 Posted 5/23/2007 11:12:56 AM
|
|
|
|
WillPat (5/23/2007)
Daniel (5/23/2007)
wilpat, my proposal would put about 15 members into these higher weight groups.... So, someone that received a vote would know it was one of 15 members.... it is getting much closer to the anonymity you desire.... my proposal is a suggestion, and just that... i'm not wed to it but offer it only as a starting point of a discussion....
in my proposal, if there were 15 groups rather than 20, the there would be 20 members in each of the higher weight groups....
i just thought my proposal would allow an algorithym to be written, that over time (with changes in weights) would still be effective.....
just a thought,
danielThe part of your proposal in the last sentence is very appealing to me, and illustrates a good approach to making changes. But I am still not quite convinced that it wouldn't be better to completely divorce the RfC from a vote. If a user could send a RfC to any other user, notlimited to the people whohad voted on the image,they could still target auser in a certain weight range.
WillPat, every comment you make insinuates that everyone (other than you) is a "cheater", to use your word. If you have a complaint, be sure to report the incident to the administration of this website. I don't mind your suggesting ideas for improvement, but stop the silly accusations of wrongdoing. Some of us are here to learn and receive peer review. I see your attempts to force total anonymity as an attempt to make this site into something else. There are plenty of photo contests out there that already do what you pray for. DailyAwards is a unique website with a very appealing approach. The current state and degree of openness and visibility prevents a lot of malicious voting. I have never understood what is wrong with putting our names by our votes and our comments. It would be a big setback to this website to slide into the morass of secret voting with no accountability and no encouragement to share ideas for improvement.
WillPat, give us a break! We know where you are on this issue. Stop repeating the same diatribe on a daily basis, with the same tone of drudgery and vindictiveness. It's truly tedious! Let's get back to photography and peer review. As a matter of fact, I'm going outside now to capture some new images. It's a good use of my time.
|
|
|
Posted 5/23/2007 11:25:46 AM
|
|
|
|
WillPat (5/23/2007)
hahn23 (5/23/2007)
Let's see, I can just ignore this broad brushed attack on the membership, or I can ask a few sincere questions. Guess it will be the latter.
WillPat, who exactly are you calling a "cheater"? And, why? What are the cheating methods to which you allude?
Didn't exactly have any particular person in mind. Didn't I make that clear? If you took it personally, that would be an inference, and not an implication.
Perhaps, subconsciously, I was just throwing out thegeneral concept to see who would have an indignant reaction. Anyone else in the membership feel like they were attacked with a broad brush?
;-)
I strongly object to your accusing the membership in general of "cheating". I have a clear conscience. I put my name by every vote. I respond to every request for comments. I vote fairly and objectively on every image I see in my voting window. I believe so much in the openness and visibility of my votes that I am willing to write a full critique on an image, whenever anyone asks. I have a 100% record on that. I take more pride in the progress of others than I do in my own photography.
So, can you say the same things? Or, do you just want to vote in the dark and offer only infrequent, anonymous comments? Why do you continue to try to tear down a good system?
|
|
|
Posted 5/23/2007 11:30:06 AM
|
|
|
|
WillPat (5/23/2007) Why not just eliminate the showing of a voter's weight entirely? What would be lost in doing that? Unique voting weight has always been a voting identifier. It was less significant in the old weighted system where voters were grouped together at various levels. Now, almost any voter above the 30 weight can be ID'ed if a subscriber is so inclined. If there is a true desire to allow voting anonymity, then the unique weight of the voter should not be displayed with their vote. The site could calculate the Signature vote based on the weight but other than a demonstration of "VOTE SIGNIFICANCE" there is no benefit to displaying any votes actual weight. Daniel has offered a good compromise if some form of "VOTE SIGNIFICANCE" is desired to be shown. I would even suggest fewer groupings than he has. Perhaps five, breaking out as follows: 1-5 weight 6-10 weight, 11-25 weight 26-100 weight and 101+ weight. These groups are not true vote weights cast; they are just an indication of the weight that a vote falls into. Another solution could be to allow the voter the option to MASK their weight in a similar fashion as they can mask their Name when voting. But, if the sites desire is to provide a means for voting anonymity, then the reveal of unique voter weights should be modified. 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 5/23/2007 1:58:58 PM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (5/23/2007)
WillPat (5/23/2007)
Daniel (5/23/2007)
wilpat, my proposal would put about 15 members into these higher weight groups.... So, someone that received a vote would know it was one of 15 members.... it is getting much closer to the anonymity you desire.... my proposal is a suggestion, and just that... i'm not wed to it but offer it only as a starting point of a discussion....
in my proposal, if there were 15 groups rather than 20, the there would be 20 members in each of the higher weight groups....
i just thought my proposal would allow an algorithym to be written, that over time (with changes in weights) would still be effective.....
just a thought,
danielThe part of your proposal in the last sentence is very appealing to me, and illustrates a good approach to making changes. But I am still not quite convinced that it wouldn't be better to completely divorce the RfC from a vote. If a user could send a RfC to any other user, notlimited to the people whohad voted on the image,they could still target auser in a certain weight range.
WillPat, every comment you make insinuates that everyone (other than you) is a "cheater", to use your word. If you have a complaint, be sure to report the incident to the administration of this website. I don't mind your suggesting ideas for improvement, but stop the silly accusations of wrongdoing. Some of us are here to learn and receive peer review. I see your attempts to force total anonymity as an attempt to make this site into something else. There are plenty of photo contests out there that already do what you pray for. DailyAwards is a unique website with a very appealing approach. The current state and degree of openness and visibility prevents a lot of malicious voting. I have never understood what is wrong with putting our names by our votes and our comments. It would be a big setback to this website to slide into the morass of secret voting with no accountability and no encouragement to share ideas for improvement.
WillPat, give us a break! We know where you are on this issue. Stop repeating the same diatribe on a daily basis, with the same tone of drudgery and vindictiveness. It's truly tedious! Let's get back to photography and peer review. As a matter of fact, I'm going outside now to capture some new images. It's a good use of my time.
Thanks Richard.
I've just spent a long time composing a post
pretty much saying the same thing but in a different way. Maybe I will still post it but,
thanks to you, I no longer feel it is an urgent
necessity for me to do so.
In short, I am really getting tired of this.
~ Nick
(Click on Homer to see My Profile!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~Delos McKown
|
|
|
Posted 5/24/2007 4:48:50 PM
|
|
|
|
| To me it is quite simple, and I think it is fair also; I have had pictures rated at an an averarge above 7.3; suddenly with one or two very strong votes it drops drastically to 6.8. Don´t you think it is fair, or at least desirable, to know why someone thought so different from the rest? Of course nobody is obliged to comment, but particularly, when you are going to score low, a comment of why is appreciated. Jorge
|
|
|
Posted 5/24/2007 11:57:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Okay, so with the new system in place you have to leave a comment if you vote under 5? So I get a vote of 4 with a comment "great composition" - so it is very very easy to abuse/fool the system into thinking you have left the reason for your low vote. So my only other choice is to request an explanation from this voter, obviously his comment can't be honest?
JACKY'S PROFILE MY TOP 24 IMAGES 
|
|
|
Posted 5/25/2007 6:56:46 AM
|
|
|
|
| So it seems Daniel can post his opinion/attitude/fun at my expense, about my thoughts and comments but I have been gagged and cannot do the same about him. Thats fine I have to and will accept it. So I will hang around here for a while, maybe post a few shots and see how it goes. As for participating in the forum....I don't think so. As for voting...same. As for RFC...no not me thankyou. Good work guys, well done.
|
|
|
Posted 5/25/2007 8:33:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Jax (5/24/2007)
Okay, so with the new system in place you have to leave a comment if you vote under 5? So I get a vote of 4 with a comment "great composition" - so it is very very easy to abuse/fool the system into thinking you have left the reason for your low vote. So my only other choice is to request an explanation from this voter, obviously his comment can't be honest?Jax, do you really think you are going to get anything positive out of an exchange like that? To me it sounds as if that is more likely to lead to confrontation than to learning something about photgraphy.
|
|
|
|
