 Posted 5/11/2007 9:09:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Just have to make a comment here:
I just finished voting on a couple hundred images today. I think my range of votes was "3" to "10". I really liked the top tier of images. I rewarded the things I liked with a high score. And, I told the respective photographers (anonymous, at time of voting) how much I enjoyed their photos and told them "why".
After registering my vote and comment, it was surprising to me to see some of the mediocre scores on the top (imho) images! Voting and critique-ing art is a very subjective endeavor. However, I see some "too low" votes on some great work. I think the votes on the sub-par images are about right. But, I'm wondering why the top tier images (not talking about any of mine here) are being treated unfairly.
I did not see any first rate images that were rated "too high"... again, imho... but, numerous images were rated commensurately low, based on their artistic and technical excellence. So, I think there are some shifts in voting patterns by some heavily weighted individuals. And, to clarify, i'm not talking about the heavy weighs in the top 6! There is some prejudice and bias by some people, evidently.
|
|
|
Posted 5/12/2007 2:08:44 AM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (5/11/2007)
Just have to make a comment here:
I just finished voting on a couple hundred images today. I think my range of votes was "3" to "10". I really liked the top tier of images. I rewarded the things I liked with a high score. And, I told the respective photographers (anonymous, at time of voting) how much I enjoyed their photos and told them "why".
After registering my vote and comment, it was surprising to me to see some of the mediocre scores on the top (imho) images! Voting and critique-ing art is a very subjective endeavor. However, I see some "too low" votes on some great work. I think the votes on the sub-par images are about right. But, I'm wondering why the top tier images (not talking about any of mine here) are being treated unfairly.
I did not see any first rate images that were rated "too high"... again, imho... but, numerous images were rated commensurately low, based on their artistic and technical excellence. So, I think there are some shifts in voting patterns by some heavily weighted individuals. And, to clarify, i'm not talking about the heavy weighs in the top 6! There is some prejudice and bias by some people, evidently.Richard, many of us would consider your determination of "too low" to be "very subjective"; and your voting pattern in general to be "too high", so perhaps it is all just a matter of personal taste.It is disturbing to see that you continue to undermine the anonymity of our competitions by insisting upon telling people how you have voted on their images. Isn't the influence that your weight (473) gives your vote enough? Must you go even further in trying to sway others to vote as you do? ...and to return the favor of your high votes with like on your very identifiable entries?
|
|
|
Posted 5/12/2007 5:53:54 AM
|
|
|
|
WillPat,
It is truly subjective, when I suggest some first rate images are carrying some relatively low scores. (Again, I'm not talking about any of my images.) But, even by DPChallenge standards, I'm seeing some unfair and un-objective voting. Some really first rate images are carrying sub-7 averages. To a certain extent, the buffer constraints at the end of the database are forcing some to vote "all categories", rather than just in their categories of choice. That's not very many people, but they tend to have an influence on scores. My point is.... some people don't like "flowers" or "b&w" or "pick any category, someone won't like it". And, they express their category displeasure with a vote of displeasure. (This is only theory.)
Here's the site data and my vote cast data from today.
What I'm saying is... there is an apparent change by some voters towards shifting their voting curve below the existing site curve. While there's nothing wrong with this during fair and objective voting, there might be a concern if the voters are using a 5 or 6 voting range on nearly all images, rather than the 1-10 scale available to them.
In yesterday's voting, I found some really outstanding 9 and 10 quality images. Why are those carrying sub-7 averages? I don't know!
|
|
|
Posted 5/13/2007 5:29:11 AM
|
|
|
|
| I think this can be easily explained. There seems to be a handful of members with high rankings that typically vote lower tha the average, sometimes way lower, thus bring down the total average of the photo. I think a bigger problem might be is the fact that there doesn't seem to be a big enough gap between great photos and poor photos in terms of average. Most poor photos are averaging in the 6s and most great photos are averaging in the 8s. Why is that?
|
|
|
Posted 5/13/2007 6:00:37 AM
|
|
|
|
wilrobking (5/13/2007)
I think this can be easily explained. There seems to be a handful of members with high rankings that typically vote lower tha the average, sometimes way lower, thus bring down the total average of the photo. I think a bigger problem might be is the fact that there doesn't seem to be a big enough gap between great photos and poor photos in terms of average. Most poor photos are averaging in the 6s and most great photos are averaging in the 8s. Why is that?Why is that? One reason is the Request for Comment feature we have here at DA. As much as people want to champion it's value as an educational tool, I think the net result is to convince people that it isn't worth the trouble to vote anything lower than a 5, and that 5 seems to be creeping up toward a 6. Secondly, the system throws out low votes that deviate by more than a set amount from an established average. And thirdly, the system requires a comment from anyone voting lower than a 5 so some people just don't bother with leaving a comment and their low vote is not counted, or they just raise the vote to a 5. These things and others, including the general attitude displayed by many of the more prolific forum posters, combine to essentially make the voting scale 5-10 instead of 1-10, and it continues to get smaller as time goes by. Comparisons to DPChallenge, or to any other site where voting is less constrained by the system, are like apples and oranges. Something I found out just this week is that when these last two provisions combine, the vote is thrown out but the comment remains. That seems a little unfair to me -- the voter is asked to leave a comment (after they have initially declined to do so) in order for their vote to be counted, if they decide they want the vote to be counted and are willing to offer a (supposedly helpful) comment they still don't get to have their opinion recorded if it is too far divergent from everyone else's but the entering photographer sees the comment, and probably the identity of the voter. The voter may be subjected to retaliation for a vote that was thrown out. The voting system here still needs a lot of improvement. Perhaps simplicity should be a guiding theme in making it better.
|
|
|
Posted 5/13/2007 6:33:45 AM
|
|
|
|
wilrobking (5/13/2007)
I think this can be easily explained. There seems to be a handful of members with high rankings that typically vote lower tha the average, sometimes way lower, thus bring down the total average of the photo. I think a bigger problem might be is the fact that there doesn't seem to be a big enough gap between great photos and poor photos in terms of average. Most poor photos are averaging in the 6s and most great photos are averaging in the 8s. Why is that?
As you know, images with averages below "5.0000" at 15 votes are auto deleted. So, this auto delete removes the lower tier of images from the competition. Most voters will not see many of the worst entries. That's a good thing, but it does cause the impression that not enough low votes are given. For the site stats, see bar graph above. Seems like a very normal distribution with long, smooth tails. I think the overall population gets this right.
It's a few members (weights from 1 to several hundred, not just high weighted members) who vote relatively low and in a tight range causing some short run distortions. They seem to want to reform the voting scale at DA, so they are attempting to "correct" the scores given by others with punitive votes of their own. There are a few who would not want to post their bar graph in the forum because the distribution would spike at 5 to 6 with very short tails. That is not fair and objective voting!
Everyone should use the full range of scores. Those who are only voting "5" or "6" on every image are causing general score depression for the technically excellent and artistically pleasant images.... while artificially lifting the averages for the oof, poorly composed, badly lit and fatally flawed images.
I am not trying to dictate how to vote to other voters, in terms of relative voting scale and "mean" score (no pun intended). I am suggesting some are voting in too tight a range, if using only 5 or 6. If you look at "my votes cast" bar chart above, you can see I give about as many 5 votes as I do 9 votes. I give as many 3 & 4 votes as I do 10 votes. This is not the ultimate and only correct distribution! But, it's a lot healthier pattern for the contest than a bar chart with twin towers at 5 and 6 with a "mean" vote at 5.5 with a very tight distribution and small tails.
Yes, I'm sure a few people are keeping their vote above 5 because a lower vote requires a quick comment or a voting comment in the text box. To always vote 5 or higher to avoid the comment feature is not fair, nor helpful! The people who need the most help are the beginners who submitted an image with a lot of problems, yet the photographer has not yet come to grips with seeing those problems themselves. These people need and want feedback. It's the least we can do to take a few moments to let 'em know the reason for the low vote. Everyone wants to improve. Those who keep their votes artificially elevated to avoid leaving a comment and also ignore requests for comments are being selfish and self-centered.
I happen to enjoy voting and critique-ing images. It improves my own eye for photography. I often leave quick comments or longer text comments on images which needed a different technique or presentation. This seems to reduce the overall number of requests for comments I receive. But, I respond to 100% of those, when they show up in my account.
|
|
|
Posted 5/15/2007 4:26:23 PM
|
|
|
|
| Interesting thread! I think that I will reevaluate my scoring. I have been using the "7" for images that are good, but don't wow me, and the "6" for just about anything else that falls short of a 7, unless the pic is really OOF, then I use the 5. I find that I give more 8s and less 9s lately, and fewer 10s than I ever have before. I wonder if after being here as long as I have, and having seen some amazing images, I use those "great" shots as the standard for the 10 vote. I too, am often confused by some of the scoring here. Richard made a very valid point about "punitive voting" in relation to this. It is quite possible that one could see something on the award pages with a score that they might want to "correct" one way or another. Obviously, there is no general rule, or solution for this. I think I will just increase my scale to include 4s, and try to evaluate each image individually without consideration of it's relativity to others. I find my biggest error is to vote a point higher than I feel, when I recognize the work of someone, especially if I know they are one of the top "performers." This is not because I fear retribution, but rather because I question my own judgment...like, if so and so did this, it must be good, and I must be missing something.
::Get wRIGHT or get wLEFT::
|
|
|
Posted 5/15/2007 5:31:06 PM
|
|
|
|
MG, nice to hear from you! I like your post and your common sense. I think I've been the subject of your full range of votes, because we've been here a long time. One thing I know, is that your vote is an honest, genuine appraisal of the technical and artistic value of a photo. No doubt about that! Just call 'em as you see 'em! You always do... so the advice is unnecessary.
It's sometimes hard to deliver an honest assessment of an image and then to see it belonged to either a friend, an enemy or a stranger! I've grown to the point I am oblivious to image ownership. A great photo is a great photo.... a poor photo is a poor photo... irrespective of authorship! So, the kindest thing we can do for members here is to vote in a fair an objective manner.... something Eric envisioned long ago. When the vote is based on a consistent set of criteria, then this will all work out in the long run.
I'd sure like to see everyone move forward as non-punitive adults. I think so!
|
|
|
Posted 5/16/2007 8:51:30 AM
|
|
|
| | |
