DA Photo Contest Forum / Contests / Signature Awards / The Criteria for Votes / Latest Posts

RE: The Criteria for Votes

oboy — Sat, 19 May 2007 11:36:47 GMT

[quote][b]User2384 (5/18/2007)[/b][hr]

...

I CRINGE when I have to give an image a vote of 5 or lower. When I do give the rating, I get a request for a comment...not once have I gotten a thank you or nice remark concerning my comment. In fact, if I get any response at all it is usually an ugly comment.[/quote]

Hi Kenny,

If I receive an answer to a comment request I always answer with at least a thank you. I am sorry if you have in generally a different experience.

Oboy

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Fri, 18 May 2007 22:02:47 GMT

[quote][b]User2384 (5/18/2007)[/b][hr] When I do give the rating, I get a request for a comment...not once have I gotten a thank you or nice remark concerning my comment. In fact, if I get any response at all it is usually an ugly comment.[quote]

When you answer a comment request, it goes to the email of the person who requested it, and they cannot reply directly to it...they would have to find your profile, and send you a private comment through one of your posts. That could get confusing.

If you comment on a post directly, then the poster can reply with a thanks, which goes to your email, but answering comment requests is different...it is a one-way conversation, unfortunately.

edit to repair quote

RE: The Criteria for Votes

User2384 — Fri, 18 May 2007 21:46:36 GMT

Strange thread here.

I vote the images that are IMO very good a 9 or 10. I vote good shots 8-9 and avg shots 5-6.

An out of focus, cut off head, or very poor comp shot gets 4 or lower. No vote should be thrown out. People's opinions and tastes are different. If a shot is averaging a 9.5 after 60 votes and I come across it and give it a 5 or 6, why should that vote be automatically thrown out?

Thanks,

RE: The Criteria for Votes

oboy — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:09:14 GMT

I see the same things, like the light reflection on her face, the fingers of the right hand in front of her face, the disappearing left hand. But nobody is bringing up the textile hanging over her shoulder. I wonder if it looks different on my screen. There is no detail at all. It looks to like it is cut out and you can see the black background. I would give this a 7 because my initial feeling was "Uhhh I like this photo" but some seconds later I found the black fabric over her shoulder very distracting.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:44:23 GMT

While overall, the first impression is very dramatic, I think I would be inclined toward scoring even lower than Richard. I dont care for the "low key" demonstrated here...the hair is almost lost, as is the upper hand. There is something (her hand?) in front of her face I find distracting, and I really dont like the circle of light on her forehead. I also find that the eyes are very gray with no "life" in them.

I have heard from some people that they will overlook these types of issues when voting when the overall presentation is so expressive/dramatic.

And too...there are those who break "the rules" and create a masterpiece. This particular image just doesn't appeal to me much.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Tonka — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:41:00 GMT

Okay,, I thought this might be that style.. I dont particularly care for this style..Though I really like the pose and position of the subject..I know 2/3rds is the general rule, some images do much better imo centered and this is one in which I like it..

This does have a lot of drama to it but there are highlights which are very distracting to me particularly on the face and just below the shoulder blade. I do like the lighting throughout the rest of the face though.

This image is good but the "low Key" effect is not extremely pleasing to me though this is done well imo..I would have given it a 7.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

oboy — Fri, 18 May 2007 11:31:06 GMT

Richard, How much do you think is this histogram different from the histogram of the original image? The scan is adding noise in the shadows and highlights. So can you still trust the histogram?

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Fri, 18 May 2007 10:56:42 GMT

Wow, Richard! That really proves the point of what we are seeing individually. I really need to learn more about histograms! I always study my tones by eye, but this is really a valuable lesson for me...especially the eye/heart alignment. I didn't notice it, and have never even thought about that when I am composing my own shots!

I learned alot already...I hope we get some more opinions on this, maybe even a few more pics to evaluate! =)

RE: The Criteria for Votes

oboy — Fri, 18 May 2007 10:12:26 GMT

Interesting! I first looked at the shadow and the hair touching the bottom frame too. And there are also the reflection of the light in her dress. The color look washed out and grainy, but I think this is from the scanning.

I really like how she is holding her hand, and how it all is fading into the dark background.

I think the photo would be more powerful in are square crop. Taking most of the left and just a hint of the right away. This would give more the feeling of a close up and it would be ok for the hair to touch the bottom frame, at least it would not be so distracting.

As for how I would vote: Not taking in consideration the washed out and the grainy look, I would give it a 7.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Tonka — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:45:17 GMT

That is interesting about the shadow MG cause you know what I think?..

I think the shadow separates beautifully so that you don't get so caught up on her chest area...her expression is beautiful and for me the shadow avoids my eye from being caught up on the rest...but I am a face person anyway!! lol..

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:20:22 GMT

Thats very interesting, Tonka!

The funny thing is, I am a HUGE Hurrell fan, yet in all honesty, I do not think I would score this image higher than an 8. That surprises even me!

I think I have been "trained" to see certain things, which can definitely be a fault! I mean, this is a beautiful image of a beautiful woman, taken by a famous, expert photographer, and yet there are some technical aspects that I don't like:

-The shadow on the neck --and--

-The hair at the bottom of the frame slightly severed

I love the colors, pose and expression....and at first sight, I find it to be just perfect. It is only under scrutiny that I see the details I mentioned.

Makes you wonder just how thorough you should be when viewing! =)

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:08:18 GMT

This link SHOULD take you to the full size image, although it is still not GREAT quality, since it is an old film print which had to be scanned.

http://www.classicmoviemusicals.com/jgwp3.jpg

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Tonka — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:03:31 GMT

I think this is a great idea MG and I will be glad to give it my opinion..

Now you all know I basically have 9 months of experience and did not know what ISO or aperature was before...or anything else but point and shoot :).

I do not know of this photographer at all..

What I see here , and if I were scoring this pic as is right here in this post, Is an 9 or 8..

Here is why...I view spectacular lighting imo. emphasis is directly on the subjects face, with equal lighting on her chest area but the way the subject is posed, this light just leads my eye right back to her face..lighting is just subtle enough for my eye to see both arms in the whole pic but not so much as to take my attention off of her body/face. Her expression is very fitting and very well captured in my opinion as well..The most impressive thing for me about this pic is the lighting together with the pose and I think the colors are very complimentary throughout as well..

But what I see in this example is the pic is fuzzy just a bit..quality is not sharp nor does it look soft on purpose to my eye..now since you told us I know this is the quality of the photo you posted but not knowing this,,I would have taken off 1 point or maybe two at the most for this image..here in the forum this size and quality....Oh and I was going to say that this looks like a painting to me as well.

Now I will be excited to see what I missed and what other's rate this image.. and their opinions of it..:)..

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Fri, 18 May 2007 08:36:41 GMT

I think it might be interesting to learn what everyone sees when they view an image, and just how they would score it. I am posting this photo (and I hope I am not breaking any copyright laws) of Judy Garland, taken by George Hurrell. Mind you, it is an old photo, but if it were posted here at DA, how would you rate it, what do you like/dislike, and what about technical qualities? Bear in mid that the quality of resolution isnt great, but I do not know how to post it at full size.

I think it will be fascinating to see the different opinions, and also a learning experience.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

wemor — Thu, 17 May 2007 17:09:37 GMT

I think that some of this might have to do with the change in the buffer size - especially in the category buffers going to 200 images. Heavy voters are now forced to vote the ALL Category style instead of voting in favorite categories. And, as long as they continue to vote in the ALL category field, the category buffers will never fill fill for them - heavy voters are almost prevented from voting in individual categories. This may have people voting away from their "comfort zone" ??? WE

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Sherry — Thu, 17 May 2007 12:43:26 GMT

Well, I'm not about to change my voting based on what others say or do... I vote honestly, regardless of the subject, photographer, and how my own images are scoring.

If people are voting lower, I would hope it's because the photo just doesnt speak volumes, not because they received a low vote on one of their own images.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

WillPat — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:49:51 GMT

I can't avoid the thought that this site would be better off if no one could see how individuals vote on our images. We spend way too much time thinking about, analyzing, and arguing about votes. We, as a community, are obsessed with it, and it takes our resources away from more constructive things. I wish we would just get the average scores, standard and Signature, and let that be the end of it. That's all we really need to know, isn't it?

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Tonka — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:36:12 GMT

Okay, I will say it,, I think there is a bunch of retaliatory voting going on. Along with a desire to alter the previous scale.. It is fine if the community as a whole has a wave of change to lower numbers but it could be very detrimental if the vast majority are not on board.I think...maybe the number guys could give a scenario of what could happen (sort of a prognosis)

And I think it started a bit ago,, I think attitudes have declined and I am quite shocked to become aware of a few things..

I hope for the whole of DA that people start growing up.

There are still those of us who are trying not to be influenced by sour attitudes and voting respectfully marching to the beat of our own drum. It is these people who are being unfairly involved and losing so much that DA has given and has to offer.

And one thing I want to say that I have noticed is this...I have seen some very good photogs and their fine photos..I also notice that there are "off" times, where photos have more issues than usual,, I know this happens to me...I always think when I get lower votes than I used to that perhaps,, I am in a slump..The RFC feature can let me know if this is indeed the case.. But lately on my lower votes , my rfc's are not being responded to..Thanks.

I justed wanted to get out some observations.. this was not directed at any one person.. Just airing my feelings and thoughts.

It is time to let go,,, and get back to the basics..

Vote how you feel with your knowledge and experience no matter what level you are on...

Be the bigger person, ignore a sour attitude.. We have many new members..many more are beginning to participate in the forum...So let's make DA the best environment.. PUT ASIDE THE FEATURE DIFFERENCES...

Let the forum grow and become positive and constructive. Let it evolve into it's own entity with input from all it's members ,,not into DP, Eyefetch or wherever else...LET IT BE DAILYAWARDS.COM

Let it make changes whether everyone agrees or not. or likes it or not.

This is what I have to say.:)

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Petmagnet — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:01:32 GMT

Gretchen..I think you made a wonderful observation, and for myself, can only agree with your post.

Thanks for saying what I was feeling...And..(Hopefully, we are both wrong in how we percieved this persons post.)

I too have been reevaluating how I should sometimes vote, but your post made me realize I should only vote how 'I' feel and not be lead by what my images recieve, how others evaluate/vote on a scale of 1-10, or vote in any reciprocal fashion. I think I will continue as I always have..with my own voting scores given by my interpretation of the quality and creativity of the image. (Right or wrong, whichever may be! LOL!)

Thanks again for reminding me that photography is subjective and each opinion is just that..an opinion.

Have a great day!

RE: The Criteria for Votes

gretchensteele — Thu, 17 May 2007 08:45:26 GMT

[quote][b]photoart (5/16/2007)[/b][hr] In the past, I was voting very high. Then realizing that I was voting far higher than what others were voting for me, I adjusted my vote. Now, I adjusting again to vote perfectly in line with others. So if your image equals my image in quality, then you'll get an equal vote.

This sounds as if you are voting in a retaliatory fashion yourself.... I can't imagine basing my vote on a shot in comparison to how mine are scoring...one has nothing to do with other. This whole voting issue is so subjective...what I consider a 9 or 10 may just be awful to you...Do I get "lowballed"..hell I don't know probably...but for the most part I figure that that person just didn't care for the shot for any number of reasons. But to adjust the way I vote based on the scores I am receiving just seems a little holier than thou...as if my shots are sooo great but they are only getting sixes...then that must mean I should only give sixes as a high rating ....

I hope that was not your intent in your post, and I just misunderstood the context.

I also feel that comments made about "new" photographers were just a little harsh as I don't recall this site being limited to professional photographers or even just advanced amateurs. We all started somewhere....and perhaps to the person posting a "snapshot" it is indeed an all time best shot for them.

Again, I don't mean to sound argumenative...but your post struck me as bit harsh.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Tonka — Wed, 16 May 2007 18:09:55 GMT

Duly noted photoart..but please dont say I twisted your words as I did not do that but rather misunderstood the context in which you had meant ..and for that I do apologize and hope you accept :)

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Tonka — Wed, 16 May 2007 17:42:25 GMT

photoart

After reading this thread, I am also reevualuating how I vote. In the past, I was voting very high. Then realizing that I was voting far higher than what others were voting for me, I adjusted my vote. Now, I adjusting again to vote perfectly in line with others. So if your image equals my image in quality, then you'll get an equal vote. If your image is less quality, expect a less vote and if your image is higher quality, then you'll get a higher vote. I have no problem passing out 8's, 9's, and 10's, but "show me one" to get the vote

This is what I was referring to.....

and I think that those images do have some issues but I also personally see depth,color and some attempt in them..but again we are all at different stages and though the styles we like can change, so too can what we see and how we evaluate images..Our own and others. :)

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Wed, 16 May 2007 17:30:34 GMT

I dont think I would vote either of the pictures posted a 1 or 2, or even 3 or 4 for that matter...proving even further that we all see different things, or see things differently.

I believe that many people who are new to photography don't consider the same aesthetic qualitites that many of us have been "trained" to look for. With the 2 shots posted earlier, I see an effort to catch something of interest. It appears that the photog attempted to compose the shot in a way that he/she thought would emphasize the subject. As with most new photog's, that meant dead center. The shots are in focus, and I don't think that one can determine the type of equiptment that was used simply by viewing them online. I have seen some pretty awful shots that listed EXIF data from some major DSLR equiptment and some amazing images from a Nikon Coolpix! I personally save the 3 button for pics that are the size of postage stamps, or are so blurry that you cant even make out what it is of. For me to vote a 2 or a 1, you'd basically have to leave the lens cap on.

Whenever subjectivity is discussed at length, I am always reminded of a trip to MOMA in San Francisco...they have a canvas there which is about 6 feet tall and it is completely blue...no design, no paint strokes, just a navy blue canvas. I am always tickled to see someone standing in front of it in awe whispering "oh my god...it's fabulous."

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Tonka — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:24:41 GMT

WE, put your happy face back on :)

pleease!

I think the last month has been rough for votes,and for the forum as well as many members.., it does seem as though the norm is getting lower ,,it does seem as though some very fine images are getting low votes,,just from what I have seen and averages after voting..I agree to one it may have less appeal but to another it may have great appeal..I cant personally see giving a 5 for a technically and/or aesthetically sound pic. no matter whether you are a pro or a beginner,,If your pic is sound it is sound,, and that to me is at least a 5 with personal appeal and technical merits pushing that vote up to ten.

5 is average oh I mean 5.5whatever..:) I would love it if my pics could get all 8 and 9 but just because they dont, doesnt mean I can give 6's because I receive them..

Ones perspective also can change over time let us not forget that..what I liked yesterday I may not like tomorrow.. fluctuating votes imo are normal

Personally for example, indoor shots of flowers..Right now it is spring, my blooms are blooming and my love for them in the morning or full sun is great..seeing a low lit /indoor shot just does not have as much appeal for me right now because I know what they look like in natural light...In the winter they are more appealing because I have no color at all..

Please take such things into consideration when voting.. to say I will vote a 10 when I get them is punitive in my opinion and not positive :).

but that is just my way of thinkin on it.:)

RE: The Criteria for Votes

wemor — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:50:57 GMT

[quote][b]Daniel (5/16/2007)[/b][hr]...the 5 came in just after i posted it, so i deleted the image and reposted it!!!!:D daniel[/quote]

So, if anyone votes an image low in the first few votes the photographer deletes them - after that, the system takes over and eliminates any other chance of a low "outlier" vote... Makes me wonder how any "low" vote ever gets through! WE:angry:

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Sherry — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:49:52 GMT

Well Daniel, that image is absolutely gorgeous!!! An 8 or 9 on my voting scale. keep in mind i'm not a pro, but that image has excellent qualities, nicely done!!! JMO

I agree with alot of what is being posted here... but a snapshot to one is not a snapshot to another.

And I also agree that some spectacular images are getting lower than average scores...

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Rocket — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:19:10 GMT

Sneaky !!!

Why didn't I think of doing that. When my first votes are always low then creep up after those.

Thanks for the tip. (Maybe the early voters will mark them even lower as they've already seen them)

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Daniel — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:14:26 GMT

[quote][b]Rocket (5/16/2007)[/b][hr]Hi Daniel,

I think you posted the wrong link, as that picture above has zero votes at the moment.[/quote]

no robert, the link is correct.... but your right on the lack of votes on that image.... the 5 came in just after i posted it, so i deleted the image and reposted it!!!!:D
daniel

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Rocket — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:09:09 GMT

Hi Daniel,

I think you posted the wrong link, as that picture above has zero votes at the moment.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Daniel — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:24:05 GMT

Sorry Deborah if i miss understood you.... I got a 5-vote from you on the image i post a link to here (hope it works)... I thought it not a snapshot, and was not seeing fatal flaws.... Not perhaps my best shot, but i thought OK.... so given your comment this morning, i was worried and confused.....

[IMG]http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s18/db4research/heartsVASE_edited-555.jpg[/IMG]

Daniel

RE: The Criteria for Votes

Daniel — Wed, 16 May 2007 10:18:14 GMT

a wise man once said "we are blind to our own images".... That said, i think using my personal impression of my images, and the scores they receive from other, would not be the fairest criterion for my voting scale... afterall, i have an enherent bias for my images, and for their style...... and afterall, a major reason for my posting my images is to get feed back from others that are not blinded by my personal bias....

the votes of others is of great value... especially when an images scores 8 and above; meaning it had some WOW factor for that viewer... there are may reasons why (or why not) an image might have a WOW factor to a viewer....

just a thought,
Daniel

RE: The Criteria for Votes

MrsStapp — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:26:23 GMT

Interesting thread!

I think that I will reevaluate my scoring. I have been using the "7" for images that are good, but don't wow me, and the "6" for just about anything else that falls short of a 7, unless the pic is really OOF, then I use the 5. I find that I give more 8s and less 9s lately, and fewer 10s than I ever have before.

I wonder if after being here as long as I have, and having seen some amazing images, I use those "great" shots as the standard for the 10 vote.

I too, am often confused by some of the scoring here. Richard made a very valid point about "punitive voting" in relation to this. It is quite possible that one could see something on the award pages with a score that they might want to "correct" one way or another.

Obviously, there is no general rule, or solution for this. I think I will just increase my scale to include 4s, and try to evaluate each image individually without consideration of it's relativity to others.

I find my biggest error is to vote a point higher than I feel, when I recognize the work of someone, especially if I know they are one of the top "performers." This is not because I fear retribution, but rather because I question my own judgment...like, if so and so did this, it must be good, and I must be missing something.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

WillPat — Sun, 13 May 2007 06:00:37 GMT

[quote][b]wilrobking (5/13/2007)[/b][hr]I think this can be easily explained. There seems to be a handful of members with high rankings that typically vote lower tha the average, sometimes way lower, thus bring down the total average of the photo. I think a bigger problem might be is the fact that there doesn't seem to be a big enough gap between great photos and poor photos in terms of average. Most poor photos are averaging in the 6s and most great photos are averaging in the 8s. Why is that?[/quote]Why is that? One reason is the Request for Comment feature we have here at DA. As much as people want to champion it's value as an educational tool, I think the net result is to convince people that it isn't worth the trouble to vote anything lower than a 5, and that 5 seems to be creeping up toward a 6. Secondly, the system throws out low votes that deviate by more than a set amount from an established average. And thirdly, the system requires a comment from anyone voting lower than a 5 so some people just don't bother with leaving a comment and their low vote is not counted, or they just raise the vote to a 5. These things and others, including the general attitude displayed by many of the more prolific forum posters, combine to essentially make the voting scale 5-10 instead of 1-10, and it continues to get smaller as time goes by. Comparisons to DPChallenge, or to any other site where voting is less constrained by the system, are like apples and oranges.

Something I found out just this week is that when these last two provisions combine, the vote is thrown out but the comment remains. That seems a little unfair to me -- the voter is asked to leave a comment (after they have initially declined to do so) in order for their vote to be counted, if they decide they want the vote to be counted and are willing to offer a (supposedly helpful) comment they still don't get to have their opinion recorded if it is too far divergent from everyone else's but the entering photographer sees the comment, and probably the identity of the voter. The voter may be subjected to retaliation for a vote that was thrown out.

The voting system here still needs a lot of improvement. Perhaps simplicity should be a guiding theme in making it better.

RE: The Criteria for Votes

WillPat — Sat, 12 May 2007 02:08:44 GMT

[quote][b]hahn23 (5/11/2007)[/b][hr]Just have to make a comment here:

I just finished voting on a couple hundred images today. I think my range of votes was "3" to "10". I really liked the top tier of images. I rewarded the things I liked with a high score. And, I told the respective photographers (anonymous, at time of voting) how much I enjoyed their photos and told them "why".

After registering my vote and comment, it was surprising to me to see some of the mediocre scores on the top (imho) images! Voting and critique-ing art is a very subjective endeavor. However, I see some "too low" votes on some great work. I think the votes on the sub-par images are about right. But, I'm wondering why the top tier images (not talking about any of mine here) are being treated unfairly.

I did not see any first rate images that were rated "too high"... again, imho... but, numerous images were rated commensurately low, based on their artistic and technical excellence. So, I think there are some shifts in voting patterns by some heavily weighted individuals. And, to clarify, i'm not talking about the heavy weighs in the top 6! There is some prejudice and bias by some people, evidently.[/quote]Richard, many of us would consider your determination of "too low" to be "very subjective"; and your voting pattern in general to be "too high", so perhaps it is all just a matter of personal taste.

It is disturbing to see that you continue to undermine the anonymity of our competitions by insisting upon telling people how you have voted on their images. Isn't the influence that your weight (473) gives your vote enough? Must you go even further in trying to sway others to vote as you do? ...and to return the favor of your high votes with like on your very identifiable entries?