| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/04/2011 11:47:33 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Originally posted by danieletagliabue:
well, as everyone here as the freedom to vote, everyone have the freedom to be happy with the average received or not, everyone has the freedom to complain or not, everyone has the freedom to let others know if he is unhappy or not, and as well to read, to leave a post o simply ignore this thread |
Or sit back and laugh... |
or go to the toilette and sit down :-)) |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 11:55:05 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by danieletagliabue:
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Originally posted by danieletagliabue:
well, as everyone here as the freedom to vote, everyone have the freedom to be happy with the average received or not, everyone has the freedom to complain or not, everyone has the freedom to let others know if he is unhappy or not, and as well to read, to leave a post o simply ignore this thread |
Or sit back and laugh... |
or go to the toilette and sit down :-)) |
Depends on the toilet... Is it made of gold? I sit on nothing less. |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 12:16:27 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by JamesA:
I agree with the original post, the people here clearly don't see the merits of the image. I'd upload it over at 1x.com. they are much more acceptant of works of such quality. |
I second that. |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 12:26:37 PM · #104 |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 12:33:06 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
All that number represents is the way that I voted on those particular images which may or may not represent the average photo on DPC which is in effect a subset of all the images stored here. I'd have to vote on every single image to determine fully my actual average which I'd imagine would be much lower if I did that. |
You cast 16,849 votes, this must be enough to create a 'reliable' average score. Most of the time statistics are based upon a small percentage of the whole and 16,849 are not a few votes. So I guess that voting all the images your average score would only slightly change. |
Alex, that hypothesis is working under the assumption that everyone votes 100% in the challenges in which they vote. But you are only required to vote on 20% of the images in a challenge for votes to count. So it's completely feasible that Someone picks 20-30% of images in a challenge they like (or dislike) and only vote on them.
With this knowledge of voting practices, it's easy to see how hiho's average vote cast is 6.5, but she thinks the average photo at DPC is actually much lower than that.
Edited for hiho's gender.
Message edited by author 2011-08-04 13:32:22. |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 12:37:28 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
In essence what is being advocated here is that since the OP considers that all of the images he has viewed merit of score of 4.3 (or so), then he is of the opinion that the current image is of a greater quality that all of the images HE has scored.
Therein likes the difference.
Ray |
Right, but that's faulty logic. If I entered Challenge X with the expectation that my entry would score 6+ in Challenge X it doesn't mean that I think my photo is somehow better than all of the DPC photos I have rated over the span of six years. That's just silly thinking.
A) The voting mass won't be using my judging criteria so my 6+ prediction isn't based on that. It's based on how I think others will respond to it as it relates to that one challenge.
B) Each challenge is different. What I think will do well in one challenge may not in another. If I feel I have a good shot for a challenge with less than 100 entries then my expectations start to go up.
C) Our voting averages are lifetime averages. Over the span of 6 years my voting criteria has gone through several changes but you wouldn't know that because my current voting average doesn't reflect how I vote today nor will it ever. It's fruitless to use this statistic for anything more than what it is.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2011 12:41:38 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Alex, that hypothesis is working under the assumption that everyone votes 100% in the challenges in which they vote. But you are only required to vote on 20% of the images in a challenge for votes to count. So it's completely feasible that Someone picks 20-30% of images in a challenge they like (or dislike) and only vote on them. |
It averages out.
So would it skew the entire voting system if people only voted on a fraction of images? No, because it would average out. So do his particular votes. (Which means: Unless you assume an ability to pick out and vote on only what will end up being top scoring images, his scores represent his interpretation of an average image's worth at DPC.)
ETA: Few of us are really educated enough in statistics for this discussion to really mean anything. Lord knows I'm not. That's why I put in my sqrt(2) cents.
Message edited by author 2011-08-04 12:55:49. |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 01:27:09 PM · #108 |
LOL...ummmm...just for the record, there's absolutely nothing male about my delicately pedicured toes...;-)
I'm busy now...more thoughts later. |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 01:31:20 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by adigitalromance:
Originally posted by giantmike:
Alex, that hypothesis is working under the assumption that everyone votes 100% in the challenges in which they vote. But you are only required to vote on 20% of the images in a challenge for votes to count. So it's completely feasible that Someone picks 20-30% of images in a challenge they like (or dislike) and only vote on them. |
It averages out.
So would it skew the entire voting system if people only voted on a fraction of images? No, because it would average out. So do his particular votes. (Which means: Unless you assume an ability to pick out and vote on only what will end up being top scoring images, his scores represent his interpretation of an average image's worth at DPC.)
ETA: Few of us are really educated enough in statistics for this discussion to really mean anything. Lord knows I'm not. That's why I put in my sqrt(2) cents. |
On a whole (site-wide), yes it does average out. There is no arguing that point.
But that has nothing to do with how a personal voting average can very easily be skewed. Maybe this hypothetical example will make it clear:
I have cast 10,000 votes. However, when I vote on a challenge, I only vote on images I think are a 6-10. All other images in the challenge don't get a vote from me because I don't want to offend anyone by voting 5 or below. So even though I have voted 10,000 times, my average could easily be 8.0.
Read closely and notice that I think there are plenty of images in the challenges that are 5 and below (I just don't vote on them). So in my mind, an average photo at DPC is 5.5. But in my voting average, you see 8.0.
The same exact mathematics can be used for someone who only votes on images they dislike. That person could also have a mind average of 5.5, but their voting average could be 3.0.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2011 02:08:11 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I've been Yanko'd by Yanko! |
You're welcome. :P |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 05:08:42 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
You've completely misinterpreted the sentiment of what Beetle and I posted. The image, or the critique of it, actually has nothing to do with the issue we raised. |
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this long post. However, I did not misunderstand the sentiment of Beetle's post. The critique of the image has EVERYTHING to do with the sentiment of her post. Clearly, she wants to make a statement about the image but politely tries to disguise her opinion by using the OP's own thinking (in the a form of his average score given) as the main point for her presentation. As such, the message she sent was a mixed one at best.
All the rest of my thoughts (and far more!) have been eloquently stated by  Yanko and GiantMike.
(I wish I could write with that clarity of thought...;-)...) |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 05:23:51 PM · #112 |
I think there's more history to this than I'm aware of.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2011 06:09:40 PM · #113 |
Here's a thought for you Daniele, that I don't think has been raised - a possible explanation for your string of 1s. Voters here come from all over the globe, and in some cultures it is very offensive to point your foot at someone - probably on a par with mooning. That foot is very in-your-face so maybe you weren't the only one offended.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2011 08:38:22 PM · #114 |
I have to support both yanko and giantmike's position that a personâs personal voting average has nothing to do with their perception of how well their own image scores. We know the stats; more than 240,000 images were submitted between 2002 and 2010 with an average score of 5.4760. Another 11,300 images have been submitted through July 20th of this year with an average of 5.5142.
2002-2010
2011 YTD
Trend analysis shows that this ~ 5.5 average has been stable for many years. Based on that itâs not unfair to use it as the benchmark between âbelow averageâ and âabove average âno matter how you personally vote. One of the keys points that I always stress is that the stats seem to show that for every low voter we villainize thereâs a polyanna that will offset them. All voters low, high or central contribute to the same overall average that we all can judge our performance against.
Howeverâ¦
I do understand the emotion behind the other side of this debate too. Even I feel that a voter with a 4.3 average (despite being offset by other high voters) seems to have a slightly weaker position to be so indignant when they score below average. Based on the fact that we know an average DPC score is 5.5, an argument can be made that the votes they cast âon averageâ have a negative impact on the score of images that they vote on and the polyannas have a positive effect on the ones that they vote on. Both are fair and justifiable but for me the low voter has a little less room to complain when they donât score as well as they hope. The offsetting math may not support the emotion entirely but itâs hard to overlook.
giantmike I agree that your cherry-picking theory in discussing  hihosilverâs 6.5 is mathematically sound and well presented but itâs a bit of a red herring too considering that she never said that she only votes 20%-30% nor did she say she only votes on the images she likes. It is quite possible for a voter to have an average of 6.5 while voting on all of the images or just the random 20% presented to them. I think that Alexkcâs assumption that a 6.5 average based on 17000 votes is a pretty fair indicator that hihosilver thinks an average DPC photo is worth a 6.5 score whether she's willing to admit it or not unless extenuating facts are presented.:-) |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 08:40:27 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Here's a thought for you Daniele, that I don't think has been raised - a possible explanation for your string of 1s. Voters here come from all over the globe, and in some cultures it is very offensive to point your foot at someone - probably on a par with mooning. That foot is very in-your-face so maybe you weren't the only one offended. |
That's probably a hell of an observation... One I rarely consider when creating my images.... Bet my upcoming entry will get slammed proper.. |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 09:31:45 PM · #116 |
Oh, sorry, don't get me wrong, that's not at all what I was implying. I was just using her average as an example for what can be done, not necessarily what is being done. Just wanted to make sure that everyone knows how completely feasible it is to have an offset :) |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 09:52:14 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Oh, sorry, don't get me wrong, that's not at all what I was implying. I was just using her average as an example for what can be done, not necessarily what is being done. Just wanted to make sure that everyone knows how completely feasible it is to have an offset :) |
Point well taken, the theory is sound and cherry picking is an interesting factor to consider when looking at voting patterns. |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 01:13:42 AM · #118 |
Wow...this thread is like an episode of L O S T and my name is being shifted into a number of different scenarios and realities and I even changed genders!
Well, I suppose the truth is out there somewhere...;-)
|
|
|
|
08/05/2011 01:17:39 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Wow...this thread is like an episode of L O S T and my name is being shifted into a number of different scenarios and realities and I even changed genders!
Well, I suppose the truth is out there somewhere...;-) |
Stop changing the channel. I was watching the Twilight Zone.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2011 01:46:01 AM · #120 |
| Talk about "beating a dead horse"! |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 02:13:06 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Wow...this thread is like an episode of L O S T and my name is being shifted into a number of different scenarios and realities and I even changed genders!
Well, I suppose the truth is out there somewhere...;-) |
Stop changing the channel. I was watching the Twilight Zone. |
LOL...;-D
::hands over the remote:: |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:21:13 AM · #122 |
| Am I still "counterculture"? If so, I want a new hat. |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 09:15:44 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Am I still "counterculture"? If so, I want a new hat. |
At least until counterculture becomes so "in" that it is the norm. Then the eye candy crowd will be complaining. What kind of hat do you want?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2011 09:48:34 AM · #124 |
| the kind that fits on a square head, judging from bvy's profile pic |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 09:49:48 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
the kind that fits on a square head, judging from bvy's profile pic |
I think a Lego hat would work. ;D |
|
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: 03/10/2025 06:22:58 PM EDT.
