| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2011 10:19:24 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by weheh:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Not much to say about this except you put too much stock in ribbons. Your tone speaks for itself. |
About as much stock as I put in gassbone's comments. And you're right, my tone was chosen carefully -- to ridicule the ridiculous. |
How old are you? Wow. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 11:05:25 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
How old are you? Wow. |
Of course, Kelli is right. I'm acting like my age is my shoe size, and I have average-sized feet. Please accept my apology for pissing everyone off. It's a talent I prefer to keep under wraps (obviously, without much success).
Message edited by author 2011-06-11 18:34:38. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 11:21:05 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by weheh:
Originally posted by Kelli:
How old are you? Wow. |
Of course, Kelli is right. I'm acting like my age is my shoe size, and I have average-sized feet. Please accept my apology for pissing everyone off. It's a talent I prefer to keep under wraps. |
Bolding mine.
LOL - Don't we all!
I hope your 7+ score will be a ribbon winner - I'd love one of those myself (a 7+ AND a ribbon)! Don't forget where all those nice high votes came from and reciprocate to deserving images. Just be glad everyone doesn't vote on a 1, 2, 3 scale. :-) |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 12:03:23 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I hope your 7+ score will be a ribbon winner - I'd love one of those myself (a 7+ AND a ribbon)! Don't forget where all those nice high votes came from and reciprocate to deserving images. Just be glad everyone doesn't vote on a 1, 2, 3 scale. :-) |
There are many different kinds of voting systems that DPC might have used to bubble-up the best photo in any challenge. I have recently developed a fascination with these voting methodologies but have not yet had time to explore all of them. My comments here are specific only to the strategy employed by DPC, which is a rather simple one.
Regarding DPC's voting, I'm sure I'm stating the obvious that if I voted a 10 for every photo in a challenge that my vote would only skew the averages up but would be irrelevant towards selecting the best photo, and therefore a complete waste of my vote.
Under DPC rules, the purpose of the number you ascribe to the photo is to rank a photo relative to others in the challenge, not to send a message to the photographer about whether you like their photo in an absolute sense. To illustrate this point, imagine there were only 10 photos in a challenge and I was the only voter and had to vote for every photo. If I felt strongly that each photo was sufficiently different from the others and I wanted them to be ranked from least favorite (wonderful) to most favorite (sublime), then I would have to vote them 1 through 10, each one getting a different score. That might mean that I voted a 1 for a fabulous photo! Would that mean that I thought it sucked? No. It would mean that I liked the other 9 photos better or thought they were more appropriate to the challenge.
The hazard of DPC's voting system is that it can be scammed. You can see this clearly from the bi-modal distributions evident in the final vote tally for the best photos. In other words, you'll see the winning photo having a large number of votes from 5 to 10, peaking at around 8, but then a bump of a bunch of votes down around 1, 2, and 3. Obviously, some people in the competition are voting against what they think is the best photo in an attempt to favor their own (mediocre) photo by dragging down the best photo's average score. The rules don't prohibit it, so you have to hope that enough people vote that the "law of large numbers" will overpower these outliers.
It's an important fact that DPC requires you to vote for 20% or more photos in a challenge before your votes will be counted. It would be even better, but probably untenable, to make that a higher number. Bottom line, many votes means that you will get an "honest" outcome and that outlying, inconsistent votes are swamped by the average.
Final words: an honest vote doesn't mean voting a 5 or 6 for an average picture. It means voting for all the pictures in a challenge and being consistent -- if you like a photo, vote high; if you don't like it, vote low. But if you want to game the system and vote against a great photo, it is possible. The rules discourage it, but may be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. The other photographers might not like it, but they have to accept negative voting as a fact. Otherwise, they should petition DPC to change the rules -- but be prepared to offer an alternative voting system.
Therefore, CJinCA, if everyone voted on a 1,2,3 scale, I would be perfectly happy. Such a voting system would still be able to pick the winner, but there would be a lot more ties.
Message edited by author 2011-06-11 17:27:15. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 12:59:59 PM · #30 |
| I dunno. I can't get excited about liking stuff in an UNabsolute sense. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 01:09:49 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I dunno. I can't get excited about liking stuff in an UNabsolute sense. |
Everything is relative. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 01:45:39 PM · #32 |
| See, that's the thing. When I feel strongly about something, it is NOT relative. And if I cannot feel strongly I might as well be dead. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 01:46:07 PM · #33 |
| I probably should have said "Be glad a lot of people don't use that scale or you probably wouldn't get that 7+". The scale states 1 for Bad and 10 for Good so I don't think of it as 1 for Don't Like and 10 for Like..... maybe others do. Yes, everything is relative but I disagree about why one would score low for an image you don't particularly like especially if it is well taken, processed and meets the challenge well but maybe the subject is something you dislike. Personally, I seldom give out 1,2 or 3 votes and lately, not a lot of 4s. If most of the images are better than avg, why not give those a 6+ vote? :-) |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 01:57:51 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by tnun:
See, that's the thing. When I feel strongly about something, it is NOT relative. And if I cannot feel strongly I might as well be dead. |
You have to not feel strongly about something to be able to feel strongly about something else. If you felt strongly about everything, then it wouldn't feel like feeling strongly. It's the relative difference between things that lets you know that you're getting new, actionable information. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 02:16:42 PM · #35 |
Personally, I understand perfectly well where  weheh is coming from. Voting on a scale from 1, 2, 3, doesn't mean you're an angry, trolling jackass. You will still give the best photos your top score, and the worst photos your lowest score. It would probably be easier for a 1-5 system because defining what a 2, 3, 4 (2 maybe has more technical merit than a 1, but doesn't fit the challenge as well or vice versa; and the same with 4 and 5; 3 is just an average image with medium technical merit and/or medium relation to the challenge) means is much easier than...6 vs. 7 vs. 8 and 2 vs. 3 vs. 4. What makes an 8 better than a 7? What makes a 3 worse than a 4? It's a very ambiguous scale and not defined by DPC. Every individual voter needs to decide it for themselves. If the original poster wants to remove 5 and reduce the load of another number, then that's her choice.
And yes, feeling strongly about something has to be relative. If you feel strongly about something, then you feel weakly about something else. If it was light all the time, we wouldn't even have the concept of light, because there's no comparison: dark.
Message edited by author 2011-06-11 18:18:45. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 02:27:01 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I probably should have said "Be glad a lot of people don't use that scale or you probably wouldn't get that 7+". The scale states 1 for Bad and 10 for Good so I don't think of it as 1 for Don't Like and 10 for Like..... maybe others do. |
I see it as 1 for "like least" and 10 as "like most." So if I had to vote for 10 photos and I didn't want any ties, one of them would necessarily have to get a 1, another a 2, another a 3, and so on up to 10, even though I liked all the photos. If I accepted ties, which I typically do for the lesser photos, then I would give a bunch of photos the same value. But if there are a bunch of really great photos and I wanted to distinguish my fave from the 2nd best but they are all great, then I'll give the best a 10 and the next a 9 and so on. If I gave my faves all 10s, then it would be leaving it up to the other voters to decide which was the best photo, which is also a valid strategy ... let the crowd decide.
Originally posted by CJinCa:
Yes, everything is relative but I disagree about why one would score low for an image you don't particularly like especially if it is well taken, processed and meets the challenge well but maybe the subject is something you dislike. Personally, I seldom give out 1,2 or 3 votes and lately, not a lot of 4s. If most of the images are better than avg, why not give those a 6+ vote? :-) |
If the voting system had a calibrated scale then the absolute value of your average score would be relevant. But since DPC doesn't have a calibrated scale and because anyone can vote any way they please, then trying to ascribe meaning to your average score is an exercise in futility. As someone pointed out, average winning scores have been drifting down over time. If you have lots of votes, then you can kind'a sort'a compare your winning score to that of another winner in a different challenge. But since there are always different voters in each challenge, each using their own methodology, the comparison is coarse, at best.
So if you follow my reasoning and you want to make your every vote count, then vote for all the photos, give a 10 to your personal choice for blue ribbon, a lower score to the 2nd place choice, and an even lower score to your 3rd place choice. Then, give even lower scores than 3rd place to all your other photos as you see fit. If you really feel strongly that your choice for the top photo must win, then give that photo a 10 and give the 2nd choice photo a much much lower score, etc.
And if you want people to really know how you feel about their photo, leave them a comment. For that matter, you could even say something like, "I love your photo because of ... (specifics here) ... and I think it's technically and compositionally a 10, but I voted you a 5 because I think this other photo is more deserving to win this challenge." That'll surely clear things up and make you lots of friends. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 02:54:33 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by weheh:
Originally posted by tnun:
I dunno. I can't get excited about liking stuff in an UNabsolute sense. |
Everything is relative. |
You have a flaw in your argument - making absolute statements suggesting that everything is relative. The two cannot coexist. Cheers. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 02:58:00 PM · #38 |
| Phah. There is a trivial sense in which everything is relative. Then there is the sublime illusion that there are absolutes. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 02:59:04 PM · #39 |
| Fortunately, with a large number of voters, your method of giving a 10 to your top pick and a MUCH lower score for everything else seldom will assure that that particular image will win as many voters will have a different favorite from yours and maybe will even use your tactics. :-) It's not that unusual for me to have more than one image that I really like for a challenge so I don't have a problem with giving them the same high score. With between 100 to 200 voters for each challenge though, my favorites seldom win. :-D |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 04:32:46 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 05:04:53 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by weheh:
. You can see this clearly from the bi-modal distributions evident in the final vote tally for the best photos. |
This may be a bit of a stretch too. We do see some bimodal distributions especially if the subject matter is polarizing like nudity. But a few low votes on a winning shot hardly constitutes bimodality. The low values tend to stand out because the hard limit of 10 prevents a natural upper tail of the distribution.
In a recent challenge I charted all of the individual votes cast and the overall distribution is remarkably normal. I believe if scamming was occuring it would show as a bimodal peak in this distribution. It of course shows the expected inverse relationship that winners have many >7 votes and few <4 votes and low scoring images have few >7 and many <4 votes. What's interesting though is that it shows that all images get a share of the high and low votes from the normal distribution.
Yes the scoring system can be affected. However, when you take a look at the stats, far more often than not they show the system is very fair. The site clearly takes care to reduce the scamming that could occur. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 05:23:44 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by weheh:
Originally posted by tnun:
I dunno. I can't get excited about liking stuff in an UNabsolute sense. |
Everything is relative. |
You have a flaw in your argument - making absolute statements suggesting that everything is relative. The two cannot coexist. Cheers. |
Ahem ... correction: they can not coexist simultaneously. This is the basis of complementarity. Regardless of your attempts to bait, relativity in the context given is the basis of our experience and is germane to this thread.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2011 06:16:36 PM · #43 |
| I doubt very much that there is any proof that relativity is the basis of our experience, in the way that light vs dark is the way we perceive an exposed film. Certainly I doubt that it is the basis of the usefulness and/or meaning of our experience. I really do get tired of this relativity thing being applied willy nilly every damn where. I do believe it is possible to be humane, not just relatively humane. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 06:35:39 PM · #44 |
@DJWoodward: Super data and presentation, thanks so much for adding clarity to the discussion! I see the avg. blue-ribbon score moves around less than the avg. score, most likely because the curve gets chopped at 10. I also see lots of jitter in the average score from challenge to challenge -- looks like around 30% in absolute terms, with the median of the averages drifting up and down at random. Could the jitter be caused in part because of the voters' subjective interpretation about what average means?
I also agree that the distribution is not bimodal, per se, but some pretty great photos have gotten some pretty low scores, eh? So agreed, there is no reason to imagine that groups of people are scamming the vote, though it could be done in theory, and subsequently detected.
The data seem to indicate that one's early average score in a challenge would be a good predictor of whether one will end up in the winner's circle. As for whether to vote a 4, 5, or 6 for an average photo, you would be in good company regardless of which you chose and on the receiving side, I wouldn't read too much into whether I got a 4.5 vs. a 6. Below 4.5, I know my photo sucks -- believe me, I've been there! That's all part of the fun. What a great site this is. LOL. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 06:36:53 PM · #45 |
A 5 is in fact representing an image that is UNDER average, 5.5 being average between 1 and 10. I use 5 for the said reason, seldom give less than a 4 because I wonder who is so gifted as to split hair between under performance and under performance. If you meet the challenge and your work is average, even barely average, you get a 6 from me. I prefer to be a positive scorer and not a know it all. And yes, my yield is scary, my ribbons few, my average atrocious. And yes, I am not a photographer. I am an amateur enjoying the hobby.
In my first days here when I knew absolutely nothing, there where people, kind people, mentoring, giving feedback and helping to focus on learning. The day we stop having a learning component to this site, we are all losers. So to those among us, those with an attitude of godliness and high value on scores and cyber ribbons, please chill. Rather use your talents to teach, rather than to break down. Being nice is so much more fun.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2011 06:44:00 PM · #46 |
Challenges Entered: 223
Votes Cast: 35,003
Avg Vote Cast: 5.8009
Votes Received: 37,240
Avg Vote Received: 4.9120
In the context of this site & its voters, I am a less-than-average photographer. In the past 5 years I have learned next to nothing, if you go by my score. Changing the way people vote is not going to change that. I don't care, though, I'm an artist, not a photographer. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 06:48:33 PM · #47 |
| pixelpig, an artist you surely are; I just checked your portfolio. Sadly, that is not what counts. Keep your head up straight, you have more talent than most. Unrecognized talent. But so be it. You know who you are. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 06:55:21 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I doubt very much that there is any proof that relativity is the basis of our experience, in the way that light vs dark is the way we perceive an exposed film. Certainly I doubt that it is the basis of the usefulness and/or meaning of our experience. I really do get tired of this relativity thing being applied willy nilly every damn where. I do believe it is possible to be humane, not just relatively humane. |
Are we talking about Einstein's relativity or just semantics? Light and dark are relative terms. Bigger and smaller are relative terms. 10 is relatively bigger than 1. As for semantics, I have no problem thinking of myself as humane and relatively humane at the same time. If one's intention is to be humane and one's thoughts, actions, speech, etc. are all humane, then for sure one is being humane. (If you're able to keep that up 24/7/365/forever, then you may actually be a buddah. Good news ... there are rumors circulating that buddah's can experience omniscience. For the rest of us, we try to focus our intentions on being humane, but some days we are more humane than others. Thanks for the fun discussion. Signing off. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 07:21:42 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
pixelpig, an artist you surely are; I just checked your portfolio. Sadly, that is not what counts. Keep your head up straight, you have more talent than most. Unrecognized talent. But so be it. You know who you are. |
What?? "Sadly, that is not what counts." Sad for whom? For the artist? For the people who not appreciate the artist? For the world at large? And what is so unsad about "counting?"
And weheh, I am speaking neither about Einsteinian physics nor semantics; the one relates to a particular physical abstraction of matter; semantics, on the other hand, is a catchword for people who don't want to talk any more.
My ambition today was to dig myself a very big hole and then fall into it. I am a gardener. |
|
|
|
06/11/2011 07:35:02 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
pixelpig, an artist you surely are; I just checked your portfolio. Sadly, that is not what counts. Keep your head up straight, you have more talent than most. Unrecognized talent. But so be it. You know who you are. |
Looking at your portfolio was a treat! Thanks for looking at mine. I'm content to remain anonymous, except for on this website. And Flickr. and Facebook. "D And I enjoy a good debate, so pardon the interruption.
Message edited by author 2011-06-11 23:35:57. |
|
