 Posted 2/6/2008 5:41:48 PM
|
|
|
|
| OK ... what’s the deal here ? First off, you can upload 100 photos, but as soon as you upload half of that, your voting ratio turns on you, there are never enough to keep up. You are always figuring out how to perform this balancing act. Do you ignore weighting and just keep uploading, or do you stop uploading until the system keeps up ? At this point I’ve archived almost everything and still can’t catch up as there aren’t enough photos available ....it’s really not very much fun ! 75:1 ???? The other option is to upload to 100 and ignore the stupid weighting factor ! Although People are supposed to be anonymous, comment requests are coming in addressed to me by name ............ this is anonymous ???? Sorry, but this is not my idea of a photo site .... unless someone can explain the philosophy and come up with a solution I will play around until the year is up, but can’t take this site seriously ! It’s certainly not because I feel I’m better than others. There are a lot of wonderful photographers here, far better than I .... only that the weighting thing should be based on PHOTOGRAPHY, not how long you’ve been here, or how many votes you CAN"T even register. And that’s my two cents worth !! Curious about other’s thoughts.
|
|
|
Posted 2/6/2008 7:15:48 PM
|
|
|
|
While mildly successful at its conception, the 75:1 vote requirement to convert potential or award weight into voting weight has become obsolete. The new voting ratio requirements have overcome the need to require members to voting to convert their weight.
.
To accurately support the sites concepts of "weight" and "weighted voting" as the best determinants of image recognition, then the voting requirement should be lifted.
.
I also feel that this change would need to be coupled to a set period of "rolling voting weight" in order to maintain some reasonable spread between the highest and lowest weighted voters. This rolling weight will also serve to recognize the most current active participation in setting voting weights.
.
edit add: While removal of the 75:1 vote requirement would directly convert award points into voting weight, it would not change any aspect of the voting ratio requirement. If someone were to upload 100 images they would still be faced with the same negative voting ratio possibilities.
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images Nikon D70 - Nikon N90 - Nikonus III - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 2/6/2008 7:30:51 PM
|
|
|
|
glottz (2/6/2008)
Although People are supposed to be anonymous, comment requests are coming in addressed to me by name ............ this is anonymous ????
.
True voting anonymity is not offered to most higher weighted voters. So long as votes are directly displayed with a voters weight and those weights are displayed in a voters profile, simple deduction can reveal the identity of almost any unique weighted voter. See this thread - Close Loop on Voter Identification.
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images Nikon D70 - Nikon N90 - Nikonus III - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 2/6/2008 7:33:09 PM
|
|
|
|
| I sort of agree with Mr anonymous. One should get one's full weight based on points earned from winning awards and not from voting like crazy. "The site philosophy is simple. Those who have proven success have more voice over those seeking success." Success should be measured by how well one's images does in the voting pool and not how many votes one casts. I know that Eric wants to encourage voting but in my opinion dangling a carrot is not the right way. Here's an idea to let people have their full weight and also encourage voting. The more you vote, the more frequently your images will appear in the voting pool. If you rarely vote, than your images will rarely appear in the voting pool. Of course the same rule will apply that no one will be able to vote more than once on an individual image.
|
|
|
Posted 2/6/2008 7:57:32 PM
|
|
|
|
| I agree!!!!! I have to constantly delete, delete and delete in order to keep up, not mentioning that I can't go away on a weekend not feeling stressed because when I come back the voting might have overpowered me (not to mention my wife's bad humor for being hours and hours connected to the site). Anyway, I see a major problem here; if people start voting like crazy in order to have a favorable ratio that allows them to keep uploading, then the essence of voting is lost. When I vote, I like to take my time to look at the picture, analyse it, enjoy it for a while, decide and cast a vote. But with this rule, members' vote can become just automated push of the mouse's button in a hurry in order to keep up, therefore making many of the votes to be not objectively cast. On the other hand, we also need time to go out there and take pictures, plus some of us have a 9 to 5 job. It is not an easy task and it has become way more difficult for some of us, who really enjoy the site, to comply with the rules. I hope something can be done about it; let's not lose the essence of DA. Jorge
|
|
|
Posted 2/6/2008 8:00:31 PM
|
|
|
|
When I vote, I like to take my time to look at the picture, analyse it, enjoy it for a while, decide and cast a vote. But with this rule, members' vote can become just automated push of the mouse's button in a hurry in order to keep up, therefore making many of the votes to be not objectively cast. Completely agree, and thank you for taking your time.
|
|
|
Posted 2/6/2008 11:38:49 PM
|
|
|
|
I think Will's idea of an alternative way to keep people voting is a good one! I can really see how frustrating it must be to those of you who want to take your time in voting but feel pressured to rush just to keep up. I can understand how Eric wants to encourage voting but the way he is attempting to do it is counterproductive. I hear there isn't enough images to vote on and that we should upload more but why would I want to do that if people are going to just speed vote. If I upload an image, I do so primarily to get a fair, thoughtful and objective evaluation of the image. The way things sit now, that is not going to happen. I'm glad I only got a short subscription because if this rule doesn't get changed I see no reason to have one. I love voting and feel I learn a lot by participating in that alone but I don't need a subscription to do that.
The other reason I thought a subscription would be a good thing is to participate in the challenges but there is nothing going on with that right now either. There are plenty of good ideas for challenges but they need to wait for votes too. Is there not enough people who want to participate?
Linda R. C.
|
|
|
Posted 2/7/2008 6:29:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Really agree with this... I have not uploaded anything new for over a week as the last few images I uploaded before that received a flurry of low votes and were archived within two days! I don't think my standard of photography has changed that much so I can only put it down to "speed voting".
I think weights are a good idea in principle but do not think it is the right thing to base weight on how many votes you have given. Of course voting is the life blood of this site but surely there are other ways to encourage voting (several good ideas have been mentioned) and I don't think I shall be uploading again until such time there are some significant changes.
Where is Admin in all this? There are so many ideas, suggestions, frustrations, etc. etc. that are ongoing in various threads of this forum but very rarely do I see any input from Admin. There seems to be no moderator for the forum. No amount of discussion about any aspect of this site can change anything - only Admin can do that and I see very little action or response to any ideas or frustrations.
|
|
|
|
