How to rate photos that are better than yours

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/29/2008 09:54:32 PM · #201

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So now either you continue to speak in generalities and understand damage has been done or you name names and clear those who are innocent. Neither seems that great an option...

Or maybe the few people doing it will read this thread and knock it off.

The problem is something called "collateral damage".

neophyte

Nikon D810

03/29/2008 10:35:35 PM · #202

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hey wait! YOU'VE won two ribbons. Maybe Shannon was talking about you! (eyes undieyatch suspiciously)...

And you dr. achoo???? I ran out of fingers and toes counting yours... (everyone starts looking at Dr Achoo again)....

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/29/2008 10:37:32 PM · #203

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hey wait! YOU'VE won two ribbons. Maybe Shannon was talking about you! (eyes undieyatch suspiciously)...

And you dr. achoo???? I ran out of fingers and toes counting yours... (everyone starts looking at Dr Achoo again)....

LOL, the suspicion over my voting habits has been going on since Rikki was around. So far I haven't been banned or suspended...

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/29/2008 10:46:33 PM · #204

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So far I haven't been banned or suspended...

To the dismay of ladybugs and formerly working camera equipment...

Ivo

03/29/2008 11:20:13 PM · #205

This is quite an interesting thread and smells like an admission that "trolls" and/or "trolling" exists. At least we've had an opportunity to determine the trolls (or entities portraying troll-like voting patterns) may be from the "Ribbon Winner" enclave here at DPC.

I am guilty of doling a lower than average voting pattern though infrequently will I dish out a 1 or 2 vote. When I do, I generally do so with conviction as those images are usually technically inept and likely placed into the challenge to get the coveted under achiever status of the brown ribbon.

I am stupefied at the sensibilities behind the statement, "If you want better, be better and expect better". It has helped me become somewhat more competent in the technical aspects of my submissions and certainly more judgmental when evaluating the images of others. I try to identify sincerity in an image and challenge myself to enjoy varied interpretations of the themes set out before us. I've also realized there are many contributors to this site who push themselves to excel in photography whether it is technical or creative. There are also those who are content with the status quo and maintain a position in this online community for the social aspect leaving little to look up to when viewing their photos.

It is the intermingling of these two very different agendas that creates much of the conflict in voting. They do not belong together as they have two very different and conflicting perspectives as to the purpose of this site.

As it stands, this voting anomaly has been repeatedly brought up as a concern and has been repeatedly quashed as nothing more than a figment of our "anal" imaginations. On the contrary, it is real and manifests itself through ribbon winners, forum addicts, random multiple registrants, league, divorcees and the occasional duck.

It is human nature and that is that.

The way to get around it on this site is to realize who may be voting on your image may not use the same scale of integrity as you do. Also realize that the need to be accepted by an online community as fair is no excuse to reward mediocrity.

Message edited by author 2008-03-29 23:22:08.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/29/2008 11:41:38 PM · #206

Originally posted by dsterner:

...Would you describe the rainbow you saw as the refraction of light?

God forbid. Going from the specific to the general is hardly an approach.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/30/2008 08:21:34 AM · #207

Originally posted by Ivo:

Maybe there's a tendency amongst those who produce images to a higher standard to have higher standards ?

Trolls do exist. They live under bridges and in the rant forums.

FireBird

03/30/2008 08:58:36 AM · #208

Originally posted by Gordon:

Trolls do exist. They live under bridges and in the rant forums.

They certainly do. One started this thread.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/30/2008 08:59:34 AM · #209

So Shannon, having verified that disingenuous voting habits exist AND stating that you aren't calling for refinements in the current system ... where does that leave us?

Suggestions such as concealing our own score until after the challenge and similar variations have been brought up from time to time. Does the SC discuss these options?

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

03/30/2008 09:03:44 AM · #210

It's pretty neat, and scary, how you folks can take something like this so seriously. But mostly scary. I hope none of you start wearing diapers so you can drive without pit stops to one another's houses with trunkloads of duct tape and other voting-enforcement equipment.

JawnyRico

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/30/2008 09:05:19 AM · #211

Lol... now thats a sight and a half....

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/30/2008 09:05:52 AM · #212

what fun is playing a game if no one enforces the rules?

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

03/30/2008 09:17:24 AM · #213

It's fun to hit the puck, stay fit, and go out for a few beers afterwards. No refs or score-keeper. :-)

Originally posted by hopper:

what fun is playing a game if no one enforces the rules?

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
It's pretty neat, and scary, how you folks can take something like this so seriously. But mostly scary. I hope none of you start wearing diapers so you can drive without pit stops to one another's houses with trunkloads of duct tape and other voting-enforcement equipment.

Message edited by author 2008-03-30 09:23:49.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

03/30/2008 09:54:34 AM · #214

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

It's fun to hit the puck, stay fit, and go out for a few beers afterwards. No refs or score-keeper. :-)

Originally posted by hopper:
what fun is playing a game if no one enforces the rules?

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
It's pretty neat, and scary, how you folks can take something like this so seriously. But mostly scary. I hope none of you start wearing diapers so you can drive without pit stops to one another's houses with trunkloads of duct tape and other voting-enforcement equipment.

Isn't more fun to blame the refs and score keepers though?

FireBird

03/30/2008 09:56:37 AM · #215

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Don't worry Slippy. None of us are that jealous. Well.... except maybe jealous of you..... Where do you live in Canada? I don't have any red ribbons.....

LOL!

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

03/30/2008 09:58:21 AM · #216

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Isn't more fun to blame the refs and score keepers though?

No need the ref has already admitted to his bias.

Message edited by author 2008-03-30 09:58:46.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/30/2008 10:47:22 AM · #217

Originally posted by hopper:

what fun is playing a game if no one enforces the rules?

What rule do you think is being broken ?

A couple of thoughts on this came to me while swimming mindless laps this morning.

There's a certain view that would say to become really successful, you really have to believe in what you are selling. Believe that it is better than the competition, and sell people on that. I think that's probably true in photography for some people too - to get better, to get ahead, to improve, to sell their images to clients, they really have to believe that they are doing good work. Maybe believe that their work is better than everyone elses. If that's true, then voting everyone else lower is just a natural consequence of belief in the quality of your own images.

A second scenario. I think to improve artistically, you have to decide what you actually like or don't like. You have to become discriminating. Hold strong beliefs about what you personally think is good. Mostly that's defined by what you personally think is bad - really bad. I think if you just feel everything is potentially good and bad then you might just bumble along producing mediocre work across a wide variety of genres. So maybe you embrace and enforce your prejudices about certain types of images, to magnify the stuff you do like. To encourage you to make more of what you like and less of what you don't like. I'm not alone in thinking this. A consequence of that is that there are plenty of things that an average critic might think are good or okay, that the prejudiced, opinionated artist might consider equally validly as bad.

If either of these scenarios are possible, then they are likely, somewhere in the voting group. Probably even more likely in the group of those who've won ribbons. As a result, a higher number of 1's seems like a natural consequence and a generally lower than average view of the entries. This isn't a rule violation, its just an expression of personal opinion and biases, some more biased than others.

There probably are quite a few that takes Shannon's wife's position of voting down anything that isn't scoring as well as they think their entry should, too. I don't know that anything in the rules said anything about being impartial or voting according to the way Shannon thinks we should apply 1-bad 10-good. Maybe that'll change.

Rule 1 - Thou must score an image within 2 points of what the average final popularity metric was for that image ?
Rule 2 - If your scores deviate from the common average view by more than 2 points for 10 pictures, you are obviously a cheat and your scores will be thrown out and you'll be publically named and shamed ?
Rule 3 - expressions of personal opinion that is different to the norm is unwelcome ?

03/30/2008 11:55:07 AM · #218

You may not: vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system

The flaw I see in your scenario, Gordon is that even if a person uses their own image as the bar, they should be using an imaginary score that they believe their shot should get, not the actual score at some random point in the middle of the voting period.

A person should be allowed to use any scale they want as long as they vote consistently. The system in the example you use would only be "ok" if he never gave a vote of 7 even in challenges he isn't in. If that's the case, then I have no problem with his method ... his "7" means best in challenge and the entries will line up the same whether he votes or not (more or less). But handing out low votes ONLY because you're getting low votes shows an intent to disrupt the voting system.

Originally posted by Gordon:

What rule do you think is being broken ?

...

Maybe believe that their work is better than everyone elses. If that's true, then voting everyone else lower is just a natural consequence of belief in the quality of your own images.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/30/2008 12:29:50 PM · #219

Aren't there enough bookkeepers already measuring the size of Mona Lisa's breasts? Do we really need more plastic surgeons to repair the wheel, when the hub is void anyhow? Do we need more rules to regulate the free-for-all?

I don't know how many of you feel this way, but, speaking for myself, I don't really care, if an entry I submit fetches a 3 or a 10. If it draws 1s and 2s, at least, something works. If it draws 4s or 5s, hell, it might just tick me enough to come up with something new by the time it rubs me enough.

So, there are trolls. There are a few benevolent spirits too. The thrill, for me, is to rummage through the pitchers and look for the occasional lily among the acorns.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

03/30/2008 12:42:10 PM · #220

can't say i disagree ... but apparent injustices kinda suck as well

if what Shannon's pointing out is accurate, I don't think any "new rule" is needed. The current rules are being violated (I'll concede that this may be an opinion rather than absolute fact)

Originally posted by zeuszen:

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

03/30/2008 12:52:52 PM · #221

I'll restate Gordon's question: What rule(s) do you feel are being broken?

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

03/30/2008 12:55:52 PM · #222

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I'll restate Gordon's question: What rule(s) do you feel are being broken?

Originally posted by hopper:

You may not: vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

03/30/2008 12:56:52 PM · #223

Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I'll restate Gordon's question: What rule(s) do you feel are being broken?

Originally posted by hopper:
You may not: vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system

So if everyone does not comply to what you think is valid voting then they are disruptive?