Required Voting

Tim A2 · Feb 1, 2013

I thought santamonica's idea to require voting if one enters a challenge was too good to discuss under the gray cloud in that other thread about a little stumble of his. It is a bold idea that could have significant impact on the challenges.

Here are some of my random thoughts about required voting in no particular order.

1. It is a way for the hosts to take charge and not wait for DPR to do something. If the hosts show it is successful, maybe that would help motivate DPR to take action. On 2nd thought, probably not. It would be nice though if DPR would automate the DQ process for non compliance with the rule.

2. If it were the hosts option to require voting or not, that would allow entrants who are not comfortable voting in challenges they enter to participate. And please, we all already know the arguments for and agaiinst that.

3. Hosts would have extra work to do. That is a biggie. I don't know how much work it takes to do a routine DQ, but surely the process could be streamlined. Remember, this is a DIY project so we don't want to count on dpr. Could two or more hosts team up and share the work? Could volunteers somehow become helpers for hosts by becoming a dummy host (No cracks please).

4. There are a few hosts who have made it very clear they strongly favor required voting. Would any of you be willing to try some challenges with required voting as an experiment?

5. How can a host verify an entrant did the required voting? If the entrant is required to vote on all but their own entry, doesn't that show the person with the vote left blank voted? But what if voting is not required on all entries?

6. If a person is required to vote on all other entries, they have to be willing to give up their anonymity. This is a huge consequence of required voting, but if voting is not required in all challenges entrants at least have a choice. If I understand correctly a voter's anonymous ID stays with her/him so once the true ID is revealed there is no going back.

7. Hosts would be able to share their knowledge of voter's ID's and could reveal to the community at large how an individual voted if voting is required on all entries.

8. I believe DPR will never reveal voter's ID's and if that is true then it follows they will never require voting on all entries, since that reveals who the voter is. That is why the hosts need to take it upon themselves to require voting, or the waiting and complaining can continue indefinitely.

9. I believe a person who enters challenges has an obligation to vote. I also believe the number of votes cast and the challenges selected to receive the votes is a personal decision. Just because it doesn't agree with your personal decision does not make it wrong. With that out of the way I am surprised we don't see more challenges with a rule requiring a certain number of votes in the entrants profile. If the entrant is also a significant voter that should help increase the number of votes.

I am not promoting an agenda here, just throwing out some thoughts in case that might be helpful and please don't use this thread to promote your own agenda, unless it is directly applicable. Let's not forget to thank santamonica for taking an initiative to test the waters of required voting and wish him good luck.

Tim

Tony Tomlin · Feb 1, 2013

Tim,

I would have argued with you a year or two back; my attitude was that I should not vote in any challenge in which I had an entry and in others I only voted for my top ten.

Now I have come to believe that voting when I enter forces me into a comparison of my efforts with the other entries. I view all of the pictures in slideshow then back up one by one voting on all but my own but giving mine a mental mark consistent with how I judged others. If I am honest I can be humbled or satisfied (I have not withdrawn any yet) but mostly more appreciative of the field.

The second real benefit is in reviewing the winners and losers to assess whether my artistic judgment - or lack thereof - is in agreement with the community.

Thus I do endorse the host insisting on voting however, I have no idea how that can be accomplished universally.

Also I realize that voting on less than the total entry distorts the results.

bjake · Feb 1, 2013

Camera club I attend requires everyone to vote and vote on each entry,failing to vote on any entry voids the ballot.

Deleted pending purge · Feb 2, 2013

Tim A2 said:
Tim A2 wrote:

I thought santamonica's idea to require voting if one enters a challenge was too good to discuss under the gray cloud in that other thread about a little stumble of his. It is a bold idea that could have significant impact on the challenges.

Here are some of my random thoughts about required voting in no particular order.

1. It is a way for the hosts to take charge and not wait for DPR to do something. If the hosts show it is successful, maybe that would help motivate DPR to take action. On 2nd thought, probably not. It would be nice though if DPR would automate the DQ process for non compliance with the rule.

This is a simple question of having enough votes for corrrect ranking and evaluation of all works entered. The way it is not, one can have a challenge where not many voters picked out not many entries, for instance five voters may vote upon 20 entries out of a 100. The 20 entries will be ranked - the remaining 80 will what? Share joint last place?

It does not work, and that's why hosts have to ask for more voting activity. Voting on all entries removes that problem.

Tim A2 said:
2. If it were the hosts option to require voting or not, that would allow entrants who are not comfortable voting in challenges they enter to participate. And please, we all already know the arguments for and agaiinst that.

If all entrants voted on all entries, that would ensure 99 votes out of a 100. And in that case, even if the entrants were allowed to vote for own entry, and moreover, if they were to give their own entry a 5.0, what would it change? 1% of all values received? Big deal!

But then one would be able to see this lack of objectivity, if all other votes were, say, not over 3 stars. This would be an useful lesson, both to the participants and to the host.

In short, 100/100 votes required for any voter's votes to register is not dangerous to anyone.

Tim A2 said:
3. Hosts would have extra work to do. That is a biggie. I don't know how much work it takes to do a routine DQ, but surely the process could be streamlined. Remember, this is a DIY project so we don't want to count on dpr. Could two or more hosts team up and share the work? Could volunteers somehow become helpers for hosts by becoming a dummy host (No cracks please).

Hosts rarely tend to change the rules they think it is useful to have, and mostly know them by heart. So the "routine DQing" is not so difficult part of the work. It is a work, though, and some automation would come useful, as many of the usual rules are machine-checkable at the submission point (like maximum size limit, format, aspect, time/date requirement etc.) These values can be set up at the moment of challenge creation in a way that the checking routine receives fixed (ticked or entered) values, comparing these with entry characteristics.

The host would then only have to verify whether the entry contents conform to the challenge theme, since the entries not conforming to the measurable rules wouldn't even reach the challenge batch (because warnings in the process of entry submissions would require an instant correction of an entrant's work).

Tim A2 said:
4. There are a few hosts who have made it very clear they strongly favor required voting. Would any of you be willing to try some challenges with required voting as an experiment?

Not much to experiment with, IMO. But a lot of work, just to prove what we already know is correct and just.

Tim A2 said:
5. How can a host verify an entrant did the required voting? If the entrant is required to vote on all but their own entry, doesn't that show the person with the vote left blank voted? But what if voting is not required on all entries?

There are several ways, but these require a time-consuming engagement. In the case where there is no mandatory voting on all entries, and the voters ID's have been anonymized, it's even more difficult.

But then, if 100/100 votes are required, this problem disappears. See above about "dangers" on voting on own entry". Even the most vain among the entrants can't influence the outcome in a challenge of 100 slots by more than a fragment of 1%.

NOTE: In the same way, the so-called "family voting" gets seriously disarmed! What is now regarded as a serious lack of morals, with close-knitted groups and/or multi-account holders awarding themselves the highest votes for just about any POS entered, will be effectively diluted out of importance.

Tim A2 said:
6. If a person is required to vote on all other entries, they have to be willing to give up their anonymity. This is a huge consequence of required voting, but if voting is not required in all challenges entrants at least have a choice. If I understand correctly a voter's anonymous ID stays with her/him so once the true ID is revealed there is no going back.

The entrants are anonymous, known only by their nicknames. The voters are further anonymized by turning their nicks into alphanumeric codes which remain with each DPR member. What the hosts see at the point of entry submissions can be remembered (and often is). Thus, if the members' nicks are seen to the host (and NOT to everyone else), there is no real harm done - but there is a big help to see who votes, how, and perhaps why. Now, that's something that can be dealt with, in several ways described elsewhere. I'll just highlight this again, there are some things that the hosts need to be able to do, if the challenges are to be run justly and effectively. And we all want proper and precise statistics, right?

Tim A2 said:
7. Hosts would be able to share their knowledge of voter's ID's and could reveal to the community at large how an individual voted if voting is required on all entries.

Hosts should never reveal any such data. The exception would be when someone has been found cheating - and it is the right of this community to know who such people are. But using members data for some kind of foul play should be sanctioned to the same extent we require for all the "morally challenged" members. Dishonest hosts should be removed from hosting duty - and more.

Tim A2 said:
8. I believe DPR will never reveal voter's ID's and if that is true then it follows they will never require voting on all entries, since that reveals who the voter is. That is why the hosts need to take it upon themselves to require voting, or the waiting and complaining can continue indefinitely.

Within the scope of proposed challenge system changes, each change is connected to some of the reasons. All reasons for change requests are empirical - these emerged form the everyday happenings that fill this Forum with prevalently ugly topics.

So the request for anonymization removal came from blatant cheating during votings. Again: only active hosts need to see who's voting and how (to possibly determine why). To all the entrants and voters, the entrant ID will remain unknown until the Exhibition Phase.

Tim A2 said:
9. I believe a person who enters challenges has an obligation to vote. I also believe the number of votes cast and the challenges selected to receive the votes is a personal decision. Just because it doesn't agree with your personal decision does not make it wrong. With that out of the way I am surprised we don't see more challenges with a rule requiring a certain number of votes in the entrants profile. If the entrant is also a significant voter that should help increase the number of votes.

It can be arranged that the entrants "earn" their submission right by acquiring certain number of "voting credits", say, 1 Entry Submission = 10 Votes Cast. I don't see any difficulties in that.

Where I do see the problem is in random voting within challenges. Depending upon various things, like overly specialized or ethically uncomfortable themes, also overly large challenge batches allowed, some would cringe to go and vote. By setting the maximum challenge size and applying the "all-vote-for-all-entries", the problem disappears.

Tim A2 said:
I am not promoting an agenda here, just throwing out some thoughts in case that might be helpful and please don't use this thread to promote your own agenda, unless it is directly applicable. Let's not forget to thank santamonica for taking an initiative to test the waters of required voting and wish him good luck.

Good thinking, and thanks for voicing out the dubious sides of the process. It is all solvable, but for the grace of DPR people.

Let's not forget one important point: The entrants and the hosts do some work here, which is time-consuming and not always fun, especially not for the hosts.

If the proposed changes happen in the way I see them, Entrants / Voters may appear to receive a streamlined, just and straightforward system. There will be no more need to mix image quality with image appropriateness - votes will reflect the entry quality only (e.g., no more low vote values on inappropriate entries).

The hosts get to receive only the entries which are in-line with their challenges - the most of the rules do their own entry sifting. Their duty will consist of much less work.

The Challenges will receive many votes on every entry: the final outcome will be more precise and just. The stats will feedback something measurable and useful to the photographer.

DPR will get more clicks, as the community slowly cleans itself of low life. This will be an important signal to the honest photographers: at DPR Challenges they do not tolerate the sleazy kind.

I hope you support this concept.

Tim A2 said:
Tim

Tim A2 · Feb 2, 2013

Sorry OldArrow I did not make it clear. The purpose of this thread is to help santamonica and work the kinks out of required voting without counting on DPR. I would hope that you and some others would also start requiring voting in at least some of your challenges. A goal would be something like having say 50% of all challenges require voting to enter.

The amount of work needs to be dealt with. Smaller number of entries would help. 50 might be the max, but two hosts could team up and run two challenges simultaneously of 50 with identical themes. Run off challenges for winners could be fun. Or the two hosts could work together and run one challenge of 75 and split the work. Some volunteers could pitch in and help out.

I would like to see some challenges where the host eliminates something like 1/3 to 1/5 the entries before voting starts. Don't like it, just don't enter.

Let's keep it positive and look for ways to make it work.

Tim

barb_s · Feb 2, 2013

Tim, When I started hosting, I tried a number of ways to try increase voting, from requiring entry to those with a minimum # of votes in the profile, to a minimum # votes per challenge entered. It seemed like a statistic I could check in any entrant's profile.

What I found was, I ended up DQ'ing 1/3 to 1/2 entries and spent a lot of time explaining to people why they were DQ'd. I don't know if that got people thinking about doing more voting or not but it was one way to reward voting.

I do like this new idea to expect voting as a rule in a challenge entered but with the current set up, all one can do as a host is DQ those who 1) have no voting history in their profiles (as recently done) or 2) don't vote at all in the week the challenge is in process (would have to keep a spreadsheet of everyone's profile when voting started). Those who have a history and vote on other challenges would not be penalized if they did not vote in the challenge with the rule though. You'd never know as a host where they voted. For that reason I feel this idea should be implemented by DPR as an option in the rule set and DPR should be able to verify voting records by voter and keep it anonymous.. Currently, it's a nice idea but not possible to fairly act upon for the whole list of entrants (IMO).

Deleted pending purge · Feb 2, 2013

Tim A2 said:
Tim A2 wrote:

Sorry OldArrow I did not make it clear. The purpose of this thread is to help santamonica and work the kinks out of required voting without counting on DPR. I would hope that you and some others would also start requiring voting in at least some of your challenges. A goal would be something like having say 50% of all challenges require voting to enter.

The amount of work needs to be dealt with. Smaller number of entries would help. 50 might be the max, but two hosts could team up and run two challenges simultaneously of 50 with identical themes. Run off challenges for winners could be fun. Or the two hosts could work together and run one challenge of 75 and split the work. Some volunteers could pitch in and help out.

I would like to see some challenges where the host eliminates something like 1/3 to 1/5 the entries before voting starts. Don't like it, just don't enter.

Let's keep it positive and look for ways to make it work.

Tim

I get your meaning, Tim, and it has its merits, but what it boils down to is asking for voting results to reflect accuracy of the final ranking.

This method patches up the system somewhat, but still leaves open wide holes in other aspects, which disarms the purpose of the challenges.

And like it or not, we do need to count on DPR to help us remake the system which does not need patches. It is a complex problem that needs to be solved ASAP, since asking for more votes while leaving the voting open to all kinds of tweaks does not make the results accurate.

Your suggestion of more hosts working at the same challenge actually shows how much work there is... but my goal is to make hosts' duties easier and straightforward, from the point of challenge setup through the vote counting to the final top-list. It's and exercise in principles rather than just reprogramming the challenge mechanism.

I agree with your final sentence: let's keep it positive. Challenges can be made easier on all participating sides, and in the same time supplying precise feedback to the photographers.

The host's role would then be reduced from the workhorse detective to the observing helper.

Tim A2 · Feb 2, 2013

OldArrow, I see you have chosen not to participate. I am disappointed, but that is the beauty of this, nobody has to do anything they don't want to. By the way there are no patches, changes or even tweaks to the system involved. The idea is to use the system as it is to run a challenge with a voting requirement. No big deal really.

Thank you anyway.

Tim

Tim A2 · Feb 2, 2013

barb_s said:
barb_s wrote:

Tim, When I started hosting, I tried a number of ways to try increase voting, from requiring entry to those with a minimum # of votes in the profile, to a minimum # votes per challenge entered. It seemed like a statistic I could check in any entrant's profile.

What I found was, I ended up DQ'ing 1/3 to 1/2 entries and spent a lot of time explaining to people why they were DQ'd. I don't know if that got people thinking about doing more voting or not but it was one way to reward voting.

I do like this new idea to expect voting as a rule in a challenge entered but with the current set up, all one can do as a host is DQ those who 1) have no voting history in their profiles (as recently done) or 2) don't vote at all in the week the challenge is in process (would have to keep a spreadsheet of everyone's profile when voting started). Those who have a history and vote on other challenges would not be penalized if they did not vote in the challenge with the rule though. You'd never know as a host where they voted. For that reason I feel this idea should be implemented by DPR as an option in the rule set and DPR should be able to verify voting records by voter and keep it anonymous.. Currently, it's a nice idea but not possible to fairly act upon for the whole list of entrants (IMO).

Deleted pending purge · Feb 2, 2013

Tim A2 said:
Tim A2 wrote:

OldArrow, I see you have chosen not to participate. I am disappointed, but that is the beauty of this, nobody has to do anything they don't want to. By the way there are no patches, changes or even tweaks to the system involved. The idea is to use the system as it is to run a challenge with a voting requirement. No big deal really.

Thank you anyway.

Tim

Tim, I was trying to explain the situation as it is; known from the everyday praxis. Maybe I failed to do it properly, since I see that you took my meaning somewhat out of empirical context.

What I'm trying to highlight is that the Challenges can't become any better whatever the hosts attempt to do with no real tools available to them. The global changes to the challenge system can streamline the proceedings - no additional host action in the current version can remove the problems the hosts are facing: this is not wishful thinking; it's empirical.

There is an accurate observation by barb_s showing that whosoever has voted in any of the challenge open for voting within that week will be exempt from the proposed method. Since almost everyone votes somewhere at any given time, I'm afraid your attempt will be difficult to control, meaning that there will be a lot of work invested in not too much of an effect.

This method requres a lot of free time, which I can't reserve for that purpose at the moment, but I'll be interested in the progress and conclusions. Whatever the outcome, I'll congratulate you for the effort you are investing for the good purpose.

Search

Required Voting

Tim A2

Senior Member

Tony Tomlin

Leading Member

bjake

Forum Enthusiast

Deleted pending purge

Senior Member

Tim A2

Senior Member

barb_s

Leading Member

Deleted pending purge

Senior Member

Tim A2

Senior Member

Tim A2

Senior Member

Deleted pending purge

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts