InstantForum.NET v4.1.4DA Photo Contest Forumhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/info@dailyawards.comFri, 21 Nov 2008 01:56:01 GMT20http://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspxI agree.:)Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:19:10 GMTfreeflowerhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspxthe problem was identified, reported, and handled by admin...let us move forward!Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:22:10 GMTgretchensteelehttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspxIt's very reassuring to know that when there are real problems with the system that those who notice them will speak up and cause the problems to be dealt with. I guess I'm one of those "Pollyanna" types that think everyone is being fair all the time. :PFri, 29 Jun 2007 11:10:24 GMTfreeflowerhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspxThanks, Eric, for your hard work! It is appreciated!!! :)Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:03:22 GMTScottyZooziehttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspx[quote][b]The User Formerly Known As Eninja2k (6/26/2007)[/b][hr]Not a problem. Didn't feel picked on at all. My only concern was that they, in addition to helping one another win, could have been consciously voting "lower than average" to help them win. If it was consistent that raises that question more in my mind, not less. But, I am not going to complain. <br><br>A number of people on here thought there was some funny business going on and you did your duty and looked into it and fixed it. In any case, it won't have any impact on my account. :)[/quote]<br><br>I do see your point, but it is of very little benefit as the accounts cannot vote on each other. So, it would only take one 'below average' vote on their images to make it all even out. Plus, it is very hard to vote on all images before they are given an award with the buffer in place and the volume of images.<br><br>BTW: I forgot to add to my first post (because of my weather rant) that votes are permanent. This is mostly by design as I do not want to offer the service of removing votes and get many requests to do so. That means, any votes that were cast at the higher weight will remain.Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:35:33 GMTAdminhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspx[quote][b]The User Formerly Known As Eninja2k (6/26/2007)[/b][hr]...Many, including myself have pointed out that they voted lower than average on images that didn't belong to one of them...[/quote]<br>There is not necessarily anything wrong with a vote being below average. In fact, it is necessary for the average.<br><br>To go on a tangent, I feel meteorologists warp our brains when it comes to average. To get you to watch their weather segment (and the 20 minutes of news before that) they like to point out how far a city was from average. Depending upon where you live, you may not be right on the average temperature 90%+ of the time and that is perfectly normal!<br><br>Back to the topic, all can rest assured that I have looked over the whole history of the account in question and while it is true the average vote is lower than the site average, the pattern is applied consistently across the spectrum of users, which is, in my opinion, a valid and fair distribution. The only sign of irregularity was between the two accounts. All exchanges have now been removed and the accounts are blocked from voting on each other.<br><br>Sorry eninja to hijack your post. I'm not picking on you. :)Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:21:20 GMTAdminhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspxeric....... thanks for your vision of DA......Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:59:53 GMTDanielhttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspxThank you, Eric, for your continuing hard work and for your reassurance that these matters are taken care of.Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:38:05 GMTKiwihttp://www.dailyawards.com/DAForum/Topic11941-5-1.aspxAs I have stated here many times before, the top priority for your administrator is the protection of the value of awards granted by this site. An award is meaningless if it can be obtained through untrue means. As many of you already know, there was in the past an issue with two accounts here that exchanged a series of '10' votes for each other. This activity was quickly spotted by the community (thanks to all who keep an eye out) and as a result, I placed a block on those two accounts (to prevent one from voting on the other).<br><br>Recently, there have been many members write to me about concerns they have with this system. Often, the concern around these two accounts comes up. As a result, I have decided to go further than the block and also remove all images between these two accounts that contained a vote from the other account. As a result, 362 weight points have been pulled from these two accounts (combined) which equaled 61% of their original total value.<br><br>It is my intent to illustrate first to all members that this system is well defended by many elements, some are human driven and some are machine driven (see below). Second, to those who may wonder whether there are ways to beat the system know that ultimately any awards you may gain will be erased.<br><br>Here are a few of the items that work to shield this site.<br><br>[b]1) User Weight.[/b] By tying voting power to performance and longevity, most voting irregularities are self-correcting.<br>[b]2) Real-time vote check.[/b] Each vote is compared to the history of votes for that image and very low votes are discarded.<br>[b]3) Your admin.[/b] When a complaint about a member with significant weight is filed, that complaint is thoroughly investigated and action is taken as needed.<br>[b]4) You.[/b] Social enforcement works. If you see something questionable, send a [i]private[/i] message to that member.<br>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:13:45 GMTAdmin