 Posted 6/8/2007 11:40:13 AM
|
|
|
|
wemor (6/6/2007)
Was it the "system" or did someone complain?And... who complains about getting "High Votes". And...Should not the "investigation" take place before the "BLOCK" is activated. And... Should not the person being "blocked" at least be notified that they are "BLOCKED". And... Who are the "voting police" anyway?
I REALLY DON'T LIKE THIS... WHO WILL BE NEXT???
A big "Yeah!" to everything Wemor said.
And now.... 
~ Nick
(Click on Homer to see My Profile!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~Delos McKown
|
|
|
Posted 6/8/2007 1:45:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Other sites also look for voting trends. I don't know what Eric's working on but it's in response to an issue that was very heated several weeks ago. I would argue that he's not urging you to vote lower than you might want to. He's trying to make a system that detects if you're trends are suspicious. If you normally vote 5.5 average and for 1 particular photographer you always give them 10's that merits investigation. I know DPChallenge does this and has had problems where people have been suspended for block voting. If you're doing nothing wrong and you get flagged just explain the situation and I'm sure it'll get reversed. It's not like in the legal system where it's better to let the guilty free than to imprison the innocent. Here, you're not penalized if you're flagged. It's better to falsely investigate than to allow those that are in fact abusing the system to continue to do so. Or so I believe...
My Profile Top 12 Image Stats
Canon 40d, Canon 10-22, Tamron SP AF 17-50, Canon 70-300 IS, Canon 100mm Macro
|
|
|
Posted 6/8/2007 3:18:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Zeke Smith (6/8/2007)
Other sites also look for voting trends. I don't know what Eric's working on but it's in response to an issue that was very heated several weeks ago. I would argue that he's not urging you to vote lower than you might want to. He's trying to make a system that detects if you're trends are suspicious. If you normally vote 5.5 average and for 1 particular photographer you always give them 10's that merits investigation. I know DPChallenge does this and has had problems where people have been suspended for block voting. If you're doing nothing wrong and you get flagged just explain the situation and I'm sure it'll get reversed. It's not like in the legal system where it's better to let the guilty free than to imprison the innocent. Here, you're not penalized if you're flagged. It's better to falsely investigate than to allow those that are in fact abusing the system to continue to do so. Or so I believe...
That's a fine system but won't work if someone almost always votes say, ummm...6 no matter who took the pic or what the pic is of.
I don't think blocking anyone would make it fair. However, there are several people who have been pointing out members who habitually vote 6 (or whatever number). Doesn't that seem a little strange??? Are all the images on this site worthy of a 6? (I am not saying 6 is good or bad here so don't flame me)
Lisa, has voted higher on my images than most people have ever. I thought it was odd but at first I thought I had computer/monitor/calibration issues that were specific to Mac. I assumed she was on a Mac and was seeing what no one else was seeing. Like what I was seeing. Now that I have those issues resolved, I am still at a loss as to why she voted what she did. Generally 1 or 2 points higher than average but her votes varied; 8, 9, 10. They were not consistently 6. I think that should be investigated. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6. Not 8 9 10 9 10 8 9.
But I am just a complaining (whining) martyr. 
|
|
|
Posted 6/8/2007 3:42:40 PM
|
|
|
|
eninja2k (6/8/2007)
..... But I am just a complaining (whining) martyr. Terrorist suicide bombers in the Middle East think of themselves as martyr too. 
|
|
|
Posted 6/8/2007 3:53:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
