 Posted 2/16/2008 1:39:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Very interesting experience to submit images to the contest these days. Takes some perseverance to overcome the votes of some high weighted voters. I see a lot of behavior which is neither fair, nor objective. I am taking notes. It's a different environment here these days. Eric, are you listening? Do you care?
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 6:23:43 AM
|
|
|
|
After reviewing overnight votes, I see that some "big" problem voters sit "fat" on the images in the contest. A couple of 500+ weight voters have determined themselves to be "the gatekeepers". This is really bad!!! Not bad news for me, but really unfair and not objective for developing photographers submitting quality work.
I was wondering why the long ago archived (more than 6 months ago) daily winners on the front page (excellent images, btw!) were selected by the system. It's because a couple of very active voters with low voting scales for the very good current images in the competition are smothering and submerging whatever appears in their voting windows. These active "fat" voters are single handedly lowering the voting scale for the website.
I consider resistance to be futile. The voters I'm talking about never respond to requests for comments. Where is the outrage?
It's time to urge everyone to click the "report" button on abusive votes from these oppressive "citizens". This is especially true if you have an above average image which has garnered a representative sample of votes above "7". Then, when one of the gatekeepers drops a "5" or a "6" on your image.... promptly report the vote. It's what I intend to do. Hope Eric hears the message.
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 9:18:56 AM
|
|
|
|
| I fear that you may just be banging your head against a wall in raising this issue. People will accuse you of sour grapes, or else believe you to have a hidden agenda, or simply dismiss you as a sourpuss or crank. It was never properly envisaged that allowing weights to spiral up and up would put the power it has in the hands of so few. The 75 vote rule is simply a means of slowing the process down. When voting to gain weight became redundant some time ago the 75 vote rule was still maintained. I had an eligible of 2300+, a figure I could never reach because there was never enough images to vote on. I asked Eric if I could be allowed to assume my full eligible weight - not permitted. Why? Because it was acknowledged by Eric that one person wielding such clout would inevitably lead to trouble. In my mind that created an unfair situation because many others who had won far less awards were able to realise the full benefit of their wins by having their actual and eligible weight realised. Why should I have been constrained due to the limitations of the system and the realisation that too much weight would skew the system? Well, there is now too much weight in the hands of the few - and the system is skewed. . I had a weight of 480 prior to deleting my portfolio. I was not happy with that situation. Did anyone notice that my scores were usually on the high side - an attempt to counter those who abuse their positions and dole out mainly 6's - for what reasons I can only guess. Voting, for me, at higher weight was always akin to treading on eggshells. I was acutely aware that my vote couldmake or break someone else - didn't like it. . I believe that the concept of weighted voting is hopelessly flawed. Just because I've had a great measure of success here, doesn't necessarily mean that my ability to judge the work of others is inherently superior. Every members vote should carry the same weight. Would we find this system appropriate at the ballot box or would we condemn it as manipulative and divisive? . Just how do you think all this looks to potential new members - people with weights of 5/600 condemning their efforts to oblivion. Furthermore, why bother joining when its plain to see from the outset that however hard you try, and however good you are, you will never ever be able to catch the present front runners. As one increases weight, so does the other and the gap is always maintained. I seriously believe that I could have stayed at number 1 for a long long time. I had a great lead and could have maintained it. However, how could a newbie ever hope to take over me - they had no chance - because the system is flawed. . I really think that the time is fast coming when we must all consider resetting our clocks, and finding new ways of rewarding the successful that doesn't include giving them greater powers over the fate of all our images
http://www.dailyawards.com/myprofile.aspx?CID=2488
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 10:22:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Good analysis, Glynn! I certainly agree with your comments, including the apparent futility of discussion. I fear the quality essence of this peer review contest has been lost.
I actually believed for a long time that the weighted voting system was a quality concept. After all, many of the highest weighted members cast very valuable votes and offer exceptionally fair, experienced and consistent image analysis. But, as we've learned, some members who have achieved a high voting weight vote in an inconsistent and erratic manner. A few rotten apples....
One of the "skewing" developments over time was to allow weight to be gathered, without limit, by flooding many categories with many images. A category win is an accomplishment, but the daily, weekly, monthly and annual wins are much more important and prestigious. The members who have achieved many hundreds of weight points from hundreds of category wins and few longer duration wins are improperly positioned with much power to throttle the competition. Had we long ago put a cap on weight points from category wins, we could have kept things in perspective.
If we could do it all over again, there should have been 1/10 the weight allowed from category wins and 5x the weight granted from the longer duration win. Then, we would have had a weighted system which was truly merit based.
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 10:49:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Some valid points here made by you two guys....
A person who loses god loses everything, and a person who gets god gets everything.
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 11:09:36 AM
|
|
|
|
I have raised this issue a few times, one instance quite recently.
I got slammed from Belcher & Co who just tried the old "humiliate and destroy" method of defense,
"...I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman. ..."
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 11:12:42 AM
|
|
|
|
| Perhaps the impact of a vote should be based on rank and not weight. Allow me to explain. First of all, I think everyone should be allowed to have their full potential weight. Making members vote to gain their potential weight only encourages speed voting. I can see Eric's point about not allowing a member to have what essentially is God status. With Glynn's 2000+ weight, he could make or break an image single handledly. To be fair to Glynn, he has always voted kindly, but let's say he did not. He could act as Godzilla and just bash the competition. Having said that, I do believe that Glynn's vote should have a greater impact than the next member's. So, keep the weighting system but only let it determine how you are ranked. In Glynn's case, he would be ranked #1. The next member, I believe would be Robert Mann would be #2. Even though Glynn's weight is almost twice that of Rob's, Glynn's vote would only have a slightly higher impact than Rob's. Any thoghts or opinions?
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 11:15:02 AM
|
|
|
|
I liked the idea
A person who loses god loses everything, and a person who gets god gets everything.
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2008 11:37:13 AM
|
|
|
| | |
