Just some thoughts about recent threads that have been mentioning 'troll' votes.
I have absolutely no problem with:
* those who consistently vote on the lower or higher end of the scale only, providing this IS consistent and something that is followed on all challenges they vote on
* people who adjust their votes once or more through the challenge - 'grouping' votes then sorting with greater detail later on
* votes of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - as long as this is an HONEST appraisal of the image in question
* people who low vote or take off a point for DNMC (in their honest opinion)
* various opinions of what is 'art'
I do have a problem with:
* people who, as the end of the voting period approaches, make large downward OR upward adjustments to their preexisting vote (perhaps in the hope of giving an advantage to their own or their friends chances)
* vote during the last 24hrs and hammer everything
(I'm ready for the flaming I'm about to receive..... :) )
I do have a suggestion for system improvement. I'm making this comment as a constructive criticism. There is a randomizer that presents images to each voter in a random way. Voting would be more fair if voters voted on images as presented by the randomizer. A 20% voting requirement before votes "count" is okay, if voters do not select which images to vote on from the display of thumbnail images.
The problem is, there is really no way of knowing if those lowball votes are genuine opinions or tactical voting.
Well, there is a way to root out "tactical voters" but it is not easy, and there is risk of "false positives" if you're not careful. It does, however, require access to the "voting record."
I do have a suggestion for system improvement. I'm making this comment as a constructive criticism. There is a randomizer that presents images to each voter in a random way. Voting would be more fair if voters voted on images as presented by the randomizer. A 20% voting requirement before votes "count" is okay, if voters do not select which images to vote on from the display of thumbnail images.
i also think the thumbnail summary screen should be removed. if you want to "see" the entries, you have to wait till voting is over, no picking and choosing, you should have to go through and vote if you want to see all the entries. i think it adds bias when you can jump to an entry that looks interesting in the thumbnail.
I do have a suggestion for system improvement. I'm making this comment as a constructive criticism. There is a randomizer that presents images to each voter in a random way. Voting would be more fair if voters voted on images as presented by the randomizer. A 20% voting requirement before votes "count" is okay, if voters do not select which images to vote on from the display of thumbnail images.
i also think the thumbnail summary screen should be removed. if you want to "see" the entries, you have to wait till voting is over, no picking and choosing, you should have to go through and vote if you want to see all the entries. i think it adds bias when you can jump to an entry that looks interesting in the thumbnail.
That'd make going back and commenting after voting awkward.
I do have a suggestion for system improvement. I'm making this comment as a constructive criticism. There is a randomizer that presents images to each voter in a random way. Voting would be more fair if voters voted on images as presented by the randomizer. A 20% voting requirement before votes "count" is okay, if voters do not select which images to vote on from the display of thumbnail images.
i also think the thumbnail summary screen should be removed. if you want to "see" the entries, you have to wait till voting is over, no picking and choosing, you should have to go through and vote if you want to see all the entries. i think it adds bias when you can jump to an entry that looks interesting in the thumbnail.
That'd make going back and commenting after voting awkward.
Currently, to comment, one needs to open and display the full image. What I am suggesting is the same for changing votes.
I do have a suggestion for system improvement. I'm making this comment as a constructive criticism. There is a randomizer that presents images to each voter in a random way. Voting would be more fair if voters voted on images as presented by the randomizer. A 20% voting requirement before votes "count" is okay, if voters do not select which images to vote on from the display of thumbnail images.
i also think the thumbnail summary screen should be removed. if you want to "see" the entries, you have to wait till voting is over, no picking and choosing, you should have to go through and vote if you want to see all the entries. i think it adds bias when you can jump to an entry that looks interesting in the thumbnail.
That'd make going back and commenting after voting awkward.
not if it displayed the summary page AFTER you voted 100%.
Thumbnail view should only be available after 100% of images have been voted on.
Agreed.
And no changing votes from the thumbnail screen.
Displaying a user's voting history in aggregate would be a good idea too. Not how they voted on specific images, but their distribution of votes.
As for requiring comments... NO. Would never work. You would only have to cut and paste "I felt this deserved a low vote" which means nothing and fulfills the requirement.
I do have a problem with:
* people who, as the end of the voting period approaches, make large downward OR upward adjustments to their preexisting vote (perhaps in the hope of giving an advantage to their own or their friends chances)
* vote during the last 24hrs and hammer everything
(I'm ready for the flaming I'm about to receive..... :) )
Curious to hear how you know these folks are doing this, other than that you're presuming justifications for them.
ETA:
Originally posted by hahn23:
I do have a suggestion for system improvement. I'm making this comment as a constructive criticism. There is a randomizer that presents images to each voter in a random way. Voting would be more fair if voters voted on images as presented by the randomizer. A 20% voting requirement before votes "count" is okay, if voters do not select which images to vote on from the display of thumbnail images.
This is a good point.
As is this.
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
3 - People care about their average outside of the challenge context. It is meaningless. The number is only there to differentiate the entries within a challenge. If another 20 members voted like I did, averages would surely drop, but the integrity and fairness of voting would remain. Yet, there'd be non-stop bellyaching in these forums about low scores.
(I'm ready for the flaming I'm about to receive..... :) )
When you start getting PMs of people trying to figure out if you're participating in a challenge, then you'll be where I'm at.
There are a couple of problems.
1 - hahn23 pointed out some voters cherry pick which images to vote on, and this is definitely an issue. james_so has the solution where you can only see the thumbnail page after you've voted on 100% of the images. I like this solution but it could lead to someone simply mashing down a button to fly through them quickly.
2 - I would like to see that your vote only counts on a higher threshold. Right now, I think 20% is too low. I'm not seeing how raising this number by another 20% will greatly diminish the number of voters. Personally, I think 100% should be the norm, but that will never happen. It would eliminate the bias selective voting has when an off from average voter votes.
3 - People care about their average outside of the challenge context. It is meaningless. The number is only there to differentiate the entries within a challenge. If another 20 members voted like I did, averages would surely drop, but the integrity and fairness of voting would remain. Yet, there'd be non-stop bellyaching in these forums about low scores.
I do have a problem with:
* people who, as the end of the voting period approaches, make large downward OR upward adjustments to their preexisting vote (perhaps in the hope of giving an advantage to their own or their friends chances)
* vote during the last 24hrs and hammer everything
(I'm ready for the flaming I'm about to receive..... :) )
Curious to hear how you know these folks are doing this, other than that you're presuming justifications for them.
1. If your score drops, and you get no new votes.
2. There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence from many here that scores drop on the last day of voting. Does this mean that all low voters deliberately wait until the end? Who knows.
Ultimately, we only can see what our image does. I sometimes don't vote until the last day of a challenge if I can get to it. I vote fairly all the time, so to the ones who get a sub-5 vote from me, they think they are getting trolled in the end while the ones who get a 6+ from me don't think anything of it.
my score in the For Dallis challenge dropped significantly on the last day. however in the end I received NO 1,2, or 3's, now either these votes got scrubbed or maybe troll voting is a myth.
