 Posted 6/26/2007 11:13:45 AM
|
|
|
|
As 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).
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.
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.
Here are a few of the items that work to shield this site.
1) User Weight. By tying voting power to performance and longevity, most voting irregularities are self-correcting.
2) Real-time vote check. Each vote is compared to the history of votes for that image and very low votes are discarded.
3) Your admin. When a complaint about a member with significant weight is filed, that complaint is thoroughly investigated and action is taken as needed.
4) You. Social enforcement works. If you see something questionable, send a private message to that member.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 12:38:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Eric, for your continuing hard work and for your reassurance that these matters are taken care of.
BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
My Profile My Top 24 Images
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 1:59:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 2:20:03 PM
|
|
|
|
| Thanks Eric, It seems to me, that your solution is both fair and equitable. I'm glad that the process works and even more glad that there is resolution to an ugly situation.
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 2:52:31 PM
|
|
|
|
| Just out of curiosity, does this effect the images these people have voted on of mine or anyone else? In terms of their weight and their vote?
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 3:02:28 PM
|
|
|
|
| A question of interest though it would really be hard if not impossible to recreate all awards past that point since they would all cascade to the next. Since the issue was voting high rather than voting low I'm not sure it really makes much difference other than it would possibly slide forward the date that you won the award. Either way, the community as a whole suffers as you would so it might be best to move on as the whole discussion could become a Gordian knot of what ifs.
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 3:09:57 PM
|
|
|
|
~ (6/26/2007)
A question of interest though it would really be hard if not impossible to recreate all awards past that point since they would all cascade to the next. Since the issue was voting high rather than voting low I'm not sure it really makes much difference other than it would possibly slide forward the date that you won the award. Either way, the community as a whole suffers as you would so it might be best to move on as the whole discussion could become a Gordian knot of what ifs.
Well, the issue was voting higher on each other. Many, including myself have pointed out that they voted lower than average on images that didn't belong to one of them. Plus, those who have already won awards wouldn't be effected. My score on certain non-archived images though, may advance me into a position to win a daily award and may cause me not to want to archive.
However. after asking this question, I went into my account and I saw that the user's weight on my images was still 399 but that the weight in her profile was 179. So, the change isn't retroactive and shouldn't have an effect on me or you or anyone else.
I asked mainly because I only have 3 or 4 images left that are not archived and I am wondering when to do that. Probably after each reaches it's next respective gate...
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 3:21:20 PM
|
|
|
|
The User Formerly Known As Eninja2k (6/26/2007)
...Many, including myself have pointed out that they voted lower than average on images that didn't belong to one of them...
There is not necessarily anything wrong with a vote being below average. In fact, it is necessary for the average.
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!
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.
Sorry eninja to hijack your post. I'm not picking on you. 
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2007 3:25:22 PM
|
|
|
|
| Ya got me on when to archive. I've kind of gone by feel. If I have little chance of an award I archive but there are images that I have left there because I really wanted feedback on so they stay u | | | |
