Great! Thanks for pointing this out because I never notice these things. I just went through and checked them for the past challenges, and I can say without a doubt I get a much higher average vote from the non-participants. Maybe it does lend credence to all the people who think people shouldn't vote on challenges they participate in.
I just went through and checked them for the past challenges, and I can say without a doubt I get a much higher average vote from the non-participants. Maybe it does lend credence to all the people who think people shouldn't vote on challenges they participate in.
Not always the case... I have a few where my vote from participants was higher. I think the "non-participants" stat including the old "non-camera" (I assume) voters who tended to vote above the average would be a factor in the non-participant average being higher in most cases.
It does list it for past challenges as well. In some cases I see a large variation and in others a smaller gap, but generally so far the non-participants rate higher than the participants.
Should be fun to see what all of the number crunchers on this site do with this available statistic. I predict some "interesting" forum discussions! :-D
A comparison of voters who didn't enter the challenge is a wee bit more useful than knowing how a few voters without a camera rated your image.
It's kind of interesting, but I just don't see how it's helpful, sorry. Not that the other was, either! :)
(it's also early, I only slept an hour, have a cold and haven't finished my first coffee.)
I was pretty light on sleep also. But I do LOVE the transparency of things like this. The Bush admin could learn a few things from DPC.
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A comparison of voters who didn't enter the challenge is a wee bit more useful than knowing how a few voters without a camera rated your image.
It's kind of interesting, but I just don't see how it's helpful, sorry. Not that the other was, either! :)
(it's also early, I only slept an hour, have a cold and haven't finished my first coffee.)
I just checked about a dozen entries and every one had non-participants voting higher. But this is just an average. It would be great to see how the breakdown of participants and non-participants to make these numbers more meaningful.
I just checked about a dozen entries and every one had non-participants voting higher. But this is just an average. It would be great to see how the breakdown of participants and non-participants to make these numbers more meaningful.
Like having double lines on the voting scale graph? One color to indicate participants, another for non-participants?
Statistics aren't my favorite subject, but this one is
surely fun. I'd be rooting around in brown territory with
whiterook and friends if it hadn't been for
those very, very nice non-participants in the last challenge.
:-))
I just checked about a dozen entries and every one had non-participants voting higher. But this is just an average. It would be great to see how the breakdown of participants and non-participants to make these numbers more meaningful.
Like having double lines on the voting scale graph? One color to indicate participants, another for non-participants?
That would also be a great idea. What I was suggesting was total number of participants and non-participants next to average vote cast.
I just checked about a dozen entries and every one had non-participants voting higher. But this is just an average. It would be great to see how the breakdown of participants and non-participants to make these numbers more meaningful.
WOW! I just found this gem on my 'Double Take' entry from last June:
I'd be careful about making too many generalisations and rushing to drastic conclusions which sees people banned from voting in challenges they're participating in.
Just went through the 13 challenges I've entered to date (not including the one currently in the voting phase) and there were 4 where the participant vote was higher.
Good point vlado. Also, we don't know how many non participants voted. It could be an insignificant amount for statistical purposes.
I just calculated participants/non-participants for an entry posted in this thread and got 76/77. When I get time I'll put together a spreadsheet and see what else I get. Interesting stuff.
I'd be careful about making too many generalisations and rushing to drastic conclusions which sees people banned from voting in challenges they're participating in.
I agree, I have several images where the voting was very close between the groups and at least one example where it improved my score (I only looked at 6 or 7 images). I will admit sometimes I get the feeling people in challenges want to hold others images back in the hopes of bettering their own finish but overall most people do not want to win that way and personally if I ever win a ribbon I will know I did it fairly which means a lot more than a win could mean by any kind questionable means.
The users who have put images in a challenge have given more thought to the challenge and into shooting a photo that fits the challenge, at least from their POV about it. It would seem that that alone would tend to make them a little more critical about the images in a challenge, not because they want to hold down the scores, but just that they have a "hands on" connection to the challenge subject, as participants have done a bit of work to produce an image that fits and hopefully will do well in voting.
It's pretty evident that people with no camera or experience in photography see the images differently, and are more impressed with most of the images posted in the challenges.
I like the new stat.
