The point I am hoping to convey is if a photo can earn a ribbon why the big difference views to votes, is this saying the photo is a threat to the viewers photo.
On the other end where the difference is very small, is this saying the photo is of no threat to the viewer?
I would like to see a system of voting where if a photo comes up in front of the viewer a vote has to be cast, with no opption to move on without voting.
As the shuffle of the photos come up different on all computers we may see a closer and more competeive style of voting.
Brian, what do you mean, "a threat to the viewer?"
I think the simplest explanation for the much larger number of views that higher placing images tend to have is that people go back to look at them, after voting, often to comment, often to take a second/third look. I think it has nothing to do with not voting on the images on the first pass.
if the photo is interesting people might want to have a look at them again. This explains large difference in views to votes.
After 3 years in DPC time seems to play a big part, so I don't see many going back for seconds.
Brian, with respect, how would you know that? I know that I go back often, on many images, especially those at both ends (the images I score high and those that I score low).
if the photo is interesting people might want to have a look at them again. This explains large difference in views to votes.
After 3 years in DPC time seems to play a big part, so I don't see many going back for seconds.
Brian, with respect, how would you know that? I know that I go back often, on many images, especially those at both ends (the images I score high and those that I score low).
I agree there are the genuine voter as you but the numbers are doing the talking, look at the number of entries to the number of votes exspecialy the ribbons.
From threads created in the past and members saying that they don't have the time to vote more than 20%
if the photo is interesting people might want to have a look at them again. This explains large difference in views to votes.
After 3 years in DPC time seems to play a big part, so I don't see many going back for seconds.
Brian, with respect, how would you know that? I know that I go back often, on many images, especially those at both ends (the images I score high and those that I score low).
From threads created in the past and members saying that they don't have the time to vote more than 20%
Different issue. Not having time to vote and going back to images with impact.
In your initial post, it sounds like you're implying that somehow the voting system is not fair to all images as it is. That somehow high scoring images are getting an advantage in their final score because they have a higher number of views during voting. Please note however that the total number of votes is not that different for high scoring or middle of the pack images. It doesn't make sense to think that a higher number of views for higher scoring images makes for an unfair voting system. In particular when using the system you propose likely would have little or no impact on the number of views for these images.
if the photo is interesting people might want to have a look at them again. This explains large difference in views to votes.
After 3 years in DPC time seems to play a big part, so I don't see many going back for seconds.
Brian, with respect, how would you know that? I know that I go back often, on many images, especially those at both ends (the images I score high and those that I score low).
From threads created in the past and members saying that they don't have the time to vote more than 20%
Different issue. Not having time to vote and going back to images with impact.
In your initial post, it sounds like you're implying that somehow the voting system is not fair to all images as it is. That somehow high scoring images are getting an advantage in their final score because they have a higher number of views during voting. Please note however that the total number of votes is not that different for high scoring or middle of the pack images. It doesn't make sense to think that a higher number of views for higher scoring images makes for an unfair voting system. In particular when using the system you propose likely would have little or no impact on the number of views for these images.
Maybe I have said it all wrong, no I am not saying the voting is an unfair voting system, my comment was trying to convey the threat but more as a viewers personal thoughts when thery see a good photo, and move on without voting. And as I say 520 entries and the blue received 126 votes, there seems to me to be an imbalance. Now I have dug a deeper hole:):):)
I do think though that yanko is right, you need to look a the number of votes the various images in the challenge get - it's not that different for high placing, middle placing, low placing.
For me quite often after I vote in a challenge I will look at certain images again. I am the type of voter who, if up at rollover, votes immediately on all of them and then I go back and "rack and stack" giving those images I voted high on at least another view or two each. And then I often give them another view if they are images that I felt stood out enough to show Aimee (as she doesnt vote as much anymore just due to a time factor). So if by some chance I voted high on a ribbon winner I gave them anywhere from 3 to 7 views - if not more. To echo other thoughts, if the vote count (not the view count) was skewed heavily I would wonder, but in a FS of over 500 images, even if the vote count is 20 votes different than other images I would think that this would be a somehwat normal difference.
And odds are I rarely go back to my low voted images unless it was so bad that I needed a laugh.
The point I am hoping to convey is if a photo can earn a ribbon why the big difference views to votes, is this saying the photo is a threat to the viewers photo.
On the other end where the difference is very small, is this saying the photo is of no threat to the viewer?
I would like to see a system of voting where if a photo comes up in front of the viewer a vote has to be cast, with no opption to move on without voting.
As the shuffle of the photos come up different on all computers we may see a closer and more competeive style of voting.
I think your numbers prove that the ribbon winners just have more people going back to view the photo. Look at the number of votes for the ones you listed...they all have a similar number of votes. It's the same people voting for each one. If there was a disparity in the number of votes then you'd have a very valid point, but that's not the case here....the only difference is the views...
People like looking at pretty photos, not ugly ones.. simple really.
Actually, whenever the results are displayed the first thing I do is go to last page and view the brown-ribboners and DQs. I find it interesting :)
But when the voting period begins, how many people scan the thumbnails and click on the shots that look particularly good... that and the images of good looking women, I daresay a few of us, and I am sure as a result a few votes get placed. Thus leading to prettier/more appealing shots getting more votes..
But when the voting period begins, how many people scan the thumbnails and click on the shots that look particularly good... that and the images of good looking women, I daresay a few of us, and I am sure as a result a few votes get placed. Thus leading to prettier/more appealing shots getting more votes..
I agree! - In fact, I've even changed the crop of an entry just to make the thumbnail look good. And as a matter of course, I view the shot in thumbnail size before submitting it.
But when the voting period begins, how many people scan the thumbnails and click on the shots that look particularly good... that and the images of good looking women, I daresay a few of us, and I am sure as a result a few votes get placed. Thus leading to prettier/more appealing shots getting more votes..
I agree! - In fact, I've even changed the crop of an entry just to make the thumbnail look good. And as a matter of course, I view the shot in thumbnail size before submitting it.
LOL, why do you think 80% of my shots are square crop.. use them available pixels so it stands out!
For all the viewers with reasons for the difference of viewers to votes,saying that voters keep going back to look at the image, what is the reply to the difference at the beginning of the voting, there is no reason to go back at this stage as the viewer has not seen many photos.
For me quite often after I vote in a challenge I will look at certain images again. I am the type of voter who, if up at rollover, votes immediately on all of them and then I go back and "rack and stack" giving those images I voted high on at least another view or two each. And then I often give them another view if they are images that I felt stood out enough to show Aimee (as she doesnt vote as much anymore just due to a time factor). So if by some chance I voted high on a ribbon winner I gave them anywhere from 3 to 7 views - if not more. To echo other thoughts, if the vote count (not the view count) was skewed heavily I would wonder, but in a FS of over 500 images, even if the vote count is 20 votes different than other images I would think that this would be a somehwat normal difference.
And odds are I rarely go back to my low voted images unless it was so bad that I needed a laugh.
Nice type to admit you have a laugh at someone trying just as hard as you, but not as experienced at this point.
And you must have a lot of time on your hands to be able to spend the time you say on voting in a challenge.
It would be interesting to know your select all score as you admit in selecting before rack and stack. Must be all 4's and then you only stack the good ones leaving the others floundering with your early score.
