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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Make voters responsible!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 56, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/03/2003 10:06:18 PM · #1
I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I'd find that this topic has been discussed somewhere in the forums. But here goes anyway...

Why can't ALL votes be visible, identifying the voter? I just got dinged with a 1 vote in the current 'Money' challenge, after having nothing but positive comments and hovering near 6. My photo won't appeal to everyone, but there's no way it's the lowest of lows.. What's the point in allowing anonymous votes??

In another thread it was suggested that 1's and 10's be required to have comments associated with them. IMO, the vote is sufficient. Its relative placement on the scale of 1-10 implies a "comment" of "bad", "ok", "great!" etc. I'm perfectly happy with having just a vote, however....

How about just making people responsible for their votes? Let's see who's purposely dinging or inflating a score.
12/03/2003 10:14:31 PM · #2
Well, one of the points is so that people who feel like voting ones don't get harassed by posts like this.
12/03/2003 10:37:55 PM · #3
Hey, mk, how is this post "harrassment"??? It's quite obvious that some people place votes that are clearly out of line. Are you OK with that? I'm only suggesting that if the user's ID were attached to the vote, he/she would most likely not vote as irresponsibly as some obviously do.

...Come to think of it, irresponsible/anonymous 1's more closely qualify as harrassment, IMHO.

Message edited by author 2003-12-03 22:50:59.
12/03/2003 10:51:24 PM · #4
The number of 1's given irks the heck out of me, too. I mean, I have expected to get more 1's than 10's so far, but really - a 1 means the photo couldn't have been worse (if the challenge was addressed).

Then, I look at the following shot, which got SEVEN 1's:

and I say, Okay, some people are buttheads, so I'll take the 1's whether I deserve them or not, and it's probably better for me (and definitely better for them) that I not know who they are.

But I do wish they wouldn't be so frivolous about giving 1's. It is insulting, and it detracts from the quality of this web site, which is too bad.
12/03/2003 10:53:25 PM · #5
If someone posts votes which are intended to sway or rig the system (eg lots of 1's and 2's only, etc), they are generally caught by their voting patterns and the votes are ignored.

"Users whose vote patterns suggest an intent to unfairly disrupt the system will have their votes ignored and may be suspended from site functions."

So, whilst extremely low votes are a pain in the butt (I know, I've had a few 2's for my Money entry), if they are a deliberate attempt to rig, they wont count. Great! If the person is voting normally, then they just happen to hate your shot. Yes, Philistines, I know, but you cant please everyone.

I'd not like to see voting become public - it would reduce the number of voters, IMO, but also, can you imagine the posts and, more worryingly, emails afterwards? "Why did you give me a 3? Others loved it!" "Bah, that didnt deserve a 10, what were you thinking" etc etc.

What I would like to see is maybe a more involved voting scale - points for creativity, technical, and 'meeting the challengeness' (for want of a better word), but it takes forever now to do a single vote on 100+ images - three votes on each image would be over the top.
12/03/2003 10:53:49 PM · #6
I agree with mk here.

Photos are very personal and people get attached to their own photo. Some people get offended if someone else hates their photo.

Why risk someone starting to private message you trying to convince you that their photo of a cat for the "Really tall buildings" challenge is in fact valid as your cat's name happens to be "Empire State Building"? That person then takes the argument to the forums ..... and some people would, like it or not.

All it would achieve if voters were identified is an artificial heightening of scores as many people would not feel safe giving a 1, so they'd simply vote higher or not bother to vote on pics they hatred.

End of the day that person who voted may simply just hate your photo, simple as that. If they do then that is their right. At the end of the day it makes so little difference it's not funny. If you get lots of 1's then sure, the photo sucks. If you are getting 100 in the 5 and 6's then the 1 won't make any difference that matters.

It can be harassment, look at your own comment "Let's see who's purposely dinging or inflating a score." You got a 1, there is no way that it could possibly be that someone hates your photo, it has to be that they are deliberately up to no good. You have just accused this anonymous person on, in effect, cheating. Why should he/she now have to defend their vote?

I hate the 1's, especially when people don't give a reason. I think they are generally wrong and unfair. However, I would be very strongly against forceing someone to justify their view on it.

Message edited by author 2003-12-03 22:55:09.
12/03/2003 10:58:48 PM · #7
How do you know the specific score given before the challenge is over? IE " I got a 1, I got a couple 2's"??
12/03/2003 11:04:48 PM · #8
Originally posted by Natator:

I agree with mk here.

It can be harassment, look at your own comment "Let's see who's purposely dinging or inflating a score." You got a 1, there is no way that it could possibly be that someone hates your photo, it has to be that they are deliberately up to no good. You have just accused this anonymous person on, in effect, cheating. Why should he/she now have to defend their vote?


I think wkmen hit the nail on the head when he said "...some people are buttheads, so I'll take the 1's whether I deserve them or not, and it's probably better for me (and definitely better for them) that I not know who they are." I suppose it all averages out.

It's just very irksome when a photo (not necessarily mine!) is quite clearly well done technically and meets the challenge to a tee, yet is given the lowest score on a scale of 1 to 10, just because a viewer "hates your photo", as you say. There are photos I may "hate", for personal reasons, but could if viewed objectively be scored high.
12/03/2003 11:07:40 PM · #9
Originally posted by jaimeegrl:

How do you know the specific score given before the challenge is over? IE " I got a 1, I got a couple 2's"??

You watch the votes as they're counted. Multiply the score by the number of votes. When the next vote comes in, do the same. Subtract the former from the latter, and you have the most recent vote's score.
12/03/2003 11:09:10 PM · #10
Originally posted by lenkphotos:

Originally posted by jaimeegrl:

How do you know the specific score given before the challenge is over? IE " I got a 1, I got a couple 2's"??

You watch the votes as they're counted. Multiply the score by the number of votes. When the next vote comes in, do the same. Subtract the former from the latter, and you have the most recent vote's score.

...
OK, Im not THAT Anal about my score. I thought there was a "click here to look at broken down scores" .. some magic button I was missing.

:edit to make my thought more clear... hey, it's late ok!

Message edited by author 2003-12-03 23:10:57.
12/03/2003 11:12:56 PM · #11
Originally posted by jaimeegrl:


OK, Im not THAT Anal about my score...


Are you implying that I'm Anal?? Watch out! I might harrass you!! ;-)

Message edited by author 2003-12-03 23:13:27.
12/03/2003 11:14:57 PM · #12
Originally posted by jaimeegrl:

OK, Im not THAT Anal about my score. I thought there was a "click here to look at broken down scores"


Hehe, being bored here at work, I AM that anal about my scores. I can tell you exactly what 66 out of the 110 votes that I've got were - the other 44 were done while I was asleep :)

I tell you, there are some very interesting patterns there!

The idea of a 'Click here to look at broken down scores' button is a good one though!
12/03/2003 11:17:42 PM · #13

Are you implying that I'm Anal?? Watch out! I might harrass you!! ;-)[/quote]

Lol, far be it from me to imply anything! :)

12/03/2003 11:21:37 PM · #14
I probably didn't make it very clear lenkphotos, but I do fully agree withyou about the 1's being suckful in general.

There have been past challenge winners with absolutely stunning photos, and then you'll see a 1 vote. In some of those cases, no matter how hard I try and see it, I can not possibly see how the photo could possibly fairly be given a 1. A 1 means basically the photo absolutely sucks big time, and look at the quality of the blue ribbons! You may not like it much sure, but a 1 is very seldom justified.

I doubt in many cases people could justify their 1's in the case of ribbon winning photos, though I would be interested to see someone do it as I may be wrong.

The only thing I can think of is if they somehow think it does not meet the challenge and thus give an instant 1, as many people do.

I'd just be against the having to justify your score in principle, as I think it would solve 1 problem and open the door to several 100 others.

12/03/2003 11:25:59 PM · #15
Originally posted by Natator:

I probably didn't make it very clear lenkphotos, but I do fully agree withyou about the 1's being suckful in general.

There have been past challenge winners with absolutely stunning photos, and then you'll see a 1 vote. In some of those cases, no matter how hard I try and see it, I can not possibly see how the photo could possibly fairly be given a 1. A 1 means basically the photo absolutely sucks big time, and look at the quality of the blue ribbons! You may not like it much sure, but a 1 is very seldom justified.

I doubt in many cases people could justify their 1's in the case of ribbon winning photos, though I would be interested to see someone do it as I may be wrong.

The only thing I can think of is if they somehow think it does not meet the challenge and thus give an instant 1, as many people do.

I'd just be against the having to justify your score in principle, as I think it would solve 1 problem and open the door to several 100 others.


Thanks for the clarification. I think you're right, in that my suggestion would probably open the door to more problems than it would solve.

I guess, in the end (..not meaning to be anal ;-), it all averages out. As you say, even the best of the best gets dinged...
12/03/2003 11:26:29 PM · #16
Originally posted by lenkphotos:

Hey, mk, how is this post "harrassment"??? It's quite obvious that some people place votes that are clearly out of line. Are you OK with that? I'm only suggesting that if the user's ID were attached to the vote, he/she would most likely not vote as irresponsibly as some obviously do.


This post in a forum isn't harassment (just oft repeated)...but when people's names are attached, I'm sure that those who chose to vote ones would get a deluge of nasty private messages and emails. I'm not saying you would necessarily do that, but it would happen. I don't think that people voting whatever they care to vote is "clearly out of line." There is no line. People vote however they desire. That is the only true responsibility.
12/03/2003 11:38:54 PM · #17
Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by lenkphotos:

Hey, mk, how is this post "harrassment"??? It's quite obvious that some people place votes that are clearly out of line. Are you OK with that? I'm only suggesting that if the user's ID were attached to the vote, he/she would most likely not vote as irresponsibly as some obviously do.


This post in a forum isn't harassment (just oft repeated)...but when people's names are attached, I'm sure that those who chose to vote ones would get a deluge of nasty private messages and emails. I'm not saying you would necessarily do that, but it would happen. I don't think that people voting whatever they care to vote is "clearly out of line." There is no line. People vote however they desire. That is the only true responsibility.


OK, so there "is no line", and there is no propriety, either... But I'm troubled by how you characterize "responsibility". We'll have to live with votes that are frivolous, I'll grant that. But I'd never call it "responsible".
12/03/2003 11:47:12 PM · #18
How would you define "responsible" voting? Voting the same way everyone else does? Following some sort of norm? On a scale that goes from "bad" to "good," how do you determine what is and isn't frivolous voting? It's kind of hard to say, isn't it? Is the line at 2, rather than 1?
12/03/2003 11:56:27 PM · #19
Originally posted by mk:

How would you define "responsible" voting? Voting the same way everyone else does? Following some sort of norm? On a scale that goes from "bad" to "good," how do you determine what is and isn't frivolous voting? It's kind of hard to say, isn't it? Is the line at 2, rather than 1?


Responsible voting has nothing to do with a scale. It implies a reasoned judgement as to the worthiness of the photo - taking into consideration the technical merits and compliance with challenge requirements. And, of course, it's all relative. But if you'll look at those entries that score high on average, and those that score low, you'll see that the bulk of votes for each is towards the high or low end, respectively. That implies that there IS a standard, nebulous though it may be... I think a "reasonable" person can discern frivolity when he sees it.

You don't mean to say that ANY vote is a responsible vote, ...just because someone freely placed it, do you?

Message edited by author 2003-12-03 23:58:38.
12/04/2003 12:27:24 AM · #20
What I mean to say is that I don't really believe that simply because someone gave a vote that doesn't seem to fit in with the rest means that it is an irresponsible or frivolous vote. It is often the case that I find a technically imperfect photo to be quite moving and vote it highly...and likewise find those that are technically near perfection to be trite and boring. (Oddly enough, no one with the technically imperfect photos has been demanding that I claim responsibility for voting them too high.)

It is quite often the assumption of photographers that they are being sabotaged or that people are trying to sway the votes or that they simply couldn't possibly deserve a one or any number of other complaints. My question is this: what exactly does making the voter "claim responsibility" achieve? Let's say I voted a one on your photo in this challenge (which I did not, because I haven't voted), which you feel it did not deserve. Now what? Will you email me to convince me that your photo deserves otherwise or chastize me for voting improperly? Will you point me out in a public forum so that everyone else knows, too? Or is the idea that once my name is attached to my votes, I will no longer dare to give out ones? I just don't see what it will achieve other than to make it easier for photographers to inform voters of how they should vote.

Anyway, blah blah blah. I doubt that you'll find very many people who think their photo deserves a one, yet there it is on the scale.
12/04/2003 12:31:39 AM · #21
Originally posted by lenkphotos:

It's just very irksome when a photo (not necessarily mine!) is quite clearly well done technically and meets the challenge to a tee, yet is given the lowest score on a scale of 1 to 10, just because a viewer "hates your photo", as you say. There are photos I may "hate", for personal reasons, but could if viewed objectively be scored high.


Sorry you find it irksome but no matter how technically well done you think a photo is, nor how well you think it meets the challenge, I still have the right to vote it a 1 if it does not meet my standards or taste. I resent your implications that some voters are "buttheads", or any other words you care to use, just because they don't think as you do. I do feel that your posts would be harassment if you identified your targets; and I think as they are, they could be looked at as an attempt to discourage 1 votes.

I also resent the inclusion of "If you feel a photograph deserves a vote of 1, 2 or 3, it is suggested that you include a comment with your vote explaining why you felt it deserved a "below average" score." in the new TRIAL rules. People should be encouraged to vote however they want to vote without having to surrender their anonymity, or justify their vote to anyone. I think this sentence was put in by those who have pushed for the relaxation of the rules with the intent of discouraging low votes so that they could claim afterward that the new rules had resulted in better photos.
12/04/2003 12:47:21 AM · #22
Originally posted by coolhar:

I also resent the inclusion of "If you feel a photograph deserves a vote of 1, 2 or 3, it is suggested that you include a comment with your vote explaining why you felt it deserved a "below average" score." in the new TRIAL rules. People should be encouraged to vote however they want to vote without having to surrender their anonymity, or justify their vote to anyone. I think this sentence was put in by those who have pushed for the relaxation of the rules with the intent of discouraging low votes so that they could claim afterward that the new rules had resulted in better photos.

This insinuation has zero basis in fact.

That line was put in because people have been asking for it for a long time, and this is the first chance we've had to operate with revised rules. We have never heard anyone suggest evaluating the results of the trial based on anything to do with scores at all.

We also want people to comment because there is such a concern about "digital art" vs. "photographic integrity." It might help for people to know specifically if you were marking them down for subject/interpretation, overall quality, or "over-processing" the image.

There are NO RULES about how you are to vote; there is No requirement to evaluate a photo with any form of objectivity. People are free to use any vote from 1 to 10 on any photo, based solely on their own, personal, subjective likes or dislikes. A pattern of voting which indicates vote manipulation rather than likes/dislikes will result in the votes being discarded.
12/04/2003 01:18:12 AM · #23
The idea that the trial rules will result in higher scores, and equating those with better photos, has been advanced in the forums previously. I didn't originate that.

I agree with you 100% when you say "there is No requirement to evaluate a photo with any form of objectivity. People are free to use any vote from 1 to 10 on any photo, based solely on their own, personal, subjective likes or dislikes". I don't remember that ever being stated so clearly before. Thank you.
12/04/2003 01:32:37 AM · #24
But those people were saying that they thought the scores would be higher because the photos were actually better, not that we were going to scare people out of voting 1-2-3 by "making" them post a comment ... it sounded likeyou were accusing US of trying to manipulate the vote, and I just want to reassure you there was no thought or discussion of that of which I'm aware.
12/04/2003 01:40:12 AM · #25
Originally posted by lenkphotos:

Originally posted by jaimeegrl:

How do you know the specific score given before the challenge is over? IE " I got a 1, I got a couple 2's"??

You watch the votes as they're counted. Multiply the score by the number of votes. When the next vote comes in, do the same. Subtract the former from the latter, and you have the most recent vote's score.


You must have a lot of time on your hands is all I can say.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:07:11 AM

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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:07:11 AM EDT.