"more judging systems to come" How about it DPR?

[buckshot]

Folks

"more judging systems to come"

Your challenge page has read like this for some time. I would like to see the ability to "hurt" an entry with a vote taken away.

Thank you for hosting the challenges and thank you for the steps you have taken so far to make it a more fair outcome.

How about it DPR?

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[buckshot]

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[Figsbury]

Folks

I would like to see the ability to "hurt" an entry with a vote taken away.

Enough people do this already by awarding 0.5 scores to perfectly good pictures - The effect of what you suggest would just be to give more leverage to sandbaggers.

The system has it's weaknesses, but all changes may have unintended consequences e.g. Make people comment their 0.5s - 1 becomes the new 0.5. Or give Hosts power to discount votes - Hosts end up being judges.

 

[buckshot]

Figsbury

I would like to see the ability to "hurt" an entry with a vote taken away.

Enough people do this already by awarding 0.5 scores to perfectly good pictures - The effect of what you suggest would just be to give more leverage to sandbaggers.

Not so.

If 2.5 and less votes counted towards your final tally the worst a sandbagger could do is not vote ...

The system has it's weaknesses, but all changes may have unintended consequences e.g. Make people comment their 0.5s - 1 becomes the new 0.5. Or give Hosts power to discount votes - Hosts end up being judges.

How about just reveal the voters?

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[ConanFuji]

JB, nothing is perfect... including marriage, religion, govts, educational systems.
But we do it anyway... right?

I would like to see the ability to "hurt" an entry with a vote taken away.

Enough people do this already by awarding 0.5 scores to perfectly good pictures - The effect of what you suggest would just be to give more leverage to sandbaggers.

Not so.

If 2.5 and less votes counted towards your final tally the worst a sandbagger could do is not vote ...

The system has it's weaknesses, but all changes may have unintended consequences e.g. Make people comment their 0.5s - 1 becomes the new 0.5. Or give Hosts power to discount votes - Hosts end up being judges.

How about just reveal the voters?

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

--
Have fun and improve your photography skills at http://www.fujimugs.com

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

I would like to see the ability to "hurt" an entry with a vote taken away.

Enough people do this already by awarding 0.5 scores to perfectly good pictures - The effect of what you suggest would just be to give more leverage to sandbaggers.

Not so.

If 2.5 and less votes counted towards your final tally the worst a sandbagger could do is not vote ...

In general I think you are incorrect. It may be possible to conger up some scenario where not voting would result in a lower end result for a specific entry, but I think that would require that you know the dpreview algorithm for adjusting results. Generally, if you vote lower than the mean vote for an entry, you lower the final result for that entry. 1/2-star is as low as you can vote - the most you can "hurt" a result.
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

 

[buckshot]

Tony

JB, nothing is perfect... including marriage, religion, govts, educational systems.
But we do it anyway... right?

So just roll over? That is not me. There is nothing wrong with making something better. It may not still be perfect but it would be better. You know you are the one who pointed out the text on the challenge page...

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[buckshot]

Ed

In general I think you are incorrect.

:-D

1/2-star is as low as you can vote - the most you can "hurt" a result.

The point is that you can "hurt" an entry ... why not take that away?

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[buckshot]

This person was obviously was attacked for having a great entry

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=37892708

This is what I want to stop ... and its easy
--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

I have sort of misunderstood this thread from the beginning - sorry.

The example you cite was over a year ago. While this sort of thing (attacking an individual) can still be done, it is much harder now. About six months ago, dpreview took some steps to eliminate this sort of thing. They ban multiple accounts from the same IP address and started hiding current entries in a persons profile. They, on occasion, have eliminated accounts where vote manipulation was obvious. Of course, it can still be done, but it happens to a much lesser extent now.
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

 

[buckshot]

Ed

I have sort of misunderstood this thread from the beginning - sorry.

No problem ... it is my fault for not clearly making my point.

The example you cite was over a year ago.

The thread that post came from has many examples new and old that is one of the best examples to make my point

While this sort of thing (attacking an individual) can still be done, it is much harder now. About six months ago, dpreview took some steps to eliminate this sort of thing. They ban multiple accounts from the same IP address and started hiding current entries in a persons profile. They, on occasion, have eliminated accounts where vote manipulation was obvious. Of course, it can still be done, but it happens to a much lesser extent now.
--

You are most correct the steps that DPR took are great!! Thank you again DPR. The sandbaggers have to work harder at it for sure. People are funny. I would like them to reveal the names of the voters and be able to see who did it and make it so their .5 vote counted for the end tally. I wonder what a challenge would look like just adding up the votes ... no magic formula. Ties could be broken by # of votes or some form of that.

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[chromablind]

The simplest solution would be to just implement a single "Like" vote proposed by onlooker in another thread. That would completely disarm the sabdbaggers.

 

[doady]

Just get rid of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 star votes. Make the only options 2.5 stars and above only. No more "negative" scores. Simple.

 

[One eyed Bart]

Just get rid of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 star votes. Make the only options 2.5 stars and above only. No more "negative" scores. Simple.

That only narrows the scoring range.

Going from ten increments to five won't help much. I don't see an 0.5 as a negative score.........just a bad score.

The whole thing is on the honor system, if you don't have any honor then whatever public user judging system is in place will be circumvented in some way. Ignore those cheesy people.

The only way to beef up the system is to have more people vote. And voters with some integrity that understand how to vote and what the stars mean. Even then good photo's will finish down the order because they are not 'understood' by many that are just looking for nice colorful images that follow the rule of thirds...........that's just the way it is.

Images are being judged by your peers and I'm afraid some of those peers have no 'eye'

I wonder how many DPR review staff vote in the challenges ?......probably none. Just having them vote on three challenges a week each would make a huge difference.

Personally I think the staff should weed out hosts that don't police their challenges, hosts that don't DQ images that are non compliant with the theme or the rules and hosts should be able to vote in challenges they host. And I think DPR should redefine the scoring directive to voters.......voters in my opinion should just be judging images and not voting on their interpretation whether an image complies with the rues or not.

The host should be the final arbiter of what complies to his challenge, he knows what he wants because he wrote the challenge in the first place. Voters shouldn't be second guessing the host. Just vote what the host puts before you.

--
Arrrrrrh !

Bart.

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

I wonder how many DPR review staff vote in the challenges ?......probably none. Just having them vote on three challenges a week each would make a huge difference.

R Butler - zero
Andy Westlake - zero
Simon Joinson - zero
Phil Askey - one!
scarta - zero

--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

 

[doady]

Just get rid of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 star votes. Make the only options 2.5 stars and above only. No more "negative" scores. Simple.

That only narrows the scoring range.

Going from ten increments to five won't help much. I don't see an 0.5 as a negative score.........just a bad score.

The whole thing is on the honor system, if you don't have any honor then whatever public user judging system is in place will be circumvented in some way. Ignore those cheesy people.

The only way to beef up the system is to have more people vote. And voters with some integrity that understand how to vote and what the stars mean. Even then good photo's will finish down the order because they are not 'understood' by many that are just looking for nice colorful images that follow the rule of thirds...........that's just the way it is.

Images are being judged by your peers and I'm afraid some of those peers have no 'eye'
--
Arrrrrrh !

Bart.

Yeah, I was just kidding. Personally, as a voter, I like to be able to give out "negative" votes. Not every reaction to photo should be "positive".

I agree with your post. More voters are the solution. Weakening the power of voters (like making all voters "positive") is not the solution. And whatever system you put in place, it will be abused.

I like the star system anyways, it has more meaning other than determining the rankings. With a "positive" voting system for example, you might get 43.5 stars for an entry, and those 43.5 stars don't tell you much. For the voters too, it confusing voting positively.

Like if I really hate a photo, I will boost it's ranking no matter what if I vote? This is problematic, especially considering that voters don't vote for every single photo in a challenge, and not all photos receive the exact same number of votes as another.

 

[One eyed Bart]

Like if I really hate a photo, I will boost it's ranking no matter what if I vote?

Not in your opinion of it if you give it a 0.5, your opinion should really be the one that counts to you.

When I was actually voting I wouldn't be that concerned about what won, I was more concerned about how I did judging and comparing what scores I'd given vs the masses. I'd made a contest for myself out of the voting process.....surprising what I'd picked up from it.

Pretty soon you can gauge what is challenge friendly and what's not. Unless it's a people based challenge, entering an image that is people or person centric you will not score well.....or as well as you should otherwise deserve.

--
Arrrrrrh !

Bart.

 

[buckshot]

doady and One eyed Bart

Like if I really hate a photo, I will boost it's ranking no matter what if I vote?

Correct ... so in the case you did not like it you would not vote.

Why do feel the need to vote against? Just to take away points from folks who do like it and make sure their votes don't count?

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[Michael73]

"More judging systems to come" was said by Jayson Marais back in early 2009 (can't find the link, sorry). Since then: nothing!

In my opinion the biggest mistake has been too many challenges . It's like too much choice in the supermarket, where do you start?

Remember how popular the first tranche of challenges were? From that time, they should have been limited to about seven new challenges per week.

Now there is a choice of over thirty to enter, and the same again to vote on... far too many...Consequently the voters disappear and the challenges become meaningless, so then even more voters stop visiting. I'm sorry to say that I stopped looking (regularly) at the challenges last year.

I seem to have gone off the original topic, but I would love to see the challenges become more popular, and I think it's time for a radical overhaul.

Michael.

Folks

"more judging systems to come"

Your challenge page has read like this for some time. I would like to see the ability to "hurt" an entry with a vote taken away.

Thank you for hosting the challenges and thank you for the steps you have taken so far to make it a more fair outcome.

How about it DPR?

--
JB
I am not a photographer, I’m just a guy that takes pictures.
http://www.buckshot.BuckshotsPhotos.photoshare.co.nz

http://www.fujimugs.com/mugshots/show_member.php?country=&act=&hasmug=&challenge=&cat=&sortby=&sortdir=&thumb=&srch=&member=1341

 

[One eyed Bart]

Correct ... so in the case you did not like it you would not vote.

I think when voting the judge should vote on every image not from a select few. Give the field a fair look and vote your conscience.

Entrants need to develop a bit of a thicker skin in regards to receiving a low vote. You can't please all the people all the time.................if you grasp the formula that contributes to an image doing well in a challenge you'll do better, fight that formula an you won't.
--
Arrrrrrh !

Bart.