 Posted 7/8/2008 12:03:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Tocky (7/8/2008)
...I don't think I'm going to give out any more votes less than 5, I'm afraid. Too many people are telling me that it is seen as an insult, and I really don't wish to insult anyone....
Visualize a normal distribution curve with long tails. Your voting distribution curve should approximate this type of pattern. Certainly, there are images which warrant a vote of 1, 2 and 3. Just as there are images which deserve a vote of 9 or 10. But, these "exceptional" scores should be in the thin tails of your distribution curve. The bulk of your images should fall between 4 and 8. Your voting scale will be okay with me, if you have a pattern that looks like that.
I strongly disapprove of those who concentrate more than 75% of their votes on one or two numbers..... like "6" and "7". Those people with single towers or double towers in their vote distribution curve don't help differentiate between great images, average images and weak images. These "one key wonders" wrongly penalize the best images and unfairly reward the weakest images. It is very upsetting when I find someone who only uses the "7" key. Don't be one of those people.... we already have a surplus of these appeasers.
The bar chart below is the historical site-wide vote summary.
Voting stats from images which have been deleted from the contest... via self deletion or auto deletion.... do not show in this chart. The chart overstates what appears to be the average vote cast. Also understates the votes cast in the lower registers.
My advice has consistently been to use the entire voting scale. I do! But, reserve the "long, thin tail" scores for the very poor or very excellent images.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/8/2008 12:51:31 PM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (7/8/2008)
Tocky (7/8/2008)
...I don't think I'm going to give out any more votes less than 5, I'm afraid. Too many people are telling me that it is seen as an insult, and I really don't wish to insult anyone....
Visualize a normal distribution curve with long tails. Your voting distribution curve should approximate this type of pattern. Certainly, there are images which warrant a vote of 1, 2 and 3. Just as there are images which deserve a vote of 9 or 10. But, these "exceptional" scores should be in the thin tails of your distribution curve. The bulk of your images should fall between 4 and 8. Your voting scale will be okay with me, if you have a pattern that looks like that.
I strongly disapprove of those who concentrate more than 75% of their votes on one or two numbers..... like "6" and "7". Those people with single towers or double towers in their vote distribution curve don't help differentiate between great images, average images and weak images. These "one key wonders" wrongly penalize the best images and unfairly reward the weakest images. It is very upsetting when I find someone who only uses the "7" key. Don't be one of those people.... we already have a surplus of these appeasers.
The bar chart below is the historical site-wide vote summary.
Voting stats from images which have been deleted from the contest... via self deletion or auto deletion.... do not show in this chart. The chart overstates what appears to be the average vote cast. Also understates the votes cast in the lower registers.
My advice has consistently been to use the entire voting scale. I do! But, reserve the "long, thin tail" scores for the very poor or very excellent images.
My goodness, I really do NOT want to be a pain about this, but I am getting a different answer from other people on the governance board. In fact, my first really unpleasant feedback was from a member of the board over a vote (which I still think was correct by your system). Do you discuss this issue in your meetings (if you have meetings, that is) ? I prefer your way of thinking, but wish there could be a consensus, at least among the directors. I do not want to get off on the wrong foot here.....
Tocky B.
|
|
|
Posted 7/8/2008 1:07:41 PM
|
|
|
|
| . hahn23 (7/8/2008)
It is very upsetting when I find someone who only uses the "7" key. Don't be one of those people.... we already have a surplus of these appeasers. . Appeasers could be a very descriptive term. While voting we cannot be affraid to either MARKDOWN a poor image or REWARD a strong one. About a month ago, I was wondering just what kind of scores a POOR image would receive. I found one the other day (it was not that difficult a task!) and posted it see how the voting would go. . Personally, I consider this image a FOUR. It is very OUT OF FOCUS, NOISY, POORLY CROPPED and contains a very DISTRACTING BACKGROUND. The COLOR BALANCE is poor (especially in the skin tones). Just to add a little extra, I posted it outside it's proper category. . 
. Still, it received 23 votes of seven or higher out of a total of 52 votes. It was MERCIFULLY auto archived after 25 Signature votes (10 of which were SEVENS!). . I neither make a habbit of complaining about votes or telling others how they should vote, but I was very surprised at many of the ratings that this image recieved. . Now this image finished with a mid six rating - certainly nothing that will end up on the front page or even as a category winner. Still 44% of the voters rated it with possible category winning potential (7's & 8's). . Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe people truly felt this was worth some seven ratings - personally, I can't see it. I feel we are doing a disservice to both the submitting photographer as well as the other contestants if we do not choose to better differentiate between different levels of image quality. WE . This image has been deleted from the contest... . I CASE IT WAS NOT CLEAR - THIS WAS MY PHOTOGRAPH.
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images
Nikon D300 - Nikon D70 - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 80-200mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 7/8/2008 2:44:53 PM
|
|
|
|
wemor (7/8/2008)
. hahn23 (7/8/2008)
It is very upsetting when I find someone who only uses the "7" key. Don't be one of those people.... we already have a surplus of these appeasers.
.
Appeaserscould be a verydescriptive term. While voting we cannot be affraid to either MARKDOWN a poor image or REWARD a strong one. About a month ago, I was wonderingjust what kind of scores a POOR image would receive. I found one the other day (it was not that difficult a task!) and posted it see how the voting would go.
.
Personally, I consider this image a FOUR. It is very OUT OF FOCUS, NOISY, POORLY CROPPED and contains a very DISTRACTING BACKGROUND. The COLOR BALANCE is poor (especially in the skin tones). Just to add a little extra, I posted it outside it's proper category.
.
.
Still, it received 23 votes of seven or higher out of a total of 52 votes. It was MERCIFULLY auto archived after 25 Signature votes (10 of which were SEVENS!).
.
I neither make a habbit of complaining about votes or telling others how they should vote, but I was very surprised at many of the ratings that this image recieved.
.
Now this imagefinished with a mid six rating -certainly nothing that will end up on the frontpage or even as a category winner. Still44% of the voters rated it with possible category winning potential (7's & 8's).
.
Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe people truly felt this was worth some seven ratings - personally, I can't see it. I feel we are doing a disservice to both the submitting photographer as well as the other contestants if we do not choose to better differentiate between different levels of image quality. WE
.
This image has been deleted from the contest...
.
I CASE IT WAS NOT CLEAR - THIS WAS MY PHOTOGRAPH.
You have blessed me with this idea, sir. I will do the very same and see what happens. I am not as qualified as any of you, However, I do believe that I can see what works and what doesn't. If I vote honestly as you suggest, I will be forced to articulate my position and that will be good for both me and the recipient, I hope.
I am thinking that a stock comment for a low vote is inherently a bad thing, so I will resolve to spell out my reasons for low votes when I need to award them.
First let me accumulate some low votes of my own so as to develop some compassion and empathy.......what a great idea. Thank you so much. I will report on the results. I do still need to emphasize that, in my opinion, Board members should not be distributing conflicting positions on this issue. If there is a 1-10 voting scale, we should use it or lose it.
Thanks again,
Tocky B
Tocky B.
|
|
|
Posted 7/8/2008 2:50:41 PM
|
|
|
|
DAGC members are diverse in thought, background and experience.... by design.
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/8/2008 4:39:36 PM
|
|
|
|
| [quote][b]wemor (7/8/2008)differentiate between different levels of image quality. WE quote] You hit right on the center of the target WE, but I only partially agree with you. I think we must differentiate between a high quality image, and a good picture. It's like love and passion, they match perfectly, but can do well separately. My point is that if a picture is not technically excellent, its essence, the historical moment, the way it communicates, the dramatism of the scene, etc. can make it a good picture. Even if it is out of focus. Many world famous pictures are out of focus. Why? because it was either capturing the moment or the settings of the camera. That is the way it goes. Many very good photographers, blur their pictures, wash out the colours, flatten the contrasts... because they want to communicate something in a different way; or because they have developed a certain style. What I long about DA, is that apparently the majority of the members are just not open to a wider scope of photographic styles. DA is definitely a site were Image Quality is way more important than the essence of the picture, and it's OK... I do not criticise it, I just wish it was different. So if you ask me about the picture you posted, the expressions of effort, competition, are so strong that you can feel the dramatic moment they are living in the game. The picture, IMO, is good because of that. Had it been of Beckham and Ronaldinho, it would have been historical, OK it lacks that, but that doesn't make it bad. So my opinion is have that in mind when voting. Regards, Jorge
|
|
|
Posted 7/8/2008 5:21:21 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree with everyones comments and opinions but when someone scores your photograph a low number you expect a suggestion or comment as to why they did score it so low. If I am going to become a better photographer I need FEEDBACK!!!! I can't tell you how many people I submitted an RFC too and they ignored it. Now I'm sitting here wondering what I did wrong with my photograph. So now I have no choice but to delete my image and wonder why it scored so low. Some people are just plain rude too. I ask very nicely what I could have done to improve my photograph and I get some nasty remarks. When I score a photograph low I always try to explain my reasoning for my score. Even if I score high I do the same. I'm no professional photographer but maybe, just maybe I can offer someone some insight on what they could do better with their photograph next time around.  P.S. This doesn't apply to everyone here at DA. Richard, Glynn, and Roberto give out excellent replies to my RFC's. I thank you very much for that. 
|
|
|
Posted 7/9/2008 5:54:59 AM
|
|
|
| | |
