DA Photo Contest Forum / Contests / Standard Awards / The Cruel Hoax / Latest Posts

RE: The Cruel Hoax

levyj413 — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:05:52 GMT

Accept all votes. Period. Throwing out votes because of possible bad behavior is taking an elephant gun to a china shop that happens to have a fly sitting on one goblet.

DA is regulating by the exception instead of by the rule.

The result is threads like this, complaints like Richard's, and anger from voters (including me) who don't appreciate being told my opinion is invalid. I don't care whether 15 or 30 or 15,000 people voted something a 6 average. If I think it's a 4, that's opinion number 16, 31, or 15,001. And they're all valid.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

aurock — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:28:05 GMT

[quote][b]hahn23 (7/23/2007)[/b][hr]When low votes are discarded on low quality images, only the upper scores remain. The image stays in the voting pool. Many may try to cast a vote reflecting the image's problems, but these votes are discarded also. The photographer gets the idea the image might be okay. This system is short circuiting the feedback loop. If left to continue, the development of the photographer will be retarded by the block of valuable information.

All votes and comments are valuable feedback.[/quote]

I agree with this. I experienced my first discarded vote yesterday. Still being new to this, I'm not quite sure I followed everything discussed in this thread but my initial thought on this is that all votes should be recorded. In comparison to some other images that I had given a 5, the image in question was definitely below that level so I felt it would be wrong/unfair if I gave it a 5 just to circumvent the comment requirement ... I was certainly prepared to provide feedback yet when I submitted it, I was told my vote was out of range and was discarded. I truly don't think it serves anyone well to have an overly inflated ranking on their images. I'm here to learn from people who are far more experienced and skilled than I am and if I submit a picture that's deserving of a 4 (or less), I'd want to know that ... AND know what I need to do to improve it.

JMHO :)

-Linda

RE: The Cruel Hoax

WillPat — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:32:38 GMT

[quote][b]Admin (7/24/2007)[/b][hr][quote][b]Carol (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]Why only accept all votes of 4 and above? Why not accept all votes unless it is found that someone is target voting or is voting with malicious intent?Require a comment for those 4 and below, but still they should be counted if they are cast in good faith.[/quote]I am not against this, I just seem to recall that the voting restraints were a community driven modification (perhaps I am not recalling properly).[/quote]I think you are correct that it was a community driven change. And, if memory serves, some of the most vocal proponents have now reversed their position.

[quote][b]Admin (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]In reality, we should be able to lift the constraints because...

- The collusion detection will work more efficiently when the deviations are greater
- I plan to alter the collusion system to have it reverse votes that are detected to be friend / foe. These votes would be reported to you in the vote history table and that user combination would be marked to prevent voting between them.[/quote]If we are going to "lift the constraints" in the interest of more accurate voting, I think the requirement to comment with a vote of 4 or lower ought to be abandoned too. It may not fit within the meaning you had in mind when you said "lift the constraints" but it is most certainly a deterrent to voting a low score when the voter thinks one is indicated, but may not, for whatever reason, want to leave a comment. Perhaps substitute a suggestion to comment in place of the requirement.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Tonka — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:48:57 GMT

Hey wait a minute..didn't Soosiezoo start that one?...that is where I got it from....:)

and since she is entitled to legal council you will have to postpone the court date...

Of course I might wire her and tell her not to come back into the country.....cuz the WE:w00t:police are waiting ....of course...she does have the right to remain silent...:D...

I wish they would come up with another right for me...I cant remain silent...

RE: The Cruel Hoax

wemor — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:24:59 GMT

[quote][b]Tonka (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]Oh no!!!!! I hope I don't get deleted by the WE:cool: police....lol ;)....:P[/quote]

You just wait, next we will outlaw that "[b][i]piccie[/i][/b]" word!!!! ([i]non-word[/i]) WE:w00t:

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Tonka — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:18:20 GMT

I totally agree with not taking the same image and just cropping and reentering it...and I think converting to bw or digiart is okay and another matter....

Oh no!!!!! I hope I don't get deleted by the WE:cool: police....lol ;)....:P

here , I will make it legal...

Ummm yes maybe we should consider not throwing any votes out...

heh heh...:Whistling:

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:32:34 GMT

[quote][b]hahn23 (7/24/2007)[/b][hr][quote][b]~ (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]Well Richard we agree on "no votes should be discarded" but I'd amend the "And, multiple entries of identical images should be banned." to And, multiple entries of essentially identical images should be banned.
I've long said that one image is enough. If you shoot 100 shots of a sunset over a 1/2 hour period enter one in one category. This tactic of changing categories and slightly cropping stuff should end. Pick your best and enter it. If you don't like it later delete (not archive) it and enter another from that shoot.[/quote]
I would agree that a particular capture (a unique digital image) not be used more than once in the contest. A possible exception could be conversion to b&w, as that does change the presentation significantly.

But, I disagree on your expanded restriction. If there is an image that fits exceptionally well in landscape, for example, and another shot from the same (shoot, outing, location, county, state, country, day, month, year, etc.) which fits exceptionally well in the sunset category, for example, then there's no reason to prohibit that entry.

I will often go for several days without capturing a first rate image. Then, all of a sudden, in a matter of an hour or so, during magical light, I might get five or more quality images (landscape, wildlife, nature, etc.) from the same shoot. Different images, but from the same shoot.

If you are saying there should be some kind of artificial restriction of images submitted from any particular shooting location, then I must strongly disagree. It's not a policy which could be enforced, nor should it be.[/quote]

No, what I am suggesting is that if a reasonable person thinks it's the same image just cropped differently of perhaps edited slightly in an attempt to get around the rule. I'm more for the spirit for the rule rather than the actual rule. I too will shoot perhaps 100 shots in an hour and many of them will be essentially the same but I would only enter one. However, if another in that hour has a different subject then I'd post it as well.
Essentially the same image should not win in more than one category no matter how many of them that they might fit. It is up to the member to decide which category he/she enters it in but in my mind it's only one.
As to B&W, derivative "Art" or anything like that, it's all fair game, we don't want to quash creativity but rather short circuit those that would manipulate the system..

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Admin — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:07:24 GMT

[quote][b]Carol (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]Why only accept all votes of 4 and above? Why not accept all votes unless it is found that someone is target voting or is voting with malicious intent?Require a comment for those 4 and below, but still they should be counted if they are cast in good faith.[/quote]I am not against this, I just seem to recall that the voting restraints were a community driven modification (perhaps I am not recalling properly).

In reality, we should be able to lift the constraints because...

- The collusion detection will work more efficiently when the deviations are greater
- I plan to alter the collusion system to have it reverse votes that are detected to be friend / foe. These votes would be reported to you in the vote history table and that user combination would be marked to prevent voting between them.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Admin — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:46:27 GMT

If you haven't refer back to my original post and the edit - I jumped the gun a bit.

Still, I have always maintained that the exact thresholds were not decided with absolute certainty. There is room to move these if the general population feels there is need. Everyone here has a better view of this than do I as you experience the way the voting is going on a regular basis.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Admin — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:32:46 GMT

[quote][b]wemor (7/23/2007)[/b][hr]As an aside here,the voting scale for the Overall Site Votes as well as each individuals voting distribution chart has lost a GREAT DEAL of accuracy since the change was made to not retain votes on Archived Images.

Now when an image is archived, the votes are discarded from the statistics. This has caused an even greater shift in the site scale towards the higher end of the range. The chief cause being that the votes on archived images are lost now just the same as auto deleted image's votes are. Both of these actions tend to discard many more lower votes than higher votes from the calculations causing the charts to yield an unrealistic voting picture. WE:cool:[/quote]We (including myself) should let Wright make the decisions around here! I had not considered this, but you are absolutely right on about this and it is probably the reason this phenomenon has been happening lately ...

The history cannot stick around forever otherwise it will bog the system down, but perhaps we can either:

- Always accept votes 4 and above
- Accept all votes beyond 15, but not all the way to 150
- or something else like this

Edited to add:

Wait, wait ... maybe this is not correct ... I got my mind going in the same direction but the deletion of the history on archived images may not be impacting this as I thought.

When a vote is cast, the system looks just at the previous votes on THAT image, not all images, to figure out if the vote is fair. The collusion detection, obviously, only looks at active images, but it looks frequently. The archive determination mechanism looks at the image rating (archived or not) so this piece is not impacted.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:09:59 GMT

Well Richard we agree on "no votes should be discarded" but I'd amend the "And, multiple entries of identical images should be banned." to And, multiple entries of essentially identical images should be banned.
I've long said that one image is enough. If you shoot 100 shots of a sunset over a 1/2 hour period enter one in one category. This tactic of changing categories and slightly cropping stuff should end. Pick your best and enter it. If you don't like it later delete (not archive) it and enter another from that shoot.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

WillPat — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:09:11 GMT

I don't believe the problem the OP raised - images being voted too high and misleading the entering photog into believing it is a much better photo than it really is - would exist if we had a system that incorporated some of the aspects of the other photo site mentioned in this thread by the OP. DPChallenge.com has far less transparency, and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever complained of what is being called the "cruel hoax" over there.

[quote][b]Tonka (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]As far as DP or anywhere else..arent there only votes on images entered into the challenges?...my only point being that here,,,ALL of the images get to get votes which in themselves are each and every one of them,,,,,Comments.....a good thing! :D..

Maybe I am misunderstanding on my part don't know..feel free to correct me..lol something I am quite used to by now..;)[/quote]At DPChallenge.com images entered in the contests can receive comments from the voters, but they don't have "quick comments". And they don't have to come at the time the vote is cast. A voter can go back to an image and add a comment any time before the voting closes at the end of the week. And comments can come after voting ends. Most of the post voting comments are more congrats than cons crit, but not always because frequently the entering photog will reveal more info about the shot after the voting, and there will be a free back-and-forth of questions and advice at that time. And they have the Critique Club which allows an entering photog to request a detailed critique from a panel of volunteers with some expertise. As here, many of the voluntary comments are simply compliments. Most people are willing to explain what their comment meant if asked to do so but this takes place after voting is complete, and is totally free of the justification aspect because the photog never knows how the voter scored the shot.

[quote][b]Tonka (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]But like on eyefetch, you may get a comment on one two or a few of your photos or you may not..here there is at least one comment in one form on all of my images... [/quote] Not an empirical fact but as a general observation, I think images entered into contests at DPChallenge.com get more comments than at either eyefetch or here at DA. Even my weakest entries get about a half dozen comments by the end of voting. Images with middle-of-the-pack to slightly-above-average scores will usually get a dozen or more.

[quote][b]Tonka (7/24/2007)[/b][hr] ..... oh and btw...how can you recognize photos by style here but this does not apply at DP or anywhere else? just curious...:)[/quote]The possibility of recognizing a photographer's work by their style is always present, but at DPChallenge.com there are so many more people involved, many with similar styles, and some imitating the styles of past winners, or of their mentors, that identification by style is very unreliable.

There is a rule at DPChallenge.com that prohibits the use of an image in more than one contest.

As Richard says, it is nice that a variety of photo contests are available on the internet. But that shouldn't mean that one site can't adopt some of the aspects of another when it is trying to improve itself. And the value of that variety is for naught if photographers don't, at the very least, investigate several sites to see which is the best for them, and which parts of some others could make your favorite site better. If images getting scored too high and giving the photog false expectations is a problem here at DA, maybe we should look to other sites where that is not a problem and see if we can find a solution.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

wemor — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:45:32 GMT

WARNING
Keep Thread on Topic - One more off topic post and I will delete all the post that are OUT OF CONTEXT. WE

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Tonka — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:21:18 GMT

Well the original topic is a general announcement imo about voting with common sense..

a general observation about apparently less than average quality shots getting high votes and the disservice this causes..True. as well as for , again imo, very good images getting low votes.

I am going to look at the "transparency" in a different light...here...

Really, the voting is anonymous..You cast your vote and it registers (except those found to be unreasonably out of the average range after so many already recorded votes).

So then you see the image and it's creator...or you view a vote on your image and are able to see the weight/name if listed...and you get to RFC..or click on the voted image to see more of their portfolio

What on earth does this have to do with the validity of the vote that IS already Registered or Calculated anonymously for that image? It is concrete.It is Right according to the voter .you cannot change that vote that was given or the ones you give ..whether critiqued or RFC'ed...or simply just looked at and then moved on.

It has been said a number in itself is a critique..okay I think that is valid...a request for comments on that individual's critique on my image has nothing to do with "falsifying" said vote...it does not cheapen that vote but most importantly does not change the number...again the vote is "set in stone" after being cast with Anonymity.

Okay listen everyone,,I am trying very hard to really ananlyze this "transparency" issue..while I see merit to having just a group of anonymous voters and a "chance of getting a comment/critique here and there, willynilly"

I just don't see how that scenario is more positive and nurturing than the current system..

As far as DP or anywhere else..arent there only votes on images entered into the challenges?...my only point being that here,,,ALL of the images get to get votes which in themselves are each and every one of them,,,,,Comments.....a good thing! :D..

Maybe I am misunderstanding on my part don't know..feel free to correct me..lol something I am quite used to by now..;)

But like on eyefetch, you may get a comment on one two or a few of your photos or you may not..here there is at least one comment in one form on all of my images...

so there:P;):cool:

oh and btw...how can you recognize photos by style here but this does not apply at DP or anywhere else? just curious...:)

RE: The Cruel Hoax

WillPat — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:09:11 GMT

[quote][b]hahn23 (7/24/2007)[/b][hr] ..... It's definitely not a nurturing place for beginning photographers. It's a challenge contest.... sink or swim. ..... [/quote]
I think that DPChallenge.com is a much more nurturing (to rip your term) environment than DA. They have a much wider variety of "teachers" willing to help all levels of learners.

There are no "cruel hoax(es)" going on over there. No one complains about their votes being cast out because no one knows when it happens. Get the connection? It's a form of anonymity.

The simple fact that DA hands out so many more awards than DPChallenge.com does makes this site more oriented around competition. However, over there the way the competitions are so much more clearly defined makes them more challenging, more of an apples against apples type of competition, with hardly any of the undesirable consequences that come so frequently here when a photographer's work in recognized by their "style".

RE: The Cruel Hoax

WillPat — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:45:52 GMT

[quote][b]hahn23 (7/23/2007)[/b][hr] ..... When compared to a contest site like DPChallenge, I'd love to know how some of the leading photographers there rank my images... and, I'd love to be able to request critiques on images from specific individuals... but that feedback loop does not exist, [i]per se[/i]. DPC is a cutthroat contest place. Different from here. Not necessarily better or worse.... just different. ..... [/quote]

I don't know why but every time you post something about dpchallenge.com I get the impression that you are misrepresenting that site.

The two items that you said you would "love" to get over there are easily available to you. But you just don't have such a simple device for getting them as we do here with our RfC feature and vote stats. You would need to send a PM or post a request in the forums. That's a little harder to do than sending out a RfC but you have the benefit of more carefully selecting who you get the response from as it will never be directed to an anonymous voter. And the liklihood of getting an answer is probably higher because the recipient would know that you really wanted to know their opinion, and were not merely fishing for justification of a vote by simply clicking on a button. Not that hard to do if you really would "love" to have them. However, I suggest that the biggest difference between those two things here and at dpchallenge.com is that we can couple them to a vote and they can't. And I suggest that this difference is the real reason why people don't avail themselves of those two things at dpchallenge.com as much as they do here.

Why do you think that dpchallenge.com is more "cutthroat" than DA? I think the opposite is true. At dpchallenge.com, reading the forums will tell you that people are more accepting of the voting overall, and trust the mechanisms in place, both automatic and human, to protect against the nasty voters. Voting at dpchallenge.com is not a constant source of animosity as it is here. The feedback there is better, and there's more of it. And there is a lot more helpful give and take about technique, events, equipment, etc. in the dpchallenge.com forums than there is here, both on the general level, and about specific images when desired.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

WillPat — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:47:05 GMT

[quote][b]2703 (7/24/2007)[/b][hr]Just a thought here-

Lets give credit where it's due, to those who do not target

vote . There is a vast number of voters on this site and in all

probability there are many who have no idea how to judge a good photo from a mediocre one... and probably as many who wont take the time to vote fairly.

There has been much debate on how we vote, what scale we use..

who targets whom , friend or foe. Isnt a large part of the problem

just people voting to get their votes in without much thought as

to what they are viewing? If this is true, and I think it is, is it fair

to the photographer to have their image lowered ( or raised )

because no thought is going into the vote? Sure their opinions count.. but if you have 15 votes of 7-8 and then recieve

a lower vote from a high ranking member who refuses to comment

or answer a request ..or several lower votes from new members-- exactly what IS the value of their opinion when they refuse to

reply to a request?

Perhaps the vote should be cast out if the voter refuses to reply?

The lack of input is discouraging to say the least. If you have

an 8.5 average and a high ranking member votes a 6 with no comment..is it a good image or not?

I had an image die on this site.. yet it got 5 awards in 24 hours on

another site.. Im sooooo confused.:blink:[/quote]
I have read the above post several times. I do not know who made it. I think that it pushes to the forefront one of the fundamental problems here at DA, specifically - that people do not understand the difference between a vote and a critique. This lack of understanding, IMHO, is at the root of our inability to find consensus on the many issues that arise surrounding the voting system. Lacking that separation, we continually try to squeeze a critique out of the voter, and in so doing degrade both the scoring standards, (as the OP complains of) and the process of criticism.

The numbered poster quoted speaks of people not voting fairly, and about people voting too quickly. But there is no rule or guideline that make a quick vote unfair or objectionable in any way. The only things that this site says about votes are "Keep in mind aspects such as originality, aesthetics, difficulty, etc. when voting." and "Reminder: Consistently low votes could cause your account to be deleted." There is nothing said about how much time one should spend in deciding what score to give an image. And there is no requirement that a person have any knowledge of, or training in, criticism of photography in order to vote here. Votes are needed to make the system of competitions work, the more the better, so we need to encourage and accept voting by the "unwashed masses" without regard to their qualifications. Would you give as much credence to the same group when it comes to constructive critcism? I think not. You would want some greater level of expertise for advice toward improving your skill in photography.

With regard to the problem that spurred the OP to start this thread, the long term solution is to eliminate all the incentives that drive people to score images higher than they deserve so that the honest low votes do not appear as unreasonable outliers. The biggest of the many such incentives is the one that the OP, and many others, refuse to acknowledge - the excessive transparency brought about by the voting stats and unmasked voting.

I don't think we have yet reached the point where we can afford to get rid of the automatic vote discarding all together. We still need to protect against truly malicious voters. That need is strengthened by the transparency, as is the need to protect against friend and foe voting.

The short term fix for the issue of honest low votes being cast out is to raise the threshold from 15 to 30 in Standard voting; and as soon as reasonably possible, to raise the threshold for both Standard and Signature voting to an even higher level. This would help in at least two ways - 1) the established average would be lower before votes start to be thrown out so that an outlying vote would need to be even lower yet to be discarded; and 2) some votes that would have been thrown out will remain, and be counted in forming the established average.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

photofan47 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:53:29 GMT

Just a thought here-

Lets give credit where it's due, to those who do not target

vote . There is a vast number of voters on this site and in all

probability there are many who have no idea how to judge a good photo from a mediocre one... and probably as many who wont take the time to vote fairly.

There has been much debate on how we vote, what scale we use..

who targets whom , friend or foe. Isnt a large part of the problem

just people voting to get their votes in without much thought as

to what they are viewing? If this is true, and I think it is, is it fair

to the photographer to have their image lowered ( or raised )

because no thought is going into the vote? Sure their opinions count.. but if you have 15 votes of 7-8 and then recieve

a lower vote from a high ranking member who refuses to comment

or answer a request ..or several lower votes from new members-- exactly what IS the value of their opinion when they refuse to

reply to a request?

Perhaps the vote should be cast out if the voter refuses to reply?

The lack of input is discouraging to say the least. If you have

an 8.5 average and a high ranking member votes a 6 with no comment..is it a good image or not?

I had an image die on this site.. yet it got 5 awards in 24 hours on

another site.. Im sooooo confused.:blink:

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Tonka — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:16:02 GMT

Perhaps a better solution may be to post all votes ,,perhaps just discarding the outlier/shady votes in the average but leave the vote recorded..?

I certainly do not agree with inflating votes and the disservice it really is but,,here is what is on my mind about that..

First of all...there are many times when people are not seeing the image the same..your monitor colors are not the same as mine..your pc is not the same as mine..I may not be seeing what your are seeing..

And furthermore....my taste is not the same as anyone elses...for some images these votes may be as different as night and day but that is not for everyone else to say what I should like or not like or to vote the way anyone else does.

HOWEVER... I will agree that many times I do not "get" the averages either ..It is just a touchy situation though because there is no concrete for some of these images...

This situation can be reversed too where I don't "get" a low average on a very nice image...just a thought...

With that being said I will make my suggestion again which is to post the lower votes but perhaps not "count" them in the image's average calculation..

Just a thought.

RE: The Cruel Hoax

wemor — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:37:42 GMT

[quote][b]hahn23 (7/23/2007)[/b][hr]The votes that aren't recorded are the problem. This forum topic was started so we could discuss the effect of votes that are auto deleted. I'd favor a change in the system to keep all votes.[/quote]

GOOD POINT - Thanks for centering the thread back to the TOPIC! WE

RE: The Cruel Hoax

wemor — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:34:29 GMT

As an aside here, the voting scale for the Overall Site Votes as well as each individuals voting distribution chart has lost a GREAT DEAL of accuracy since the change was made to not retain votes on Archived Images.

Now when an image is archived, the votes are discarded from the statistics. This has caused an even greater shift in the site scale towards the higher end of the range. The chief cause being that the votes on archived images are lost now just the same as auto deleted image's votes are. Both of these actions tend to discard many more lower votes than higher votes from the calculations causing the charts to yield an unrealistic voting picture. WE:cool:

RE: The Cruel Hoax

Jacky vdM — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:31:50 GMT

[quote][b]hahn23 (7/23/2007)[/b][hr]
It is a disservice to the image author and an injustice to the contest to give a passing grade to images with serious fatal flaws. How will the artist discover methods and pathways to improvement?

I fear we are sending false signals to image authors and not communicating constructive criticism.... to those who need the feedback the most.[/quote]

Yes, yes and YES!! Couldn't agree more! Remember, some people place an extremely high value on the scores their images receives on the site! As we all know, you cannot depend on your loved ones and friends to give honest critique on our work, as they fear hurting our feelings.

My first images I posted on the site, were wowed and awed over by my friends and family (that's why I joined here in the first place!)

Where are those images today ? Deleted, destroyed, out of fear that someone might see them and connect them with me! If I haven't received honest ratings and comments on them ? I might have printed them and hung them on my walls! What an injustice that would have been? People laughing at you behind your back, and you go around thinking "Man, I'M THEEEEE PHOTOGRAPHER AROUND HERE!"

What if the authors of the oof etc images quit their dayjobs cause they believe as a result of the votes received that they have a chance, with the knowledge they have at that point, to make a living out of photography? Would we as DA Community take responsibility and support them financially?

I think not! So rather vote honestly and leave a constructive comment or a detailed answer to a rfc than playing with someone else's future!

Just my humble opinion!

RE: The Cruel Hoax

wemor — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:56:36 GMT

I really, really don't like the idea of throwing out any votes at all. If I feel an image deserves a FOUR, I think my FOUR should be registered and calculated into the rating. Presently, if I rate an image lower within its first fifteen votes my "lower" vote counts in establishing that rating. If I am the 16th voter and rate that image the same value, there is a likelihood that my vote will not be a factor in the image's rating if I choose to rate somewhat below it's established average.

I think there are enough safeguards built into the voting system to protect images against ill intended "ugly-voters". But every voters opinion should count in each images rating no matter when their vote is cast. I think it would be best to ELIMINATE any function that discards votes.

As for voting safely by staying above the lower 2/3's of the voting scale, I see many many votes and wonder "why?" Maybe we could "comment request" voters on other's images and ask them to explain their 7's and 8's on OOF/poorly exposed post. (JUST KIDDING - Though it would be FUN!!!!) WE :cool: