It's not a good idea at all IMO. We have enough troubles as it is, without encouraging people to gang up on anyone who votes outside the herd. And you may be certain that is what would happen.
R.
ETA: Plus, on reflection, I've decided I'm going to agitate in favor of a proposal that anyone who gives a score of 8 or higher on an image be required to comment explaining why s/he thinks the picture's all that... Because, I swear, I totally can't understand how so many relatively mediocre images get high scores across the board (some of my own included) while truly wonderful, thought-provoking images get hammered.
I say, if you like something enough to vote it to the top, you should be prepared to justify your enthusiasm!
There are many images that I have seen and I think to myself, "how did that get a high score... while this other image scored so low?"
I think the old saying is true... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Personally, I look at the hue, contrast, sharpness, white balance, and so on when voting on an image ... at the same time, if the image doesn't "speak" to me, it's more likely to receive an "average" score. Perhaps that's why some photos one person may see as "mundane" or "average" may be seen as "thought-provoking" or "amazing" to another.
I believe our personal preference plays a large role in the voting process.
IMO, a simple calculation using the existing data, and the existing voting system can make the scores more meaningful.
The calculated average doesn't tell you anything about the distribution of votes:
6 votes of 5 averages 5. Meh
3 votes of 1 and 3 votes of 9 averages 5. The average says meh. But the distribution says interesting!
Here's my suggestion: Also calculate the standard deviation -- this indicates how spread out the votes are. It's a pretty simple calculation for a computer to do.
In my mind, the highest standard deviation should deserve a new type of ribbon. The Sigma Prize. (sigma is the symbol used for standard deviation). It would be interesting to see how this new reward affects the submissions, wouldn't it?
this is on a similar vain to school removing winners and loosers to not offend children everyones a winner for taking part, bollocks to that.
Agree. The fact is, life rewards higher performance. It's just the way the world works. It's noct even a "society" thing, it's life.
F'rinstance: Grog kill many mammoth to feed tribe. Thag sit in cave and watch magic picture box. Grog eat well and have many females. Thag say not fair.
Originally posted by Osiris1975:
Maybe a solution to the 'not enough comments' issue is to have a check-box that says "request comments" and then in the voting stage, it will show that the submitter requested comments. Presumably this would encourage people to give comments, good or bad, because the submitter asked for them explicitly.
It's been suggested before (often by me) and I believe that change is in the works.
So saying terrible photos wins and great photos lose - well, what you are really saying is photos you liked lose, and photos you disliked win. It is not the same thing.
+ 1
Originally posted by Osiris1975:
Maybe a solution to the 'not enough comments' issue is to have a check-box that says "request comments" and then in the voting stage, it will show that the submitter requested comments. Presumably this would encourage people to give comments, good or bad, because the submitter asked for them explicitly.
This is under consideration by Langdon and SC, hopefully it should be implemented in the future. There is a pretty articulated exchange of opinions about this on GetSatisfaction.
Originally posted by Osiris1975:
-Critical comments make us better, but only if they resonate with you or if they have a critical mass. If one person says something is wrong, it is an opinion. If ten people say you did something wrong, it is a fact.
-A rhino-hide skin makes you better because the sting of criticism bounces off, leaving you to see the constructive part of constructive criticism.
- Literary criticism makes the harshest photographic criticism feel like a walk through the park on a sunny day, for me at least.
Well, personally I think numbers count little. If 10 people says you did something wrong, and perhaps suggest how to make it better, but you never really meant to achieve what they think you were going for, that only tells you that your intent didn't get across. Which is useful info but not that useful.
If in the meanwhile one single person understand where you were trying to go, and tells you what you should have done and why it doesn't work for them, well, there is your winner.
So, resonating yes, critical mass perhaps less, at least for me.
I believe our personal preference plays a large role in the voting process.
Thoughts???
Hemm, I certainly agree but I would be surprised if it was otherwise.
A curator of an exhibition might have to follow certain parameters which overcome her own guts feeling about whe has to judger, or a teacher might have to follow guidelines. But when it comes to telling the good from the excellent, even them will rely on their preferences.
Voters here are not curators though. Many people will look at the technical aspects in first place. That's something ubique, for instance, opposes quite vehemently, perhaps with good reason.
the best images always win, no matter how people vote. changing voting wont do anything but change the scoring avg, but the same images will win.
Best? The best according to DPC. Those may or may not be the best images entered depending on who you ask.
yes the best on dpc, what else would matter? DPC is small group and we decide what images we like best in a given topic of submitted entries.
best is subjective, but the mass consensus will always prevail in any voting system. the middle of the pack images may get shuffled a bit, but the top images will still come out on top.
the best images always win, no matter how people vote. changing voting wont do anything but change the scoring avg, but the same images will win.
Best? The best according to DPC. Those may or may not be the best images entered depending on who you ask.
yes the best on dpc, what else would matter? DPC is small group and we decide what images we like best in a given topic of submitted entries.
best is subjective, but the mass consensus will always prevail in any voting system. the middle of the pack images may get shuffled a bit, but the top images will still come out on top.
I guess nothing else does matter if you're OK with having DPC be your universe.
I guess nothing else does matter if you're OK with having DPC be your universe.
well lets see, dpc hold a challenge and dpc member vote on it, the highest avg vote wins... where's the problem?
changing the scale inst going to do anything. removing numbers wont do anything, forcing users to comment wont do anything, the highest rated images will still be, relatively speaking, the highest rated images.
why do people the feel need to keep trying to alter the scale?
I guess nothing else does matter if you're OK with having DPC be your universe.
well lets see, dpc hold a challenge and dpc member vote on it, the highest avg vote wins... where's the problem?
changing the scale inst going to do anything. removing numbers wont do anything, forcing users to comment wont do anything, the highest rated images will still be, relatively speaking, the highest rated images.
why do people the need to keep trying to alter the scale?
The point is that what's "best" on DPC, wouldn't necessarily be the "best" somewhere else.
