| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/25/2015 11:50:16 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
We can have a scores GIVEN thread.... :-) |
That's a good idea :-) Why don't YOU start it, after rollover? |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 12:08:29 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by posthumous:
the DNMC vote will be minimal, if you just think of it mathematically.
The percentage of voters who know who you are and are familiar with your work. let's say 10%.
Of those, the percentage who would dare to think they know your style better than you do. let's say 20%.
We are now down to 2%. And some of those will only dock 1 or 2 points. Maybe slightly higher for the ribbon hogs, but the reason they are ribbon hogs is because they never veer from their style, so don't lose sleep over them.
The challenge is only going to help scores, not hurt them. Voters will be more forgiving of a blurry mess because it happens to be that photographer's style (and they'll probably give the benefit of the doubt if they don't know the photographer). |
So you are predicting a higher challenge average than say the May FS? |
I'm notoriously bad at predicting what voters would do, but yes. |
I nailed it |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 12:15:55 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
. . .
So you are predicting a higher challenge average than say the May FS? |
I'm notoriously bad at predicting what voters would do, but yes. [/quote]I nailed it [/quote]
Yes, you did. I finished at 6.04 and was below average. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 02:54:29 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by Neat:
possibly the stupidest challenge ever, sorry to whoever suggested it, but this will prove to be a disaster! What will this prove, I'm not sure. |
Still think the same? |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 03:10:40 AM · #155 |
I got to be in my last spot again! LOLOL
I had no clue what was expected or what style I am.. I think I will always love all kinds of styles and its fun to play and experiment to get out of the comfort zone here and there, and to narrow a style down or what seems to scream me I will never know; If someone else figures it out, let me know :-))
this challenge was fun though nevertheless
I didn't think my image was that awful, I just think it just didn't fit what others liked that is ok :-))
Message edited by author 2015-07-03 03:13:32. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 03:11:59 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by Giles:
Originally posted by Neat:
possibly the stupidest challenge ever, sorry to whoever suggested it, but this will prove to be a disaster! What will this prove, I'm not sure. |
Still think the same? |
No Giles, I already changed my mind about this one, one is allowed to do that, after all it's a womans perogative ;-) |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 04:07:49 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by Neat:
possibly the stupidest challenge ever, sorry to whoever suggested it, but this will prove to be a disaster! What will this prove, I'm not sure. |
You were right. Nothing |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 08:35:40 AM · #158 |
Just want to say, not in a moping, "oh poor me" way, but in a matter of fact statement, that I'm disappointed in my score post rollover.
All week I've had a score that is in my top 5 scores here, I felt good about this challenge and my place in it, because at DPC you always score low unless you're in the top few % who get over a 7, and even then, some challenges give blue ribbons to 6.x scores.
I know many of the "ribbon hogs" would look at the score that I received and be dismissive should they be getting that score ever, because they're used to seeing high 6's, 7's and even sometimes 8's, but when you're used to seeing in the 4's, to have something that hovered in the 5.75-5.85 range all week alongside 2 images in DPL challenges that have very similar scores, and still end up scoring almost a full point over your average score, only to see yourself in the bottom 1/3 of the pack - it sucks; I'm still almost a full "half of a point" under the average score given, and that's saying something very definite about the scoring that takes place on this site.
To those who were naysayers about anonymity of a photog not mattering in a challenge, it does - it proves that people feel they can get away with lowballing when they don't know who it is, and giving more true-to-form scores when the name is attached. The placement may not change much, but the actual values certainly do, and with the "declining scores" that everybody has been bemoaning, maybe it's not such a bad thing to have our names attached during voting.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2015 09:33:23 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
it proves that people feel they can get away with lowballing when they don't know who it is, and giving more true-to-form scores when the name is attached.
|
"Proves"? You'll have to explain how the facts prove your theory and not the opposite of your theory. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 09:53:13 AM · #160 |
well, this thread, of people who quoted their scores given is one indicator, the avg vote received across the challenge (breakdown of scores by participants and non participants) is another; and if you compare that to other challenges, you'll notice that there may not be a *Drastic* rise of scores, but a rise nonetheless.
Not to be insensitive, but yourself, GeneralE, Jmritz and others routinely score in the mid 4's to mid 5's with images relative to what was entered into this, and look at the scores received on those. Are they good images? That's up to the voter, but in a challenge where we are submitting basically a "sample style" with our name attached, those images scored higher because voters know "this is Don, and this is his style, there's no baseline subject to deviate from, so i'm scoring him against himself". Some voters don't know everybody (I didn't know some of the entrants), and some do.
As I said, I was happy with my score all week, and i'll be happy looking back to see that in my top 5 of my profile for a little bit; but I didn't place very differently %-wise compared to the usual, so while the number attached to the score rose, the "value" of that number didn't; giving support to my statement of "true-to-form scores when the name is attached".
The only way to prove this beyond all shadow of a doubt would be to have everybody in the same room explaining their reasoning for voting, it will never happen, but there is enough documented evidence to support the theory beyond a "reasonable" doubt.
If this was done periodically, with free-study style AND with subject defined styles, it would be more data to support or disprove the theory, and after a while it may end up that people don't care and they go back to scoring the way they currently do, but those are hypotheticals. What is known is that in controlled test groups, people who have anonymity and no idea who is on the receiving end are more likely to be harsh, but once you know something, that starts to effect a change in a majority of cases, either positive or negative. People think of someone as a nag, or as a good guy, or as someone who is trying to learn, they change their opinion of what is presented to some degree with that knowledge. it's not good or bad, it just *IS*. :) |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 10:36:11 AM · #161 |
It's hard to really prove anything. Looking over the results, I felt that the results more or less lined up with how they would in most other challenges, with the wow-factor shots at the top, and the more artsy, edgy, and out of the box entries closer to the bottom. There were some that I thought performed a little better than they would have if anonymous, but again, that is my biased observation, influenced by what I personally thought the images were worth.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2015 10:47:11 AM · #162 |
I kind of enjoyed knowing who the photographer was, but I did miss the titles. I like a whole story.. even in a museum I always read the titles.
So far as voting is concerned, I can't say for sure that the added information changed my vote. My average given was higher than usual but I have noticed that I tend to vote higher when I comment and I did quite a bit of that. Maybe that was the reason or maybe the entries were just better, but I doubt it was because I could identify the photographer - at least not consciously. My faves go to Photos, not Photographers (even though I may have some listed on my profile). |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 10:56:26 AM · #163 |
I suck when you don't know who I am, and I suck when you do. Very consistent, thanks! (Didn't even get a higher than average score, either. So I'm a data outlier to Ryan's theory, apparently. OK - a 5.6 is a bit higher than a 5.3, so I guess there was a slight increase in the score, but not the percentile finish.)
I really did enjoy voting the challenge, though! I think I'd enjoy DPC a whole lot more if I'd quit ENTERING the damn challenges and just vote them.
Message edited by author 2015-07-03 11:00:57. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 11:04:46 AM · #164 |
I did not have time to comment (i am traveling) but I did vote and as a personal exercise, and also having only the ipad with me, I did not look at the name of the photographer before giving my mark - the title/names did not appear on the screen unless moving the image. Of course that I recognized some photographers but I had numerous surprises. I marked the usual way; I seldom give a 4.
I will comment on some pics once I get back home and indicate my mark, again, as I sometimes do.
I think that the votes might have been a touch higher but the winners were in the same vein as ususal.
I would like this exercise again but, as Lynn mentioned, I'd like to see a title also. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 11:15:44 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I suck when you don't know who I am, and I suck when you do. Very consistent, thanks! (Didn't even get a higher than average score, either. So I'm a data outlier to Ryan's theory, apparently. OK - a 5.6 is a bit higher than a 5.3, so I guess there was a slight increase in the score, but not the percentile finish.)
I really did enjoy voting the challenge, though! I think I'd enjoy DPC a whole lot more if I'd quit ENTERING the damn challenges and just vote them. |
Please don't stop entering but, I implore you... NEVER stop commenting!! |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 11:24:41 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
... What is known is that in controlled test groups, people who have anonymity and no idea who is on the receiving end are more likely to be harsh, but once you know something, that starts to effect a change in a majority of cases, either positive or negative. People think of someone as a nag, or as a good guy, or as someone who is trying to learn, they change their opinion of what is presented to some degree with that knowledge. it's not good or bad, it just *IS*. :) |
This sounds about right to me. It's also one of the reasons I stayed away from the Walrus challenge ... I'm too prickly in the forums. :-) |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 11:27:26 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
... OK - a 5.6 is a bit higher than a 5.3, so I guess there was a slight increase in the score, but not the percentile finish.) ... |
This seems to support what Ryan was mentioning.
Side note - I agree with the others Melethia; I'd be sorry to see you being less active here. You are a positive contributor. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 11:31:30 AM · #168 |
| I didn't get around to voting in this one as I only had phone access this week. I was prepared not to vote on images that included more than the photographer's user name. Personally I'm not sure why these entries weren't disqualified. I liked the concept of the challenge and "byline only" didn't bias the viewer or distract from the statement of the photo. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 11:57:37 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by bvy:
... "byline only" didn't bias the viewer or distract from the statement of the photo. |
How can you say that? I understand that's your opinion, but a blanket statement cannot be applied to all - perhaps for you that may hold true.
For me, it did influence some of my votes. I tried to vote the image first and not look at the title, however, when I was waffling between a 5 vs 6, or 6 vs 7, etc... the way I swayed was influenced whether I "liked" that person or not. Right or wrong ... just being honest.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2015 12:49:45 PM · #170 |
I really, really enjoyed going through this challenge, and I hope they do it again in the future.
When I come across photos that aren't my particular field of interest, ones that I don't understand, ones that I don't want to understand sometimes :), and ones that really excite me, I still try to figure out why a person would want to photograph that particular thing. And many times it really eludes me. However, having the name of the photographer helped put a lot of photographs into a little more perspective. Made me look a bit deeper because of having "met" the people before.
It's like going to a museum and seeing a particular artist's work. Not everything is the same, and it's fun to discover what all is there. It was fun to really look through this challenge -- hoping that people took the challenge seriously and did try to at least shoot their favorite subject and perhaps manage to define themselves. That's why I took the photographer into account when voting. It was truly a part of the challenge. Not that I could determine if it's their favorite subject, or if it defined them. But it added to my enjoyment immensely, which is important, imo.
My feelings towards the photographer only made me feel bad when I didn't like the photo, or made me look harder at the photograph itself to try to appreciate it with that background. I really enjoyed voting and wish I would have been able to comment on all. I started too late, but commented more than I have in a long time.
Wonderful idea. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 02:10:17 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bvy:
... "byline only" didn't bias the viewer or distract from the statement of the photo. |
How can you say that? I understand that's your opinion, but a blanket statement cannot be applied to all - perhaps for you that may hold true.
For me, it did influence some of my votes. I tried to vote the image first and not look at the title, however, when I was waffling between a 5 vs 6, or 6 vs 7, etc... the way I swayed was influenced whether I "liked" that person or not. Right or wrong ... just being honest. |
Most people (I anyway) seemed to understand that the title was supposed to be your username and nothing more. Anything more I found to be a distraction and not in the spirit of the challenge. I wouldn't have low voted these; like I said, at worst I would have passed then up. But since I couldn't vote anyway, it's a moot point. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 02:21:38 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bvy:
... "byline only" didn't bias the viewer or distract from the statement of the photo. |
How can you say that? I understand that's your opinion, but a blanket statement cannot be applied to all - perhaps for you that may hold true.
For me, it did influence some of my votes. I tried to vote the image first and not look at the title, however, when I was waffling between a 5 vs 6, or 6 vs 7, etc... the way I swayed was influenced whether I "liked" that person or not. Right or wrong ... just being honest. |
Most people (I anyway) seemed to understand that the title was supposed to be your username and nothing more. Anything more I found to be a distraction and not in the spirit of the challenge. I wouldn't have low voted these; like I said, at worst I would have passed then up. But since I couldn't vote anyway, it's a moot point. |
I wasn't thrilled with those who chose to add comments to their title.
I got DQd once for having two ducks when there was only supposed to be one:) |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 02:29:45 PM · #173 |
There seems to be confusion about what is fact and what is theory.
People voted higher in the Walrus challenge. That is not Ryan's theory, that is a fact.
Ryan's theory is that the higher vote is fair and the lower vote is harsh.
The opposite theory is that the lower vote is fair and the higher vote is biased.
The fact supports both theories equally. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 02:39:52 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
There seems to be confusion about what is fact and what is theory.
People voted higher in the Walrus challenge. That is not Ryan's theory, that is a fact.
Ryan's theory is that the higher vote is fair and the lower vote is harsh.
The opposite theory is that the lower vote is fair and the higher vote is biased.
The fact supports both theories equally. |
I don't know if Fair is the term I'd pick, but it works well enough.
If we are really being unbiased, the scores would show no deviation. By introducing the bias, you look at the image in relation of the the pack and to the person. You gain insight to the mindset that created this and that matters in cases. |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 04:05:47 PM · #175 |
I think there's actually a valid reason (theory at this point) that scores are higher:
This challenge asked for participants not only to identify themselves, but to photograph something that "captures your favorite subject and defines you as a photographer." Many (for me, most) of the regular challenges at DPC force the photographer to work with a theme that may not resonate for them.
In this case everyone who participated got to shoot something, or in some style, that "defines" them. I'd expect better work overall when the challenge represents the heart of the artist. As a voter, my scores for this one were higher than my average, but not higher than I've ever given. I ascribe that to looking at work the artist got to choose. It's also true that my highest given scores occur in challenges when the theme is something I like to look at.
I also think this is relevant to scoring differentials between challenges and free studies. No data on hand to prove it, but I'm pretty sure I score FS's on the higher end of my average, too.
|
|
