or highly involved in the discussions/calculations which went into this batch of actions -- I've been distracted preparing a memorial for my dad -- so I'm pretty much going by what I read in this thread and looking over some previous SC discussion. I do know there are clearly two categories of "problems" being dealt with -- some people who are clearly trading high votes with each other and/or voting all except a few select photos exceptionally low, and some other people who are not "cheating" and yet may have a voting style or pattern which ends up being "unfair."

For example, the 20% vote requirement is dependent on each voter having a "somewhat normal" vote distribution across a random selection of photos. However, in the case of someone who (hypothetically now) votes all pictures a 3 except for those which "spark a connection" and get a 9, then voting on 20% really penalizes those images in comparison to the 80% not subject to such a stringent review; yet the same "voting style" would be perfectly fine if applied to 100% of the entries.

I really think quite a few people are over reacting. No one here has any evil intent -- I'm sure there are more reasonable and amicable resolutions available.


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.
03/31/2010 11:03:54 PM · #219
I am glad to see the SC will post "the numbers."

I hope they also explain their methodology.

This is the kind of stuff that puts a chill into all members. Allegations such as this should be accompanied by a full disclosure of exactly how the transgressors were identified. I don't need to know the individuals - but I really want to know how these people were "caught."

03/31/2010 11:05:37 PM · #220
I hope they also post the names of all the ghost accounts that were canceled.

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I am glad to see the SC will post "the numbers."

I hope they also explain their methodology.

This is the kind of stuff that puts a chill into all members. Allegations such as this should be accompanied by a full disclosure of exactly how the transgressors were identified. I don't need to know the individuals - but I really want to know how these people were "caught."
03/31/2010 11:06:11 PM · #221
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")?

03/31/2010 11:08:40 PM · #222
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
03/31/2010 11:12:16 PM · #223
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.
03/31/2010 11:14:39 PM · #224
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
03/31/2010 11:15:05 PM · #225
I thought this was the case, but I really appreciate the staff of DP investigating this matter, WELL DONE :)
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 03/20/2019 01:10:27 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 01:10:27 PM EDT.