 Posted 7/24/2007 3:21:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Admin (7/24/2007)
Carol (7/24/2007)
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.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.
This sounds really good to me.
I'm ready to put all of my faith in the system and the work you've done to protect the integrity of the voting.
|
|
|
Posted 7/24/2007 4:32:34 PM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (7/24/2007)
~ (7/24/2007)
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.
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.
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..
Chris
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that don't.
My Web Page
|
|
|
Posted 7/24/2007 5:18:20 PM
|
|
|
|
| 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 police....lol  .... here , I will make it legal... Ummm yes maybe we should consider not throwing any votes out... heh heh...
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile -  Top 24 - 
|
|
|
Posted 7/24/2007 6:24:59 PM
|
|
|
|
Tonka (7/24/2007)
Oh no!!!!! I hope I don't get deleted by the WE police....lol ....
You just wait, next we will outlaw that "piccie" word!!!! (non-word) 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 7/24/2007 6:48:57 PM
|
|
|
|
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 WEpolice are waiting ....of course...she does have the right to remain silent... ... I wish they would come up with another right for me...I cant remain silent...
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile - Top 24 -
|
|
|
Posted 7/24/2007 9:32:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Admin (7/24/2007)
Carol (7/24/2007)
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.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). 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.
Admin (7/24/2007)
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.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.
|
|
|
Posted 7/29/2007 11:28:05 AM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (7/23/2007)
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.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
-LindaMy Profile
|
|
|
Posted 8/8/2007 3:05:52 PM
|
|
|
|
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.
My DA profile | My complete portfolio | My prints for sale
|
|
|
|
