 Posted 7/5/2008 8:06:24 PM
|
|
|
|
I almost never look at the list of top voters, but I was cruising, and I made an astonishing discovery. A new member has voted 1,136 votes (as of this time) in the last 24 hours. She appears to have no photos entered. This can't be good for her or for the site. In my opinion, there should be a limit to how often you can vote in 24 hours, or maybe even a week, especially if you aren't submitting pics. Perhaps this calls for a change of policy or site design. What do you think, my friends?
Go when you can, go where you can, shoot what you can
|
|
|
Posted 7/5/2008 8:59:34 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree 100%. It's not healthy, nor wise, for anyone to vote on 1100+ images in a 24 hour time period. I'm actually surprised that anyone could do that with the speed voting throttle in place. It's not clear to me why anyone would want to engage in such activity which is clearly not deliberate, nor careful, voting on images.
Sure, more votes are better... in an aggregate sense. But, this type of activity is not "voting".... it's obsessive/compulsive behavior. In a day or two, this same person will complain that they've exhausted the current active image voting pool of 5k or 6k images. There are nearly 40k images, if one adds the active to the archived. So, if someone is trying to "run the table", they will run into the buffers in place. And, they will never be able to touch the archived images. So, what's the point of trying to vote on "everything".... fast? It's a short term disruption to receive a vote (high or low!!!) from the exact same person as the first vote you receive on every new image in the contest.
When the DAGC begins to deliberate on issues again, I will propose or support a motion to throttle the number of votes in 24 hours. This will be for the health and welfare of everyone..... especially the rabid voter. Maybe something reasonable, like 300 votes per day..... for users/members with less than 100 days of voter status.
I received a "2" vote today on one of my highest rated images. What's that all about? While I don't think it was from the frenetic voter mentioned above, there are some strange happenings going on. I'm used to taking shots, but I'd like to receive the shots from a wide variety of users and members.  Well, you know what I mean. (/rant)
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/5/2008 10:57:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/6/2008 5:10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree too...and what the heck IS going on ?
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile -  Top 24 - 
|
|
|
Posted 7/6/2008 7:34:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this person had a weekend like we just had......3 days of rain .........picnics are canceled, no fireworks, no parades.......Stir crazy!!!!!! ** ** Seriously...........there should be a limit put.........maybe a max of 300 per 24 hrs? **
** As to the low vote, Richard........I got one also......the member honestly did get the scale upside down...............or so they claimed.
|
|
|
Posted 7/6/2008 7:45:32 AM
|
|
|
|
| All those votes and the site is still below the 1.5 voting ratio. Even with a voting delay of 5 sec/image, one could still vote on 1500 images in a little over 2 hours of steady voting. . I don't recommend (or enjoy) marathon voting but why would you wish to limit others? If that is what someone wishes to do and they vote fairly and consistently why should we care? 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 7/6/2008 7:52:19 AM
|
|
|
|
The member who offered a "2" on one of my images said she was certain I had manipulated the image. She said the light on my subject was different than the light on the landscape... insinuating I had combined two images. I don't do that kind of thing. I don't think she had ever seen light at high altitude in the early morning. So, she should be forgiven.
I sent her a copy of the original, unaltered image with EXIF file attached. That wasn't good enough, of course. She then tried to turn the situation around.... suggesting I am unable to accept criticism. And, she said I was trying to "bully" her voting. The vote of "2" was the lowest vote that person had ever cast on any image by 2 or 3 notches. I suspect she had some other burr under her saddle. She was just lashing out for some reason.... not a fair, nor objective vote. She was under the mistaken impression that her vote of "2" would be discarded by the vote check system. Since it was one of the first 15 votes on the image, the vote was not discarded. Her weight was not substantial. The "2" vote would blend in. It was the spurious accusation of image manipulation which was most troubling. She persisted in her charges, even in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.
It will be okay. I have deleted the image and re-submitted another image from the series. It was a bizarre episode which I don't completely understand.
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/6/2008 8:08:05 AM
|
|
|
|
wemor (7/6/2008)
....
I don't recommend (or enjoy) marathon voting but why would you wish to limit others? If that is whatsomeone wishes to do and they vote fairly and consistently why should we care? WE
We should care because marathon voting is not sustainable. Quick burn out will occur. The marathon voter's own photography is neglected. Marathon voting represents a lack of balance. The obsessive/compulsive nature of the person who votes 1100+ times w/in 24 hours will push the person up against the buffers in a few short days.
Assuming the person sleeps for 8 hours, the remaining 16 hours represent 960 minutes. So, 1100+ votes computes to more than one vote per minute. Yes, it obviously can be done. But, that's pretty intensive. Maybe I'm the foolish one to take time to look at the image, review a full size version, if available, give careful consideration to my vote and leave suggestions for improvement. It's a struggle for me to get through 100 images in a day.
The point is.... the person who is voting on more than a thousand images in one day will not be voting with such intensity in seven days. Wouldn't it be healthier for everyone to encourage regular voting in moderation, rather than such quick, massive voting sessions?
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/6/2008 8:14:55 AM
|
|
|
| | |
