| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2005 01:45:25 PM · #26 |
The only thing I disagree with is thumbpicking image when voting....I think that should be taken away. Is SC discussing this as a solution or not? I personally don't care if someone only votes on 20% everytime. As long as that is all that is required I have no problem with people only doing 20%...heck for that matter I have no problem with people not even voting. I say vote on however many you want as long as you don't thumbpick then everything stays fair.......
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 13:46:03. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 01:49:10 PM · #27 |
I agree with GeneralE. I'd rather have 5 people vote 20% randomly than 5 people not vote at all. I don't always vote 100% and I don't think that makes me bad. (Other things might, but not that:)
We recently had a thread about voting from thumbnails and it seems to keep coming up. Should we start a petition or something to persuade them to abolish thumb-picking? Before I understood how important this is to so many people, I picked images to vote on. Now that I realize how unfair it is, I make a conscious effort to vote randomly.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 01:49:35 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by rex:
The only thing I disagree with is thumbpicking image when voting....I think that should be taken away. Is SC discussing this as a solution or not? |
I'm trying to discuss it. Realize that our "discussions" occur in a forum thread, across 18 time zones and almost as many people's work schedules. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 01:50:57 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by rex:
The only thing I disagree with is thumbpicking image when voting....I think that should be taken away. Is SC discussing this as a solution or not? I personally don't care if someone only votes on 20% everytime. As long as that is all that is required I have no problem with people only doing 20%...heck for that matter I have no problem with people not even voting. I say vote on however many you want as long as you don't thumbpick then everything stays fair....... |
I second that rex. Do away with thumbnail "cherry-picking" and the >> button on the main voting page. That way if you vote 20%, 40% or 100% it was truly random. I think this is the best solution.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 01:51:03 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by rex:
The only thing I disagree with is thumbpicking image when voting....I think that should be taken away. Is SC discussing this as a solution or not? |
I'm trying to discuss it. Realize that our "discussions" occur in a forum thread, across 18 time zones and almost as many people's work schedules. |
Understand the time zones and work thing I was just wondering.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 13:59:51. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 01:56:23 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by rex:
The only thing I disagree with is thumbpicking image when voting....I think that should be taken away. Is SC discussing this as a solution or not? I personally don't care if someone only votes on 20% everytime. As long as that is all that is required I have no problem with people only doing 20%...heck for that matter I have no problem with people not even voting. I say vote on however many you want as long as you don't thumbpick then everything stays fair....... |
I second that rex. Do away with thumbnail "cherry-picking" and the >> button on the main voting page. That way if you vote 20%, 40% or 100% it was truly random. I think this is the best solution. |
Assuming the presentation random algorithm is truly random. That's one of my questions. We can't (easily) see the number of votes per image in the final list (without adding up the histograms). It would be interesting to see this distribution, min, max, avg, sd.
One thing that always makes me wonder about it's randomness. Try skipping an image during the voting. It will keep coming back every few shots. It's clearly not being treated "randomly" in the pool with the rest of the shots. Perhaps that's an intentional exception? |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:01:28 PM · #32 |
| Randomness is never really truly random anyway, unless they got some array of lava lamps feeding their servers the numbers. And even that could be considered non random depending on the person you ask (whether they believe the universe is just a giant determined machine or not). |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:01:31 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by rex:
The only thing I disagree with is thumbpicking image when voting....I think that should be taken away. Is SC discussing this as a solution or not? I personally don't care if someone only votes on 20% everytime. As long as that is all that is required I have no problem with people only doing 20%...heck for that matter I have no problem with people not even voting. I say vote on however many you want as long as you don't thumbpick then everything stays fair....... |
I second that rex. Do away with thumbnail "cherry-picking" and the >> button on the main voting page. That way if you vote 20%, 40% or 100% it was truly random. I think this is the best solution. |
Assuming the presentation random algorithm is truly random. That's one of my questions. We can't (easily) see the number of votes per image in the final list (without adding up the histograms). It would be interesting to see this distribution, min, max, avg, sd.
One thing that always makes me wonder about it's randomness. Try skipping an image during the voting. It will keep coming back every few shots. It's clearly not being treated "randomly" in the pool with the rest of the shots. Perhaps that's an intentional exception? |
That's probably intentional so you have to actively ignore an image continually. Without this I think images could possibly get no votes at all since they've been skipped never to be seen again. I'm sure there are other ways to ensure images don't get ignored but this is probably the most effective without a whole lot of extra coding.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:01:52 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
It is found under Challenges > Challenge History.
Copy and paste into Excel and you can sort all kind of ways by entries, votes, comments, date, scores, etc. |
Thanks, but that is only a summary - I thought you were talking about the actual database. Although there is a lot of good info on that page, some of it isn't really useful since it has already been manipulated. Anything done to it now isn't really valid.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 14:05:42. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:16:13 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by SDW65:
It is found under Challenges > Challenge History.
Copy and paste into Excel and you can sort all kind of ways by entries, votes, comments, date, scores, etc. |
Thanks, but that is only a summary - I thought you were talking about the actual database. Although there is a lot of good info on that page, some of it isn't really useful since it has already been manipulated. Anything done to it now isn't really valid. |
It still gives you the total votes, entries, etc. and how many challenges fall in each category. I know it's not perfect but the best we as members have access to.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:57:05 PM · #36 |
Ok, using the data found on the history page and only total number of entries and total votes cast I used the same statistical formulas I would use at work to calculate what would be called "The Voting Ratio" if I was at work.
Detail: I sorted the info descending by total entries. This produces a list that has 36 challenges with 300 or more entries at the top. From that point I used 36 (25 would be minimum size if you want accurate numbers) as the sample group and progressed down the list. The last group has only 27 entries.
Range of total # of entries, ratio
302-636, 0.003296
253-299, 0.003616
225-252, 0.003876
188-225, 0.003905
-------------------
168-188, 0.004289
140-167, 0.004481
-------------------
121-140, 0.005033
96-120, 0.005246
67-96, 0.006509
6-67, .007264 (only 27 in sample group)
Of the last 36 challenges there have only been 9 (25%) with less than 200 entries. I don't see the problem with the number of entries. All the higher entered challenges have pretty much the same voting ratio and it is not that different from the next two lowest categories either. The biggest difference is in challenges that have less than 140 entries. And you have to go way back into early 2004/late 2003 when those were more prevalent/consistent.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:39:58 PM · #37 |
Here is a plot of the average number of votes per image over the history of the site. Note how the number rose very quickly, then split roughy 2/3 to open and 1/3 to member when paid membership was instituted at the end of 2002.
Average votes per image has been rising steadily ever since, at about the same rate for open and member challenges, which suggests a continually growing voting population. I'll be back later with another graph or two...
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 04:12:47 PM · #38 |
I couldn't help myself, I left comments all over this thread...hope they were helpful
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 16:13:06. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:44:24 PM · #39 |
I am clearly tooooo generous!
Challenges Entered: 23
Votes Cast: 17271
Avg Vote Cast: 5.5326
Votes Received: 5825
Avg Vote Received: 5.5277
Comments:
Made: 1459
Helpful: 1141
Received: 422
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:57:22 PM · #40 |
Just remember; there are lies, damn lies and statistics. The first thing they tought my wife in her stats class was that you CAN NOT prove ANYTHING with statistics. Ever.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 06:07:58 PM · #41 |
Someone write a summary on this, and I'll check back later.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 06:12:14 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
I am clearly tooooo generous! |
Or, leading by example ... clearly the present system hasn't done you any ha ... wait a second--I've seen the Enquirer. Nevermind. : ) |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 06:12:15 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by yeoua:
Randomness is never really truly random anyway, unless they got some array of lava lamps feeding their servers the numbers. And even that could be considered non random depending on the person you ask (whether they believe the universe is just a giant determined machine or not). |
We actually have three-dozen monkeys madly attempting to type Shakespeare at all times (they work in shifts... or rather, they're shifty workers). We use their keystroke timiing to generate seed numbers for the randomizer ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 06:20:45 PM · #44 |
I thought we used every third number in the middle column of the left-hand pages of the Virginia Beach phone book.
I am never forget the day my first book is published.
Every chapter I stole from somewhere else.
Index I copy from old Vladivostok telephone directory.
This book was sensational!
--Tom Lehrer, Lobachevsky, (1952) |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 06:24:20 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought we used every third number in the middle column of the left-hand pages of the Virginia Beach phone book.
I am never forget the day my first book is published.
Every chapter I stole from somewhere else.
Index I copy from old Vladivostok telephone directory.
This book was sensational!
--Tom Lehrer, Lobachevsky, (1952) |
That was the first strategy. The monkeys were found to be necessary because we ran through the entire directory too often.
Update, D&L just fired half the monkeys, 'cause they discovered that they have 19 SC members typing madly 24-7 for free, LOL.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:30:52 PM EDT.
