| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2002 03:19:35 PM · #1 |
I was thinking that the powers that be might want to reconsider the method that's being used to vote on each picture. I think it would make a lot more sense to just pick your favorite photo out of the group and vote for it to win. So the photo with the most votes wins, the second most gets runner up, etc. The reason I think this would work better is because grading each photo on a scale from 1 to 10 is really arbitrary. When I was voting I had to remember how I voted on the other photos so I could compare the photo I was voting on to them and give a score based on how I thought it stacked up against the other photos. Or something.
It's just a suggestion, but I think it would be a better and maybe more accurate way of picking a winner... |
|
|
|
02/03/2002 03:34:18 PM · #2 |
This was definitely a consideration for a voting system. The problem, we found, was that your suggested method was actually more difficult for "remembering".
If, for example, you were on 78 of 100 photo submissions, you'd have to remember which of the previous 77 photos you had picked or not picked. This was made even more difficult if you didn't want to vote on all photos at once -- and wanted to come back another day to finish voting. This is a very distinct possibility if we start getting large amounts of submissions.
We feel like the current system allows you to rate each photo individually without too much overhead. Of course, your previous votes can and should have some effect on your voting habits. Each user will have his own methodology for weighting votes as he or she chooses to do -- one such method was suggested by the other day. |
|
|
|
02/27/2002 01:50:47 PM · #3 |
I think your suggestion is much worse than the current system, for a few reasons. First, when there are lots of pictures, it will be difficult to remember which your favorite is, and the last ones you look at are probably more likely to get your vote. Second, it gives the photographers whose images get no votes little feedback as to how much people liked their pictures.
I'd rather see the voting system as it is, but with some modification on how points are given out.
One possiblity is to count points from each voter not as the point value they give for it but as the relative point value, that is the value of the vote relative to that voter's average vote value. So if I give votes that average a 5, and Bob gives votes averaging 3, then when Bob votes a 8, that counts for more than when I vote 8 because he's saying more about this picture relative to other pictures than I am. However, when Bob votes a 2, that doesn't hurt as much as when I give a 2. |
|
|
|
02/27/2002 02:01:10 PM · #4 |
| That's an awesome idea Reuben. Since your the math major, maybe you'd like to build us an algorithm, eh ? :) |
|
|
|
02/28/2002 05:44:27 AM · #5 |
how about redistributing everyones votes around the same mark ...
eg
PhotoVoter1Voter2
154
262
388
499
515
666
777
884
996
AVG:6.55565.6667
Average Score for all voters is 6.1111
Now, after redistributing ...
(ie Photo 1 for Voter1 would score 5 / 6.5556 * 6.1111 = 4.6610
Photo 1 for Voter2 would score 4 / 5.6667 * 6.1111 = 4.3137)
PhotoVoter1Voter2
14.66104.3137
25.59322.1569
37.45768.6275
48.38989.7059
50.93225.3922
65.59326.4706
76.52547.5490
87.45764.3137
98.38986.4706
PS ... sorry, I'm not a math head, so feel free to tell me where the flaw is
|
|
|
|
02/28/2002 07:20:12 AM · #6 |
| How about this method? Take everyones' scores and do an average by the number of votes cast. Same thing we are already doing? Yes, it is and it is the only thing I can think of that is fair and logical. Why make this so difficult that no one can figure it out? |
|
|
|
02/28/2002 11:27:46 AM · #7 |
Shortredneck: Maybe the averaging method is the only logical and fair thing you can think of, but it has been shown that there actually is no perfect democratic voting system (not just in practice, in principle), which means the averaging system actually is not fair. This is "Arrow's Theorem". That means there are many plausible voting systems, and we have to choose which one is best here.
My suggestion is not as complicated as itsaghostcar made it out to be.
The simplest way to do it would would be to just translate everyones votes to make all of their averages the same (a 5 average would allow the best range of options).
This is how it works:
For each photo, you tally up the points from each of the voters by adding Vote + (5 - Vavg) to a running tally, where Vavg is the average vote for that voter for this challenge (it's important that it's the average vote for this challenge, not over all the challenges.) This means that whenever you dole out whatever vote it is you tend to dole out, you're giving 5s. Whenever you vote 2 higher than your average vote, you're giving 7s. And whenever you vote 3 less than your average vote, you're giving 2s.
After all that's done, you still need to divide the running tally by the number of votes to keep it fair to photos that don't get voted on as often as the others. This means it's still the average vote, but it translates everyone's scale to be centered at 5.
There is also a more complicated translate-and-scale method that I don't think would work as well. |
|
|
|
02/28/2002 11:30:49 AM · #8 |
Here are my thoughts --
If Bob votes an average vote of 3, he'll hurt everyone just as much as he hurt you. No real sense in padding those votes to make the average total score a certain level for each challenge to help our egos :)
The only bad situation is when someone votes for just a few photos -- either very high or very low. We'll be implementing (very soon) a 30% cutoff. Out of fairness to photographers, if you don't vote for 30% or more of the photos in the challenge, your votes will not be counted towards the average. Fair?
Andrew |
|
|
|
02/28/2002 11:48:07 AM · #9 |
Re: Bob
First, Bob doesn't hurt everyone as much as he hurt you. He hurts only everyone he votes for. If I go through and give half of the images a 1 because I'm a prick who is upset that I lost the last challenge, but then get bored and move on, I have just hurt half of the people. However, if you translate the vote, I haven't done anything at all to hurt anyone.
Second, Bob is saying the same thing when he votes 3 as I am when I vote my average, 5. We're saying "Among the pictures in this challenge, this one is about average." Even if Bob thinks less of all the pictures in the challenge than I do, that's not important, because the point of the vote is to rank the images relative to each other only. Now, when Bob gives out a 6, he's saying a whole lot more than I am when I give out a 6. Bob is saying "this image is a whole lot better than the average" and I am saying "this image is just a little better than the average".
Even if you don't think this method makes the vote very much more accurate, it certainly makes the feedback more understandable. If I get 18 votes of 3, I really don't know what that means. But if I get 18 votes 2 less than the voters average, I know it means I'm just a little bit below average.
Re: Cutoff
Beware: Speculation based on random numbers.
If there are 100 photos and 500 voters, I think a 30% cutoff is too high. If the number of photos is large and the number of voters is larger, I think the best idea would be to display the photos in a different order for each voter, and require them to be voted on in order. |
|
|
|
02/28/2002 12:35:13 PM · #10 |
| It's really going to boil down to one thing and that is what the administrators of this site are willing and able to do. They are kind enough to ask for our input so we need to be reasonable in our suggestions. The site is rapidly growing and there needs to be a simple way to average the votes. |
|
|
|
03/08/2002 04:07:16 PM · #11 |
the voting system now seems is as simple as it can be. however, special consideration should be given to the points made by reuben. after reading most if not all of his posts. i hold this man in very high esteem.
in regards to increasing the accuracy of the total votes per user, i perceive that dropping a fixed percentage of both the high and low votes would be more than enough to ensure a fair voting count. this is simply a suggestion. however,the means to doing this or another suggested voting method should be something both discussed and researched by people who are interested in the well-being of this site, who want to donate time to this site's cause, and who are well backgrounded in math and sql. we shouldn't just talk about it; we should get together and do something about it. i think the administrators would appreciate the help.
also, it should be noted that making the votes as fair as possible is going to add a lot of overhaul to the web pages. additional queries are going to be needed and additional calculations. therefore we must be careful not to sacrifice website performance on the altar of mathematical accuracy. |
|
|
|
03/08/2002 08:13:49 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
03/15/2002 09:42:31 PM · #13 |
| Makes my head spin and a spinnin head is hard to photograph. Ya'll cut it out. |
|
|
|
03/15/2002 10:49:40 PM · #14 |
| Oooooh, please set your aperture to 400 and try. I'll give you a 10 for a spinning head shot. |
|
|
|
03/15/2002 11:22:49 PM · #15 |
I agree...
I was unable to finish voting for all of the photos in one sitting and was concerned that my voting may have not been consistent. |
|
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 05:37:28 PM EDT.
