Maybe instead of the voted by people without cameras. What does that mean anyway?
Good question. You could be a member or not, with or without a camera. That stat of "Without cameras" should probably be changed to "Members". That would give a lot more meaning to those stats.
AS an example, in the fire challenge on the winning photo, only one person without a camera voted and gave kiwi a 6. Do the math. Although that wasn't an open challenge.
Just out of curiosity, why does is a member's opinion more significant than that of someone without a camera? Just because they paid money to join doesn't necessarily make them good.
If someone doesnt have a camera then the score they give could be an example of what a non-photographer thinks of the image. They are less likely to know or care about composition, lighting, cropping, or any of the technical aspects that photographers get hung up on. That said, even non-photographers can notice those things but not necessarily know them to be technical aspects of an image but more of a visually pleasing aspect.
I'm not sure how informative a members' avg vote would give other than to satisfy some curiosity. As mk said, the only difference between a member and a non-member is that they paid money to join.
Right Budokan. It's more just a curiosity. I'm not saying at all that anyone is better than anyone else.
And I also think a ribbon in open chalenges from the members would be quite an honor. After all, if it weren't for the paid membership, there'd be no site. Right?
Also, I don't see the relivance of giving such a small minority sepatate line in the voting. ie. only one person without a camera voted. And there are only 7 members without cameras.
It's a couple days later, and I'm still curious of your opinions.
If I understand your original question/thought.
I'm curious what difference it makes--- if they are such a small minority why would you want to exclude them? :)
Just out of curiosity, why does is a member's opinion more significant than that of someone without a camera? Just because they paid money to join doesn't necessarily make them good.
I don't think it's a case of one group being "better". At least I don't think so. I suspect it's just that someone noticed a difference between averages between the two groups one day and thought it was of interest. Personally I don't even look at the scores broken down that way. I think it's a meaningless statistic.
Originally posted by moodville:
If someone doesnt have a camera then the score they give could be an example of what a non-photographer thinks of the image. They are less likely to know or care about composition, lighting, cropping, or any of the technical aspects that photographers get hung up on. That said, even non-photographers can notice those things but not necessarily know them to be technical aspects of an image but more of a visually pleasing aspect.
Except for the fact that having no camera listed can also mean nothing more than the fact that the person isn't participating by entering challenges (only in commenting/ voting) so hasn't added a camera to their profile or perhaps that they are a film photographer (knowing just as much as anyone else might know about techniques etc) but enjoy visiting the site to view the images. Of course they might know nothing and have never held a camera in their life. Thing is, given that many of those with camera are complete novices and know very little about the technical aspects, whereas some have learnt huge amounts... it just seems a pointless distinction to make to me.
For the same reason, I'm not sure I'm much interested in seeing votes separated by member/ non member lines since I'm interested in how anyone of any background views the image. But if others want that statistic for any reason, it doesn't cause me any concerns either.
So should we start splitting statistics along other lines too? Male/ Female? By age bands? By continent?
I think maybe the most commented picture should get something. I think a picture that anoyes everyone is a success. A picture that makes a low score but manny comments it, even if coments are not positive is most of the times a good one becouse it manages to get ones attention. I consider my worse pictures those that got the lowest comments not those that got the lowest score.
Just out of curiosity, why does is a member's opinion more significant than that of someone without a camera? Just because they paid money to join doesn't necessarily make them good.
I've noticed that there is much less change in scores of member's challenges after voting closes. This would seem to suggest the paid members don't bother to try to manipulate scores with irregular voting patterns. So their opinion just might be more reliable.
By showing the statistics we would at least be able to see whether there is much difference between the scores given by members and non-members.
Personally, I would prefer to see "Avg. score (with entry)" and "Avg. score (without entry)" stats, with the difference being votes given by users with a photo in the challenge or not. My guess is that on average, user's with a photo in the challenge rate pictures lower (because they can see their own score).
Personally, I would prefer to see "Avg. score (with entry)" and "Avg. score (without entry)" stats, with the difference being votes given by users with a photo in the challenge or not. My guess is that on average, user's with a photo in the challenge rate pictures lower (because they can see their own score).
There is at least some qualitative distiction there.
When someone comments on my picture(s) I tend to go
and look at their profile to see if I like their work,
and to get an idea of their standard.
Ribboned photographers are the anonymously and democratically
selected elite - I would certainly be interested to see what
they thought of my picture.
There is at least some qualitative distiction there.
When someone comments on my picture(s) I tend to go
and look at their profile to see if I like their work,
and to get an idea of their standard.
Ribboned photographers are the anonymously and democratically
selected elite - I would certainly be interested to see what
they thought of my picture.
Just out of curiosity, why does is a member's opinion more significant than that of someone without a camera? Just because they paid money to join doesn't necessarily make them good.
Quite.
I think it would be better (following the original line of enquiry) if it listed ratings by ribbon winners alongside all registrants/members.
Those who win the ribbons aren't necessarily better photographers either, they may simply have tapped into the DPC aesthetic and it seems that this may be what you're after.
