| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2010 10:33:08 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Impact:
Someone suggested in another thread that the impact is so small that it doesn't matter. BUT ... Let's say the offender have 5 ghost accounts. That means that a 'victim' that is scoring 6.0 at 175 votes will drop to 5.834 after getting 6 1's AND if the offender had a score of 6.0 after 175 votes he would go up to 6.111 after giving himself 5 10's from the ghost accounts. A difference of almost 0.3 is defintely a factor in what you're final place will be.
Please correct me if I calculated this wrong but I think it's fairly close. |
A single vote can make a difference if the conditions are right. The difference in a FS a while back between blue and red was the difference between a single person giving a vote of 6 or 1. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 10:38:59 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Kobba:
Originally posted by Siggav:
Also lots of people go through the images initially and sort the challenge images into sets (low, medium, high) sometimes by scoring 1, 5 and 10 or something like that and then go through later and adjust them. This makes sense, but as you point out, done towards the end, the "placeholder" 1's don't impact the scores as much.
I don't think limiting voting to paid users only makes sense, the number of votes would probably go down a huge amount. |
I do something very similar to this for my voting. But I wait until there about 2 days left in voting so the effects are minimal on people watching their score. |
Often, the low votes seem to come at the very beginning of voting as well (rollover to be exact). Anyone that says that the timing of low votes doesn't affect the score any differently when they come at the beginning, or the end, show me!
Caviat - I'm not a math or statistics whiz but;
Hypothetical Example : I get 6 votes the first few hours...first vote is a 5, next three votes are a 2 or 1....then I get another 5. Those low votes have a dramatic effect on the overall average of the photograph compared to a photo with a mid 5 score and 70 votes that suddenly gets a string of low votes. It would appear that the extremely early low voting is being done to position other people at a much lower threshold so that those honestly voting will not raise the score as quickly, thus giving the low voter an advantage. I'm not saying this is happening for certain, but it does seem quite odd.
Just go have a look through the scoring thread for Sports IV for a real life example.
(Gets off soapbox, tucks under arm and marches off...) |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 10:39:42 AM · #53 |
If you can show/prove that this is true...even if it happened ONCE, then there IS a hacker.
Originally posted by love:
Bravo for speaking up!!!! I have suspected hacking as well. It's very suspicious when I post my score in a thread then promptly get 10 votes of 1's and 2's right in a row. |
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 10:43:54 AM · #54 |
Im sorry, anyone who says that a 1 doesnt have any impact on a photo is surely out of their mind. It hurts even more for those in the high 6s and 7s average. A 1 can lower the score by .1 in some cases. And it takes at least 10 votes above the average to get it back even. So yes 1 scores hurt. But a one or two 1s is practical. Some people will just not like the photo. There is always one or two in the crowd who dont like what everyone else does.
The people we should be worrying about are the smart ones who figured out the rollover algorithm. I saw tons of 4s in my last challenge. More than usual. Those tend to stick and hurt as much.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 10:48:42 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by redjulep:
I am completely on board with the suggestion to earn the right to vote by entering at least three challenges. That every shmo can sign up on this site and vote is not right. Not right, I say! :o) |
Many people vote and comment before they work up the confidence to enter. |
Ah - I don't know that this is a good way to teach people to become good photographers. Meanwhile, the ones who have built up the confidence to enter, are creating a portfolio, a good average, etc. serve as a scratching post.
I think it would greatly benefit this site and its active photographers if there were a set of mild introductory conditions before privileges such as voting and commenting would open up. Newcomers could still look through challenge photos, and they could participate in the forums. This site is overall so supportive that others would contribute to the confidence building of any new arrival here.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 10:50:31 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Originally posted by Kobba:
Originally posted by Siggav:
Also lots of people go through the images initially and sort the challenge images into sets (low, medium, high) sometimes by scoring 1, 5 and 10 or something like that and then go through later and adjust them. This makes sense, but as you point out, done towards the end, the "placeholder" 1's don't impact the scores as much.
I don't think limiting voting to paid users only makes sense, the number of votes would probably go down a huge amount. |
I do something very similar to this for my voting. But I wait until there about 2 days left in voting so the effects are minimal on people watching their score. |
Often, the low votes seem to come at the very beginning of voting as well (rollover to be exact). Anyone that says that the timing of low votes doesn't affect the score any differently when they come at the beginning, or the end, show me!
Caviat - I'm not a math or statistics whiz but;
Hypothetical Example : I get 6 votes the first few hours...first vote is a 5, next three votes are a 2 or 1....then I get another 5. Those low votes have a dramatic effect on the overall average of the photograph compared to a photo with a mid 5 score and 70 votes that suddenly gets a string of low votes. It would appear that the extremely early low voting is being done to position other people at a much lower threshold so that those honestly voting will not raise the score as quickly, thus giving the low voter an advantage. I'm not saying this is happening for certain, but it does seem quite odd.
Just go have a look through the scoring thread for Sports IV for a real life example.
(Gets off soapbox, tucks under arm and marches off...) |
Math is math, it don't matter when the low votes come. The result will be the same The only difference will be for the person watching the score. It will start out low and rise slow if they come at the beginning or it will start high and drop a little at the end. If you don't believe me then write down 100 numbers between lets say 5 and 9 than do 10 of them all 1. Add them up and divide by 110. Now put the 1's first and the other numbers last and divide by 110. The final answer will be the same. It will just look different as the voting goes on.
The reason I wait to do my voting is because I know how much it sucks watching your vote go up and down. Unless a bunch of people are doing the same thing as me at the exact same time I only change the vote by maybe .0001 when I separate my voting. I use 1, 5, and 7 as my initial run thru. Then I go back thru the 1's and move them up or they stay if they to me are DMC. Than I go thru the 5's and they stay 5 or become a 6 (rarely will any become a 4 but it does happen). Finally I go thru the 7's and the ones that really wow me become 9's and finally I go thru the 9's and figure out which one is the best in the challenge and it gets a 10. I only give out one 10 during a challenge. To me this is a competition and there can only be one winner so only one 10 given.
Ronnie
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 10:51:39 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by love:
Bravo for speaking up!!!! I have suspected hacking as well. It's very suspicious when I post my score in a thread then promptly get 10 votes of 1's and 2's right in a row. |
I have stopped leaving my scores in scoring threads for just that reason. I have been telling myself many times that this MUST be a coincidence. But many other users notice the same and I'm absolutely sure it has happened to me - more than once. How exactly that happens beats me!
I am also totally for that new users should earn their right to vote by entering. It will make DPC a better quality site for us that already are members - paying or not. I really don't think photographers that are to scared to enter (either because they are totally new to the hobby or not confident in their own photography) are qualified to participate in making or breaking ribbon winners anyway.
In any case: a quarantine period would not detract from new user's experience and I firmly believe this will make things much better. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 11:20:49 AM · #58 |
I would support Admin and SC taking a long, hard look at accounts casting a lot of low votes which are inversely correlated with the caliber of images.
If we had enough votes in a given challenge, the impact of strategic voters would become insignificant. But, sometimes, we don't have as many votes as there are entries which increases the impact of a few low votes.
For DPL3, it would be a good idea to scrub out the mutual votes of head-to-head opposing teams. There is a lot of "fear" of casting a high score to an opposing team's images, which tends to depress all scores and frustrate fair and objective voting. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 11:47:17 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I would support Admin and SC taking a long, hard look at accounts casting a lot of low votes which are inversely correlated with the caliber of images.
If we had enough votes in a given challenge, the impact of strategic voters would become insignificant. But, sometimes, we don't have as many votes as there are entries which increases the impact of a few low votes.
For DPL3, it would be a good idea to scrub out the mutual votes of head-to-head opposing teams. There is a lot of "fear" of casting a high score to an opposing team's images, which tends to depress all scores and frustrate fair and objective voting. |
Ohhh - I like that. So, you could vote because you you wouldn't know who the entry of your head to head team is - but the scrubber would remove them. Very interesting idea. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 12:18:20 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
Originally posted by hahn23:
I would support Admin and SC taking a long, hard look at accounts casting a lot of low votes which are inversely correlated with the caliber of images.
If we had enough votes in a given challenge, the impact of strategic voters would become insignificant. But, sometimes, we don't have as many votes as there are entries which increases the impact of a few low votes.
For DPL3, it would be a good idea to scrub out the mutual votes of head-to-head opposing teams. There is a lot of "fear" of casting a high score to an opposing team's images, which tends to depress all scores and frustrate fair and objective voting. |
Ohhh - I like that. So, you could vote because you you wouldn't know who the entry of your head to head team is - but the scrubber would remove them. Very interesting idea. |
Hmm, that is interesting. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 12:28:29 PM · #61 |
There are two topics I urge all conspiracy theorists to study:
Confirmation Bias
Constellation Theory |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 12:31:55 PM · #62 |
The most important question in this hacking and voting matter is....
Would my brown have been a blue??? |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 12:38:56 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
There are two topics I urge all conspiracy theorists to study:
Confirmation Bias
Constellation Theory |
Are you saying that maybe our entries really do suck? ;-) |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 12:46:44 PM · #64 |
I don't know about you, but last night I was laughing so hard when everyone (except one who shall remain nameless) was posting (one by one) that their first vote in the Sports Challenge was a 2!!
I guess if we're going to have trolls it's better if they're consistent. And that we can get a smile out of it.
Again, I would vote for the idea that voters should have had to enter a photograph first before they can say what mine is worth.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 12:55:54 PM · #65 |
Seems like a simple concept that forcing users to enter at least 3 challenges before being allowed to vote on subsequent challenges, would prevent any possibility of the spontaneous urge for newcomers to create ghost accounts for voting purposes. I think it solve enough of the problem that Langdon wouldn't have to go on his tri-annual Witch Hunts. I am not seeing a downside other than less votes by people who don't enter. Also, "votes by participants" stat has nothing to do with this since that refers to participants of that particular challenge.
Poll: 3 challenges to vote ??
eta: I also like the idea of scrubbing opposing DPL team votes per challenge.
Message edited by author 2010-05-05 12:57:04. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 12:58:20 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Poll: 3 challenges to vote ??
eta: I also like the idea of scrubbing opposing DPL team votes per challenge. |
3 challenges to vote - No from me
scrubbing opposing DPL team votes - yes. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:05:34 PM · #67 |
I was actually suggesting that Langdon put a poll up on the front page.
and to address your arguments:
Originally posted by SaraR:
I seem to remember that the average vote for 'participants' is usually lower than for 'non-participants' and that in the past there have been plenty of calls for people not to be allowed to vote in challenges they have entered. |
As mentioned, participant/non-participant is not relevant to the suggested requirement of 3 challenges prior to voting.
Originally posted by SaraR:
It seems that this is a non-issue that just won't go away. |
oxymoron. ;-)
Originally posted by SaraR:
The arguments seem to go something like this:
- Those with challenge entries shouldn't be allowed to vote in the same challenge.
- Only those who actively enter challenges themselves can vote. |
Apples & oranges.
Originally posted by SaraR:
I don't really see what having someone be forced to enter challenges would achieve, other than add a load of potential dross for people to wade through... |
You already have to wade through my entries. A little more dross won't kill ya. ;-)
Frankly I don't think many people will just enter any old crap 3 times just so they can vote.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:10:39 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by redjulep:
I am completely on board with the suggestion to earn the right to vote by entering at least three challenges. That every shmo can sign up on this site and vote is not right. Not right, I say! :o) |
Many people vote and comment before they work up the confidence to enter. |
Lol, I have less confidence now then when I first entered, which by the way was as soon as I joined. So confidence was average when I joined, then plummeted nice and low, crawled back up a bit with a few nice finishes and has since been beaten back into submission. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:18:02 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Frankly I don't think many people will just enter any old crap 3 times just so they can vote. |
Yes, but this is working only for new cheating members. If there are some old one, this don't change anything.
Hurry, create ghosts account before it's disabled !!
Really, this is ghosts (accounts) hunting. Isn't DPC just a game ? |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:19:59 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Seems like a simple concept that forcing users to enter at least 3 challenges before being allowed to vote on subsequent challenges, would prevent any possibility of the spontaneous urge for newcomers to create ghost accounts for voting purposes. I think it solve enough of the problem that Langdon wouldn't have to go on his tri-annual Witch Hunts. I am not seeing a downside other than less votes by people who don't enter. Also, "votes by participants" stat has nothing to do with this since that refers to participants of that particular challenge.
Poll: 3 challenges to vote ??
eta: I also like the idea of scrubbing opposing DPL team votes per challenge. |
 TrollMan, Art Roflmao and 8 others like this. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:23:34 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by keyz:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Frankly I don't think many people will just enter any old crap 3 times just so they can vote. |
Yes, but this is working only for new cheating members. If there are some old one, this don't change anything.
Hurry, create ghosts account before it's disabled !!
Really, this is ghosts (accounts) hunting. Isn't DPC just a game ? |
Chess and golf are also just games. But it's totally uninteresting and pointless to me if my opponents are cheating. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:23:52 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Seems like a simple concept that forcing users to enter at least 3 challenges before being allowed to vote on subsequent challenges, would prevent any possibility of the spontaneous urge for newcomers to create ghost accounts for voting purposes. I think it solve enough of the problem that Langdon wouldn't have to go on his tri-annual Witch Hunts. I am not seeing a downside other than less votes by people who don't enter. Also, "votes by participants" stat has nothing to do with this since that refers to participants of that particular challenge.
Poll: 3 challenges to vote ??
eta: I also like the idea of scrubbing opposing DPL team votes per challenge. |
redjulep, TrollMan, Art Roflmao and 8 others like this.
TY for the idea  TrollMan |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:31:06 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Chess and golf are also just games. But it's totally uninteresting and pointless to me if my opponents are cheating. |
Golf is played on the honor system -- players report their own violations, without Big Brother monitoring their every move. I see no reason for us to not do the same. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:33:58 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by redjulep:
I also like the idea of scrubbing opposing DPL team votes per challenge. |
Be careful what you wish for. DPL participants tend to be among the more "experienced" voters, and discounting the opposing team's votes may have a negative impact as a result. For example, I gave out thirteen votes of 9 or 10 in the Balloon challenge, and three of those went to our opponents (even though the author of one was obvious). None of my competitors voted the Double Exposure entry less than a 6 either, so eliminating those ratings would actually increase the impact of trolls! |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:36:24 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Chess and golf are also just games. But it's totally uninteresting and pointless to me if my opponents are cheating. |
Golf is played on the honor system -- players report their own violations, without Big Brother monitoring their every move. I see no reason for us to not do the same. |
keyz and his 13 ghosts accounts like this.
And Topaz, that I can't use because I'm with Linux, is allowed in basic ...
I can't use the open source equivalent ... this isn't cheating ? :D |
|
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: 04/25/2024 01:43:13 PM EDT.
TrollMan, Art Roflmao and 8 others like this.
