 Posted 7/30/2008 6:50:20 PM
|
|
|
|
| Ok, we all know life isn't fair and it is impossible to totally police and control others. However, I do not see what positive influence "masking" has. I think it is an invitation for pranksters, vengeful, or members with a less than a full deck to hide what they are doing. Richard I believe that the adm is probably trying to do what they can, but when i look at at a voting record that is out of balance and they have lots of votes on their record I wonder if the adm can keep up. My recommendation is to do away with "masking" and have a listing of members who have been disciplined or kicked out. Geez, I think my Catholic school educatoin is showing. Ok, forget having them wear the scarlet letter, but get rid of "masking". I also have ask who in their right mind would conspire with friends to get more votes and give others lower scores? For what, to maybe win a tee shirt???? That sound a little like the "grassy knoll" theory. Just don't let anyone mask and it will get rid of a lot of the goof balls.
|
|
|
Posted 8/2/2008 6:32:49 AM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (7/19/2008)
The weighted voting system works, as long as a significant number of signature members vote.
Not always Richard. I've had signature votes on an image vary by 5 points; from my point of view this is very confusing, when these scores are supposedly from experienced voters. It seems to me there are just as many inconsistencies, for whatever reason, whether people are masked or not.
This subject keeps coming up over and over again in various forums on this site, and never gets resolved. My personal solution to the problem is to completely ignore my votes, as actual valid ' votes '; they are so inconsistent they only serve as a source of amusement to me! I use the site solely for the comments I get from a handful of members (including yourself and not all signature) which help me greatly with my photography.
Some people here seem so engrossed in gaining virtual rewards, and moaning about people who prevent this, that they forget about the learning benefits this site has to offer. There's lots of useful info on this site, VOTES ARE NOT EVERYTHING! 
|
|
|
Posted 8/2/2008 10:13:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Dunester (8/2/2008)
hahn23 (7/19/2008)
The weighted voting system works, as long as a significant number of signature members vote.
....I've had signature votes on an image vary by 5 points; from my point of view this is very confusing, when these scores are supposedly from experienced voters. ...
A normal distribution around a stable average is what one should expect. A range of 5 or more is quite normal.... on everyone's images. I hope you didn't expect all the signature voters to agree! But, I will go on to say that the tails of the distribution should trail off.... both on the top end and the bottom end. Your focus should be on the mean score. ("mean" in the statistical sense) It takes a good sampling of the membership to create the stable average. One of the very attractive features of this site is the number of opinions we receive on our images. Much better than having one judge or a small panel of judges make the call. But, with larger numbers of opinions come diversity of thought. Not a bad thing.... as it is valuable feedback to the artist.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 8/5/2008 9:45:07 AM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (8/2/2008)
I hope you didn't expect all the signature voters to agree!
No, of course not!
I do, however, think that if they have the privilege of having a heavier weighted vote then this should be because they have more expertise in voting than the rest, and are consequently more in agreement. I wouldn't like to think one of two surgeons, who might operate on me, had a 50% difference in view on the procedure to the other one!
The fact of the matter is that just because someone takes good photos it doesn't necessarily make them good at judging. If their votes are as erratic as the non signature voters why do they deserve the privilege of having their votes count for more?
|
|
|
Posted 8/11/2008 10:18:03 AM
|
|
|
|
| Right on, Dunester. I've requested validation of low marks from heavyweight voters which are patently ludicrous and just underline their ignorance in certain respects. On the other hand, I've received good marks on the same images from low weighted voters who freely offer comments on the things they have noticed which make those images special - things which completely escaped the higher weighted voters. One of the problems is that experienced voters sometimes develop tunnel vision with regard to evaluation. They don't take enough factors into consideration and blindly apply balnket criteria they have picked up over the years. Every picture must be judged on its merits in the widest possible sense. That may take time and reduce the number of votes that can be made in a single session, but at least the photographer doesn't come out of the experience feeling sleighted. Klicker
|
|
|
Posted 8/11/2008 10:29:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Well, maybe the solution is to break up the vote in categories, formal ones like technique + composition + creativity and subjective ones like :I like it + if I give him the 7 he deserves it could jeopardize my 6.8 in the same category.
There is no way to "desubjectivize" an opinion, which everyone of these votes is. We have to live with that.
And that some "subjectives" have more weight than others is part of the game...so lets play.
If you have a problem with reality, quit taking photos and take up painting
|
|
|
Posted 8/11/2008 11:16:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Dunester (8/5/2008)
The fact of the matter is that just because someone takes good photos it doesn't necessarily make them good at judging. If their votes are as erratic as the non signature voters why do they deserve the privilege of having their votes count for more?Are you asking for socialsm instead of a democracy (well a modified domacracy/weighted democracy) at DA?.... Just let the best qualified judges vote.... OK, let's vote on WHO those qualified judges will be!  just a thought, Daniel
Daniel's Profile
|
|
|
Posted 8/11/2008 12:15:24 PM
|
|
|
|
| Of course, subjectives are part of the game, but we are talking about the conditions or rules of play here. And the question arises: Should we place so much power in the hands of the star players that they can monopolize and, in some instances, control the game? After all, why shouldn't the 7 given by a wise, informed and fair-minded neophyte have the same value and therefore carry the same weight as the 7 awarded by a wise, informed and fair-minded veteran/expert. We're all playing the same game. So why don't we all play by the same rules? I've long thought that the parallell awards structure could be changed, so that those who have reached a certain weight level (Signature voters) would vote only on each other's work without using a weighting differential. In other words, the signature voters would vote only in their category section. Worth thinking about, eh? Klicker
|
|
|
Posted 8/11/2008 12:19:37 PM
|
|
|
| | |
