 Posted 11/23/2007 8:33:14 AM
|
|
|
|
| Daily Awards has always been a proponent of both contest entry and voter anonymity. DAv3 has made some strong moves towards improvement over previous versions to protect the anonymity of the active contest entries. Now, most images in the voting pool are masked from view unless they have earned awards. Even if displayed, voting images are not associated with the submitting photographer. While not completely closing the contest identification loop, these steps should go a long way in curbing many members concerns about “negative individual targeted voting”. . One area that has not been addressed in DAv3 has been voter identification. While DA offers a function whereby members may choose to “unmask” and reveal their identification on the votes that they cast; the default and largest percentage of the membership choose to vote anonymously. This process is successful for the vast majority of the voters as the largest weight classification conceal individual identity within the group. . As voter’s weights gets higher, more unique numbers come into play and even if a voter chooses to vote masked their exact weight coupled to their vote is as easy an identifier as if they had chosen to vote unmasked. I made a check and I can easily identify the majority of the masked votes I have receive in the past 30 days. . A quick look of the TOP 360 rank by weight reveals 126 different voting weights. 64 of these values are unique to a single voter. Another 26 weights have only two voters there. 58 of the 85 (68%) members with weights higher than 70 points are identifiable through unique voting weight. While this may not be a problem for those choosing to vote unmasked, if the site wishes to offer the option to truly vote anonymously then this needs to be corrected. . I feel unique voting weight should be used for the ratings calculation of images but it does not need to be uniquely displayed with the vote. Instead of an exact weight a simple range indicating the approximate weight of the vote cast would be enough of a guide for information about individual votes. . Here is a count of voters within various weight ranges today that if used instead of the exact value for vote association, would go a long way to allow a voter anonymity if they should choose. . Weight Breakout 18 voters 300+
17 voters 200-299
30 voters 100-199
60 voters 50-99
69 voters 25-49
148 voters 10-24
??? voters 3-9
??? voters 2 or less
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images
Nikon D300 - Nikon D70 - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 80-200mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 11/23/2007 10:27:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/23/2007 11:02:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Tonka (11/23/2007)
....but why not just make their weight grouped and leave those who wish to remain unmasked....unmasked..????I think the choice you "advocate" is already in place. Any member can already chose to "unmask" their voting identity by selecting that option in their profile. It is the "UNIQUE WEIGHTED" voter that currently has NO CHOICE. Even if they choose to remain anonymous, each vote they cast can be tracked to them through their voting weight. If the site offers the option of voting anonymity to some members it should offer that option to all. WE
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images
Nikon D300 - Nikon D70 - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 80-200mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 11/23/2007 12:23:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/24/2007 10:15:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Agree - good idea Wemor. When I have an individual weight it puts me off voting. I've always been masked and it seems pointless if I have a unique weight and can be so easily identified as a result.
I'd vote for this to be put onto Eric's To Do List.
.
If you want the rainbow - you gotta put up with the rain.
A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel sooooo good! 
|
|
|
Posted 11/24/2007 7:29:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Honestly the only reason I reveal so much of the vote details is to allow a user to validate the system calculations.
There are two ways to achieve this 'mask'
1) Block the vote details
2) Hide the weight on the rest of the site
Do people prefer the details block on the advanced stats page?
BTW: To bring some comfort, there are 222 subscribers out of about 2500 members so many of the votes are never seen.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 11/25/2007 6:00:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/25/2007 7:42:39 AM
|
|
|
|
| You're not alone Tonka. I find it slightly odd that anyone should wish to mask their identity. What for? Why is the need to hide yourself from everybody so important? I think it began to stop targeted voting, but thats not a big issue these days! Its really somewhat disingenuous for people to go around voting and then not have the decency to let the owner of an image know immediately that it was you who voted whatever. Then you may request a comment and none is forthcoming from the masked individual which is guaranteed to inspire a small measure of paranoia. I believe that being unmasked is a sign that the person is intent on engaging with everyone else in as honest and forthright a way as possible. I have never yet been ignored for comments by an unmasked individual. So come on now, no need to be shy, this is cyberspace - let yourselves run free.
http://www.dailyawards.com/myprofile.aspx?CID=2488
|
|
|
|
