It seems that its something that can easily be misinterpreted. It also seems to be something you have to dig to find and its not apparent on the surface.
Biased voting is pretty easy to spot by its very nature.
If you say so. I bet its going on a lot more then gets recognized, just some people are idiots about it. I mean when you have a thread where people start posting thier scores, its very easy to get an idea of what the average score for a challenge is looking like, which then means you don't need to vote a 10 to sway anything, if you just vote above the average scores you will make an impact.
There is nothing I love more than vigorous debate about things I really don't care too much about haha.
It seems that its something that can easily be misinterpreted. It also seems to be something you have to dig to find and its not apparent on the surface.
Biased voting is pretty easy to spot by its very nature.
I didn't mean for discourse to close on the announcement thread, but merely wanted the discussion to continue elsewhere (thanks Jeb!) as the original purpose of the thread had been met.
It's only considered "buddy voting" if your history demonstrate an unmistakable pattern of voting a person's entries up (and/or everyone else's down) just because you know who entered it.
How do you determine that someone knows another person? I personally know only one person on this site. I don't think he has entered a challenge in about a year. So eliminating him, what's to keep you from thinking I'm voting for a buddy if I happen to give the same person a 10 on a couple of challenges? I did give a fair number of 10's when I voted a lot. I've been thinking of voting again in the exclusive challenges to keep up my rating skills but wonder if I shouldn't just stop giving 10's just in case I might give someone two or three in a short time without realizing they belong to the same person. A 10 for one and ones for everyone else won't happen from me because a 1 from me is rare. I heard the word percentages bandied about in the ban/unban threads. I'm wondering if we should take a close look at our statistical favorites and see if we're gonna have problems because our taste in photos makes us somebodies buddy?
I'm wondering if we should take a close look at our statistical favorites and see if we're gonna have problems because our taste in photos makes us somebodies buddy?
Even if you like a particular subject or style, it's extremely unlikely that honest votes would ever be flagged as buddy voting. You would have to know which photos were entered to show a suspicious pattern.
I don't know if that makes sense. If someone here has a pretty indicative style, and it happens to be what I find to be "perfect" and vote the images a 10 time after time, then it will look like im playing off of the photographer and not the image, but that image is right up my alley.
I don't see how one can differentiate between an honest vote and a bunk vote, outside of someone doing something wehre they vote 5 across the board and and then a single 10 vote for thier "friend".
I don't see how one can differentiate between an honest vote and a bunk vote, outside of someone doing something wehre they vote 5 across the board and and then a single 10 vote for thier "friend".
You'd be amazed at how many people are that stupid, but we do have other tools, too.
My statistically favorite photographer has received and average of 7.8649 from me over 37 (!) challenges. Apparently I give him a lot of 8s, 9s, and 10s. I do not see his work before a challenge, but I have been known to correctly guess which shot is his in a challenge. I correctly guess a lot of artists in challenges. You play here long enough and you will recognize styles. Is it "friend" voting? Nope. I don't know for sure who did what, but I do know what I like. :-)
I'm wondering if we should take a close look at our statistical favorites and see if we're gonna have problems because our taste in photos makes us somebodies buddy?
Even if you like a particular subject or style, it's extremely unlikely that honest votes would ever be flagged as buddy voting. You would have to know which photos were entered to show a suspicious pattern.
I kinda thought that I'd get this reply. But it suddenly prompted another thought in this old drafty cranium: What if someone became everyone's buddy by always entering a photo with a family member or some other artifact that positively identifies the photographer to the voters?
I don't see how one can differentiate between an honest vote and a bunk vote, outside of someone doing something wehre they vote 5 across the board and and then a single 10 vote for thier "friend".
You'd be amazed at how many people are that stupid, but we do have other tools, too.
Do tell. What other ways does one go about finding this out?
What if someone became everyone's buddy by always entering a photo with a family member or some other artifact that positively identifies the photographer to the voters?
It wouldn't make much difference. Plenty of photographers (good and bad) already have recognizable styles, locations and models without issue.
I was in no way able to state my case to anyone but SC, which, in my opinion, because some member(s) of SC had already wrongfully drawn the wrong conclusions about me, saw a chance to shut me up for good because of my views and expressions of things. I feel this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Had I been able to defend myself in a forum where other members would have had a chance to get involved beforehand, this ban may never have taken place. The reason I was given for being banned from this site was for having duplicate accounts. In no way was this true, as currently proven. I believe the ban came as a result of my political views and the fact that I called attention to another members’ photo, who is a site favorite, and I think because I was questioning a possible dq for it was the main reason for my ban, because with minimal investigative work, it was too easily proven that the two accounts were in no way duplicates of one person.
Let's see, you get caught in a lie and blame it on a conspiracy... Yup, you exist all right, and you really are a Republican.
