InstantForum.NET v4.1.4DA Photo Contest Forumhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/info@dailyawards.comFri, 21 Nov 2008 03:51:02 GMT20http://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxI'm also looking forward to some fresh work from you Glynn. I'm not a high weighted photographer and can never achieve that due to the 75 votes thing also but I can learn a lot from other superior photographers like yourself.Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:35:08 GMTfreeflowerhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxNice to know you didn't evict yourself, Glynn!!! We can just say you went on a "diet" and lost some weight :D After all, summer is just around the corner... ;)Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:28:25 GMTSherryhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspx[quote][b]wemor (2/13/2008)[/b][hr]I think way too many people place way too much emphasis on any single vote in the Daily Awardsphoto competition. I do find it ironic that for the most part the majority of voting complaints come from those with some of thehighest rating averages. But please...[/quote]<br>[color="navy"]Every vote and comment is valuable, if it comes from a known source. There may be a very good reason those of us with the highest ratings are speaking out on the fairness and objectivity of DA.[/color]<br><br>[quote][b]wemor (2/13/2008)[/b][hr]Big deal... Like it or not it happens - nothing you can do about.[/quote]<br>[color="crimson"]I refuse to accept injustice and malicious behavior as a fact of life. If we are doomed to live with bad behavior, then there are many other options. It's a marketing decision for Eric. He may have already made this marketing decision![/color]<br><br>[quote][b]wemor (2/13/2008)[/b][hr]Well no, I'm wrong - you can complain - or quit and go home - or try to seek out whowronged youso they may be burned at the forum stake. None of which addsto anyone's experience at Daily Awards. Learn to let it go...[/quote]<br>[color="indigo"]I refuse to vote in retaliation. It's not in my DNA. It's also a very psychologically negative and destructive behavior to enter into a tit-for-tat pattern. I have a consistent voting scale. And, I refuse to change my scale to match the malicious votes. I can learn to let it go.... but, that means I will choose to not participate much. I prefer to hope that the die has not been cast and will strive for ongoing improvements and enhancements.[/color]<br><br>[quote][b]wemor (2/13/2008)[/b][hr]Even better, try the shoe on the other foot. Imagine just starting out with images gettingall fives and sixes. All of a sudden, a NINE appears. Someone liked my photograph.Maybe I am improving. ...<br>Of course then youare told thatthe NINE you thought so highly of was not really a NINE at all. It was just someone's attempt to balance their ratings. They live in bazarro world andvote the weaker images high so they want get coughtvoting the better images low. WHEW...[/quote]<br>[color="purple"]If you don't think some high weighted voters are voting upside down, you are being naive.[/color]<br><br>[quote][b]wemor (2/13/2008)[/b][hr]I enjoy looking at the voting statistics as much (more!) than the next guy but sometimes I think the site would be much better off if all that detail were not available for consumption.[/quote]<br>[color="black"]Less statistics mean this site is undifferentiated from dozens of other sites. It's a change in mission and style for the site. The unique niche has been lost. That's okay, but it will mean a change in membership and energy. Different demographics will emerge, which may or may not be interesting to some of us.[/color]Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:03:51 GMThahn23http://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxMy actions are not without precedent you know.Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:08:57 GMTGlynnhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxWhere were you 8 months ago Zzzonka? As for now, It's an ever changing world but I can loan you a lovely white jacket so that you get seen in the dark! :; LOL<br><br>With so many more new members/voters then everybody is going to benefit - by way of a more diverse opinion. Most of us will gain from a more realistic opinion of our photos.<br><br>Regarding the statement about "when an image is doing really well...." - I think most of us have experienced this - perhaps some voters have a look at the top 100 list to see how well an image is doing before deciding to follow the Devil or the Angel on their shoulders!<br><br>It's so very obviously happening and too often so for it to be coincidental - it's a loophole in the system that some/maybe many, seem to be abusing and I reckon it should be closed asap!<br><br>I've been thinking about the weight thing and how easy/hard it is to determine where you are at times and whether it is indeed possible to determine one's advancement under the current system. <br><br>As Zzzonka has stated it's very hard to guage where you're at...as times are a changing - so.....perhaps the easiest and most operationally and hopefully community acceptable solution would be:<br><br>* Choose a date and then "everyone" starts at zero weight. (Obviously, we'll miss out on some Signature awards until we have Signature members:) )<br><br>* Do the same on that date each and every year ..........level playing field that so many desire!! - loads of new members would sign up each year knowing we were all starting from the same level.<br><br>* Existing members would retain their "overall" weight, gained from when their membership began within their profile - their current weight could only be seen by them within their Account Page. (No-Tit for-Tats possible)<br><br>* Goal for each member is to beat their previous year's accumulation of awards.<br><br>Can anything possibly be fairer to all concerned? <br><br>* It's fair to existing members ....surely? <br>* It's certainly fair to newer members?<br>* It's fair to the technological demands and marketing aspirations of DA......at "this" stage in its development? <br><br>It's maybe even worth considering releasing total potential weight - and publishing it in the member's profile under such a situation. (Glynn - I'd talk nice to Eric to try and get your total weight re-instated! )<br><br>Anyway, this seems easy to put in place compared to some suggestions and I feel as though it "may" be more acceptable to the majority.Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:04:53 GMTSunnyside Sandyhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxI've found that I've gotten lower votes on a photo after winning an award. How strange is that?Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:27:32 GMTLAChttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxWell,, I am totally confused cuz I have no idea where I am now versus 8 months ago..<br><br>Most of my images get 5's all the way to tens....okay not equally distributed but still , that is a huge range if you ask me......<br><br>Have I improved....Cant tell....have I gotten worse.? Cant tell...<br><br>guess they either hate em or love em...<br><br>suppose that is what I have to accept..<br><br>LOL...<br>no point ,, just UBI:hehe:<br><br>When an image is doing really well,, I will get a much lower mark from one or two high weighted members... and vice versa so really it is confusing...so it is for myself that I must continually strive.<br><br>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:24:37 GMTTonkahttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxJust who are these masked voters that consistantly vote low???<br><br>Is it the majority of the membership? Because the majority of the membership are masked!<br><br>Will - 6's and 7's are average votes - lets be honest, the majority of images on DA are indeed average. Average according to DA standards at least. <br><br>With regards to the new members - a lot of those people are at different stages in their photographic life cycle and certainly from what I've seen they're uploading a whole lot of high quality images. Some may even actually "see" Glynn and Richard's images as average - certainly a possibility! <br><br>It's not easy for "any of us" receiving lower scores than what we expect but it'll certainly be tougher for those more accustomed to recieving top scores such as Glynn and Richard.<br><br>I, personally have a great deal of respect for both of you and the vast majority of the images I've seen from you. I don't really care what anyone else thinks!<br><br>However, what I am disappointed about is the resistance to change that you have both shown. You both have a lot of respect from the DA membership and you could be channeling your energy in a much more positive and productive manner than the constant grumbling and moaning about the recent changes.<br><br>Grasp the changes and move on - no doubt you'll both rise to the top again though it's certainly going to be a tougher ride nowadays! That's a good thing!!Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:58:55 GMTSunnyside Sandyhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxI think way too many people place way too much emphasis on any single vote in the Daily Awards photo competition. I do find it ironic that for the most part the majority of voting complaints come from those with some of the highest rating averages. But please...<P>.</P><P>My shot was averaging 8+ and then some low life (who likely has no interest in photography at all and only exists just to set up multiple accounts in order to bombard my images with sixes) gave me a FIVE.</P><P>.</P><P>Big deal... Like it or not it happens - nothing you can do about.</P><P>. </P><P>Well no, I'm wrong - you can complain - or quit and go home - or try to seek out who wronged you so they may be burned at the forum stake. None of which adds to anyone's experience at Daily Awards. Learn to let it go...</P><P>.</P><P>Even better, try the shoe on the other foot. Imagine just starting out with images getting all fives and sixes. All of a sudden, a NINE appears. Someone liked my photograph. Maybe I am improving. </P><P>.</P><P>Of course then you are told that the NINE you thought so highly of was not really a NINE at all. It was just someone's attempt to balance their ratings. They live in bazarro world and vote the weaker images high so they want get cought voting the better images low. WHEW...</P><P>.</P><P>I enjoy looking at the voting statistics as much (more!) than the next guy but sometimes I think the site would be much better off if all that detail were not available for consumption. Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:54:35 GMTwemorhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxWell, thank you for your advice on the dictionary!</P><P>I don't know... if I added some links to your finest responses here so that it would be more black and white, would that make it less opinion and more fact for you? No, I'm sure not. If it is something you can't already see on your own, forcing it will not help.</P><P>P.S. Please don't ever refer to me as self-righteous again.Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:39:25 GMTHappySnapshttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxMaybe you consider it an attack... I just consider it facts.Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:51 GMTHappySnapshttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspx[quote][b]Glynn (2/13/2008)[/b][hr]Thanks Will and Leighann. <P>One more thing. I deleted my work and all the awards went with it - fair enough. However, it just seems a tad unfair that the weight I had earned via 35,000 votes has also disappeared ?[/quote]<P> <P>I think you probably should have left enough images to equal your current voting weight and then moved on. Once the images are deleted all the award points go. Time to start getting new images in and build yourself back up.Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:03:03 GMTrcmannjrhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxNot quite sure I can completely understand your last post... BUT, I have read your RFC replies... can you spell E G O!?!Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:58:30 GMTHappySnapshttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxGood comparison. Little old ladies and egos!Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:43:03 GMTHappySnapshttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxI agree to what Glynn has to say about masked members.....Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:34:33 GMTbhasmanghttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxhmm...<P>.</P><P>[quote]</P><DIV class=Quote>3. What has happened to the voting? <FONT size=3>Its now impossible to compete and better previous scores.</FONT> </DIV><P>[/quote]</P><P>I will repost the above. Correct me if I am wrong... are SCORES and AVERAGES not the same?!?<P>.<P>.<P>Will, you say:<P>[quote]It's not disturbing because it's going to bring the average down.[/quote]<P>.<P>.<P>Curious... why do you let something that has no effect on you, bother you so much?Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:04:18 GMTHappySnapshttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspx[quote]That earlier work achieved high status and high votes due only to everyone inflating one anothers votes - as if we were a small cabal of back scratching idiots. It was never the case and I really resent the suggestion that it was ever so.[/quote]<P>I really don't think it is a case of "back scrathing idiots" as you so suggest. And, I am sorry you were offended by "my take" on the situation.</P><P>.</P><P>My thoughts are that new members are joining at a much faster momentum now then ever before. And that is absolutely GREAT news! But the result is proving to be a lower average on images. You have stated this yourself:</P><P>.</P><P>.</P><P>[quote]3. What has happened to the voting? <FONT size=3>Its now impossible to compete and better previous scores.</FONT> [/quote]</P><P>.</P><P>.</P><P>Look how you and other members feel about this voting trend... can you imagine what it would be like to be a NEW member? I am guessing that they would have to think that their images are extremely subpar or that the site is rigged! Please don't take this wrongly. I am in no way saying that older top images don't deserve to be top images. I am saying that there are new images on the site that DESERVE to be top images, but will probably never be recognized as such because of THE NEW VOTING AVERAGE!!!!!!!!!<P> <P>Edited to add emphasisWed, 13 Feb 2008 08:31:38 GMTHappySnapshttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspx[color="navy"]My sentiment echoes and reiterates everything Glynn has said. We've both experienced the same accomplishments and humiliations. It's been a weird mix, to say the least. I'm glad Glynn has decided to continue to participate. I will, too! However.....<br><br>Data secrecy, masked voting and anonymous comments allow for significant mischievous behavior. Not everyone uses the culture of opaqueness to conceal unfair and non-objective behavior, but many strategically stab from the darkness.<br><br>Furthermore, there are pattern voters, casting a tiny range of scores. Frankly, the crime of pattern voting is one of the biggest weaknesses here. Some of this comes from speed voting. Some comes from strategic voting. Suggest pattern voting be banned, asap.<br><br>Related to pattern voting is "upside down" voting. There are some voters who vote high on very mediocre images and vote low on the top rated images in the contest. This preserves their apparent vote distribution and average vote cast, but it conceals their effort to elevate the performance of their own images by chopping off the best images at the knees. <br><br>So, Admin has said, for a long time. strategic votes don't matter and that low ball votes are insignificant. That could be true if the opaqueness were removed, but is not true with the cloak of secrecy concealing the most blatant offenders.<br><br>I'll return to voting and critique-ing eventually. Not sure about submitting more images. I've been happier without the daily aggravations. Wishing and hoping for some reversions to the DailyAwards I used to know[/color].Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:26:01 GMThahn23http://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxGlynn, thank you for staying around, </P><P>Richard thank you for staying around,</P><P>I wish others had stayed around as well ..</P><P>you all have contributed greatly and inspired so many...</P><P>DA is not the same.....</P><P>There are a couple of positive changes but the atmosphere is not the same,,I dont even know what it was like before I got here but when I did, I was lovin it..</P><P>You provide a great service for those of us who admire your works..</P><P>and your contributions mean more than you know to some of us.</P><P>( I missed this too until this morning, but I gotta get to school now.:) )Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:04:33 GMTTonkahttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxThanks Will and Leighann. </P><P>One more thing. I deleted my work and all the awards went with it - fair enough. However, it just seems a tad unfair that the weight I had earned via 35,000 votes has also disappeared ?Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:53:04 GMTGlynnhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxI'm here. Hey you guys, I'm really touched by your public and private messages of concern/support. </P><P>.</P><P>A number of factors combined to lead me to delete my work. </P><P>.</P><P>1. Having reached the top of the greasy pole - theres nowhere to go - except down. I've read some threads lately suggesting that the earlier work on the site cannot bear comparison to the current output. That earlier work achieved high status and high votes due only to everyone inflating one anothers votes - as if we were a small cabal of back scratching idiots. It was never the case and I really resent the suggestion that it was ever so. My portfolio contained 32 (8+) images. I never voted them there, nor did I give unwarranted high votes to anyone else to put them there. We can only ever compete with the best opposition existing "at the time". Some people will claim that Tyson would have beat Marciano - different era's. Marciano beat the best the world could throw at him - it is unfair to subsequently question his record with spurious suppositions. </P><P>.</P><P>2. My wins had generated an eligible weight of 2300+ - however I could never realise that weight due to the constraints of the system. So effectively, apart from massaging my ego, the wins had no value. Others, with far fewer wins are able to realise their full weights and therefore get the full benefit of winning. I'm here as a photographer and not to take part in "who votes the most" competitions. My record on voting is OK. My ratio is 1.6 which means that I've returned every vote ever received and then some. I've done everything necessary to comply with the spirit of the site - and yet the gulf between actual and eligible is a gulf too far. 75 votes to realise a weight gain of 1 !!!!!???!!!!!??? - *%)£ that.</P><P>.</P><P>3. What has happened to the voting? Its now impossible to compete and better previous scores. The final straw was when I got three 6's and a 5 on an image that was also given three 8's by Signature voters (Robert Mann, Deborah Frances, Will King). All the low votes were from Masked members - I guess when you're hidden its far easier to commit inexplicable acts of sheer sabotage. Why do we continue to allow people who are not even willing to let you know who they are to vote on our work? They sure as hell want their names displayed if they win an award. I cannot for the life of me understand why masking is allowed and I really have no time for the majority who choose to do so.</P><P>.</P><P>Sorry if my rambling is a little incoherent and unstructured. I'm not really in the right frame of mind for writing this morning. Anyhow. I've no intention of leaving and the reason that I've posted less shots is because the insects which are my bread and butter are only now beginning to stir from their winter quarters. I've a new camera, new lenses - so its time for a fresh start. It was great to reach the top of the tree, but it always felt a little uncomfortable too. I felt obligated at all times to produce "great" work in order to justify that position - and like everyone else here - great shots are few and far between. I can do without that sort of pressure and concentrate fully on climbing the ladder again. I need the challenge to refresh myself. </P><P>.</P><P>Thanks again for caring so much - now why would I ever want to leave you guys?Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:11:52 GMTGlynnhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxI think Richard, and others as well, are not entering due to the current voter climate. There may be other reasons.Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:54:16 GMTrcmannjrhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxMaybe he just decided for a fresh new start. I did it a couple of months ago and its fun. I sincerely hope that is the reason. R. Hahn, as I recall, did it also, whom by the way I have not come across any picture of his in the poll for some time now??????????Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:35:08 GMTJorgehttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxGood. You saw it as well.</P><P>GLYNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:07:10 GMTrcmannjrhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxHis account is still there but there are no pictures at home!!!!!!<br>Argh!!!!!<br>Where are you GLYNN!!!!!!!!!??????????????????Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:03:54 GMTScottyZooziehttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic21660-29-1.aspxAnybody know? Dang....Another one. What's up?</P><P>OK his account is still here but all the iamges are gone!</P><P>Glynn! What happened!Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:01:29 GMTrcmannjr