 Posted 7/23/2007 8:01:44 AM
|
|
|
|
My votes cast distribution is a lot like the general website distribution. And, I respect everyone's unique voting scale, as long as the scale is spread out over a range of numbers and scores are correlated with image quality (technical and artistic).
This post is not about my images. It is about events encountered during my voting sessions.
Yesterday, I had three of my image votes discarded by the automatic low vote detection system. What I saw were images that were out-of-focus, low in resolution, very poor in composition, etc., etc. and otherwise deserving of votes of "2" or "3". I attempted to post constructive comments and suggestions for improvement, so the artist had an inkling as to the nature of the problem. Alas, and to my complete surprise, these substandard images were carrying average scores of above 6.5. My votes, and I assume my comments, were discarded. These were not marginal images... they were very poor, in almost all respects. Yet, some people are sending "okay" signals to the authors. That is a cruel hoax.
This is not a problem with the auto low vote detection system. It is a problem with votes cast by members and users. I'm not exactly sure what's happening. It's possible people are voting "5" and above on everything to avoid the feedback requirement of leaving a critique comment for "4" and below votes. Or, there is a speed race to marathon vote.... again avoiding "4" and below scores to dodge the slight time commitment of a comment requirement.
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?
Well, if my "low ball" vote is discarded, at least the system should allow my comments to pass through to the author. I fear we are sending false signals to image authors and not communicating constructive criticism.... to those who need the feedback the most.
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 8:24:14 AM
|
|
|
|
All I can say is AMEN!I've noticed the same thing and been shocked at some ratings!
The comment is NOT discarded however, even when the vote is.
Maybe lower votes should not be discarded so early? I don't know, all I know is that something has to change.Many of the nasty rfc I've gotten is because I've voted lower then others on an image, and then I look at the image ratings and can't for the life of me figure out why someone gave it anything over a 5 when it's clearly a total mess.
High votes on these images is a disservice to the member.It's a lie.You can give a low score, be honest, and be kind, constructive, and encouraging!Those voters who rate high on poor images aren't doing that member any favors.
JMO
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 10:56:36 AM
|
|
|
|
| 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 
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images Nikon D70 - Nikon N90 - Nikonus III - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 11:31:50 AM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (7/23/2007)
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.
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!
JACKY'S PROFILE MY TOP 24 IMAGES 
Good People WILL never be forgotten
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 12:18:58 PM
|
|
|
|
wemor (7/23/2007)
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 ratingif I choose to rate somewhat belowit's established average.
I think there are enough safeguards built into the voting system to protectimages against ill intended "ugly-voters". But every voters opinion should count ineach images rating no matter when their vote is cast. I think it would be best to ELIMINATEany function that discards votes.
As for voting safelyby 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
I'm in agreement with WE's posting.
It's time to re-evaluate the need to throw out votes.If the masses determine that low votes should still be tossed, then why not high votes as well?
I wouldn't mind having the option to ask about certain high scores either! lol..then again maybe not so laughable...if people felt they were held accountable for those out of place high scores as well maybe they would not hand them out to poor images.Don't think that would go over well though.
I've been feeling lately that maybe there are some handing out high scores to poor images in order to even out their voting scale.
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 12:33:09 PM
|
|
|
|
There are safeguards in place to prevent friend and foe voting. We have a transparent system. 30 day voting records are available for public viewing on all images in the voting pool. The votes, which have been cast and recorded, are a matter of public record. That system is stable. As long as we have transparency and openness, then I'm not worried about the recorded votes..... both high and low. I cast a lot of "8", "9" and "10" votes, in addition to "3" and "4" votes. I'm fairly deliberate and intentional with my voting. It's the merit of the image which counts. I would like to have all of my scoring figured into the contest averages.
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.
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 12:34:29 PM
|
|
|
|
| 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
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images Nikon D70 - Nikon N90 - Nikonus III - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 12:37:42 PM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (7/23/2007)
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.GOOD POINT - Thanks for centering the thread back to the TOPIC! WE
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images Nikon D70 - Nikon N90 - Nikonus III - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 7/23/2007 1:16:02 PM
|
|
|
| | |
