I just wanted to share the interesting results of my branch challenge photo. It received a 5.395 (below my average) and 124th place yet the average vote per commenter is 7.526 (higher than my highest overall average) and the average vote for people with no camera is 7.0000. Does this just mean that only a few people are voting without cameras or do my artistic tastes coincide more closely with the cameraless? I'm not upset with my score at all, although I expected it to at least make the mid-five range, I am just simply astonished by these discrepancies.
Here is mine. I want to thank everyone that voted and commented but you can see a big difference between no camera and camera votes. But I don't know how many votes came from users without cameras. It may have only been 5 votes (thats the lowest common multiplier that would give me a 4.800 vote average. 4.8 x 5 = 24).
And for the record I believe I received an appropriate score. I'm not complaining.
Again Thanks everyone,
-SDW
Place: 61 out of 427
Avg (all users): 5.769
Avg (commenters): 5.778
Avg (camera): 5.786
Avg (no camera): 4.800
Views since voting: 16
Views during voting: 409
Votes: 290
Comments: 19
Favorites: 2 (view)
This one also had fairly big variations between commenters, camera owners and non-owners, but what interested me most was the variations in the comments - seemed a bit of a love-hate relationship going on here! It's not often that I get 8 10's and never with such a low final score.
While I agree that there is a self-interest as a camera owner to rate photos less generously and do better by comparision, I'd add that camera owners probably factor in shot difficulty, technical execution, and how a particular photo was "made". I look at your photo and understand that part of the effect you arrive at appears to be through cranking up the saturation level so from a technical standpoint, I'm not blown away. Aesthetically, the photo more interesting so I'd expect non-camera owners to rate it higher if they don't consider the technical merits as much.
On the flipside, I'd also say that there have been photos that I've rated higher on technical grounds (how the heck did they manage that??) than I'd expect someone approaching it from a strictly aesthetic approach would.
Is this right or wrong? I'm also an amateur magician and how I would rank other magicians would be quite different from how non-magicians would, but then I know the tricks. Fair? Beats me.
Thanks guys, I just went back and marked all my comments helpful (except for all of yours Joey ;) I tend to forget about that as I never bother to check if any of mine were helpful. When I get comments from other people I usually just go check out some of their stuff and try to return the comment favor.
Thanks guys, I just went back and marked all my comments helpful (except for all of yours Joey ;) I tend to forget about that as I never bother to check if any of mine were helpful. When I get comments from other people I usually just go check out some of their stuff and try to return the comment favor.
Every day I go to "My Profile" and check the summary on the left. I click on "view" next to "comments received" and then read every comment I have not already clicked as "helpful". This keeps me on top of all comments received. I pretty much always click the comment as helpful when I'm done. It's like a form of record-keeping. Some are a lot more helpful than others, but I appreciate all of them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's seemed to me that most images generally get a higher average vote from commentors (except maybe those at the very bottom of the pile). This is because people typically leave more positive comments than negative ones. If someone likes or loves your photo, they're generally much more likely to leave a comment than if they think it's worth a 3 or 4.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's seemed to me that most images generally get a higher average vote from commentors (except maybe those at the very bottom of the pile). This is because people typically leave more positive comments than negative ones. If someone likes or loves your photo, they're generally much more likely to leave a comment than if they think it's worth a 3 or 4.
Sadly yes. I'd prefere to get more comments in the 1,2,3,4 area.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's seemed to me that most images generally get a higher average vote from commentors (except maybe those at the very bottom of the pile). This is because people typically leave more positive comments than negative ones. If someone likes or loves your photo, they're generally much more likely to leave a comment than if they think it's worth a 3 or 4.
Indeed... I'd have a BUNCH of ribbons if I could bank the average vote by commenters. Assuming nobody else got the same privilege, of course :-)
Incidentally, not all no-camera voters are non-photographers; I have seen any number of members go over to no-camera status temporarily for whatever reason. BradP comes to mind, recently, when he sold his Oly and hadn't logged a replacement. Someone else, I forget who, went no-camera when s/he decided to stop participating in challenges.
Incidentally, not all no-camera voters are non-photographers; I have seen any number of members go over to no-camera status temporarily for whatever reason. BradP comes to mind, recently, when he sold his Oly and hadn't logged a replacement. Someone else, I forget who, went no-camera when s/he decided to stop participating in challenges.
Robt.
I haven't participated in any challenges and for what it is worth I might as well delete my "toy" camera from my profile. The vast majority of my photography is done using 35mm film, a little on medium format and the rest is with my digital compact or scanner.
As my average vote is somewhere around 5.7, should I delete my camera to increase the "without camera" average, even if only a little? ;)
T'is true that not all no-camera voters are non-photographers, but it should be a given that camera voters are photographers. Naturally, my comments about technical plus aesthetic vs. just aesthetic is only about what I think are the trends or tendencies and not about specific cases. Lest these spirits have offended ...
JPR - it has nothing to do with any of that. If you work out the math you had exactly one voter without a camera. There are very few voters without cameras - so you really cannot draw any conclusions from the data.
