| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/08/2002 05:00:37 PM · #1 |
I have been thinking about a comment I read in a thread here earlier today that may have some merit. In regards to the scoring system of 1 through 10, I ask myself if it is really possible for me to differentiate between a 4 and a 5... or between an 8 and a 9... The currenc scale is defined as:
1 = very bad and 10 = very good
What are some thoughts on a scale like this:
1 = Poor
2 = Below Average
3 = Average
4 = Above Average
5 = Excellent
As I think about it, I believe that I could work within this scale without any problems at all. This could also be used in a multi-level voting system if that element finds its way into our scoring system...
Comments?
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 05:04:44 PM · #2 |
| I like the thought of narrowing the range. I often waver back and forth in the 5-7 and 4-6 range while rating photos. |
|
|
|
10/08/2002 05:06:53 PM · #3 |
I think I would find it easier to vote this way, but as far as archives are concerned, you would no longer be able to see best scoring photos (a 5 score would be virtually impossible with this new way) and it would be quite strange for a few weeks logging in a seeing 3 as an average score! Sure, these things aren't too important but it is quite a change.
I think sometimes, when I've given many photos an 8... it IS possible to distinguish what photos can become a 9, as they just have a tough more class, but lower down, say with 4 and 5, it is much harder to make a fair decision I agree. |
|
|
|
10/08/2002 05:11:52 PM · #4 |
There is the likelihood of a lot more ties with a restricted scoring range. Not that that matters too much, I guess.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 05:32:30 PM · #5 |
i would prefer a five point rating scheme, too. having said that, what is there to stop those of us that only want to use some of the scale? some people already do. pick the middle numbers. or the odd numbers. or the even ones ... :)
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 06:28:44 PM · #6 |
Probably the only really "valid" (but maybe least practical) method of voting would be to force everyone to rank all of the photos; photo with the lowest aggregate score wins...
However, since it involves (probably) dragging thumbnails around on a page or table, it MIGHT lend itself to being downloaded once and worked on offline, with the "vote" then a data string submitted back to the server.
I'm gonna be sorry now when I go click on that "Post To Forum" button |
|
|
|
10/08/2002 06:42:26 PM · #7 |
Is the scoring diluted or juiced depending on the number of votes or is the score "scaled"? I mean if someone had only 3 votes of 10 would they win? I know it's a simple example but I think you might know what I'm trying to ask.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 06:42:54 PM · #8 |
Since voting is subjective, let's just have:
YES - I like it
NO - I don't like it or I am indifferent.
And whoever gets the most "YES" answers wins the prize.
To put in a range of 1-10 or 1-5 implies that the person who judges the photo would know what makes a good image. I'd contend that most people in the site do not, becuase it takes years to know what makes a good image and to do it objectively. Plus, you will have the problem of different ratings from different people, some would give a 1 for anything they don't like, while others would not. It's better just to have a true or false answer whether people like it or not.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 07:07:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by paganini:
To put in a range of 1-10 or 1-5 implies that the person who judges the photo would know what makes a good image. I'd contend that most people in the site do not, becuase it takes years to know what makes a good image and to do it objectively.
I contend that it doesn't take very long at all for voters to know what they like and don't like. You should at least know about some technical skills to vote on the photos but I don't think anyone needs to be an expert per se. There are certainly times when I will vote a photo that I like better because of the "story it tells" or is more interesting over one that is slightly technically superior.
I think that the 1-10 scales advantages far outweigh any advantages of a 1-5 scale. When you have as many submittals as we have lately, you need to separate them further and the 1-10 does that better. As it was posted earlier, if that is too overwhelming, just use the even or odd numbers and you have your 1-5 anyway.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 07:07:48 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Since voting is subjective, let's just have:
YES - I like it
NO - I don't like it or I am indifferent.
And whoever gets the most "YES" answers wins the prize.
To put in a range of 1-10 or 1-5 implies that the person who judges the photo would know what makes a good image. I'd contend that most people in the site do not, becuase it takes years to know what makes a good image and to do it objectively. Plus, you will have the problem of different ratings from different people, some would give a 1 for anything they don't like, while others would not. It's better just to have a true or false answer whether people like it or not.
ok... I deleted my original reply. See, I'm one of the ignorant masses who doesn't know a good photo from bad. I wish experts like this would just put us out of our misery. We should not be allowed to have opinions. We're too stupid.
Geez...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/8/2002 7:08:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 07:08:38 PM · #11 |
paganini – I have to disagree with you. Your scoring method is almost brutal with its stark good/bad criteria. Most art, in my opinion, is subjective. I didn't have to be "taught" how to enjoy a sunset, a flower or pleasing scene. Likewise I wasn't "taught" to react to a disturbing image of war, cruelty or injustice. If we objectify the appreciate of art (in this case photos) don't we run the risk of creating an "Emperor's New Clothes" type of scenario where those who studied how to be objective are "instructed" on what is correct and what is incorrect? Who decides the proper method for being objective and why? I understand the need for understanding a piece of art but I don't understand the need to objectify it. The greatest gift of art is in its subjectivity not its objectivity. I believe this is why some art is universal; it reaches past boundaries placed in the minds of men and women.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/8/2002 7:09:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 07:15:03 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
I have been thinking about a comment I read in a thread here earlier today that may have some merit. In regards to the scoring system of 1 through 10, I ask myself if it is really possible for me to differentiate between a 4 and a 5... or between an 8 and a 9... The currenc scale is defined as:
1 = very bad and 10 = very good
What are some thoughts on a scale like this:
1 = Poor
2 = Below Average
3 = Average
4 = Above Average
5 = Excellent
As I think about it, I believe that I could work within this scale without any problems at all. This could also be used in a multi-level voting system if that element finds its way into our scoring system...
Comments?
John, I'm pretty satisfied with the current scale. If we want to compress it, we could maybe go to 1-7 scale, but I wouldn't want to go less than that. After I vote on all the photos, I go back through and make sure that the ones I have rated a 10 are equal in quality, and better than that 9s, and so on down the scale. I like a little more flexibility than the 1-5 scale would allow.
(I realize that I have no expertise on which to base an opinion, therefore I should not be allowed to have one, according to some users.)
Mark
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 08:43:20 PM · #13 |
John: I have often wondered about a 1-5 scale myself, as 3 is the clear middle/average, and 1-5 would be a clearly defined range for most voters.... but am not a statistician, so perhaps Jakking is also correct.
This is a toughie.
Keep the ideas coming.. it is this kind of conversation that spurs other ideas as well.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 09:20:39 PM · #14 |
I think every one could make the adjustment to 1-5 vote, but I see some problems in the final average scores. By using country boy logic the possibility of getting tie votes would increase by 100%. Some of the statisticians can figure it out for sure but it makes sense to me. Let’s assume that the vote was just a 1-2 vote, would the possibility of a tie be increased? Looks like it to me, so I think we should leave it alone.
Autool |
|
|
|
10/08/2002 09:22:31 PM · #15 |
If you want to be self deprecating, do it on your own time. it's not what I said. What i said was, very FEW of us (myself included) can really be truly objective in judging a photograph. Most people vote 8-10 and 1-3 on photos they like or don't like anyway. Converting it to a simple yes or no question is just an effective voting system. We're already ON this sytem, you guys just don't realize it. Most people vote 1-2-3 on photos they really hate or don't like, not because it's not a good photo, but because it's hurting their feelings or offensive to them.
It's like judging a violin competition, if you don't know music at all, you really can't judge. It takes years to know the difference, that's all i am trying to say.
Originally posted by iggy386:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Since voting is subjective, let's just have:
YES - I like it
NO - I don't like it or I am indifferent.
And whoever gets the most "YES" answers wins the prize.
To put in a range of 1-10 or 1-5 implies that the person who judges the photo would know what makes a good image. I'd contend that most people in the site do not, becuase it takes years to know what makes a good image and to do it objectively. Plus, you will have the problem of different ratings from different people, some would give a 1 for anything they don't like, while others would not. It's better just to have a true or false answer whether people like it or not.
ok... I deleted my original reply. See, I'm one of the ignorant masses who doesn't know a good photo from bad. I wish experts like this would just put us out of our misery. We should not be allowed to have opinions. We're too stupid.
Geez...
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 09:28:46 PM · #16 |
The problem is that most people when they find an image to be 'offensive' or disturbing, they vote it down. I'll bet if you get the photo of the Viet Cong right before he gets executed (forgot the photographer's name, but hte famous photo of the viet cong execution on the street) on here, it'll probably get voted down low simply for the content, not for the artistic merit. That's what i mean by subjective -- people tend to like happy and cheery subjects.
I think i read somewhere on here that someone once use an art buyer versus art seller comparison. The problem is, if that's all it is about art, then we can all forget it. Why listening to Beethoven when Britney Spears sells more album than the entire classical music collection put together? Yet I am willing to bet 50 years from now not many people will even REMEMBER Britney spears, but nearly everyone would sitll know who Beethoven is. By the popular/subjective ruling, Beethoven must suck as a musician if you want to use the current record sale figures!!! So, that's what I am saying, rather than pretending we're all judging photos objectively, just have a voting system that says whether you like it or not. It's more simpler and it'll yield the same rating system as the current system.
Originally posted by Seeker:
paganini – I have to disagree with you. Your scoring method is almost brutal with its stark good/bad criteria. Most art, in my opinion, is subjective. I didn't have to be "taught" how to enjoy a sunset, a flower or pleasing scene. Likewise I wasn't "taught" to react to a disturbing image of war, cruelty or injustice. If we objectify the appreciate of art (in this case photos) don't we run the risk of creating an "Emperor's New Clothes" type of scenario where those who studied how to be objective are "instructed" on what is correct and what is incorrect? Who decides the proper method for being objective and why? I understand the need for understanding a piece of art but I don't understand the need to objectify it. The greatest gift of art is in its subjectivity not its objectivity. I believe this is why some art is universal; it reaches past boundaries placed in the minds of men and women.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/8/2002 9:27:24 PM. |
|
|
|
10/08/2002 10:16:07 PM · #17 |
John, It sounds like a good plan to me. 1-5 is plenty.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/8/2002 10:19:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 10:33:07 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by paganini:
If you want to be self deprecating, do it on your own time. it's not what I said. What i said was, very FEW of us (myself included) can really be truly objective in judging a photograph. Most people vote 8-10 and 1-3 on photos they like or don't like anyway. Converting it to a simple yes or no question is just an effective voting system. We're already ON this sytem, you guys just don't realize it. Most people vote 1-2-3 on photos they really hate or don't like, not because it's not a good photo, but because it's hurting their feelings or offensive to them.
I guess this might make sense IF the figures quoted were correct. But that are entirely WRONG. It does not take long or any great math skill to look at all the votes in ANY challenge. The bell curve is almost perfect on each one. 4-6 IS the standard average mark, with 5 at the peak, and scores lower and higher fall off in even curves.
This indicates to me that 1-10 works very well indeed.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 11:45:00 PM · #19 |
OK. Voters here are not experts. Opinions - votes - are subjective. To me, those are not bad things. This isn't a site for experts.
Most of the voters here may not be able to articulate what makes a photo good or bad, but I'd bet that most know a good one when they see one and vote accordingly. Whether it's lighting, composition, focus, or whatever, I think most people here recognize quality when they see it.
There is no doubt that many voters here vote down subjects they don't like. If you want high scores, don't submit subjects which you know people aren't going to like. If you are submitting for yourself, submit what you like and live with the score. However, I contend that there are very very few offensive photos posted on this site. On the rare occasions when one is submitted, you hear all about it in the forums. From what I've seen, that may be 1 or 2 each month.
Well... ok. I've wasted enough of everyone's time with this. I'm going somewhere to deprecate myself ;)
Mark
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 11:46:54 PM · #20 |
The average is higher because there are more votes for hte person in 8-10 groups!!! So a simple YES or NO question would yield similar results.
You are assuming the average is indeed a normal distribution, and it is not, at least for the winning photos it is not a normal distribution. There are simply more people voting for higher numbers versus the long trail of votes down to 1 even for the winning photo. So if you were to just count the top 8-10 votes, you'll get similar results. Therefore, if you ask the user to vote a YES if they have previously voted 8-10 for the similar images, else a NO, the results would be very similar. It may not be exact (i.e third place might get to be second place versus the old method) but the photo types that get the highest scores as well as the quality will remain the same. And it'll be easier to vote and makes more sense than the averaging vote method.
Originally posted by jakking:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]If you want to be self deprecating, do it on your own time. it's not what I said. What i said was, very FEW of us (myself included) can really be truly objective in judging a photograph. Most people vote 8-10 and 1-3 on photos they like or don't like anyway. Converting it to a simple yes or no question is just an effective voting system. We're already ON this sytem, you guys just don't realize it. Most people vote 1-2-3 on photos they really hate or don't like, not because it's not a good photo, but because it's hurting their feelings or offensive to them.
I guess this might make sense IF the figures quoted were correct. But that are entirely WRONG. It does not take long or any great math skill to look at all the votes in ANY challenge. The bell curve is almost perfect on each one. 4-6 IS the standard average mark, with 5 at the peak, and scores lower and higher fall off in even curves.
This indicates to me that 1-10 works very well indeed.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 11:57:23 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Since voting is subjective, let's just have:
becuase it takes years to know what makes a good image and to do it objectively.
Don't confuse the ability to produce a truly expert photo with the ability to judge and appreciate good art.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2002 11:59:47 PM · #22 |
You have just agreed with my points! If the viewers put a 1 for a photo simply because they don't agree with it or don't liek it, a simple YES or NO voting system is sufficient, no need for a 1 to 10 rating scale, where a 5 is like "well, i am not sure, but i don't want to hurt this guy's feeling". If someone votes a 5, it's like getting a 1 really. If you dont get 8-10 on your photo, then obviously they didn't like that much. The scoring between a YES or NO voting system and the current voting system will yield very similar results.
I for one would rather see (X out of 250 people like your photo), then a numerical voting system that is different per person (everyone has a different interpretation of the numbers. A YES or NO answer simplies that to a standard voting scheme. If you like it, vote yes, otherwise, vote no) Then you'll get a percentage of the voters that like your photo, versus an average number that doens't make any sense.
Originally posted by iggy386:
OK. Voters here are not experts. Opinions - votes - are subjective. To me, those are not bad things. This isn't a site for experts.
Most of the voters here may not be able to articulate what makes a photo good or bad, but I'd bet that most know a good one when they see one and vote accordingly. Whether it's lighting, composition, focus, or whatever, I think most people here recognize quality when they see it.
There is no doubt that many voters here vote down subjects they don't like. If you want high scores, don't submit subjects which you know people aren't going to like. If you are submitting for yourself, submit what you like and live with the score. However, I contend that there are very very few offensive photos posted on this site. On the rare occasions when one is submitted, you hear all about it in the forums. From what I've seen, that may be 1 or 2 each month.
Well... ok. I've wasted enough of everyone's time with this. I'm going somewhere to deprecate myself ;)
Mark
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 12:01:29 AM · #23 |
In order to appreciate good art, you have to know how to produce it :) it's a catch 22, but like i said, if you LIKE the art, it doesn't necessarily mean it is any good. Ask the people who love Britney Spears. Is it better htan Beethoven because they like it?... humph.
Originally posted by jimmsp:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Since voting is subjective, let's just have:
becuase it takes years to know what makes a good image and to do it objectively.
Don't confuse the ability to produce a truly expert photo with the ability to judge and appreciate good art.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 12:53:16 AM · #24 |
I think we should have a 1 - 11 scale... Other sites just have 1 - 10, but here, when we find a really outstanding photo, we could give it an 11 :)
Viva la Spinal Tap! |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:19:03 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by paganini:
[i] Ask the people who love Britney Spears. Is it better htan Beethoven because they like it?... humph.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Beethoven represents great music, i.e. art, that will move people for centuries to come; Spears (I'm pleased to report I have never heard her so I'm just guessing) is just canned sound, i.e. entertainment. It's comparing Moby Dick with a little article in this week's People Magazine.
In art, one cannot judge as to who is "better"; it's not a race with a winner. It's idiotic, really, to even put it in those terms. Is Rembrandt better than Vermeer? Is Michelangelo better than DaVinci? Is Beethoven better than Brahms? Is Beethoven better than John Lennon? :) I am moved by the Appassionata but at other occasions I'm just as moved by listening to Imagine. Perhaps that is a main ingredient of art: to stir up deep emotions in others, to have our soul touched. In order to do that it has to be produced from the soul. Yeah, great technique and skills is wonderful (and art does require those skills), but if you have nothing to say, it still is nothing.
I see these dpc challenges as "classroom" assignments for people at various levels of learning photography and they are being graded by their fellow students. If there were no scores, that would be fine with me as well. But since there is a scoring system, I would prefer the votes being public. It's much more meaningful to know who is giving what vote to what picture than the final scores.
|
|
