|
craggy
Apr 3, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #1 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 112
|
Some guy seems to be going around skewing the photo ratings again... bvb's pic of the roof was rated something like 9.17 yesterday and today it's 80 points less or something... plus a bunch of really cool photos have been downgraded after only 1 more vote (meaning some jobber is giving it a zero). Man, I know it's only for fun, but like they say "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." Likewise, if you don't like a pic, don't give it a zero... be realistic.... those pics didn't get a great rating by mistake....
Craggy
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Apr 3, 2003, 6:42 PM
Post #2 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
I hear ya Craggy. It's never ending, and will probably never actually end. I had a pic that stayed in the top 15 or so for about a week and half, big deal really, but I thought it was cool. THEN, the infamous RWALTERMYER came along, thought is was rather "stock" and admittingly gave it a 2. What can you say?
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Apr 3, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #3 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
I agree. I'm new to this whole thing and thought it interesting that some of my photos (which I know are good! :wink: ) dropped dramatically. How do you see who voted what? Is it just one or two people? How does this whole thing work anyway!?
Regardless - it's really lame for someone to do that. I posted my photos because I wanted to really know what other people thought, and now I still don't know.
Jut
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 3, 2003, 7:57 PM
Post #4 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
well, yeah, but remember that this is just a hobby site wjere anybody can throw up any old photo, so don't take it too serious. it's the equivilent of a photo scrapbook. and there's no accounting for taste or judgement among the voters -- people have wildly divergent tastes.
for example, if i see yet another generic sunset photo i think i'm gonna hurl. by the same token, i've not doubt some folks are sick and tired of my photos of people toproping old joshua tree trade routes, accompanied by my inane commentaries about how bitchin' we were "back in the day"
go look at what i think is the best photo up right now...a photo of kvb titled "learning to fly". it's stuck at 8.20 points with 5 votes. and it was shot by one of america's premier photographers to boot. it's a killer shot, but hey, it don't ring no one's bell. ces't al vie.....
my advice is just have fun with it, put up yer pikkies, and don't expect too much. the climbing public in notoriously fickle when it comes to photos.
there's oter things you can do. i rescued a great photo of the geek towers that had, like one vote and 6 points. i gave it ten and commentsed on the photo and what a great history the geek towers had. next thing you know the photo stayed up around the top for a while, got tons of votes and comments, and had it's day in the sun. you can do the same...find photosd you like in the back pages and bump 'em up fron t with a big score. it's at least as much fun as tracking the progress of your own pikkys!
|
|
|
|
|
naturalhigh
Apr 3, 2003, 10:01 PM
Post #5 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2001
Posts: 131
|
seems to me like someone hates scenics... all the scenics were downgraded sharply and the pics featuring a lone rock climber all got bumped up....
personally, when i rate photos i try to do so by the merits of the photo itself, and not just by the subject... ah well. =)
|
|
|
|
|
polarwid
Apr 3, 2003, 10:05 PM
Post #6 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2001
Posts: 3608
|
:cry: RWALTERMYER thinks that anything not OF a CLIMBER should go on WEBSHOTS.COM, even if it was taken of, or from, a climbing area. To each his own. I took some pictures from the top of a peak I climbed, he left those alone, but when I took a pic from down below, he wanted it on WEBSHOTS, even said it was a nice picture.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 3, 2003, 10:24 PM
Post #7 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I already posted my feelings on this. Very few of the pics submitted to this site are gonna be ones or zeros, but that's what my best pics were rated. They missed one of my not-so-good ones though, so it's at the top of my list, with a rating it doesn't deserve.
I'm not complaining about low ratings and saying my pics should be rated higher. I'm complaining about totally ridiculous ratings that obviously don't apply to the pic being rated. Rate right people!
But now I must point to the topic about stupid people, and face the truth that stupid people will never rate right, and will never care, so the ratings here will be skewed until the day all the stupid people die, and the Mayans never did predict that happening. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Apr 3, 2003, 10:36 PM
Post #8 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
well -- i was loving the fact that my first picture on this site has stayed on the top 5 for over 4 weeks ..
.. and i'm ok with someone coming around and givign it a 0 --- (its what it must have taken to knock it down) --
.. i'll post more later ..
.. if you want to see some really great photography all you have to do is go to photo.net ..
-- ricardo
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Apr 3, 2003, 10:37 PM
Post #9 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
one thing that could be done to see who's giving great photo's 0's .. is to publish the list of raters and what rating they gave the photos ..
-- ricardo
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 3, 2003, 10:40 PM
Post #10 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
That's what I'd like ricardol...
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 3, 2003, 10:55 PM
Post #11 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
I think both of you guys are taking the status of your photo point count WAY too seriously. If you really want your photos taken seriously and given their due, and more to the point if you want the quality of your pikky's quantified in a tangible manner, then submit to the magazines. That's when you'll learn what REAL rejection is all about! :shock: If nothing else, it'll toughen your skin up.
The patagonia catalogs recieve thousands upon thousands of submissions every year; they use maybe 30 per catalog. The cut rate for climbing publications is incredible; even guys like brian bailey, billl hatcher, kevin powell, cory rich, and greg epperson have to hustle. Its totally savage out there!
So guys, bear in mind that the folks voting on the photos at rc.com are just kind of a peer review group. You should also bear in mind that to vote, you have to have posted photos of you own, which will lead to inevitable downspray of your photos as others try to bring their own photos up! Again, it's inevitable. This is a totally amatuer venue, and you should expect amatur antics. Don't let it get to you. Just have fun with it!
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 3, 2003, 11:01 PM
Post #12 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
True bvb, and that's what sucks. But regarding your post... that would be pretty cool. Submit my best shots to the mags, and most likely be rejected, but it would be sweet to get in, and the only way to get a chance is to try. :D I might do that... thanks for the suggestion. ;) Now I just need some pics that are good enough. I think I'll submit some here to see how good they are, and take my highest rated one here and send it to the mags! :wink: :lol: lol
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Apr 3, 2003, 11:08 PM
Post #13 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
Fair enough advice from all of you.
Jut
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 3, 2003, 11:08 PM
Post #14 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
This problem will always be here... as long as there are voteable (is that a word?) photos, there will be screwed up votes. Either people who don't have a clue, or people who think they have a clue when they're just being snobs, or "homie votes" will often contribute to a good photo being bombed or a crap photo getting 8s-10s and dorky-happy yearbook-signature type comments. It's just part of the rc.com experience...
|
|
|
|
|
hardmanknott
Apr 3, 2003, 11:15 PM
Post #15 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 228
|
Why should people be allowed to rate their own photos?
That seems really dumb.
I have noticed several photos that were given 9.5 or
even 10 right off the bat, yet were no better than average.
What' up with that?
Hardman Knott
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 4, 2003, 12:47 AM
Post #16 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Why should people be allowed to rate their own photos?
What difference does it make. It's just one vote. If the photo isn't good it'll quickly get voted down.
In reply to: That seems really dumb. I have noticed several photos that were given 9.5 or even 10 right off the bat, yet were no better than average. What' up with that?
Well, one advantage to voting high on your own photo is that it gets it noticed. Until a photo gets at least one vote it is hard to find.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 4, 2003, 1:01 AM
Post #17 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
A lot of people vote their pics ten so that they will show up on the front page, be viewed, and then get rated by a few more people, and usually end up at what they deserve. Logical thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 4, 2003, 1:05 AM
Post #18 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I have been working on this problem today. I have come up with a better rating system (IMHO), and have started to implement it on beta .rockclimbing.com ..
I am also thinking of giving photo editors the ability to view photo votes, and remove obviously hatefull votes.
As for vote fudging .. there is no easy way to give a photo a vote of more than 10 or less than 1 (even if you hack your own voting page and send in values outside of that range). You would have to be a mad hacker to do it directly to the database, and circumvent the web front end.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 4, 2003, 1:31 AM
Post #19 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
Biff, I think granting yourselves the ability to muck around with votes would be a huge mistake. If some chuffer wants to throw a 1 at a photo, so be it. If a photo is really that good, it will eventaully get 15 or 20 or 30 votes, at which point thowing a 1 or a 10 at it does little to affect the score.
More to the point: why do you even INCLUDE 1's and 10's if you don't expect people occasionally to cast these scores?? And as was hashed out in the "Mod's" thread, where do you draw the line on the power administrators grant Themselves?. Swear to God, I've only been posting to this board for a month, but it's all too often I feel like it's being run -- or at least is at the risk of being run -- like a banana republic. :( I think a lot of other people who seem well-spoken and obviously have their wits about them have made this same point.
Excatly how would the photo editors determine that a vote was "hateful"? That would require a personal knowledge of the relationships among the umpteen people who post to this site. To scratch a vote would be an abuse of power. Voting is a democratic process; you have to leave it alone and let it ride. The cream will ALWAYS rise to the top.
From what I understand, many changes have been made in a short time in the way this site is coded, administered, and whatnot. I think you all need to be careful that you don't fall prey to "runaway train" syndrome. Take a deep breath, pause a moment, and make sure any changes you make to voting procedures make sense and have merit before you implement them.
If board management personel are going to leap in and jimmy the votes -- good, bad, and ugly, then why have a voting process at all? The process would become a sham. It would be a much preferable solution to eliminate voting entirely, than to expect people to cast their votes -- be they 1's or 10's -- with the expectation that a system admin could simply erase it at his whim. This would be especially shameful, given that the photo editors are some of the most active photo contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 4, 2003, 1:41 AM
Post #20 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
it'd be a good idea to tell us what the new rating system would be like before just throwing it out there. But I do reallize that I don't run the site, and I have no right at all to attempt to dictate what happens around here, so go ahead and do what you'd like.
bvb, remember that this is a web site, not a democracy. The admins and mods can do what they want, and don't have to consider the word of the users at all. We're lucky they do, most of the time. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
hardmanknott
Apr 4, 2003, 1:46 AM
Post #21 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 228
|
In reply to: Well, one advantage to voting high on your own photo is that it gets it noticed. Until a photo gets at least one vote it is hard to find.
So are you saying it's common practice for everyone
submitting photos to do this?
I'm kind of new around here, so I'm trying to learn the ropes.
I've only submitted a few photos -- without voting on them.
Did I screw up?
Hardman Knott
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 4, 2003, 2:09 AM
Post #22 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
yes, it's very common, I've seen tons of people do it... but there's another thing...
If you can get by a month without any ratings on your pic, until your pic no longer has the "new" thing next to it, and then rate it a ten, it won't show up on the front page, and the chances are that nobody will ever notice it, even though it's rated a ten... Now isn't that something?
|
|
|
|
|
jvb
Apr 4, 2003, 2:37 AM
Post #23 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 17
|
agreed -- it's not a democracy, but it is sort of a public gathering place, positioned on privately owned property. the owners of that property create certain attractions and entertainments to keep folks coming back. but if they poison the well, people leave and go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Apr 4, 2003, 3:01 AM
Post #24 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
here's an idea i haven't seen yet ... hide all the voting for a picture until it either recieves 5 votes or is two weeks old ... that way its first few votes are not known by others and it is more likely to recieve votes it deserves ...
this idea might help getting rid of people "voting to average" - people who vote a 4 on an 8.5 pic in order to make it a 6 (or whatever).
the other idea that i've liked is requiring comments ...
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 4, 2003, 4:10 AM
Post #25 of 58
(4046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I agree with you BVB .. the vote deleting could cause more problems than it would solve. I think it would be used more like this:
photo administrators would be able to see what users have voted many low votes, and would be able to browse all the photos that they voted really low on, and then could decide weather the person was intentionally voting another members photos down. And would be albe to take action against that person, by deleting the offending votes, or removing the users voting rights.
As everyone knows the current ranking scheme averages all votes. A rank of 9.0 with 5 votes can get voted down to 7.6 (moved to the 5th page) with a vote of 1, which would make it almost unnoticable to most of the voting public. My suggested algorithm for calculating the rank is designed to remove erronius votes, similar to performing a lowpass filter or noise reduction to an image. It isn't just as simple as removing the 1 votes or the 10 votes. We will be testing the algorithm, probaby modify it, and maybe just forget about it if it doesn't seem to work.
From preliminary tests, the algorithm seems to reflect the true judgement of the public (good or bad), which is what the rank was intended to show. If somone really wants to reflect how bad they feel the photo is, they should do so in a comment, much like I do for photos that I feel are exceptional.
The other point you brought up is why do we have options of 1 and 2.
That is a good point .. Photos go through approval from an Editor, and generally the ones that get approved get ratings over 4, or the owner chose not to have the photo votable. It might seem that the only use for the votes below 4 are for sabotagers .. and you might be right. I think the only reason we have low options is to make a more familiar voting range .. and for the odd ocation where a really, really bad photo gets approved.
No changes to the ranking system will be made without the input from all administrators, and appropriate testing. And it is very likely that no changes will be made at all, I am just throwing in a new Idea, and we'll see what happens..
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 4, 2003, 4:23 AM
Post #26 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
Allright .. the 5 vote thing has been proposed, but not with the addition of the time limitation on it.
This is a variation on the Photo.net style, and is also an option I have looked into. The one drawback to the 5vote system is that many photos don't get 5 votes, the addition of the 2 weeks thing might be good, but I bet that 3 days would be good enough since we get about 50 photos a day here. The other thing is that people could just vote thier new photo a 10, and then would wait 3 days and hope nobody votes on their photo, and see it appear in the top photo list, untill someone votes it down. So it might just delay the inevetable downvoting of photos, it wouldhave to be tested.
I think there are many possible improvements to the photo section of the site .. I will start a thread in the Suggestions & Questions .. I'll see you all there.
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 4, 2003, 4:51 AM
Post #27 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
Wow...i never knew I had built such a reputation in the photo world. For the record, I'm an avid photographer. Frankly, I call it like I see it. We all know that not everyone is going to love your pictures. I've had picts that I thought were 10s all the way...but apparently others didn't.
oh well.
personally cloudbreak I'd give that picture a two again if i had the chance... the rock exposure is great, but the actual shot is pathetic. Sorry. Once again, we all have our two cents. Heres the URL for anyone else curious: http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=11607
Again. I don't want this reputation of skewing everything. Honestly, I do prefer ROCKCLIMBING shots on a Rockclimbing website, but if the submitter acknowledges the photo as "artistic", I take that into consideration and forget about its relevance to rockclimibing.
God bless
randy
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 4, 2003, 5:01 AM
Post #28 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
also...keeping a photo as a 9 or even an 8 is a phenomenal effort. so perhaps our expectation or what GREAT photos should be is too high. I'd say anything about 7.5 is incredible. Otherwise, do you guys think EVERYONE is gonna vote a particular picture a 9 or 10 to keep a photo in the 9-10 range?? Thats impractical.
randy
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 4, 2003, 5:40 AM
Post #29 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
Jesus people. Do you really think the number of POINTS a photo is voted on this website determines if that photo is good or not?? Have some faith in your own eye, you own judgement, your own opinion on what you do/don't like. It's a frikkin website that ANYONE can post to, not a beauty contest.
The photo is either quality or choss, in the eye of the beholder. Remember, Van Gogh sold only one painting in his lifetime...to his brother, who bought it 'cause Vincent was depressed over the fact that noone like his paintings...
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 4, 2003, 6:20 AM
Post #30 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Randy,
If you don't like your "reputation" then quit building it up for yourself with your comments, eh?
If I were any of these people, I'd certainly think you were some snot-nosed puke with one of those really nice Kodak FunSavers... well, lah-dee-dah!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=11996
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=12213
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=11607
If you insist on your commentary, though, at least give us something sexy to look at. Something better than what's in here:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?ArchiveID=ALL&Photographer=rwaltermyer
climbnow1, spike... guys like that are "qualified" to give criticism. But they don't. Hmm...
Hmmmm....
|
|
|
|
|
vram1974
Apr 4, 2003, 7:08 AM
Post #31 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 113
|
Well personally I really don't care about the ratings so much... I posted... what, 38 pictures here, and the only one which was really of any interest to people was the one of my grandfather...
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=11720
... so naturally I checked in on the rating now and then... so I noticed recently that the rating was 9.10 on 30 votes... that's easy math (a total of 273 votes). Well, it got one more recently and is now a 8.84... so that means it got voted a "1" (274/31=8.838)...
But whatever... maybe I'm just being silly. Clearly a bunch of us who had high rated photos are disappointed they got downgraded. Frankly I find the voting a curious animal.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 4, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #32 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
criminny...i feel like i'm beating my head against a brick wall here.
clearly, everyone is going to take their "point count" as a big deal. It's fun, for sure...but it's not life-or-death...i've sent my friends "me-mails" with headings like "NATIONAL EMERGENCY! BVB POINT COUNT FALLS BELOW TEN! EMERGENCY VOTES NEEDED NOW!! VOLUNTEER TODAY!!"
All it got was a hoot from my friends...no votes. Didn't expext any either...not from the band of hooligans i hang with. Besides, they don't have voting rights...except for my wife, who downsprays my pikky's.... :P
On the ther hand, quite a few of the folks i climb with are pros with multiple magazine covers to their credit, so it really is hard for me to see a website where anyone can post as anything more than a community bulletin board, and the "voting process" has all the deadly seriousness of voting for PROM QUEEN... :roll:
The photos are my favorite feature of this site, but i've had more fun wandering though the 800 or so "back photo's than i have looking at the same old top photos.
Again I say: if you wanna get real, submit for publication and $$. This board feature is for fun, and you're all taking it too seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 4, 2003, 2:22 PM
Post #33 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
I guess what I was attempting to do was get ppl thinking...is this really worth submitting? I'm surprised the editors leave as much as they do on...
I guess www.0friction.com's policy makes a little more sense to me...
But variety is good.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 4, 2003, 3:25 PM
Post #34 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
no offense walter, but sometime you do come across as the self-appointed arbiter of taste...and your comment in this post just reinforces the impression. unless storage is a problem, site administrators should let people post whatever climbing-related photos that they please.
climbing is a purely personal pusuit, and it follows that the photos people take during their climbing explorations are going to take on a purley personal tone...who are you to judge what's worthy and what's not?
I mean, c'mon, as climbsomething pointed out, you've punched a couple of real stinkers through your modem, the photo her link leads to being a crowning example.
and for the record, i though your comment on my lodge parking lot shot was tremendously rude and thoughtless. i've been clutching to that photo for 26 years now, and for me it sums up everything that climbing has been for me -- which it to say it sums up my life. all you could see was some dirtbag smoking pot in a van...what you lack in imagination you more than make up for in judgemental self-righeousness.
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Apr 4, 2003, 7:11 PM
Post #35 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
How about throwing some number of the highest and lowest votes out based on how many votes the photo has recieved in total.
So, for example, if a photo has 10 votes, you throw out the highest vote and the lowest vote. IF a photo has 20 votes, you throw out the highest 2 votes and the lowest 2 votes, and so on.
This solution solves the problem of people downgrading photos, but also will help solve the converse.
On a different note, someone said - who cares what it gets rated - I say I care because I really want to know what other climbers think about my photos. Which is why I don't want to post to photo.net. I don't care what professional photographers (in general) think, I care what my fellow climbers think.
Jut
|
|
|
|
|
duracellbunny
Apr 4, 2003, 7:28 PM
Post #36 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2002
Posts: 255
|
I'd like to see the name and the rating.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Apr 4, 2003, 7:32 PM
Post #37 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: Man, I know it's only for fun, but like they say "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." Likewise, if you don't like a pic, don't give it a zero... be realistic.... those pics didn't get a great rating by mistake.
The flip side to your statement, is that they didn't receive a bad rating by mistake either.
The caveat with your statement If you have nothing to say, don't say anything at all - is that, if you only vote on things you like, the overall ratings (And the average) will continuously grow - and you'll run into the fanboi situation, where people rate other people's pictures up, because they like the person (or other, external reasons), rather than technical merit/composition of the picture itself.
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 4, 2003, 7:33 PM
Post #38 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
to JUT from a few posts above: I thought it would work well, but it doesn't.. In general it skews the high ranking photos down even more than the malitious votes.
I have a ranking system that is implemented and might be tested next week (by admins only) and as a group we will decide wether or not to try it as the default ranking calculator.
The algorighm isn't totally immune to malitious votes, but I think it works better than just trimming off the 10% low and high votes (based on observation ranther than mathematical proof).
well anyways .. I konw many people don't really care if their photos get bombed .. I just think that we should atleast try to develop a ranking system that reflects the feelings of the average rockclimber.
remember to give your inpute regarding photo gallery enhancements here:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...iewtopic.php?t=29113
|
|
|
|
|
hardmanknott
Apr 4, 2003, 7:58 PM
Post #39 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 228
|
Nobody has answered my question yet.
When summiting a photo, what number do you give it,
assuming such self-voting is normal practice?
8? 9? 10?
Hardman Knott
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Apr 4, 2003, 8:11 PM
Post #40 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
[quote="biff"]to JUT from a few posts above: I thought it would work well, but it doesn't.. In general it skews the high ranking photos down even more than the malitious votes.
Biff: I hear what you are saying - but, it still would keep everyone on the same "level". I mean, if it skews one photo, it will skew them all and it would still eliminate most of the obvious degrade/upgrade votes. So maybe all photos have slightly less overall points, but they would be more even overall. See my point?
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Apr 4, 2003, 8:39 PM
Post #41 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
Last rant. If you don't think there is a problem, look at this:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...n=Show&PhotoID=12596 with a rating of 6.67 and 3 votes (I did not vote for my own photo - maybe I should have...) compated to this: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...n=Show&PhotoID=12432 with a rating of 8.20 and 5 votes. Come on! There just isn't a comparison. Tell me there is....
Feel free to look at some of my other photos - they are the same way.
PS: If you haven't rated them yet - please do! I want to know what people think.
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 4, 2003, 9:06 PM
Post #42 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
well i like em both...but comparing the two...I think the butt shot-perspective on yours might lead to a lower rating...
personally...they're both good.
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Apr 4, 2003, 9:11 PM
Post #43 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
All butt shots aren't bad! Just because it's a butt shot doesn't mean you HAVE to degrade the photo. For real!
Now - thanks for looking - please rate it (and my others - I want to know what you think in numbers)!
|
|
|
|
|
jvb
Apr 5, 2003, 5:45 AM
Post #44 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 17
|
oh for god's sake you guys -- hell, they're ALL perfect tens! all 864 of 'em! so, who's gonna organize the awards ceremony??
|
|
|
|
|
vram1974
Apr 5, 2003, 6:10 AM
Post #45 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 113
|
Actually I think Juts shots are some of the best on the site...
To come to the point tho...
I respect difference of opinion. However! Someone giving a "1" to a picture rated 9.40 is not giving their opinion... they're being a prick because they likely resent that it's got a high rating.
bvb, you can tell people numbers mean nothing all you want, but you know it's a crock. If numbers meant nothing, there wouldn't be a voting system. It's the same thing with the YDS. There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who can look at a picture and not care what the rating of the climb is, and those who want to know the YDS rating.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Apr 5, 2003, 6:26 AM
Post #46 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
I say voting is fine. This is f*cking climbing people. If you can't suck it up when your photo get's voted down, even vengefully, on an amateur site, then maybe you are a raging example of inadequacy or maybe you just need to lighten up.
Don't change a thing. In the end the pics on the front page tend to be good ones almost all the time. Some good ones get lost. Some people don't like what their photos are rated. Some people want all good photos to be rated appropriately. You can't please anyone all the time and you can never please everyone. I think the photo voting is working SPECTACULARLY well at the moment.
You want to really talk to me about ratings systems and gaming? I built one of the largest media web sites on the net and, along with others, spent 5 years trying to stop people from gaming ratings and rankings of their media contributions. It's futile. Complexity doesn't win. What wins is making the ratings not matter for sh!t, keeping things mellow, and not worrying about it.
Like I said, everytime I look at the front page, there's a purty picture on it. To me, that's a fantastic success.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 5, 2003, 3:49 PM
Post #47 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
VRAM1974, I've been climbing steadily and full-timefor 30 years. And after 30 years, the things which bring meaning to your climbing evolve. Although in your mind, my beliefs may be incomprehensible -- or, "a crock" as you so eloquently put it -- to me they are the natural points of view that come from having heard a thouusand various iterations of this thread over the last 3 deacdes. And in truth, this thread really revolves around insecurity, and a thirst for attention and peer recognition, not photography.
So, to you, the votes and the points really do mean something. That's cool -- I'm not going to second guess your feelings on the matter and declare them "a crock". If I write somthing on this bb, you can generally assume i'm being striaght up, unless i'm obviously going for humor.
So show a little tenderness here, grommet. Don't be declaring my pontifications a crock. BTW, I'm one of the people who can look at a photo of a climb and not immediately want to know what it's rated. What I'll notice first is the setting of the boulder, the color and texture of the rock, the beauty and striking quality of the lines, and so on. The rating is the very LAST question that will pop into my head or pass my lips. You, my friend, are most definately a newskool climber and an amatuer photographer who wants to get better and get recognition. Reminds me of me and all my friends when were were 19 or 20 or 21.....
:x :twisted: :x
|
|
|
|
|
buoux
Apr 5, 2003, 5:27 PM
Post #48 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 21
|
Maybe you could make it so that when someone votes on a photo their name and vote will appear under the picture along with a mandatory comment or an opinion (which, right now is optional) of why or how they voted. Making people publicly accountable for their votes might ward off the bogus intentions of some.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Apr 5, 2003, 6:00 PM
Post #49 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I'm in full agreement with pbjosh. Leave it as is and just deal!
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 5, 2003, 6:32 PM
Post #50 of 58
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
you know...maybe we should READ the comments that ppl give to our photos they're a MUCH better indicator of how good a photo is.
|
|
|
|
|
craggy
Apr 6, 2003, 4:15 AM
Post #51 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 112
|
In reply to: And in truth, this thread really revolves around insecurity, and a thirst for attention and peer recognition, not photography.
I personally haven't posted any photos on the board and most likely never will cause a) I'm no photographer b) have no ambition of being one and c) really don't care whether anyone else but my friends/family and myself see them or not.
I simply started this thread because there seem to be a couple of people out there downgrading amazing pictures for some inane reason and I think it's because they are a) jealous b) annoyed of seeing the same photos visit after visit on the home page c) just pricks or d) trying to get their photos higher in ranking then others...
To the owners of rockclimbing.com - a) remove the voting system b) show the voters c) remove the obvious low OR high rankings (easy to code) d) don't allow the owner of the photo to vote e) as someone else said, don't show the votes immediately (maybe 2 weeks) and allow everyone to decide for themselves instead of being a lemming.
OK, as for the photos, keep em comin!
Craggy
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 6, 2003, 12:19 PM
Post #52 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
well thats a nice way to wrap things up. ;)
Also, note my last point: COMMENTS TRULY TELL THE STORY!
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 6, 2003, 12:21 PM
Post #53 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
And let me add one more thing for the record:
This thread has opened my eyes a bit. So, the next time I'd like to give constructive criticism, I'll comment on the photo, but give my votes to myself. Sounds fair to me.
|
|
|
|
|
vram1974
Apr 7, 2003, 12:45 AM
Post #54 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 113
|
Well, this should be fairly lengthy, but here goes...
bvb wrote a few insulting things:
In reply to: I've been climbing steadily and full-timefor 30 years. And after 30 years, the things which bring meaning to your climbing evolve.
In general this can be true of anything.
In reply to: Although in your mind, my beliefs may be incomprehensible -- or, "a crock" as you so eloquently put it -- to me they are the natural points of view that come from having heard a thouusand various iterations of this thread over the last 3 deacdes. And in truth, this thread really revolves around insecurity, and a thirst for attention and peer recognition, not photography.
Not at all... you've missed my point entirely. I'm not representing your point of view as a crock... I am stating that you know it is a falsehood to present the argument that ratings mean nothing. I hear it all the time with the YDS as well. I hear it as pertained to money. But we all covet these things, whether secretly or openly... so denying that people feel this way may be an attempt on your part to promote your enlightened "old school" status... or maybe you're just trying to stir the pot.
In reply to: So show a little tenderness here, grommet. Don't be declaring my pontifications a crock.
I don't think your opinions are a crock. I think your statement that numbers are meaningless is what is a crock.
In reply to: The rating is the very LAST question that will pop into my head or pass my lips.
Good for you. You are one individual.
In reply to: You, my friend, are most definately a newskool climber and an amatuer photographer who wants to get better and get recognition.
I know you think you are a terribly old school climber... but bvb, you really must get over it. You are nothing remotely "old school". Not even the picture which was given two consecutive "1"s recently which features my grandfather climbing in 1943 is "old school". People were climbing well before he was, and well before yourself, and well before me... timeline has little to do with the ethics of an activity. There were quite a few people who lived in the "good old days" of your era who did very questionable things... in fact much route development in the 80's came at the environmental expense that your generation didn't give a damn about.
As for me being a new climber... yes, I happen to be. I started "rock climbing" as the term fits in 2000. Before that I did not know it existed. As a child in the eighties to used to climb every rock, tree, house, school, or barn I could find. I would solo up objects which even to this day I can not say I understand how I survived. I used to want to climb anything, anytime, anyplace. Only through years and years of punishment by family, school, and even police, did I stop climbing. Silly me... I convinced myself that climbing was an activity which was frowned upon by all of society.
It was not until I went to Germany in 1997 to visit my grandfather, and climbed the mountains there, did I realize there was something I had been missing the past few years. Still, three more years passed until I actually found out that an activity such as "rock climbing" exists.
So kudos to you, bvb... that you happened to be lucky enough to find climbing at an early stage in your life. Lucky for you that you also cooincided with the retro-cool era of climbing when Croft, Kauk, and Hill were icons... that happens to be your success.
But very little about me is "new school".
1. Since the first I found out about traditional climbing, I knew it was what I wanted to do.
2. I have never, nor plan to ever place a bolt.
3. I prefer to lead from the ground-up, without scoping the route on top rope or reading topo or guidebooks
4. I go after attractive lines... not numbers in a guidebook
5. I bought my first quick-draw two years after my first trad gear...
6. I have not, and will not ever clip a bolt which is placed next to a crack
To quote Hermann Buhl, a man who lived and climbed long before you were an "old school" climber....
"The older generation likes to accuse us youngsters of lacking all respect for the mountains nowadays. So far as my own experience goes, there has been no change in the respect paid to the mountains; it is only the attitude towards actual climbing and to the technical difficulties encountered which has changed. I do not believe that to-day's young climber, standing at the foot of a climb, experiences any different feelings from those who climbed it before him: that strange mixture of an upward surge, excitement, the pleasures of anticipation, reverence for Nature and its Creator and-let it be freely admitted-a good sampling of fear."
In reply to: Reminds me of me and all my friends when were were 19 or 20 or 21.....
Well I am 28 years old, married, with a 17 month old boy. I am nothing like your "old school" friends...
I understand and love climbing far more than you could probably understand... after all, I am a new school climber... what could I possibly know about the activity you and your friends invented? That does not mean I will pretend that numbers are not important to me, and that I deny their importance in the context of this thread either.
I am not even an amateur photographer... I did not (obviously) take the damn picture of my grandfather in 1943! I just find it insulting that some person (or it seems two consecutively) would give a 60 year old photograph a rating of "1". To you, this act should be brushed off with a casual comment or two... to me, it speaks volumes about the expression:
"A few apples can spoil the bunch."
The majority of people loved my photograph as much as I do. I am merely annoyed at the individuals who find it amusing to go around skewing the ratings and handing them "1"s. No amount of pontificating on your part about the unimportance of numbers in some kind of quasi-Zen mojo is going to change my mind about it either.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 7, 2003, 1:26 AM
Post #55 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
well, there was so much garbled misinterpretation inyour post i'm not even gonna try a point-by-point response. I'll just hit the high points:
You need to read "the greatest climber in the world" by bernard amy. In it, you will find the most eloquent articulation of climbing even put to paper. It's classic, written in 1971. Oh, and the main point of this masterwork of climbing literature is that ratings are meaningless.
"I am stating that you know it is a falsehood to present the argument that ratings mean nothing" holy shiit. you may really be beyond hope. i wish you luck , dood. yer gonna need it. for the record, ratings DO mean NOTHING. This is something you may or may not come to realize someday.
There is noting enlighted about me..any of my homies can attest to that.
"Oldskool", in todays commently accepted parlance, generally refers to the watershed formed when rap bolting became popular...so, folks whose ethics were based on, say, Doug Robinson's article in the '72 Great Pacific Iron Works catalog are "oldskool"; late 80's and 90's climbers are "newskool". Just defining terms here, since the phrase "oldskool" is apparently a lightning rod for you.
It is heartening to see that ou have an interest in the pioneers -- buhl, comici, paul pruess, welzenbach, et al...those guys were so core they make us look pretty tame. do you think THEY gave a f*ck about ratings? They didn't even HAVE a rating system for the climbs they were doing! Are you can bet your ass they weren't spending a lot of time pondering the commen man's reaction to whatever photo's thay managed to take.
My advice to you is to spend less time on this bb frettign about your photo scores, and more time doing...well, you know.
Just one kast time, for empasis: you think my statement that rating are maeaningless are a crock? you've got a loong way to go pilgrim. good luck to you.
i'm rather anazed that my post got such a reaction from you, this whole issue has got you totally wrapped around your driveshafts and you wheels are spinning in the mud. you need to throttle back.
|
|
|
|
|
vram1974
Apr 7, 2003, 2:20 AM
Post #56 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 113
|
In reply to: i'm not even gonna try
Quite evident...
In reply to: Oh, and the main point of this masterwork of climbing literature is that ratings are meaningless.
The only thing meaningless are your repeated pontifications that ratings are meaningless. If they were meaningless, why do we have guidebooks? Why do we have money? Why do we count the score in baseball games?
In reply to: you may really be beyond hope. i wish you luck , dood. yer gonna need it. for the record, ratings DO mean NOTHING. This is something you may or may not come to realize someday.
First self-righteous ad hominen...
In reply to: do you think THEY gave a f*ck about ratings? They didn't even HAVE a rating system for the climbs they were doing!
That's the definition of pioneering! Anyway, if ratings mean so little, why don't more people get on "Stage Fright" on Cathedral Ledge? The reason is likely because the route is 5.12c X. An unimportant number to you perhaps...
In reply to: Are you can bet your ass they weren't spending a lot of time pondering the commen man's reaction to whatever photo's thay managed to take.
So what? That was then and this is now!
In reply to: My advice to you is to spend less time on this bb frettign about your photo scores, and more time doing...well, you know.
1. I live in Canada where it snows 6 months a year.
2. I have severe tendonitis
3. wtf is an "oldskool" burnout spending all his time "fretting" about this unimportant topic?
In reply to: Just one kast time, for empasis: you think my statement that rating are maeaningless are a crock? you've got a loong way to go pilgrim. good luck to you.
Second self-righteous ad hominen attack... I don't need luck from an oldskool burnout...
In reply to: i'm rather anazed that my post got such a reaction from you, this whole issue has got you totally wrapped around your driveshafts and you wheels are spinning in the mud. you need to throttle back.
Let's just agree to disagree. I'm happy being with the majority of people who believe ratings mean something. I'm happy to let this thread die...
...unless you have any more ad hominens about what a newskool climber I am and suggestions on the road of life which you have so aptly travelled?
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 7, 2003, 2:54 AM
Post #57 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
lemme interrupt again and reiterate: READ COMMENTS...they truly paint a much better picture about a photo's quality.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 7, 2003, 3:10 AM
Post #58 of 58
(3027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
yes, lets let this thread die. i think it's probably obvious to everyone that our failure to communicate with one another is total, and sets a new standard for miscommunication.
it's clear that we are speaking different languages. we certainly seem to have different definitions of what an ad hominem attack is. i've made no baseless swipes at your prsonal character; hell, i don't even know you.
berg heil
|
|
|
|
|
|
