When they happen, they are dealt with manually. Coding a system to deal with this rare occurrence automatically is possible, but hasn't been really worth the effort given how uncommon it is to have an actual tie.
Short answer is it takes manual intervention from Drew or Langdon to fix (see above, they'll change the PLACE value in the database directly). Once they do, we'll reply to the ticket to confirm.
This shows that just one troll vote can make a difference. I don't care much for the "potato" shot, but I don't think that anybody can argue that it deserved a single vote of 2.
If that (apparent) troll vote was anything higher then it would have edged out the "ornament" entry.
This shows that just one troll vote can make a difference. I don't care much for the "potato" shot, but I don't think that anybody can argue that it deserved a single vote of 2.
So you define "a vote lower than some random number" to be a "troll" vote and therefore unacceptable? Or is it just "a low vote on something that won a ribbon?"
Maybe someone really didn't like the shot. Maybe it didn't speak "eBay" to them, but instead a heavily-made-up portrait of guys, with only a marginal connection to the challenge. Maybe someone thought it should be a shot of things, not people. Whatever.
Not every low vote is someone who's just being a jerk. I give out 1s, 2s, and 3s from time to time,and sometimes I strongly disagree with what wins. Does that make me a troll? No, it makes me like most voters. Go peruse the posthumous ribbon thread to see lots of examples of people who preferred low-scoring shots to the ribbon winners.
Sorry to touch a nerve, but you did highlight the important part of what I said....
I don't think that anybody can argue that it deserved a single vote of 2.
I said that I don't care for the shot but I don't see how anybody can justify giving it a vote of 2 just because they don't like it. There are other factors to consider other than it not "speaking eBay" to them.
I don't necessarily think that you are a troll voter for giving out 1s, 2s, and 3s. I vote those numbers too sometimes. I don't know anything about the entries that you vote so low on, so I don't have an opinion on whether those low votes are "fair" or not...and therefore I don't know if you fit the general description of a troll voter.
Again, I stated my opinion by sayin "I don't think that anybody....". For the sensitive and easily aggravated, I'll rephrase and say that I don't believe that this entry deserved a vote of 2 even though (as I stated before) I don't care for it. For worse entries, there is not much room to vote lower than 2 and I think that this entry should have room to stand above many of the other entries.
Votes are based on individual opinion. You only have to look at some of the stuff that sells on ebay to see that individual tastes vary in ways that no single person can possibly comprehend.
'I don't see how anybody can justify giving it a vote of 2 just because they don't like it.'
I do.
And that's all there is to it. I like the picture, and had I voted it would have received a reasonably high score, but that's hardly relevant. I might feel sorry for the irredeemable dullness of people who don't appreciate the things that I do, but I don't make the mistake of assuming that they're deceitful or spiteful.
I know a LOT of people that think the Mona Lisa is a butt-ugly portrait, and can't understand why everyone acts like it's one of the great masterpieces of all art.
But if we look at the score distributions, we see that the group shot has an anomalous distribution; more 10's than either 9's or 8's. That's one indicator of a very well-executed shot that's perceived by many to be a shoehorn.
I said that I don't care for the shot but I don't see how anybody can justify giving it a vote of 2 just because they don't like it. There are other factors to consider other than it not "speaking eBay" to them.
That's precisely where we disagree. I do see how someone could give it a 2. Or a 1. Or a 10. My vote was 7, FWIW. People can vote however they like, including voting low for simply disliking a shot, as long as it's not malicious.
What I really disagreed with was your implication that a 2 vote was somehow inappropriate, and therefore a "troll" vote. And I get very tired of people assuming that someone who differs strongly with the "average" score is somehow wrong.
To return to the tie... Does each now get a purple ribbon? Does not anyone think it most interesting that two such different shots scored equally? I admit I got a major kick out of the potato guys even though the grunge style and the processing are not my cup of tea. And I'm not sure people got all the resonances - particularly to Van Gogh's The Potato Eaters, the original grunge pic. The little glow on the tiny potato and the centred gaze of the guys was spoof storytelling. Karen's shot is a beautifully done macro of classic shapes - great lighting and that extra sparkle of texture. We should congratulate them AND the voters for celebrating this variety of style.
I know a LOT of people that think the Mona Lisa is a butt-ugly portrait, and can't understand why everyone acts like it's one of the great masterpieces of all art.
Well, it is a butt-ugly portrait, but still stands as one of the great masterpieces of art :-D
