 Posted 7/19/2008 3:25:28 PM
|
|
|
|
| I assume that was someone from admin that responded with "show me the evidence" comment. I'd love to... let me look at memberships that appear under various different names and email address, but can easily be confirmed with personal, basic sign up information. How do you expose the members that pay for friends to join and then they use the account to do whatever they wish. It isn't a fortune to join and if you're so determined to win, at any cost, what's to stop you? Think it doesn't happen? You're wrong. This is a function of admin to control what goes on here and if you don't care, why should anyone else? As for voters who supposedly give low scores to control averages, next time you get one take a look at their voting habits. It's amazing the pics they have listed in their 5 votes, or even 6... quality photos that deserve much better scores by anyone's standards. They hide behind masking, so if you're serious about "doing something about it", start by disallowing a voter to remain masked. It's fine to be masked during voting, but thereafter, we should be allowed to know who is voting what. Other sites have this in place... good sites, so why can't it be done here. Cowards that hide and stay behind a masked vote don't have to worry about a thing... we do. Change that!
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2008 3:53:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Friend/foe voting detection and pattern voting detection algorithms are in place and flag those who are not playing fair. In fact, a member was expelled for organizing a collusion team on March 22, 2008. Those who use ghost accounts risk losing their membership privilege. The verification of wrongdoing involves checking IP addresses, which Admin can do..... and has done.
Over the past 2.5 years, this website has evolved into an exceptionally fair and objective contest. The membership has suggested good ideas for reducing collusion motivation and effectiveness.... and Admin has implemented them. I'm certain some continue to try to evade the system safeguards, but it's not likely they will succeed. And, eventually, they will leave enough evidence to trip them up.
The weighted voting system works, as long as a significant number of signature members vote. During the summer season, things can be distorted by spotty voting patterns. Over the long haul, the best images receive the best scores and win the top awards. No collusion group can overcome the statistical rule of large numbers over many months.
On the size issue, I think subscribers can upload 2000pixels x 2000 pixels with a size limit of 2MB. But, I definitely agree that the 640 pixel image (on the longest dimension, proportions constrained) will engender the most consistent reaction by voters. There is no guarantee that voters will view a monster size image. And, all voting window images are sized to 640 pixels.... sometimes with a compression reduction that has subliminal negatives. It's a good exercise to review the size of images which win the long duration awards. Most do not offer a "full size" view. I know from my own experimentation that there is an inverse relationship between image size and average vote received.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2008 3:59:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks Richard - I checked and you are correct on the 2MB upload limit. (I always get that wrong!) WE
_________________________
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 7/19/2008 6:05:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/20/2008 11:08:38 AM
|
|
|
|
| I appreciate your attempt at answering part of my rant and I also understand that no one really wants to put their name on the line with any kind of supporting comments... for, or against. The problem still persists unfortunately and I received some pretty wierd comments last night with some 5's on a shot that's been getting 7's and 8's. They're typically from voters with a weight of 1, or 2 and they don't have any, or many photos uploaded. I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I won't post anymore... doesn't seem to do any good anyway. The good feedback here is worth something though and until the idiotic junk becomes too much to deal with, I'll keep participating and hope the air clears.
|
|
|
Posted 7/20/2008 12:02:19 PM
|
|
|
|
4fun (7/20/2008)
....until the idiotic junk becomes too much to deal with, I'll keep participating and hope the air clears.
Good, hang in there. The waves of malicious behavior are cyclical. I acknowledge seeing the same low weight/low score voting behavior. It can be insulting and discouraging, especially when these votes come early in the process. Give your images enough time to gather a representative sample of the membership. It is summer and lots of good people are outside doing stuff.
On the other side of the coin, in my voting session this morning, I observed some really poor quality images. Haven't seen those for a while. And, at least one or two seemed to be images mocking the contest..... wrong category, low resolution, oof, poor composition.... so weak in quality, they made me wonder.
Also, I'm seeing more than a few images in my voting window with the author's name listed in the text description. As bad in form as printing your copyright name on the image. When I see the name of the image's author, I won't give the image the score it deserves.
More than a few problems showed up today, which I haven't seen much in the past few months. And, I only voted on about 100 images.
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/20/2008 12:32:24 PM
|
|
|
|
4fun (7/20/2008)
I appreciate your attempt at answering part of my rant and I also understand that no one really wants to put their name on the line with any kind of supporting comments... for, or against. The problem still persists unfortunately and I received some pretty wierd comments last night with some 5's on a shot that's been getting 7's and 8's. They're typically from voters with a weight of 1, or 2 and they don't have any, or many photos uploaded. I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I won't post anymore... doesn't seem to do any good anyway. The good feedback here is worth something though and until the idiotic junk becomes too much to deal with, I'll keep participating and hope the air clears. Hang in there. There are a lot of good citizens here at DA that make it worth it. I've learned a lot from members like Richard, John, and Rob Mann. The good out weighs the bad.
|
|
|
Posted 7/20/2008 12:32:38 PM
|
|
|
|
| Thank you for your concise response. I will hang in, because I really like the site. There are many very talented photographers and an excellent opportunity to improve one's work, as a result of their feedback. Thanks again!
|
|
|
Posted 7/22/2008 9:34:35 PM
|
|
|
| | |
