*** A New Voting Scheme *** - DPChallenge Forums

07/09/2004 11:36:50 PM · #26

It still believe, no, I am not stubborn, that the answer lies in removing the vested interest. If the problem is approached from this perspective a solution will be found. The current suggestions, while good in many ways, attempt a repair. I am sorry, but I think an overhaul is what is needed. Perhaps not immediately but notice how the hottest threads involve the voting scheme.

graphicfunk

07/10/2004 12:38:45 AM · #27

My final comment and I will disappear into the void. Its a another redundency, but more like old wines in new bottles.

Now, here is my suggestion on an idea. The only way the vested interest can be removed is by not being able to cast a vote in one's own challenge.
Okay, you have one challenge "Silver" and one "Iron". The silver vote only on the iron and the iron on the silver. Meanwhile, each gets a window of how their images are doing. Either party can look at all the pictures, but can not vote on their respective challenge.
You will now find that the voting takes on a new light. Voters will select an image solely on merit because the value he gives has no effect at all on his own image.
This is equivalent of receiving your score by judges, instead of participants. Do not hate me. My persistence ends here. A pleasure conversing in this forum. dan

07/10/2004 12:39:14 AM · #28

If you read the threads about voting carefully, over time you will see that much of it can be thrown out as just plain whining about the voters not scoring an entry as high as the photog expected. Is that element going to go away under any new voting system? It is just human nature for someone to think highly of their own work and for some of us to have a hard time accepting that not everyone else thinks the same way about it. Would the karma system correct this? I don't think so, but I'd like to hear more about how it might be an improvement over the present system.

Kylie

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

07/10/2004 01:01:15 AM · #29

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

There! That makes sense to me! I hope that someone is listening.

07/10/2004 01:19:22 AM · #30

Please Kylie- if it makes sense to you, maybe you could explain it to me because I don't see how it takes away the "vested interested". Even if my entry is not in the group I am allowed to vote on, somewhere, sometime, the scores of the two groups are going to be compared and/or merged. I still have a "vested interested" in my entry getting higher votes than the ones I am giving to other people's entries. The downside is that only half as many people will vote on each entry thereby increasing the influence of the undesirable voters (use your own definition).

07/10/2004 01:20:17 AM · #31

Here is my bit of food for thought. I am unsure about the karma system since one is encouraging a totally democratic system where you get rewarded for agreeing with others which is not always the case. Also we assuming that there is a a fair distribution of tastes and likes which is not the case here. Some voters might also decide to vote for only a percentage of the photos (to reach their required percentage) and if the majority opt to vote for photos that were given good ratings, one gets penalised for not liking the photo, thus giving him or her a disadvantage for being a critic!

07/10/2004 01:21:31 AM · #32

I would like to suggest a different system which I call an 'effort system'. Here the users that invest effort in the website get rewarded accordingly. Its also very simple to implement. Each user is given a weighted rating and the lower the rating, the less effect he has on the final votes. A user starts off with a low value. Now the more he votes in terms of photos and challenges, the higher his rating gets. In addition, the more he comments whereby his comment is marked as useful by a user, the higher the rating still. Also his rating becomes much larger if the user submits a photos and it gets voted in the top ten. Thus the better photographers become better voters (sort of like judge status). Also I suggest that when voting a user is presented only with a photo by photo vote request (not the thumbnail page) until he or she has reached the required percentage of voting. This would avoid users from just choosing the pictures to vote for (and thus randomising further those pictures one should vote for and creating a better statistical distribution).

In summary I think these would be adequate weights where the rating is the effect one has on the total voting
Rating = 0.1*Votes cast plus 0.3*Comments made and marked as useful
plus 0.6*Pictures in top ten

07/10/2004 01:21:47 AM · #33

I totally disagree with disregarding someone who gives low rating, take a professional photographer (not me that's for sure) who votes low, he should not get penalised for thinking most pictures are not up to scratch. Also such users will raise the level of submissions.

07/10/2004 01:38:20 AM · #34

Originally posted by jcordina:

...when voting a user is presented only with a photo by photo vote request (not the thumbnail page) until he or she has reached the required percentage of voting. This would avoid users from just choosing the pictures to vote for (and thus randomising further those pictures one should vote for and creating a better statistical distribution).

That's a great idea. And probably easily implemented, I would guess. But why not have it go all the way thru voting instead of cutting it off at a certain percentage? This would also make it more difficult (and time consuming) for the ghost account voters, or friends & family, to find the image that they want to give a 10 to while lowballing the rest.

07/10/2004 01:41:19 AM · #35

This method sounds like Brownie points to me. If I understand your proposal correctly, the good little worker drone who may not actually have the experience, asthetic, or knowledge to judge what is good or bad, but has the time to vote and comment on every entry, could be rated as a very valuable voter by your method thereby raising the ratings of whatever image he votes on even though he may have no qualifications (other than a lot of free time and hyperfocus) to make that judgement. Scary notion in any kind of forum.

Sorry, I forgot to specify I was responding to Jcordina's method. I haven't read the whole thread.

Message edited by author 2004-07-10 01:44:18.

07/10/2004 01:47:11 AM · #36

Originally posted by melismatica:

This method sounds like Brownie points to me.

A very valuable voter and good photographer should also be able to produce photos of high quality and get in the top ten of challenges, something a good little worker with no experience might never able to achieve. According to the weights, the good photographer would always get more weighting on final votes. You might say that a good judge is not necessarily a good photographer but we should not distinguish sayers from doers here. Also the comment has to be marked as helpful for it to count towards the final rating.

Message edited by author 2004-07-10 01:51:45.

gajmaj

07/10/2004 06:32:44 AM · #37

I think the Karma system is worth a look. I had not heard of it until I started reading this thread, however I think it would help everyone who is interested in learning about what to look for in an image. Voting is a simplistic form of critique, be it conscious or sub-conscious. We often vote on first impressions, subject matter or of course whether or not it meets the challenge criteria and may not take into consideration the exposure, composition, perspective etc etc. I just think that a system like this could ultimately lessen subjective votes and make us all a little more objective in our voting, not to mention gaining even more appreciation of photography.
Just my 2 cents worth :)

wwwavenger

07/10/2004 01:23:27 PM · #38

Well, judging by the comments I get, people who vote primarily by the subject are far from a minority. A karma system would not affect their votes significantly enough. Besides that fact, karma systems are adjustable. If karma is affecting good photos negatively and we see that as a community, we can change how it's affected and how it affects our votes.

P.S. If his increases the curve a bit, say the best photos in a challenge begin to get 8s, 9s instead of our average which is probably in the low 7s, I'd be happy.

Message edited by author 2004-07-10 13:29:06.

07/10/2004 01:51:20 PM · #39

Originally posted by jcordina:

Originally posted by melismatica:
This method sounds like Brownie points to me.

A very valuable voter and good photographer should also be able to produce photos of high quality and get in the top ten of challenges, something a good little worker with no experience might never able to achieve.

There are too many entries in most challenges for your system to be fair. Besides, getting into the top ten on a challenge, is not always a sign of a great photographer. No disrespect intended, but I really was not impressed with the number one photo in the choices challenge. I don't feel that person should have more 'value' as a voter because he/she won a ribbon once.

To me, this sounds like a very scary notion. In politics, should the more productive people have a more valuable vote? By your system, the more productive people would be those with success and achievement. Should the man who owns the business my husband manages have a more prominent voice in the democratic process because he has several stocks, cars, houses, i.e., more status?

wwwavenger

07/10/2004 01:58:26 PM · #40

Originally posted by melismatica:

Should the man who owns the business my husband manages have a more prominent voice in the democratic process because he has several stocks, cars, houses, i.e., more status?

This is not an absolute thing. The karma system can be based on any number of parameters and in this case we'd reward those with more experience and perhaps those who are most helpful or participated more often.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/10/2004 02:02:12 PM · #41

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by kirbic:
There already is an algorithm that looks for suspicious voting patterns. Votes can and will be thrown out if someone is troll voting.

Unfortunately this algorithm is not all that complicated. Drew posted the details of it a long time ago in this thread.

Though he did post the algorithm there, it has changed several times since then. I do not know exactly what it is now, but do know that the details in that posting are no longer accurate.

-Terry

07/10/2004 02:07:10 PM · #42

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

If this idea is too radical or cumbersome to implement I would suggest that the current software should analyse each stats on a given picture and if the the average is above say 5.2 or whatever figure to discard the ones and the 10's. Yes, voting is personal and subjective, but even a bad idea well exposed and decently composed that has received an average of 5.5 does not deserve a one nor a ten. As a note: I have submitted the wrong files to two challenges. This has cost me dearly and they deserved the low votes they received, however, this is not about me. I have not been here that long to complain, but the general disatisfaction I see in the threads is alarming. To me the problem boils down to the vested interest.

The vested interest thing has been brought up so many times (just in the three months that I have been actively participating on DPC) and it has been explained that an irregular pattern of voting (all 2's or 1's for instance) is spotted and the votes are eliminated.

The notion that a photo with an average vote of 5.5. does not deserve a one or ten is ludicrous. Says you. The majority vote on DPC is not the barometer of what is good or bad in the real world. One of my top two picks for the June Challenge placed very low but that does not mean it didn't deserve the 8 I gave it. I felt it did. By your system, you are taking away what little chance a deserving, but less popular type of photo, has of even placing in the top 50 percent. Also, you are disenfranchising the votes of people who tend to pick the less popular entries as their favorites. I am one of those voters. Who are you to say my vote doesn't count because it doesn't jive with majority opinion?

I don't understand the complaints about the voting system. It's fairly democratic. It is combined with a comment box so the a person has the opportunity to explain their vote. I thought the comments were what were important to most people? It's academic debate, at any rate, because I can't see DPC implementing a new, complicated voting systems for what is, after all, just a cyber ribbon.

07/10/2004 02:11:32 PM · #43

Originally posted by EddyG:

This idea has been discussed before (big surprise, right?)

Personally, rather than seeing the voting split into 2 groups, I'd just rather have a challenge entrant's scores/comments hidden until they have finished voting (by clicking an "I've finished voting" button, which would become active after voting on 25% of the images), so as not to be biased (even if subconsciously) by their own score when voting on other entrant's photos. Of course you would still be free to go back and comment on entries after you've "locked" your votes.

While not exactly the same as what you proposed, I like being able to see and vote on all the pictures.

This is a reasonable notion and some people already practice it in theory by not looking at their score until they are done voting. I also, like to look at and vote on all the entries.

graphicfunk

07/10/2004 02:17:27 PM · #44

Okay, so i said i would disappear. This is a copu of my earlier entry.

Now, here is my suggestion on an idea. The only way the vested interest can be removed is by not being able to cast a vote in one's own challenge.
Okay, you have one challenge "Silver" and one "Iron". The silver vote only on the iron and the iron on the silver. Meanwhile, each gets a window of how their images are doing. Either party can look at all the pictures, but can not vote on their respective challenge.
You will now find that the voting takes on a new light. Voters will select an image solely on merit because the value he gives has no effect at all on his own image.
This is equivalent of receiving your score by judges, instead of participants. Do not hate me. My persistence ends here. A pleasure conversing in this forum. dan

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/10/2004 02:22:21 PM · #45

Originally posted by kirbic:

There are really two issues here, the vested interest and "troll voting", e.g. someone voting all ones.
There already is an algorithm that looks for suspicious voting patterns. Votes can and will be thrown out if someone is troll voting. There are really very few of these votes, and this can be shown by statistical analysis of the voting patterns (I've personally done it).
It probably would not make sense to change the voting scheme just to deal with a very few outlier votes.
Regarding not voting on a challenge you've entered, that would cut down voting drastically, since many enter 50% or more of the available challenges.
While I agree that a vested interest exists, my own personal opinion is that the effect is very small.

I've voted on a quite a few challenges that I didn't enter and my voting pattern has not changed because I did not have a vested interest in the challenge. The challenges I have voted on but not entered are, Extraordinary, Newspaper, Selective Desaturation, Advertisement Revisited, and Team Sports Without Players. Five challenges. By the logic of the 'vested interest' complainers, my voting average should have gone up by now. Since I am without a camera until sometime in the middle of next week, I will be voting on next week's challenges without having a vested interest.

David.C

07/10/2004 02:23:07 PM · #46

Rather than respond to each point as I read the thread I am lumping them all together. :p

On Karma system:
1) I know it is not about rewards and punishments, but the terms are descriptive enough to work. The karma system as described is fairly lopsided as it would 'punish' those with consistent 'bad' taste and the new, but has no mechanism to balance this 'punishment' by rewarding those with 'good' taste and experience. If there is a method of reducing the effect of the votes of an individual with bad karma, there needs to be a balancing method of increasing the effect of the votes given by individuals with good karma. The scale does not (and probably should not) be linear; after all, it is much easier to fall from grace than to build the trust to begin with.

2) Again, as proposed, an individuals karma effects their voting in the next challenge, but what if they don't enter that challenge. What is to prevent an occasional challenge entry (with biased voting) countered by very 'good' voting in challenges they do not enter.

On histograms:
Two histograms could be used, one to show the vote cast and another the karma vote. Sure it does not show the exact weight of each vote, but if that is wanted, a fly-out page with a set of ten histograms (one for each of the actual votes cast) could be implemented. It can be done, but is there really that much of a value in it?

On no thumbnails:
I like the idea of not seeing the thumbs until after the voting. Take one image at a time, vote and move on. This does have a few potential problems that need considered though. 1) a person could simply click the 'I choose to not vote on this image, give me another one', until they had moved through all of them. Then they would have the thumbs like normal, by-passing the system. 2) As mentioned, in order to be effective, the system would need to continue though all of the images; but this prevents going back and adjusting or commenting on scores until all of the images are voted on. The thumbs of those actually voted upon could be made available after the twenty percent is reached, while not displaying the thumbs of those not voted upon.

There is also the matter of the individuals who would simply go through and put a place-holder vote just to get through them, but I place them in the same camp as the rest of the voters that place votes without considering the image. There are simply not enough of them to warrant too drastic attention.

On voting with the masses:
The karma system provides sufficient variance for personal taste. An individual may vote freely without concern once they realize the number of images they will view sufficiently different from the masses will be rather small -- small enough voting on them will not effect the karma significantly.

David

07/10/2004 02:25:50 PM · #47

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

I don't hate you. In fact you are someone who consistantly comments positively on my images (and you put one in your favorites) so I need you. I just disagree that the majority of people vote lower out of competitive feelings. If that is the case, then it should even itself out in the end since everyone is doing it.

07/10/2004 03:01:28 PM · #48

One thing that people should keep in mind while contemplating changes to our voting system is the database of over 220 challenges we have built up so far. People here use the staistics from that database to measure their progress and to compare others. Continuity needs to be maintained.

I am trying to see what advantage there would be to a karma system but don't see anything except encouraging a sort of grouping of tastes around the popular, and discouraging departure from the norm. It reminds me very much of those who can't understand why someone gave their entry a 1, 2, or 3 and feel they are entitled to an explanation from the voter justifying his taste. How would a karma system be better than what we have now?

There are lots of other sites that don't have the emphasis on learning and honest criticism that dpc does. Take a look at the ones where the voting is open-- there are few, if any, low votes. I'd hate to see dpc turned into just another atttaboy site where snaps of kids and cats get the same raves as true artworks.

I like Britannica's comments on the no-thumbs-until-voted-upon idea. Like most stuff internet there will be ways to abuse the system but at least it would make it harder to cherry-pick a friend's entry for a 10 and lowball the rest. And it would have little or no adverse effect to the continuity with the past challenges.