What should be done with cheats ? Part 5 :-(

Started Mar 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Deleted pending purge
Senior MemberPosts: 1,197Gear list
Re: Another double account disclosed
In reply to Tim A2, May 19, 2013

Tim A2 wrote:

OldArrow wrote:

With all the other changes needed in the challenges, I see your idea as a possible (switchable) option, which should not be overly complicated to apply. Such challenges (where the host picks the winning entry or entries) should be designed so that no voting is offered right from the start, i.e. this should be clearly marked in some way.

The challenge would then not need to pass the voting phase (1 week) too. When host picks the top-# photos, s/he could click it "finished" which would enable it to continue to Exhibition phase. This system would require more thoughts on design, though, as it stands out from the rest of the routine.

Try suggesting the complete timeline and behavior of such version. Maybe someone likes it, up there.

-- hide signature --


OldArrow, I truely hope you and the others who want it also get the option to require all entrants to vote. I think DPR's idea to provide options for hosts is brilliant. I hope they can pull that off and not introduce a major confusion factor. An option for requiring all entrants to vote seems very doable to me. Your chances of getting that requirement as an option seem pretty good. Chances of getting it as a requirement for all challenges, not so much.


Thanks, Tim. My suggestions (every single one so far) are aimed at making the Challenges fair and educative, insofar as the stats emerging from the results are actually usable to those who check their photographic progress that way. This in turn requires doing away with all kinds of behavior which slants these results, meaning that the cheaters' actions need to be rendered ineffective, that the rules get to be helpful in organizing equal standards and challenge ambient for all (and not restrictive for its own sake), and that all hosts do their best to work for these goals.

By "complicating" a challenge creation window a bit, it can be so arranged that many checkable elements get checked against the range of chosen rules / options, and the entries that pass the submission conversation need only be checked upon their alignment with the challenge theme, and possibly for the metadata accuracy. Those entries which are inadequate at the entry point, then generate feedback warnings to the entrant, and will have to be corrected before another submission attempt - instead of being sought out and disqualified. This saves time and effort, even to those that simply refuse to read or mind the rules. Most of all, it simplifies the host's life - a lot.

As to the suggestion that all voters vote on all entries in any challenge where they intend to vote, it's the simplest and most effective way to ensure that every entry receives whatever value it deserves. If anyone can think of something simpler but equally precise and honest, I'll support it, of course.

I'll highlight one important aspect again: the entrants have the right to have their works evaluated by human opinion, and not by any kind of machine-generated approximation. That's why they submit their entries: to get photographers' opinion.

In any challenge where, say, from all 100 entries only 34 are voted upon, the final ranking will not repeat not be accurate for 66. Still, those 66 will appear ordered and sorted by some math magic - and not by the (non-existent!) votes! IMO, that is not what the entrants can either like or use in the way of statistics. Someone appearing 97th on such a top-list will rightly wonder, why their entry is so much worse than the 67th.

That's why human voting on all images beats any other mode, however easier it appears to voters, and also disregarding the fact that we can never know the voters' qualifications, taste, and experience. Every picture will generate different response from every viewer, but at least it will not be "made up" for reasons of, let's call it voting elegance.

That human voting also effectively dilutes all tactical voting attempts is clear, and no less important.

I wish everyone would see it this way... but so far, it seemed beyond my ability to explain it better.

-- hide signature --


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow