"Photo Fish Hunt" Challenge: Mechanics vs. Honesty

[Paulo Matos]

I was not judging you nor replying directly to you.

I was just indirectly saying that I disagree completely with the voting method you and Rick described, which is in my opinion obviously unfair.

Well, I kinda sorta feel that instead of actually repyling to me, he chose to point me out and proclaim to the crowd that something should be done to prevent me from continuing to do "wrong".

I can understand the frustration with the system (it's why I've rarely entered a shot over the past while and have stopped hosting altogether), but don't appreciate feeling like I'm getting judged just because I'd rather not have to rate every single entry in a challenge... not just for the reason I gave before but also for lack of time. Give me a more efficient way to vote and I'd pop over to the challenges at voting time more often

Well, he kind of sort of was talking to DPR...

The remark he made was a comment on what DPR should do.
(suggesting he would like to see it changed )

--
~ Martin

 

[mschf]

What exactly should DPR do in your opinion?

Un-reinvent the wheel?

There was a posting not long after the challenges launched, asking for feedback and suggestions. To date it wasn't followed up on. I don't have the authority to say what DPR should do, but if it were up to me:

• entrants would have to be registered for X amount of time
• entrants would have to have made X number of posts
• scrap the useless ratings system and use a points system: allot each voter X number of points to be distributed to their favorite entries, excluding their own. You cannot sandbag someone with this system since there would be no such thing as giving a negative value. You could however get your buddies to sign up and give your entries points but that'd be the only problem to deal with (and lessened if they can't enter/vote immediately after registering)
• entrants must vote in challenges they participate in and use up all the alloted points

Under this scenario, voters are not asked to rate pictures but simply to pick their favorites. Sandbagging is impossible.

One thing I never understood, if it's a rating system, why even have a voting period? Why can't we just immediately rate entries? Are we rating a photo on its own merits/adherence to the topic, or rating by comparing it to other entries? This setup is just senseless.

There's a lot more to it but I'm just offering the basic idea. DPR seems to want challenges to be a stats affair which is more gearhead-like than photographer-like. Some hosts also go to great lengths to tee people off but that's another story

--
~ Martin

 

[Paulo Matos]

What exactly should DPR do in your opinion?

Un-reinvent the wheel?

There was a posting not long after the challenges launched, asking for feedback and suggestions. To date it wasn't followed up on. I don't have the authority to say what DPR should do, but if it were up to me:

• entrants would have to be registered for X amount of time
• entrants would have to have made X number of posts
• scrap the useless ratings system and use a points system: allot each voter X number of points to be distributed to their favorite entries, excluding their own. You cannot sandbag someone with this system since there would be no such thing as giving a negative value. You could however get your buddies to sign up and give your entries points but that'd be the only problem to deal with (and lessened if they can't enter/vote immediately after registering)
• entrants must vote in challenges they participate in and use up all the alloted points

Under this scenario, voters are not asked to rate pictures but simply to pick their favorites. Sandbagging is impossible.

One thing I never understood, if it's a rating system, why even have a voting period? Why can't we just immediately rate entries? Are we rating a photo on its own merits/adherence to the topic, or rating by comparing it to other entries? This setup is just senseless.

There's a lot more to it but I'm just offering the basic idea. DPR seems to want challenges to be a stats affair which is more gearhead-like than photographer-like. Some hosts also go to great lengths to tee people off but that's another story

I also wrote on that thread, which has not had much feedback from DPR.

I just wish they would read your post and implement something like you said or anything that would make the challenges enjoyable.

 

[mschf]

I do agree that a fair and accurate outcome of a challenge would be if every voter rated every entry, but isn't this 1) asking a little too much, 2) a sign of a dysfunctional system? Why should voters have to go out of their way to ensure a correct outcome? Shouldn't it be the system that restricticts opportunities for foul play, and in this case, shouldn't it also be so that the procedure is clear rather than allowing every voter to interpret the procedure their own way?

My way is to give 5s to all the very best images (independent of any comparison to other entries, just based on the quality of the image on its own) and then go down from there. Once I've handed out all my 3s, I stop. Is this right? Well, the system allows me to interpret it this way so it must be ok... all those I didn't rate simply didn't connect with me but I'm not going to punish them for my opinion by knocking their rating down.

Others give .5's and 1s, thinking they're giving out points...

Ethically, if I give one entry a 5 and .5s to all the others, I'm guilty of sandbagging, but it is allowed. However, I don't see anything unethical in giving one entry a 5 and nothing at all to the rest of the entries, even if I viewed them all. Isn't that simply a 'neutral' vote?

To me it's just a system designed to do little more than confuse, allowing cheating in multiple ways and creating a nightmare for hosts to administer fairly

--
~ Martin

 

[mschf]

I also wrote on that thread, which has not had much feedback from DPR.

Yes but I was refering to a thread that was posted just a few months after the challenges started... sometime in 2009 I think.

I just wish they would read your post and implement something like you said or anything that would make the challenges enjoyable.

Bahhh, one man's opinion, I readily admit. While I do think the ideas I mentioned would help improve things, they're not original and a groupthink would probably result in an excellent solution (even more excellent if it resulted in DPR implementing it). I'd just be the one insisting on voting rather than rating ... I just can't stand the rating concept
--
~ Martin

 

[Paulo Matos]

However, I don't see anything unethical in giving one entry a 5 and nothing at all to the rest of the entries, even if I viewed them all. Isn't that simply a 'neutral' vote?

As long as it is not unethical it is also far from neutral. Your vote could prevent other entries from getting at a better position in relation to the one you voted 5.0, not only because it has a great impact in the mean average but also because entries with more votes can benefit from the Bayesian calculations applied. If you also only vote until you find entries which deserve a 3.0 vote you can still harm the evaluation of those which you think that deserve an inferior vote.

 

[Deleted pending purge]

In the meantime I had to DQ 8 entries in "Photo Fish Hunt" and further 5 in "Creative U/W Photography" for disregarding the Rules. Also in the "Creative U/W Photography" I DQ'd one panoramic shot of a circus tent, and one gilt horse sculpture.

After that, I had to react to another complaint, solved as follows:

Hi, the same image was submitted in an other challenge with different date. To me, this constitutes cheating. It also looks to me like an aquarium shot, which is against a Rule: "Camera optics must be 100% submerged (underwater photos only)". Therefore I am forced to disqualify both entries, here and in "The Shalows" Challenge. Please DO NOT enter or vote on any of my Challenges in the future.

... and in the already finished "Shallows":

Disqualified for EXIF manipulation and also a Rule stating: "Camera optics must be 100% submerged (underwater photos only)"

People sure are funny creatures... And we all expect fair votes... hm.

 

[barb_s]

I'll say one thing on this…. I voted that way once, and I let the host know that I was a single 5 star voter so they would not see it as a problem. I'm probably sensitive to that because I check the low and high voter ID's pretty regularly.

M current smile challenge has one or 2 of those and they don't look out of place, as a single 5 does on a photo with 8 or 9 1 and 2 votes does.

In my view, there's nothing wrong with voting everything or seeing something that stands out and you want to give it a heads up with a high vote.

It's more when you see a 5 star on a photo that really doesn't have what it takes to be a 5. And if it looks questionable, I send a note to the photo owner asking if they can clear anything up , and most often I get a decent reply and move on but if not, I then ask here for a vote boost from everyone to soften the impact that just seems to be not quite right.

Sometimes I will do that.

If I don't want to spend time voting and I see something I find outstanding, then I'll throw a five their way. I don't see anything wrong with that.

It beats going through and tossing in a lot of 2.5s to go with it.

Just sayin'

Rick
--
Enjoying life one moment at a time.

--
Barb

 

[pocoloco]

I made one of these complaints, but I did say as well that I cannot prove the image was an aquarium shot, it was just a suspicion. I asked the entrant twice, for both entries, but got no response. Luckily he also gave for both entries different capture dates, I only made the complaint after I noticed that... I do not want to start witch hunts based on suspicions only....

In the meantime I had to DQ 8 entries in "Photo Fish Hunt" and further 5 in "Creative U/W Photography" for disregarding the Rules. Also in the "Creative U/W Photography" I DQ'd one panoramic shot of a circus tent, and one gilt horse sculpture.

After that, I had to react to another complaint, solved as follows:

Hi, the same image was submitted in an other challenge with different date. To me, this constitutes cheating. It also looks to me like an aquarium shot, which is against a Rule: "Camera optics must be 100% submerged (underwater photos only)". Therefore I am forced to disqualify both entries, here and in "The Shalows" Challenge. Please DO NOT enter or vote on any of my Challenges in the future.

... and in the already finished "Shallows":

Disqualified for EXIF manipulation and also a Rule stating: "Camera optics must be 100% submerged (underwater photos only)"

People sure are funny creatures... And we all expect fair votes... hm.

 

[Deleted pending purge]

I made one of these complaints, but I did say as well that I cannot prove the image was an aquarium shot, it was just a suspicion. I asked the entrant twice, for both entries, but got no response. Luckily he also gave for both entries different capture dates, I only made the complaint after I noticed that... I do not want to start witch hunts based on suspicions only....

What I'm trying to do is force the entrant to finally reply stating his/her case. The lack of answer further proves the suspicion was right. Different capture dates are enough, even if there was no capture date restriction; this is just not correct. And you're right. Nobody wants to witch hunt, but there are also our responsibilities to back up the majority, which are honestly submitted entries. These games with swiped or manipulated pictures should at least be kept to a feasible minimum. Thanks for your effort.

In the meantime I had to DQ 8 entries in "Photo Fish Hunt" and further 5 in "Creative U/W Photography" for disregarding the Rules. Also in the "Creative U/W Photography" I DQ'd one panoramic shot of a circus tent, and one gilt horse sculpture.

Well, when I checked the entries this morning, the gilded horse sculpture was back. DQ'd it again, thinking what to do when it reappears for the third time...