 Posted 3/31/2008 8:16:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Admin (3/31/2008)
~ (3/30/2008)
Just a bit of blue sky but I've wondered if a percentile ranking (by weight) wouldn't make more sense as a voting weight. It would hold to the site principals and yet seems more insulated from chamges in voting habits. In fact it might make the whole unmasking issue go away.
I'm not sure I follow. Can you explain more?
The percentile rank of a number is the percent of data less than or equal to it.
Percentile rank =number of weights less than or equal/total number of weights * 100
Say there are 4000 people having a weight
if the individual's weight is 175 and there are 2600 people with a weight less than that 175 then the formula would be.
(2600/4000)*100 = Percentile ranking
.65*100 = Percentile ranking
65=Percentile ranking
so voting weight would be 65 (65% of the people have a weight less than or equal to that participant) so once someone places a vote instead of using their actual weight you would use their percentile ranking as the multiplier.
For all practical purposes you could then define Signature Weight as the top x% by percentile ranking.
For instance the top 20% of the population by percentile ranking is defines those that decide the signature category.
The beauty is that it is dynamic in nature, no matter how many participants you have the voting weight and signature status follow the growth. Yes I would expect that the individuals that are on the fringes of getting signature status to drift in and out of that status but at all times the status continues to reflect the top 20% (or whatever % you wish)
An added benefit is that it quantifies someones success in a comparative manner that the majority of the membership understands if they ever took standardized testing.
By looking at the top 100 it would be difficult to determine who was rating your image but I imagine that the whole masked/unmasked question will eventually be settled. The shift in amount of impact that the top person has might make it more palatable to those that oppose unmasking.
|
|
|
Posted 4/1/2008 5:32:59 AM
|
|
|
|
One of the main problems I see is that the weight distribution is very lumpy. Some examples:
3268 members at weight = 1
525 at weight = 2
91 at weight = 4
25 at weight = 7
...
Also, my personal opinion is that a greater spread is better. Granted, I can see this being solved by stretching from a 100 scale to a 1000 scale, but at that point it seems like we would roughly have what we do today.
Finally, (and perhaps the biggest issue) would be the hit to precision. Under this proposal, I believe you would end up with tighter rankings. It is the variance in weight that contributes to precision in image scores today. The more variance, the more precision, less variance = less precision.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 4/3/2008 5:18:05 PM
|
|
|
|
OK, I haven't read every post on every page, but I do want to throw in my AMEN to what Tonka has said. I did a check on my account, and I only have 93 shots archived and currently 3 in the voting pool. I also have worked hard to grow in my skills (I've kinda hit a plateau), and those "itty-bitty" category and signature awards are important to me. I may NEVER have a daily etc. award. I have slowly accumulated 63 awards and my immediate goal is 100. What I am pleased with is that I have won an award in 11 categories. My current goal is to get a winner in every category. Frankly, I don't care if I only weigh a pound. What I do want to hold on to are my little category and signature awards, so I'm opposed to any changes that threaten my small kingdom.
Go when you can, go where you can, shoot what you can
|
|
|
Posted 4/3/2008 5:28:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Stormhaven (4/3/2008)
OK, I haven't read every post on every page, but I do want to throw in my AMEN to what Tonka has said. I did a check on my account, and I only have 93 shots archived and currently 3 in the voting pool. I also have worked hard to grow in my skills (I've kinda hit a plateau), and those "itty-bitty" category and signature awards are important to me. I may NEVER have a daily etc. award. I have slowly accumulated 63 awards and my immediate goal is 100. What I am pleased with is that I have won an award in 11 categories. My current goal is to get a winner in every category. Frankly, I don't care if I only weigh a pound. What I do want to hold on to are my little category and signature awards, so I'm opposed to any changes that threaten my small kingdom.
Stormy, I've seen considerable progress in your photographic skills. Let the old stuff go. Show us your new, better, more sophisticated work. (And, by "sophisticated", I don't mean "city-fied". LOL!!! )
I know your photography. You have a great "eye". Just figure out how to use that natural ability to capture images you like, in the way you want the rest of the world to see it. It will be a joyful experience for you to let others see the world as you see it. I'm looking forward to viewing great photography from you.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 4/3/2008 6:13:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the encouragement, Richard. I'll try to use both eyes from now on (ha). I'm still going to be reluctant to shed my old shots until I hit that magic 100 awards.
Go when you can, go where you can, shoot what you can
|
|
|
|
