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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Does growth mean lower scores?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/05/2002 12:36:27 AM · #1
The scores seem to be going down. If this is the case, are the scores going down because dpchallenge is getting an increasing number of participants, voters and photographers, every week as traffic to the site grows? Does this mean the voting audience is becoming more discerning or is the quality of entries not what they were earlier in the year?
07/05/2002 12:46:08 AM · #2
Or is the quality of the judges decreasing? Have you actually looked at the top scores week to week to see if there is a real pattern?


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 12:45:25 AM.
07/05/2002 12:50:49 AM · #3
somewhere in these forums, someone commented on this issue a while back... I believe that as the number of users here increases, the higher scores will gravitate closer to the 5 mark... I wish i could find that post cause it made great sense...
07/05/2002 01:03:20 AM · #4
The first 5 challenges had 3 winners in the 8's while the last 5 challenges had 1 winner in the 8's. This may be coincidental. The last 5 winners averaged 7.57 while the first 5 winners averaged 7.95.

I feel that it is moe difficult to score high today than it was a few months ago because the audience is growing and so is the technical and aesthetic knowledge of the audience. After all I believe one of the reason's dpchallenge is so interesting to most of us is the exposure we get to new techniques and ideas. This may make the participants more discerning when it comes to scoring the entries.
07/05/2002 01:03:46 AM · #5
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Or is the quality of the judges decreasing?

Gimme a break...

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 1:03:15 AM.
07/05/2002 01:08:08 AM · #6
That is not a fair question? The more this expands, and the more non-photographers, and newbie join, the judging will definitely change, as will the entries. It is not a one way street.

So Drew, you think we are submitting photograph that are not as good?

Actually, the first few challenges did have a higher scores, but the winner is still in the 7''s, and the lowest scoring winner was actually about 6 weeks ago, and it started increasing again.

Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]Or is the quality of the judges decreasing?


Gimme a break...[/i]




* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 1:08:44 AM.
07/05/2002 01:10:53 AM · #7
My options aren't limited to "the photographers are sucking" or "the quality of the voters are decreasing". Just by the pure fact that the overall trend of users coming here is random, it's ludicrous to say that the judges that first came here were 'better quality' than the second ones. When was the cutoff date? After you got here?

Drew
07/05/2002 01:12:47 AM · #8
Originally posted by Zeissman:
The more this expands, and the more non-photographers, and newbie join, the judging will definitely change, as will the entries.

Where on earth are you getting this information? Your logic is completely unfounded.

Why would trends change towards more ''newbies''? In fact, I would say that spikes of exposure in things like photography magazines or sites would have just the opposite effect.

Drew

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 1:12:11 AM.
07/05/2002 01:43:32 AM · #9
I don't think it really matters who is voting on the images... it has no real effect on the outcome. The diversity of the voter will flow evenly across each image submitted to these challenges. In the end, the average scores may change, but they will change evenly for everyone...
07/05/2002 07:22:12 AM · #10
Brovo, JM. aelith
07/05/2002 09:42:27 AM · #11
jm is right about a post regarding this very topic.

The jist of that thread basically said that if the mean is about...5.5 or something....as the site grows and more voters vote the mean will grow exponentially larger to the extremes...It''s a statistics thing my wife explained to me..(shes an accountant) but I''m an artsy, fartsy kinda guy and hate numbers :-)

What that means to me is that the power is to the average versus the unique..how else do you explain a choice of either Al Gore or Gee Dub? hehe

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 9:47:25 AM.
07/05/2002 12:37:30 PM · #12
Actually, my logic is not unfounded, it is completely founded in statistics:

When a sample is small, it could have skew towards either end of the range, but as pointed out elsewhere, as sample grows, it will trend towards the middle. What people fail to answer is why? It is not because of statistics, statistics predicts the fact that as the sample grows, it will look more like the general population. I would say that the knoweledge of photographic techniques amoung the general population is quite limited. And that most people in the general population would fall into the "newbie" or "amatuer" catagory.

If a sample started out with a small group of knowledgeable photographers, that knowledge base will probably decrease as it gets more members, as long as there is no screening process.

I do not understand why you are getting defensive, or think that I think Iwas the last good judge. I never made any comments about anyone''s ability, certainly not my own.

I have only been coming here about a month, and as I said earlier, I do not see a patter on the winners score decreasing since the first 3 challenges. I certainly was not around then.


Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]The more this expands, and the more non-photographers, and newbie join, the judging will definitely change, as will the entries.


Where on earth are you getting this information? Your logic is completely unfounded.

Why would trends change towards more ''newbies''? In fact, I would say that spikes of exposure in things like photography magazines or sites would have just the opposite effect.

Dre[/i]




* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 12:40:40 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 12:44:18 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 1:17:06 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 1:18:32 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 1:21:47 PM.
07/05/2002 01:50:50 PM · #13
It's the opinion of the mass that helps us to grow the most. Cattle are not ignorant they just know what they like and dislike. Give the average person and a newbie to photography a bit more credit.

Sorry us "amatuer" or "newbies" don't see your photographic genius.
You average 5.093 as a score for others.


Originally posted by Zeissman:
Actually, my logic is not unfounded, it is completely founded in statistics:

When a sample is small, it could have skew towards either end of the range, but as pointed out elsewhere, as sample grows, it will trend towards the middle. What people fail to answer is why? It is not because of statistics, statistics predicts the fact that as the sample grows, it will look more like the general population. I would say that the knoweledge of photographic techniques amoung the general population is quite limited. And that most people in the general population would fall into the "newbie" or "amatuer" catagory.

If a sample started out with a small group of knowledgeable photographers, that knowledge base will probably decrease as it gets more members, as long as there is no screening process.

I do not understand why you are getting defensive, or think that I think Iwas the last good judge. I never made any comments about anyone''s ability, certainly not my own.

I have only been coming here about a month, and as I said earlier, I do not see a patter on the winners score decreasing since the first 3 challenges. I certainly was not around then.


Originally posted by drewmedia:
[i]Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]The more this expands, and the more non-photographers, and newbie join, the judging will definitely change, as will the entries.


Where on earth are you getting this information? Your logic is completely unfounded.

Why would trends change towards more ''newbies''? In fact, I would say that spikes of exposure in things like photography magazines or sites would have just the opposite effect.

Dre[/i]


[/i]

07/05/2002 03:15:28 PM · #14
1. I have never said there was a degradation in the site, or a change in scoring, but if there was, it was possibly because of the additional voters.

2. If a change occured, I am a part of it, I am a late comer to this site.

3. I never said I was a photographic genius, or complained about my score. (I am quite happy with my score of 5.3)

4. I was not even the one that brought up statistics, I just explained it.

5. The question was "Does growth mean lower scores?" Many people have answered that statistically it does mean lower top scores. I just explained why.

I was not complaining about this site, I really enjoy it. If I did not like it, I would not be here. What I do not like is people taking generic posts personally.

I am glad new people are coming to this site, and that photography is growing. I have had a great time interfacing with them, and those that have more expirience than me.

And your average vote cast is 4.3.


Originally posted by kvockler:
It''s the opinion of the mass that helps us to grow the most. Cattle are not ignorant they just know what they like and dislike. Give the average person and a newbie to photography a bit more credit.

Sorry us "amatuer" or "newbies" don''t see your photographic genius.
You average 5.093 as a score for others.


Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]Actually, my logic is not unfounded, it is completely founded in statistics:

When a sample is small, it could have skew towards either end of the range, but as pointed out elsewhere, as sample grows, it will trend towards the middle. What people fail to answer is why? It is not because of statistics, statistics predicts the fact that as the sample grows, it will look more like the general population. I would say that the knoweledge of photographic techniques amoung the general population is quite limited. And that most people in the general population would fall into the "newbie" or "amatuer" catagory.

If a sample started out with a small group of knowledgeable photographers, that knowledge base will probably decrease as it gets more members, as long as there is no screening process.

I do not understand why you are getting defensive, or think that I think Iwas the last good judge. I never made any comments about anyone''s ability, certainly not my own.

I have only been coming here about a month, and as I said earlier, I do not see a patter on the winners score decreasing since the first 3 challenges. I certainly was not around then.


Originally posted by drewmedia:
[i]Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]The more this expands, and the more non-photographers, and newbie join, the judging will definitely change, as will the entries.


Where on earth are you getting this information? Your logic is completely unfounded.

Why would trends change towards more ''newbies''? In fact, I would say that spikes of exposure in things like photography magazines or sites would have just the opposite effect.

Dre[/i]


[/i]

[/i]




* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 3:16:37 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 3:23:28 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 3:26:04 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 3:47:52 PM.
07/05/2002 04:55:26 PM · #15
isnt it ironic how the gore's are against porn, i.e. "bush", and the bush's are against violence in the media, i.e. "gore"? ; )

sorry, but i've been waiting sooo long to use that awful joke : )

Originally posted by hokie:
What that means to me is that the power is to the average versus the unique..how else do you explain a choice of either Al Gore or Gee Dub? heh

07/05/2002 05:00:57 PM · #16
it''s entirely possible that if more ''professionals'' came, the scores would go down because they would be much harsher critics.

it''s also entirely possible that if more newbies came, they would only ''get'' the really glitzy flashy hit ''em over the head kind of pics.

of course, the converse of both is plausible: experienced users having more ''sympathy for the photographer'' (sounds like a Stones song), and newbies ''liking everything''.

we mix the two together and who knows what we''ll get?

all i can say with certainty that my scores are always higher, sometimes a full point, amongst people with cameras. what does this mean? i have no idea. the only thing i can say with certainty is that i''m just not reaching the non-camera people. do i know why? not really : ) . .

but i can try to make my stuff more like the stuff that wins and see if it works. it really just boils down to what you want out of this and other sites like it, I guess : )

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 5:38:26 PM.
07/05/2002 05:19:04 PM · #17
Zeissman...

I have to appoligize for my comments, jumping on the wrong person for something very stupid. My bad if my comments offended. You had made several valid points, thanks for the comments.

Kris

Originally posted by Zeissman:
1. I have never said there was a degradation in the site, or a change in scoring, but if there was, it was possibly because of the additional voters.

2. If a change occured, I am a part of it, I am a late comer to this site.

3. I never said I was a photographic genius, or complained about my score. (I am quite happy with my score of 5.3)

4. I was not even the one that brought up statistics, I just explained it.

5. The question was "Does growth mean lower scores?" Many people have answered that statistically it does mean lower top scores. I just explained why.

I was not complaining about this site, I really enjoy it. If I did not like it, I would not be here. What I do not like is people taking generic posts personally.

I am glad new people are coming to this site, and that photography is growing. I have had a great time interfacing with them, and those that have more expirience than me.

And your average vote cast is 4.3.


Originally posted by kvockler:
[i]It''s the opinion of the mass that helps us to grow the most. Cattle are not ignorant they just know what they like and dislike. Give the average person and a newbie to photography a bit more credit.

Sorry us "amatuer" or "newbies" don''t see your photographic genius.
You average 5.093 as a score for others.


Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]Actually, my logic is not unfounded, it is completely founded in statistics:

When a sample is small, it could have skew towards either end of the range, but as pointed out elsewhere, as sample grows, it will trend towards the middle. What people fail to answer is why? It is not because of statistics, statistics predicts the fact that as the sample grows, it will look more like the general population. I would say that the knoweledge of photographic techniques amoung the general population is quite limited. And that most people in the general population would fall into the "newbie" or "amatuer" catagory.

If a sample started out with a small group of knowledgeable photographers, that knowledge base will probably decrease as it gets more members, as long as there is no screening process.

I do not understand why you are getting defensive, or think that I think Iwas the last good judge. I never made any comments about anyone''s ability, certainly not my own.

I have only been coming here about a month, and as I said earlier, I do not see a patter on the winners score decreasing since the first 3 challenges. I certainly was not around then.


Originally posted by drewmedia:
[i]Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]The more this expands, and the more non-photographers, and newbie join, the judging will definitely change, as will the entries.


Where on earth are you getting this information? Your logic is completely unfounded.

Why would trends change towards more ''newbies''? In fact, I would say that spikes of exposure in things like photography magazines or sites would have just the opposite effect.

Dre[/i]


[/i]

[/i]


[/i]

07/05/2002 05:29:17 PM · #18
Well..I think non-camera people don't agonize over a photo. They like it or they don't. However, average voters don't appreciate how difficult the shots we see in magazines and other publications really are and I think that is reflected in the votes here. They grade a bit rougher against a media standard.

Folks with cameras...newbie or not, do understand that the difference in good shots and great shots could be just slight ajustments in composition, lighting or a thousand other little things so they give a little more leeway.

My vote given is ..what..a 4.7 something. Which is about a 5 average..which makes sense I guess on a site with a wide variation of skills, experience and tastes.
07/05/2002 06:08:20 PM · #19
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Actually, my logic is not unfounded, it is completely founded in statistics:

...

If a sample started out with a small group of knowledgeable photographers, that knowledge base will probably decrease as it gets more members, as long as there is no screening process.


The problem with this statement is that the site was never a small group of knowledgeable photographers. The site was built by Langdon and myself just as a toy for us and a couple of our friends who had digital cameras, so we could learn to be better photographers by taking more pictures and getting each others' criticisms. None of us had ever had a single photography course (that I'm aware of), and I certainly don't consider myself a good photographer -- I'm learning like everyone else. Past 10 or so users, the people who came to this site were completely random.

I do not understand why you are getting defensive, or think that I think Iwas the last good judge. I never made any comments about anyone''s ability, certainly not my own.

I apologize for getting defensive. Your hypothesis I replied to, though, that it could be the "quality of the judges decreasing", I completely disagreed with. I thought it was a lame statement, and I replied as such -- as a user, not in any kind of administrative role.

For anyone who's wondering, there appear to be no trends in voting related to time of signup... I ran a couple queries before I went to bed last night.

USER ID ... AVG VOTE
--------------------
0-500 ... 5.140
500-1000 ... 5.330
1000-1500 ... 5.186
1500-2000 ... 5.209
2000-25000... 5.094

No hard feelings, zeissman. Just throwing in my opinion like everyone else. :)

Drew
07/05/2002 06:15:16 PM · #20
The stat I would find really interesting is how a photo starts the week off in the voting and tracks the rise and fall. Most of my photos rise as the week goes on but the first 25 votes seems to always be really low.

My theory is that everyone hates Mondays and votes their mood and as we get to the weekend people get happier :-)
07/05/2002 06:51:32 PM · #21
I think Hokie that there might be a relationship between the days of the week and how much time people bother to study the shots? The monday people just wack off first impressions. A greater number of the friday/saturday voters will have really looked at the photos, you think?
aelith
07/05/2002 06:54:41 PM · #22
hehe

i almost always have the opposite experience : )

Originally posted by hokie:
The stat I would find really interesting is how a photo starts the week off in the voting and tracks the rise and fall. Most of my photos rise as the week goes on but the first 25 votes seems to always be really low.

My theory is that everyone hates Mondays and votes their mood and as we get to the weekend people get happier :-)


07/05/2002 06:57:29 PM · #23
thanks everyone, my first question was kind of a flippant one, and was not a statement of my feelings.

I have been thinking about the statics question too.

I would say, as the site grows, it would expected that the "average" score be be a "5", but I doubt that it is valid to argue that the top score will trend too much closer to a five.

The only way that the top score would trend to 5 or actually 5.5, is if there were a 1 one cast for every 10, a 2 for every nine, a 3 for every 8 and so on.

The background of the voters and the photographers changing would not I believe, cause this to happen.

The "rules" or guidelines of photography are not there to teach educated people what to like, but to teach students how to reproduce what people find pleasing. I think all the winning photos would trend towards the top no matter how big this site gets.

Also, to add to Drew''s stat''s, the average score was 5.2 in the first challenge, with only nine photographers. I do not think I am going to bother adding up all 100+ scores in the last challenge.


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 7:02:07 PM.
07/05/2002 07:07:17 PM · #24
Originally posted by hokie:
The stat I would find really interesting is how a photo starts the week off in the voting and tracks the rise and fall. Most of my photos rise as the week goes on but the first 25 votes seems to always be really low.


Unfortunately, we don't keep vote date in the database anymore, or I'd run it for you. ~400,000 vote records x 8 bytes for a date = ouch :)

Drew
07/05/2002 07:21:17 PM · #25


* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 7:36:11 PM.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/21/2021 12:15:44 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 © 2001-2021 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: 01/21/2021 12:15:44 PM EST.