| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2004 01:47:28 PM · #1 |
The update button block is great for checking scores and comments. Would it be possible to show your current ranking in the challenge based on scores? It would be fun to see rankings go up and down with new votes, and to see how you are tracking in the challenge. Maybe an option to turn it off if an individual wants his challenge result to be a surprise at the end?
Thanks,
JD
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 01:56:40 PM · #2 |
| I like this idea. S.C., Any comments on this? |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 01:58:54 PM · #3 |
I don't think I'd like that. You would be able to see how your own voting affects your photo's placement. Therefore may cause people to vote down others.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:03:59 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
The update button block is great for checking scores and comments. Would it be possible to show your current ranking in the challenge based on scores? It would be fun to see rankings go up and down with new votes, and to see how you are tracking in the challenge. Maybe an option to turn it off if an individual wants his challenge result to be a surprise at the end? |
This would be a disaster!
We already have a problem with what I suspect is a "I'm gonna' vote down the good shots so maybe I can get mine up higher" scenario.
Don't think so? Look at the ribbon winners in every challenge, and you will almost always find one of them (or more) with 1 votes.
See where I am going with this?
And my challenge to the voters that do this:
Step up and tell us why you voted a shot that meets a challenge head on, is in focus and photographed well can possibly deserve a 1 or 2. I would respect someone more for admitting why, than being chickens**t and hiding anonymous.
On a side note, SC - can these particular votes (1 & 2's) be looked at to see if they are being done by someone in the challenge itself (as I suspect) or from the same people most of the time?
They really piss me off me and are hurting the site IMO.
Edited to be nice.
Message edited by author 2004-12-06 20:21:33. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:07:23 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by BradP:
On a side note, SC - can these particular votes (1 & 2's) be looked at to see if they are being done by someone in the challenge itself (as I suspect) or from the same people most of the time?
They really piss me off and are hurting the site IMO. |
If anyone votes too many 1's and 2's, their vote will be removed at the challenge rollover. Therefore, it's just normal distribution of votes that means most entries will receive low - as well as high - scores...
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:09:06 PM · #6 |
Why not just disallow those in the current challenge from voting in that challenge? That is typically how a contest works anyway. This would solve the problem, and allow that feature to be implemented, which I think is a great feature BTW.
??
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:17:39 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by ijerry:
Why not just disallow those in the current challenge from voting in that challenge? That is typically how a contest works anyway. This would solve the problem, and allow that feature to be implemented, which I think is a great feature BTW.
?? |
Well, then the problem I see is that if you have a large challenge and the people who entered cannot vote, you may receive very few votes. And the score may not be very objective or fairly distributed.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:25:44 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by giega:
Well, then the problem I see is that if you have a large challenge and the people who entered cannot vote, you may receive very few votes. And the score may not be very objective or fairly distributed. |
how many members or visitors are there on this site? I would wager a lot more than 200-300 which is about all that a large challenge ever gets. So, I don't see how this belief holds any water. At least the votes will be fair then. Now, it is abused by those in the challenge to vote down others pics.(not all, but it has been said that it is abused). Fewer votes, but a more accurate designation, I say go for it.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:38:36 PM · #9 |
The update button block is great for checking scores and comments. Would it be possible to show your current ranking in the challenge based on scores? It would be fun to see rankings go up and down with new votes, and to see how you are tracking in the challenge.
And lets all open our christmas presents now :)
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:44:53 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by giega:
Well, then the problem I see is that if you have a large challenge and the people who entered cannot vote, you may receive very few votes. And the score may not be very objective or fairly distributed. |
Plus, registered users cannot vote in member challenges, which would mean that if they don't get to vote in their own challenge, all they ever have to do is submit pictures and let the members do all the work of voting. They would only be taking from the site, not giving. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:45:45 PM · #11 |
| I'm not passionate one way or the other, but I would lean against this idea. Part of the fun/suspense through the week is not knowing if that 6.5 will get you a ribbon, of if a 7.2 puts you just out of contension. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:48:15 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by marbo:
The update button block is great for checking scores and comments. Would it be possible to show your current ranking in the challenge based on scores? It would be fun to see rankings go up and down with new votes, and to see how you are tracking in the challenge.
And lets all open our christmas presents now :) |
This was kind of my reaction as well (except not as funny). |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:49:35 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ijerry:
Originally posted by giega:
Well, then the problem I see is that if you have a large challenge and the people who entered cannot vote, you may receive very few votes. And the score may not be very objective or fairly distributed. |
how many members or visitors are there on this site? I would wager a lot more than 200-300 which is about all that a large challenge ever gets. So, I don't see how this belief holds any water. At least the votes will be fair then. Now, it is abused by those in the challenge to vote down others pics.(not all, but it has been said that it is abused). Fewer votes, but a more accurate designation, I say go for it. |
Well, let's see. My photo in Macro Without Bugs and Flowers received 320 votes, there were 528 entries. Then let's say in Communication there were 269 votes, 262 submitted.
As you can see, there is a possibility for the photo to not receive any votes, or receive just 7, provided that most or all the voters were partcipating in a challenge. What is your average vote count per entries submitted?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 02:50:00 PM · #14 |
| I'd rather be surprised at 4th placed than sure of 3rd. When the rankings are hidden, there is less temptation for manipulation. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 03:15:25 PM · #15 |
There's one method to be sure people don't lowball when they enter. This is based on something I read a while back about the salary structure at Ben and Jerry's. At Ben and Jerry's, the idea was that to make sure managers pay the employees well, their own salaries were limited by some adjustment of the underling employees salary. So they had an incentive to pay their employees well, and not unfairly pay themselves.
So based on that:
Amended Scoring Rule: No one shall be able to score more than 2 points over the average score they give in a challenge. So if I give an average of 5, the highest my entry can receive will be 7. If I actually was voted 8, then I get a 7.
This removes most of any incentive for people to lowball.
If some form of this were implemented, it would have to be decided what to do if you didn't vote on a challenge you entered. My inclination would be to use 5.5 as the average in that case.
This method sounds a bit unfair at first, but when you think about it longer, unless you submit the perfect photo, or feel everyone else is vastly inferior, this would work out quite fairly.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 03:27:32 PM · #16 |
| I would suggest the opposite. No scores or ranks until the challenge is over are my suggestion. I also think the comments should remain anonymous until voting is over with. That way the commenter can't find out who they have voted for if the photographer PMs backs a response to their remark or question. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 03:34:15 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I would suggest the opposite. No scores or ranks until the challenge is over are my suggestion. I also think the comments should remain anonymous until voting is over with. That way the commenter can't find out who they have voted for if the photographer PMs backs a response to their remark or question. |
Did you read the site news?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 03:35:54 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
No one shall be able to score more than 2 points over the average score they give in a challenge. So if I give an average of 5, the highest my entry can receive will be 7. |
I don't think restricting scores is the way to go. Some folks are super-critical and believe that the median DPC entry is actually well below average. Zueszen's ribbon hopes would be over. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 05:44:18 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
The update button block is great for checking scores and comments. Would it be possible to show your current ranking in the challenge based on scores? It would be fun to see rankings go up and down with new votes, and to see how you are tracking in the challenge. Maybe an option to turn it off if an individual wants his challenge result to be a surprise at the end?
Thanks,
JD |
The biggest problem here would be the database impact. The update button as it is only requires a tabulation of the votes on your entry. To determine your rank, it would have to essentially calculate the challenge results every time anyone clicks update. We know from processing post-challenge disqualifications that process takes 10-15 seconds every time it is done (and ties up the site for everyone for that long).
Simply put, the performance hit on the site would be too severe.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 05:54:49 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by BradP:
This would be a disaster!
We already have a problem with what I suspect is a "I'm gonna' vote down the good shots so maybe I can get mine up higher" scenario.
Don't think so? Look at the ribbon winners in every challenge, and you will almost always find one of them (or more) with 1 votes.
See where I am going with this?
And my challenge to the voters that do this:
Step up and tell us why you voted a shot that meets a challenge head on, is in focus and photographed well can possibly deserve a 1 or 2. I would respect someone more for admitting why, than being chickens**t and hiding.
On a side note, SC - can these particular votes (1 & 2's) be looked at to see if they are being done by someone in the challenge itself (as I suspect) or from the same people most of the time?
They really piss me off and are hurting the site IMO. |
Not everyone here perceives votes of 1 or 2 to be the big problem that you do. There are measures in place to control the more extreme practitioners. Maybe you should just try to respect other peoples right to disagree with you, and/or the majority, in their voting. Ribboners have always gotten a smattering of low votes, and likely always will. Allow into your mind the possibility that these are from sincere and honest people that just don't care for some images that others do care for. It is disgusting to me to see posters continually putting down these voters, and ascribing motives to them, when you don't know who they are or why they vote like they do. All you know about them is that their tastes don't agree with yours. Does that give you the right to be calling them names (like "chickens**t") ?
Originally posted by nshapiro:
.... This removes most of any incentive for people to lowball. |
I like their ice cream but.....doesn't this replace an "incentive to lowball" with an incentive to highball? |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 06:20:05 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Not everyone here perceives votes of 1 or 2 to be the big problem that you do. There are measures in place to control the more extreme practitioners. Maybe you should just try to respect other peoples right to disagree with you, and/or the majority, in their voting. Ribboners have always gotten a smattering of low votes, and likely always will. Allow into your mind the possibility that these are from sincere and honest people that just don't care for some images that others do care for. It is disgusting to me to see posters continually putting down these voters, and ascribing motives to them, when you don't know who they are or why they vote like they do. All you know about them is that their tastes don't agree with yours. Does that give you the right to be calling them names (like "chickens**t") ? |
I fully understand the measures in place to prevent someone from simply giving all low scores and a buddies a high score to skew the results. That is not an issue.
I guess you have never seen your score drop, and drop and drop near the end of a challenge. These are what I suspect as voters trying to better their own. I can't prove motive, but others on this site have seen the same.
Do I have the right to try and call someone out to justify their giving a decent shot (not even talking about mine here) a 1? You bet!
I don't want this thread locked and/or diverted over to the rant forum, as it can easily get that way. I have a tendancy to be a bit blunt and call it like it is. I wish more had the guts to speak their mind as you and I did.
Do people have a right to vote any way they want? Absolutely!
Does anyone have a right to face an accuser that has said their picture was absolutely horrible, did not meet the challenge and should have never wasted anyone's time on the site by submitting it? I think so, as that is what a 1 vote essentially is.
Wander through the challenge archives and look at the scores of the top 3 in a challenge. Hard to believe a Ribbon winner by a populous vote would be worthy of a 1 - period.
End of my non-rant.
Message edited by author 2004-12-06 18:21:03. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 06:24:32 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
There's one method to be sure people don't lowball when they enter. This is based on something I read a while back about the salary structure at Ben and Jerry's. At Ben and Jerry's, the idea was that to make sure managers pay the employees well, their own salaries were limited by some adjustment of the underling employees salary. So they had an incentive to pay their employees well, and not unfairly pay themselves.
So based on that:
Amended Scoring Rule: No one shall be able to score more than 2 points over the average score they give in a challenge. So if I give an average of 5, the highest my entry can receive will be 7. If I actually was voted 8, then I get a 7.
This removes most of any incentive for people to lowball.
If some form of this were implemented, it would have to be decided what to do if you didn't vote on a challenge you entered. My inclination would be to use 5.5 as the average in that case.
This method sounds a bit unfair at first, but when you think about it longer, unless you submit the perfect photo, or feel everyone else is vastly inferior, this would work out quite fairly. |
OK...I just won't vote then. I'm not going to give someone a 6 if I think their photo is a 4 or a 5. And likewise, I'm not going to give a 3 to what I think is an 8 or 9.
Sounds stupid -- fact of the matter is that if you're getting lowballed, then so is everyone else whos photos are good from that same person who lowballed you -- certainly, it all evens out in the end -- which is why totals are based on an average.
I've never seen a HUGE injustice done on this site although a lot of good images do seem to get a few 1's or 2's though, but they're ALL getting it -- and a lot of last place photos seem to get a few 9's or 10's -- it seems like it all balances out in the end.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 07:05:35 PM · #23 |
I agree. The point (in my opinion) is to rate each photo individually on a scale from one to ten based on quality and the intent of the challenge (one being bad, ten being an excellent photo that meets the challenge), not to give the best photos in that perticular challenge a 10 and the worst a 1. The average score for each challenge will not always be the same (it wont always work out to 5), just as the winning photo wont always have the same score (a look at the recent history shows everything from just over 6 to just under 8). The group as a whole does better or worse with different challenges. Expecting scorers to average 5 wouldn't be right. I agree lowballing and giving almost everyone 1s and 2s is also wrong, but there's nothing wrong with giving a lower than five average score if you think the group just didn't do all that well one week.
Also, limiting a persons score to 2 above their average is ridiculous. Lets say someones average score given is near 5 in every challenge. One week they take an amazing shot that deservedly recieves an average score near 8. This limit would completely screw them over. |
|
|
|
12/06/2004 07:29:41 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Does anyone have a right to face an accuser that has said their picture was absolutely horrible, did not meet the challenge and should have never wasted anyone's time on the site by submitting it? I think so, as that is what a 1 vote essentially is. |
You are wrong on that point Brad. Under the system now in place at dpc you do not have the right "to face an accuser" to use your rather coarse characterization, or to call someone out for a low vote. It's called anonymous voting. And it is, IMHO, the essence of dpc. The more you refuse to understand that point, the more you begin to take on the aura of intimidation towards those who don't have the same tastes as you do. Speaking bluntly and feeling that you have guts is one thing. Trying to bully others into giving higher votes than they otherwise would is not your business to do. Why don't you try to open your mind to the way others might think, and make fewer assumptions about what motivates other people's votes?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2004 07:40:12 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
You are wrong on that point Brad. Under the system now in place at dpc you do not have the right "to face an accuser" to use your rather coarse characterization, or to call someone out for a low vote. It's called anonymous voting. And it is, IMHO, the essence of dpc. The more you refuse to understand that point, the more you begin to take on the aura of intimidation towards those who don't have the same tastes as you do. Speaking bluntly and feeling that you have guts is one thing. Trying to bully others into giving higher votes than they otherwise would is not your business to do. Why don't you try to open your mind to the way others might think, and make fewer assumptions about what motivates other people's votes? |
OK - you are 100% correct and I withdraw everything I said in this subject manner and apologize to anyone I may have offended or wrongfully accused now, in the past or in the future.
(easiest way to end this - geez.)
Message edited by author 2004-12-06 19:48:14. |
|
