|
craggy
Apr 3, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #1 of 58
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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
(4037 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..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
