| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2003 01:07:04 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
considering the response this suggestion is getting, i don't *ever* and I mean EVER want to hear anyone complaining again about how others are giving them low scores to boost their own pic's standings.
:P |
I'm not disagreeing that there are people out there doing this kind of thing; if everyone's being completely objective, no way on earth should the same photo get 1s and 10s, with very few exceptions, but it happens.
I'm not sure it's worth risking some of the other negatives to make that change, particularly since it will bring a whole new batch or problems.
Personally, I just pretend that the scale ranges from 2.2 - 8.3, the lowest and highest I've seen on the site.
For the record, my average placing on the site is usually in the first or second quartile (above the mean almost every time), yet my average vote cast is higher than my average vote received. Something there doesn't make sense...keep trying, maybe you'll convince me, Mag.
Pedro |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 01:42:42 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by autool:
I think that if this were a prevelant problem it would be reflected in the voter profiles. Just compare average votes cast to average votes received. If it shows a large negative difference, one could assume that person was abusing the present voting system.
Whoa! I better go check mine. :<) |
I don't think that is true or fair.
If someone scores well, we can assume they are a good photographer. They can probably recognise a good and a bad picture. They also quite possibly have higher standards of what is 'good' than someone with relatively as much experience hence their 'good' to 'bad' scale is different than another voter. There isn't an absolute scale of what a 10 is and a 1 is - its relative and left to personal judgement.
For example, looking at my own pictures, ones that I took last year, that I at the time thought were fantastic, printed, framed on my wall etc (i.e., a personal '10') now look to my eye as flawed, unbalanced and technically inept (maybe a 5 if I was generous)
My standards have changed (and I hope improved)
Message edited by author 2003-08-05 13:44:14. |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 01:59:09 PM · #28 |
| If voters are so tremendously mature, as stated several times in this thread, why then is Open Voting always considered such a big no-no? If you vote in a way that you consider fair, why be so afraid to have your voting on all pic made public? |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 02:00:26 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
considering the response this suggestion is getting, i don't *ever* and I mean EVER want to hear anyone complaining again about how others are giving them low scores to boost their own pic's standings.
:P |
i think most of that grumbling is just from people that aren't good and would like any reason to justify that other than their own lack of photographic ability |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 02:04:58 PM · #30 |
A few thoughts:
1. I think the reason that averages are so low on this site is not because people are sabotaging the scores but because we have an extremely wide range of users and user backgrounds and voting is totally subjective. When you have over 100 people voting, all ages, all locations, etc., it's going to be hard to come to a single opinion.
2. Regardless of the issue discussed here, I think it would be nice to have a smaller chunk to vote on. People frequently complain that voters don't take the time to really look at their photo. Well, with 353 entries in the garden challenge, at five minutes a piece, that's almost 30 hours. I'd personally rather vote on the entirety of a smaller group than 20% of a larger one...seems more fair to me.
3. Open voting is a no-no because then the complainers could just straight flame the voter, either in PM or in the forums, rather than general complaints.
4. This isn't really related but someone sort of brought it up...I think it's interesting how so many people feel that photographers with awful photos can't have opinions. It's true, I do frequently look at portfolios to use as my grain of salt, but ability to see and ability to do are two different things. I'm sure we've all seen movies or books that we've critiqued and torn apart...but how many of us have ever made a good movie or written a good book?
That ought to do it. |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 02:15:25 PM · #31 |
Gordon,
We don't see eye to eye on this but Idid state "large negative difference". If a person were voting abnormally lower that his entry I don't see how it could avoid being reflected in their average votes.
Of course a simple solution to the whole dilemna would be to not divulge the score until the challenge was completed. How much fun would that be?
Dick |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 02:26:13 PM · #32 |
Is there not a way that the top 10 or 20 people with the highest score in the challenge have their votes monitored by the admins? It would be easy to see if their average vote against each other were much lower than their average votes against the others. In that case, something could be put in place to say that if their votes against each other (which should be higher than average cos they're all *good* pics) are more than 0.5 (or whatever) lower than their average against the other photos, then those votes are discounted.
This is sort of like voting in tiers, but the fair voters don't get punished, and there are still only 3 ribbons per challenge.
The problem with tiers is that I might get placed in a tier with the likes of jjbeguin, jacko, sher, crab, kiwi, setzler, etc etc, and not stand a chance in hell of winning, whereas if I was randomly in the other tier, I might have got a blue. It's not really a fair thing to do in my opinion.
I'm tired so that might not make sense.
Message edited by author 2003-08-05 14:28:07.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 02:38:10 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Journey:
If voters are so tremendously mature, as stated several times in this thread, why then is Open Voting always considered such a big no-no? If you vote in a way that you consider fair, why be so afraid to have your voting on all pic made public? |
I advocated Open Voting earlier in the thread, but I also understand the downside... Most countries that take voting seriously also use anonymous ballots so that people will vote with their heart and not because they fear for their head. Open Voting would raise the average vote, but that may not be for the best. Just a thought...
I still favor open votes, or at least allowing site admins and the council to search for unethical voting patterns (as I believe is already done, to a lesser degree, at the end of each challenge), but anonymous votes are usually the fairest, truest votes...
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 02:54:31 PM · #34 |
| I have another suggestion. Why not make it mandatory for the voter to leave a comment in case, picture he is currently voting has higher points that his own photo? This way atlease we get to know the reason behind why the photo was rated as such. I do agree that there may be way too many photos that will get a low score but then I guess it is worth the effort. |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 03:49:40 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Is there not a way that the top 10 or 20 people with the highest score in the challenge have their votes monitored by the admins? It would be easy to see if their average vote against each other were much lower than their average votes against the others. In that case, something could be put in place to say that if their votes against each other (which should be higher than average cos they're all *good* pics) are more than 0.5 (or whatever) lower than their average against the other photos, then those votes are discounted.
This is sort of like voting in tiers, but the fair voters don't get punished, and there are still only 3 ribbons per challenge.
The problem with tiers is that I might get placed in a tier with the likes of jjbeguin, jacko, sher, crab, kiwi, setzler, etc etc, and not stand a chance in hell of winning, whereas if I was randomly in the other tier, I might have got a blue. It's not really a fair thing to do in my opinion.
I'm tired so that might not make sense. |
So you have to agree with everyone else, otherwise you are obviously 'cheating' ? What about the people who vote too high compared to the average ? Surely they should be addressed as well ?
Maybe we need a new voting scale. The options would be '5'
That would sort all this out too, in much the same way. |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 03:53:52 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Konador:
Is there not a way that the top 10 or 20 people with the highest score in the challenge have their votes monitored by the admins? It would be easy to see if their average vote against each other were much lower than their average votes against the others. In that case, something could be put in place to say that if their votes against each other (which should be higher than average cos they're all *good* pics) are more than 0.5 (or whatever) lower than their average against the other photos, then those votes are discounted.
This is sort of like voting in tiers, but the fair voters don't get punished, and there are still only 3 ribbons per challenge.
The problem with tiers is that I might get placed in a tier with the likes of jjbeguin, jacko, sher, crab, kiwi, setzler, etc etc, and not stand a chance in hell of winning, whereas if I was randomly in the other tier, I might have got a blue. It's not really a fair thing to do in my opinion.
I'm tired so that might not make sense. |
So you have to agree with everyone else, otherwise you are obviously 'cheating' ? What about the people who vote too high compared to the average ? Surely they should be addressed as well ?
Maybe we need a new voting scale. The options would be '5'
That would sort all this out too, in much the same way. |
how orwellian. i like it |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 03:55:55 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Maybe we need a new voting scale. The options would be '5'
That would sort all this out too, in much the same way. |
See now that's funny.
Pedro |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 03:58:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Maybe we need a new voting scale. The options would be '5'
That would sort all this out too, in much the same way. |
No way, you are obviously giving my photo a 5 so that yours wins. I demand that the scale be '10'
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 04:19:57 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Konador:
Is there not a way that the top 10 or 20 people with the highest score in the challenge have their votes monitored by the admins? It would be easy to see if their average vote against each other were much lower than their average votes against the others. In that case, something could be put in place to say that if their votes against each other (which should be higher than average cos they're all *good* pics) are more than 0.5 (or whatever) lower than their average against the other photos, then those votes are discounted.
This is sort of like voting in tiers, but the fair voters don't get punished, and there are still only 3 ribbons per challenge.
The problem with tiers is that I might get placed in a tier with the likes of jjbeguin, jacko, sher, crab, kiwi, setzler, etc etc, and not stand a chance in hell of winning, whereas if I was randomly in the other tier, I might have got a blue. It's not really a fair thing to do in my opinion.
I'm tired so that might not make sense. |
So you have to agree with everyone else, otherwise you are obviously 'cheating' ? What about the people who vote too high compared to the average ? Surely they should be addressed as well ?
Maybe we need a new voting scale. The options would be '5'
That would sort all this out too, in much the same way. |
No, you wouldnt have to agree with everyone else, but most people agree that the photos in the top 10 or 20 are the better ones in the challenge. If it was obvious that someone voted all these significantly lower than they voted other shots, then it would seem to me quite suspicious, so their votes would be canceled out as a precaution. It's just an alternative to tiering the whole site. It would only effect 99.9% of people, and only about 1% of the time. I personally don't think anything needs to be done at all.
Message edited by author 2003-08-05 16:32:23.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 04:53:33 PM · #40 |
| How do you know how you are doing? I am new here... |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 04:56:55 PM · #41 |
Several times a week it seems this whole topic rises to the surface...must be that darn voting on challenges thing again! I too in the past have questioned someones need to cast a "1" or "2" vote on a photo that fits the challenge and maybe just doesn't meet with their taste approval. With the number of entries in some challenges, the time required for good voting technique...the "focus" being on improvement and enjoyment...the only logical choice would be to place people in one of three groups. Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced. This would reduce the number of photos to vote on by having us vote in only "our" group! That's my two cents...opps...2nd post in this thread...make that four cents! Remember...learning is fun(damental)! Let's STOP complaining and start having fun!
Message edited by author 2003-08-05 16:58:41.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 05:13:03 PM · #42 |
Why not just hide scores until the voting is finalized?
Seems like the simplest solution, no drastic changes to the site needed, no splitting of pictures into pools, no need to do any statistical analyses of voting habits, etc.
There is no reason to have scores be visible during the voting process since you are powerless to do anything to change your own submission -- except "sabotage" other submissions by voting with the knowledge of how your picture is currently being ranked.
Hiding the score would be the easiest thing to do and would get my full support. |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 05:23:53 PM · #43 |
| I'm not sure how hiding the score makes a difference? You could still just find photos that you thought were better than yours and rate them down. |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 05:30:07 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Why not just hide scores until the voting is finalized?
Seems like the simplest solution, no drastic changes to the site needed, no splitting of pictures into pools, no need to do any statistical analyses of voting habits, etc.
There is no reason to have scores be visible during the voting process since you are powerless to do anything to change your own submission -- except "sabotage" other submissions by voting with the knowledge of how your picture is currently being ranked.
Hiding the score would be the easiest thing to do and would get my full support. |
and taking crack away from the addict is the easiest solution too, but wait'll you see the resistance from the addicts... :) |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 05:31:36 PM · #45 |
My response to the original post
HOW ABSURD!
Regardless of how a photo was scored, my experience here, has been that the photos awarded ribbons earned them. |
|
|
|
08/05/2003 08:19:20 PM · #46 |
I think you are right Barahoo.
Also, there will be lowered winning averages...7 or so... and wide ranges of votes...1's to 4's to the top photos and 8- 10's for the poor quality photos, as long as un-qualified voters are voting....Always.
I would like to see the results of: 1)the voting just like it is now, with all of us voting... compared to... 2)the voting of the top finishers (top 10 or 25 or whatever) of the last few contests. These are likely your more qualified voters.
I like 99's idea of spliting into groups too, especially with there being so many entries. It is likely comments would increase if this was done and if there were fewer contests running at the same time.
Originally posted by barahoo:
My response to the original post
HOW ABSURD!
Regardless of how a photo was scored, my experience here, has been that the photos awarded ribbons earned them. |
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 08:24:04 PM · #47 |
Aren't we all qualified to vote? The qualification is to be a member.. I think some members may be more competant to comment on the technical qualities of a shot but no one is more qualified than me on aesthetics..
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 08:42:58 PM · #48 |
Well, looks like EddyG's done all the talking for me - took the words out of my mouth!
It seems that all of this is just for a few malicious or idiot voters who ultimately cannot dramatically influence the desired outcome anyway.
As EddyG says, let's either:
1. leave it unchanged
2. kick out or warn voters whose trends are 'unreasonable'
or
3. hide votes 'til it's over
I think splitting into pools would definitley prevent an image from competing in an open way and it would dilute the whole premise of the site. The worst case scenario if challenges are large is that people will vote based on thumbnail appeal. This is a challenge in itself - to make your image striking enough, even at a small size!
The Garden challenge is one where, when returning to vote, I have selected thumbnails that interest me first, then do the 'boring' looking ones last. Is that a bad thing?
And I agree with MK's point that an idiot voter will ultimately vote down any pic that they feel may beat theirs - even if it's in another pool - if only to say 'my pic was in the highest scoring group'. I've got to say this is sounding bloody ridiculous!! This site is supposed to be competitive, but to got to these lengths is quite nuts - and you don't even win a prize!!!! ;)
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 08:50:07 PM · #49 |
If 100 people voted 6 on the photo and 3 malicious voters give 1 ,you still have 5.854, damage is minimal or 0.146 points !
No need for change ,majority always win!
|
|
|
|
08/05/2003 08:58:01 PM · #50 |
Qualified...yes
Competent...No
My comments are in reference to raising the averages of the higher quality photos as suggested by Mag99 and maybe a better alignment from top to bottom. I completely agree with your ability to judge the aesthetics and I support your right to do so. As someone else said in so many words.."just because one can't produce a quality photo does not mean they can't recognize one".
What If...... and I know this conflicts with the above....The votes of the top 20% finishers of the last challenge were multiplied by four, the next 20% multiplied by two and the bottom 60% finishers votes count as a single vote only. It seems to me this would tend to raise the averages of the better entries. It also might keep some of the "my vote only counts as one" folks from voting at all, which I am not sure is good or bad.
Originally posted by Alpine99:
Aren't we all qualified to vote? The qualification is to be a member.. I think some members may be more competant to comment on the technical qualities of a shot but no one is more qualified than me on aesthetics.. |
|
|
