Ruins and sandbaggers

So my second challenge, "scenery, ruins" has ended. Congrats to the winners,

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=526024&View=Results&Rows=4

My personal favorite got second, a great mysterious picture:

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=526270&View=Results&Rows=4

I also identified three sandbaggers, who together were good for 19 half stars, 80 one stars and 53 one and a half stars. their highest individual votes were 1.5 stars (21 times), 2.5 stars (twice) and 3 stars (3 times). In a next challenge I will take action.

Great to see you have taken the effort to see how some people vote. Hope this catches on with all Challenge Hosts and something is done about it. Sandbagging definitely puts a lot of people off entering challenges and then seeing their good honest efforts being blocked by these sad anonymous individuals probably trying to improve their own rating by awarding poor scores to images that obviously do not deserve it which they can probably see are better than their own.

Being barred from voting in a Challenge in which you are also an entrant would go a long way to help. Much better if you think an entry is poor in some way that you give your comments after the Challenge voting is finished.

Cheers.

The problem with what this Host seems to be planning is that Hosts cannot know for certain if an Entrant is Sandbagging . . . the voters are anonymous even to the Hosts.

I used to think that part of the solution for Sandbagging was for Entrants to not vote in the Challenges they enter . . . but now I'm thinking the opposite is probably a better solution . . . EVERYONE who enters must vote on all entries in the Challenges they enter . . . this would dilute the effect of any Sandbagger's votes . . .

whisky said:

Being barred from voting in a Challenge in which you are also an entrant would go a long way to help. Much better if you think an entry is poor in some way that you give your comments after the Challenge voting is finished.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com

RaptorUK said:

but now I'm thinking the opposite is probably a better solution . . . EVERYONE who enters must vote on all entries in the Challenges they enter . . . this would dilute the effect of any Sandbagger's votes . . .

Click to expand...

Unless all the entrants are sandbagging.

The problems will not go away until DPR get serious about policing the voting either by giving hosts more tools or doing it themselves......they seem not to be concerned probably because those that have given up participating have been replaced by new participants so no loss of click thru's or however they gauge these things.

It could be solved and I think I know how but it would cost $ to participate.

--
Arrrrrrh !

Bart.

One eyed Bart said:

Unless all the entrants are sandbagging.

Click to expand...

I still have a little faith left in the Human race, so I don't think the Sandbaggers are in the majority.

One eyed Bart said:

The problems will not go away until DPR get serious about policing the voting either by giving hosts more tools or doing it themselves......they seem not to be concerned probably because those that have given up participating have been replaced by new participants so no loss of click thru's or however they gauge these things.

Click to expand...

I think you are correct, more info for Hosts, they are given the Responsibility they should also be given the Authority to go along with it . . . let them see the ID of the voters.

One eyed Bart said:

It could be solved and I think I know how but it would cost $ to participate.

--
Arrrrrrh !

Bart.

Click to expand...

--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com

Why not make it a cumalative voting system where giving a .5 only puts an extra .5 to someones score then id take 100 .5s anyday..All this averaging of votes dont make any sence to me..

Your idea could be the answer!! As it stands, if you get any 0.5 votes etc. it is the 'kiss of death' for your entry.

Sandbaggers would then be a benefit to the overall voting score. Bye bye Bayesian methodology.

Keep it simple.

Cheers.

I think you are over reacting a little . . . how many posts have there been on here about winners getting 0.5 votes ? if getting a 0.5 vote is a "kiss of death" how come winners have 0.5 votes ?

whisky said:

Your idea could be the answer!! As it stands, if you get any 0.5 votes etc. it is the 'kiss of death' for your entry.

Sandbaggers would then be a benefit to the overall voting score. Bye bye Bayesian methodology.

Keep it simple.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com

Agree with you in general terms, yes, a lot of winning entries do in fact get sub 1.5 votes and still manage to win but many entries, including the high ranked ones suffer from undeserved low scores.

Voting is rather subjective and what one might consider excellent, someone else thinks is rubbish, it is always going to be like that and that is not unreasonable.

One might also be forgiven for thinking that some voters judge an entry mainly on its technical excellence and overlook any pictorial merit which might actually be present. Hardly gives much encouragement to those with sub 'zillion megapixel resolution' and advanced PP skills does it.

This subject rolls on and on but a simple total score method might have some merit. Any vote cast is then an advantage.

Cheers.

Part of what is needed is for all voters to vote in the same way . . . for example, I generally (majority of Challenges I vote on) vote on all entries in a Challenge, some other voters just vote on a few of their favourites within a Challenge . . . the highest vote I have ever given has been 4.5, only twice I think, other people give plenty of 5 * votes . . .

I'm not a fan of the "Like" type of voting idea, but perhaps with some modification and qualifying rules it could work.

For example:

• each voter must vote on all Challenges he/she enters
• each voter can only vote for the entry they most "Like"
• each entrant cannot "Like" their own entry
• each voter must have previously entered 5 Challenges before being able to vote on Challenges they are not an Entrant in.

My criticism of the "Like" type of voting system was that it is too easy for entrants to get friends and family to vote for them, my last bullet point seeks to address this issue.

whisky said:

This subject rolls on and on but a simple total score method might have some merit. Any vote cast is then an advantage.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com

Sounds sensible to me. Providing they can only place one vote to the entry they consider best meets the challenge theme and not to vote for themselves. The qualifier sounds a good idea to avoid 'Pals' votes too.

I'm not a fan for voting in challenges in which you are an entrant but your suggestion seems to be fair enough to avoid negativity.

Here's hoping there will be some progress to address this perennial subject and go some way to making the challenges more appealing.

Cheers.

It all depends on what a voter considers for the value of the photos. Does a 5 rating mean an "average" photo?

I don't, I consider a "good" photo to be a 2.5 and an exceptional photo to be a 4 and a superb photo to be a 5. To me an "average" (or actually really fair/not good) photo to be a 1.5 with a "decent" entry being a 2.

For me a 0.5 is a bad photo or one that in my view violates the Challenge rules (such as a house cat photo in the Tamron "nature and travel" Challenge)
--
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
http://www.facebook.com/Photography.by.Hoy
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/

happy snapper uk said:

Why not make it a cumalative voting system where giving a .5 only puts an extra .5 to someones score then id take 100 .5s anyday..All this averaging of votes dont make any sence to me..

Click to expand...

RaptorUK wrote

For example:
each voter must vote on all Challenges he/she enters
each voter can only vote for the entry they most "Like"
each entrant cannot "Like" their own entry

each voter must have previously entered 5 Challenges before being able to vote on Challenges they are not an Entrant in.

Robert Hoy wrote:

It all depends on what a voter considers for the value of the photos. Does a 5 rating mean an "average" photo?

My take is: Any vote given is purely at the judgement of the voter and a 'clear?' "Guidelines chart" is supplied by DPR on how points should be awarded.

If a system, as suggested, were adopted using accumulative scoring, it becomes less important as to whether that award is high or low since a fellow entrant is perfectly at liberty to cast his one 'best' vote entitlement high or low.

It can all become a bit complicated to make a system understandable, fair and simple.

Cheers.