DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> There should be a waiting period
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/13/2008 06:52:33 PM · #1
There should be a waiting period from the time that one registers on this site to the time that they can cast a vote. That period should be at least a week to prevent someone from registering just to vote on a particualr challenge. This could be to keep someone from recruiting a friend to vote on their image, to someone registering an account to vote low.

There is an individual that just registered today that has been voting and has an average vote case of about 4.7

This indiviual obviously does not know the rules to the site becuase he is questioning a validated image and stating that it is not validated in his eyes so it deserves a 1.

Put in a waiting a period to avoid obvious trolls such as this from ruining this site.



Message edited by karmat - do not call users out.
04/13/2008 06:58:25 PM · #2
I think I would agree with that suggestion, this [removed name] character is ridiculous. I would say that if you are just registering there should be a waiting period, however, if you are paying to be a member you should have access right away.

Message edited by karmat - please do not call people out (thx eschelar) :).
04/13/2008 07:35:21 PM · #3
We've received your report and are looking into it.

Feel free to discuss this idea, but, please, leave individual's names out of it.
04/13/2008 07:38:54 PM · #4
The best method to validate voters would be to only count those who gave my shot a 10. That would solve all of the problems of DPC.
04/13/2008 07:38:58 PM · #5
Originally posted by karmat:

We've received your report and are looking into it.

Feel free to discuss this idea, but, please, leave individual's names out of it.


Thank you for looking into the matter, and I apologize for posting the name.

Originally posted by pennyj1957:

I think I would agree with that suggestion, this [removed name] character is ridiculous. I would say that if you are just registering there should be a waiting period, however, if you are paying to be a member you should have access right away.


I agree, if the member wants to pay $25 then they should be allowed to have full rights to the site, if not then they shouldn't be allowed to vote in their first week. I am not saying they can't submit a photo for a challenge, just not vote on them.


04/13/2008 07:40:05 PM · #6
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

The best method to validate voters would be to only count those who gave my shot a 10. That would solve all of the problems of DPC.
That would leave a total of 7 users on the site.

Guess that's better than the 2 if we used my images as a basis.
04/13/2008 07:43:40 PM · #7
instead of making a waiting period, why not make it so new member cannot vote on any current challenges, or once accepting entries
04/13/2008 07:46:08 PM · #8
I disagree. That would make it harder to artificially bump your score by registering lots of new accounts.
04/13/2008 07:52:34 PM · #9
Originally posted by allen_gedpch:

I disagree. That would make it harder to artificially bump your score by registering lots of new accounts.


I hope this is a test account and you're just trying the OP's theory ( fact ) out?

Are you?
04/13/2008 08:02:24 PM · #10
I don't know why we are complaining about someone new with an average vote cast of 4.7. ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', '/') + 1) . ' zeuszen has been here since 2003 and has an average vote cast of 3.5.

It appears that this will never be corrected at this site. No matter when they registered.

You state that "This indiviual obviously does not know the rules to the site..." I have yet to find any rules that say people cannot vote a 1.

You'll have to get used to this type of voting. It is rampant on the site.

But I do agree with you that it is unfair and annoying.
04/13/2008 08:26:45 PM · #11
Originally posted by stupidcat:

I don't know why we are complaining about someone new with an average vote cast of 4.7. ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', '/') + 1) . ' zeuszen has been here since 2003 and has an average vote cast of 3.5.

It appears that this will never be corrected at this site. No matter when they registered.

You state that "This indiviual obviously does not know the rules to the site..." I have yet to find any rules that say people cannot vote a 1.

You'll have to get used to this type of voting. It is rampant on the site.

But I do agree with you that it is unfair and annoying.


This: This indiviual obviously does not know the rules to the site becuase he is questioning a validated image and stating that it is not validated in his eyes so it deserves a 1.

Is where the rules were broken. It clearly states in the rules that even though you may feel an image is not valid, you may not vote it down. You should report the image, then vote on the quality of the shot. This commenter obviously voted the image down because of it not appearing to be valid; which is illegal according to the rules.

:)
04/13/2008 11:03:03 PM · #12
Originally posted by TCGuru:

This: This indiviual obviously does not know the rules to the site becuase he is questioning a validated image and stating that it is not validated in his eyes so it deserves a 1.

Is where the rules were broken. It clearly states in the rules that even though you may feel an image is not valid, you may not vote it down. You should report the image, then vote on the quality of the shot. This commenter obviously voted the image down because of it not appearing to be valid; which is illegal according to the rules.

:)


So he waits a week and then votes the same. He obviously knows the rule, dislikes it, and chooses to ignore it. How is a week going to change that?

Seems more logical to me for SC to remind him, warn him, whatever you want to call it, and then give him a suspension if he continues.
04/13/2008 11:07:09 PM · #13
Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by TCGuru:

This: This indiviual obviously does not know the rules to the site becuase he is questioning a validated image and stating that it is not validated in his eyes so it deserves a 1.

Is where the rules were broken. It clearly states in the rules that even though you may feel an image is not valid, you may not vote it down. You should report the image, then vote on the quality of the shot. This commenter obviously voted the image down because of it not appearing to be valid; which is illegal according to the rules.

:)


So he waits a week and then votes the same. He obviously knows the rule, dislikes it, and chooses to ignore it. How is a week going to change that?

Seems more logical to me for SC to remind him, warn him, whatever you want to call it, and then give him a suspension if he continues.


A person may decide to vote as they see fit when their week is up and there is no stopping that. The issue here is you have someone who registered today and is voting without regard to the rules. Did this person register just to jack votes? The profile is not filled out with anything other than a name and location, and the name is an obvious fake. This rule would prevent people from either recruiting people to vote on their picture, or prevent people from registering just to jack with the votes.
04/13/2008 11:09:06 PM · #14
What an awesome idea.....

You know I'm on board.

On a few other sites, you have to enter at least 2 challenges before you can cast a vote or upload 12 images to your portfolio. And the pictures are monitored to keep people from uploading whatever they want.

Message edited by author 2008-04-13 23:10:28.
04/13/2008 11:17:57 PM · #15
Originally posted by BHuseman:

...The issue here is you have someone who registered today and is voting without regard to the rules. Did this person register just to jack votes? The profile is not filled out with anything other than a name and location, and the name is an obvious fake. This rule would prevent people from either recruiting people to vote on their picture, or prevent people from registering just to jack with the votes.


First off, there no evidence that this person registered just to "jack votes," nor is there any evidence at all that this person was recruited to manipulate voting on behalf of any particular user.

The fact that a profile is not filled out as much as you would like means nothing as far as whether that person has a valid opinion.

The appropriate action, if any, will be taken by SC.

In the meantime, please don't bite the newbs. Gently help them find their way.
04/13/2008 11:30:02 PM · #16
Originally posted by BHuseman:

<snip>
The profile is not filled out with anything other than a name and location, and the name is an obvious fake. <snip>


Oh yeah, I forgot, that's clear proof of nefarious intentions. Here's another example for you, who didn't even fill in location ;) ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', '/') + 1) . ' mk

I didn't fill in any information until I'd been here a month or more. I've been around enough to be leery about giving ANYthing vaguely personal until I've had some time to evaluate the site and its general membership.

So... do you have any other evidence that this person is here strictly to disrupt voting patterns?
04/13/2008 11:31:07 PM · #17
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

What an awesome idea.....

You know I'm on board.

On a few other sites, you have to enter at least 2 challenges before you can cast a vote or upload 12 images to your portfolio. And the pictures are monitored to keep people from uploading whatever they want.


Lol, Joe, sometimes I think you're onboard for anything that means change, simply for the sake of change! ;)
04/13/2008 11:37:35 PM · #18
Man, if one of my images was so powerfully good or bad that someone would join JUST to vote for or against it, that would be something. 'Course, one vote outta 200 plus votes is, as they say, "in the noise" and is not going to make any difference. One the other hand, they cause threads like this...maybe just what they wanted in the first place, I suppose.

04/13/2008 11:44:06 PM · #19
Plus, the person would have to vote at least 20% for the vote to count anyway.
04/13/2008 11:46:43 PM · #20
Originally posted by L2:

Originally posted by BHuseman:

...The issue here is you have someone who registered today and is voting without regard to the rules. Did this person register just to jack votes? The profile is not filled out with anything other than a name and location, and the name is an obvious fake. This rule would prevent people from either recruiting people to vote on their picture, or prevent people from registering just to jack with the votes.


First off, there no evidence that this person registered just to "jack votes," nor is there any evidence at all that this person was recruited to manipulate voting on behalf of any particular user.

The fact that a profile is not filled out as much as you would like means nothing as far as whether that person has a valid opinion.

The appropriate action, if any, will be taken by SC.

In the meantime, please don't bite the newbs. Gently help them find their way.


I don't beleive that I said this is what the person is doing. I think there is a question mark after the statement of "did the person register just to jack votes.

I also understand that action if appropriate will be taken by the SC as Karmat already pointed out. In pointing that out she also said we could continue to discuss this. And that is what is happening. My posted this thread in the Website Suggestions forum because I am making a suggestion as to a new rule.

Thank you for being obtuse enough to overlook the point of this thread and cram what has already been discussed down our throats.
04/13/2008 11:47:37 PM · #21
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Plus, the person would have to vote at least 20% for the vote to count anyway.


You are right, howver if he/she is voting low on all of the images but his/hers, then that would be a problem.
04/13/2008 11:51:18 PM · #22
Originally posted by BHuseman:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Plus, the person would have to vote at least 20% for the vote to count anyway.


You are right, howver if he/she is voting low on all of the images but his/hers, then that would be a problem.


And would, I believe, trigger a red flag to SC, would it not?
04/13/2008 11:51:31 PM · #23
Originally posted by BHuseman:

...Thank you for being obtuse enough to overlook the point of this thread and cram what has already been discussed down our throats.


Knock it off.

04/13/2008 11:53:33 PM · #24
I had the same problem with this same person. They wrote a pretty ignorant one word comment and gave me a low score... I think the idea has merit.

One idea would be that they get a nag screen every time they start voting on a challenge to remind them how votes work. This could happen for say, the first 10 challenges they vote on. It can be a simple couple of paragraphs that they will read till they get used to the way votes happen.

Just a thought...Enzo
04/13/2008 11:58:43 PM · #25
Originally posted by hotpasta:

I had the same problem with this same person. They wrote a pretty ignorant one word comment and gave me a low score... I think the idea has merit.

One idea would be that they get a nag screen every time they start voting on a challenge to remind them how votes work. This could happen for say, the first 10 challenges they vote on. It can be a simple couple of paragraphs that they will read till they get used to the way votes happen.

Just a thought...Enzo


I wouldn't be averse to some form of reminder for the first two or 3 challenges. On many sites voting is simply a popularity contest, even allowing folks to vote as often as they wish. Something to point out that we're different here and take voting as a serious responsibility which can, and will, be revoked if misused would not be amiss.

(amiss? Who ever uses that word any more? Sorry :) )

Message edited by author 2008-04-14 00:45:35.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/29/2020 03:25:18 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/29/2020 03:25:18 PM EST.