/ Cynical posters rating photos as rubbish?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tom, UKC News Editor - on 18 Jun 2007
Just posted up a set of photos mainly from the Czech and someone has clearly gone through and marked most of them as 1 - Rubbish. Which is a bit disheartening. Did Nick Smith suggest or have I missed that you can see who has rated your piccies? I'd quite like to know which cynical git has decided to slag off all my photos. Sure, not all of them are great, but 'rubbish' seems a bit harsh. Thanks.
PeakDJ on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

I swa them and thought that most were ace! Inspiring shots and made me think about a trip out there sometime...
Glyn Jones - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: It's why I do not burden Alan's bandwidth. Someone always votes my photos as a 1 in my gallery but on someone elses gallery they don't maybe because I'm not credited.
TN - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

Most of the '5' rated photos have the token 1 vote against them - It seems to be the norm now. :-(
I don't think you can see who has voted 1 for a particular photo but you can see what the spread of photo votes cast by each person is by going into their profile.
sutty on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

As in life, on this site are geniuses, normal people and cretins. Cretins can only count to one with difficulty, pity them.
Michael Ryan - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

I get the same with some of mine, multiple 'rubbishes'........doesn't bother me though, I do find it quite sad.
Adam Lincoln - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

Thats why i don't bother uploading anymore Tom...
sandywilson - on 18 Jun 2007
Alphin - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

The no. 5 voter in the top 10 list 'Darkhorse' has voted on 581 photos - 32% rubbish and 24% poor, so a possibility?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=40134

Thier photos are not that great either, more point and push! My kids take better photographs;-)
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: Have you had an argument today on here? Wade into a discussion on the mid-east situation or Scottish winter ethics and often you'll photos will get voted rubbish as a result.
Mr Justice Cocklecarrot on 18 Jun 2007 - 194.101.206.253 [194.176.105.43]
In reply to sandywilson:

Have you spent hours trawling profiles to locate them?

They do seem like prize knob-jockeys.

sandywilson - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Mr Justice Cocklecarrot:

Used advanced search in google. Took 30 seconds.
diablo - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

been thinking for a while now -

why is it poss to grade other people photo's in the first place ? opens things up for derogetory comments
John Roberts (JR) - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

I frequently get it too, on photos that have been in the top 10. So does alex. we both got 1 rubbish + about 4 poor votes for the gaia shot in each of our galleries. risk of uploading i guess, but yes it is curious and frustrating.
hugedyno on 18 Jun 2007 - 213-162-102-107.johnwi672.adsl.metronet.co.uk
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

I've had 'differences of opinion' with individuals on these forums and found photos which had rated 4 for ages, suddenly downgraded.

Sad really. Why not do away with ratings altogether?

HD.
HeMa on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

I'm going to guess that it's either those witht a vendetta against you (like TobyA mentioned)...

Or that they are reallyy crappy photogs themselves, and are just utterly annoyed of the fact that you can take such stunning pics.

I'd also care to guess that, the bitter peeps are more likely to go through your gallery and rate 'em as rubbish.

Mostly positive blokes, only rate pics that are great, when they happen to stumble upon 'em (and even then it's a hit or miss, if I actually do vote).
sutty on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

OK, just had a look at your pics and they seem to be getting the average I would be giving if I marked them at all. Some of the threes might creep to four and some fours may be a bit high, so overall the people seem to getting it averaged out fairly well IMO.

What spoils them for me is the fact some could look MUCH better in a larger size, have a play around and see of you can get them to just fill the screen , the uploading photographs articles may help someone like you with a working brain.
King Rat - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:


I always wonder whether it is:

A) Some one just being a prat and systematically voting 1's for all pictures they look at regardless of who posted them or the quality.

B) Some one being vindictive and targeting a particular person’s picture.

C) some one who thinks their vote should carry more weight then everyone else’s and are trying to alter the overall average by voting 1 for a picture they think should be a 3 but is currently getting 4’s.

D) People who have other motives, they hate pictures of sunsets, bouldering, people top roping classics etc etc and automatically vote these pictures down whatever the quality
Jenn on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

Someone ages ago (sorry, can't remember who) suggested adding a feature that would only allow you to be able to vote 1 or 2 if you left a comment as to why you were voting the way you did.

I suspect this would stop a lot of 'vengeance voting'.

I have a bunch of rubbish votes in my gallery, which I feel are more to do with upsetting various UKCers, rather than a comment on my picture taking ability.
King Rat - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to hugedyno:

"Why not do away with ratings altogether" it all depends on why you submit pictures and why you look at them, if you submit pictures so that your mates can look at what you’ve been up to or to show a particular climb then there is little point voting on them. If you want to look at pictures that inspire you and have a artistic quality then rating allows you to filter out the chaff from the wheat. Perhaps the voting system needs to be reformed, so that you can opt out of having votes on your picture.
mart rich - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Jenn:
That seems like a great idea - but should apply to all votes.

I think a lot of people who vote 5 like to add a comment anyway, so why not all votes? If it tales a bit longer to vote, then the vote will be a bit more considered.

Martin
Jenn on 18 Jun 2007
I also find it difficult when people vote 1 or 2 for pictures that are for databases / info.

For example - we took some pictures of Cae Du since none existed on the DB, but alas people decided to vote for them.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=68752
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=68759

One of the reasons I like UKC is that I can find out about areas that sound interesting to go climbing. If there are no pictures, then this isn't really possible.

Anyway... another suggestion might be to show who voted what. Again I think this would discourage the unjustifiably poor votes.

Jenn (grumbly UKCer and / or rubbish photographer)
Mikkel - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to sandywilson:

Not me, yet.
Its a hobby of mine though, to vote 1 to all pictures from people who whine about votes.
I will get through his when i get time.
Jenn on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to mart rich:

Agreed - and it also might help you to pick up a few tips on photography.
eagleopus on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to King Rat:

The simplest reform would be to ignore the top/bottom x number of votes. It's a long time since I did stats, but it is a standard procedure to stop results from being squed by a single point way outside the curve.
King Rat - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Jenn:

Having a system which required you to comment if you vote 1 or 2 might sound good but i can see two problems.

1) if you come across a picture that you genuinely think is rubbish, and you vote 1 and leave constructive criticism. The owner of the picture may take offence and go through your pictures voting all 1.
2) If you want to be malicious, Its easy enough to create a second profile and vote people’s pictures down, and if a comment is needed then just type some random text ie ghoprwGH.

How about a system of graduated membership of UKC which would encourage people to take responsibility for their voting and posting.

Perhaps new members would have limited privileges and as you become more involved you can do more. new subscribers could get basic functions such as posting comments on the forum and upload pictures, once you have posted a certain number of pictures and forum posts you would receive an upgraded membership which would give you fuller access and allow you to vote on pictures.

If you combined this with a comments system like you suggest and remove members who are abusing the system. It may encourage greater responsibility in voting

You can tell I’m bored at work
Coel Hellier - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

How about using the median rather than the mean? It is less affected by rogue votes.
HeMa on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

One another opinion...

Why is everyone so interestid in the marks their pic gets? Is it sort of like a Facebook/MySpace "will you be my friend" -thing, or a way to get acceptance?

I mean, if you value a pic, it should bother you one least bit if someone votes 1 - rubbish on it.

And if you're looking for genuine criticism and advice, a photography oriented forum might be more appropriate place. (Though quite a few stellar pics here, and if I have under stood correctly also quite a few professional photogs as well).

Let's face it, there is bound to be peeps that don't like you for what ever reason... And some of 'em might take the trouble to register here (if they ain't here to begin with) and vote all of your pics as rubbish. But such is life in the grand age of InterWeb anonymity...

And due time these 1 - rubbish votes will not make a huge effect on how the pic is generally rated.
bluebrad on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to HeMa:
> (In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor)

> Why is everyone so interestid in the marks their pic gets?

For me it is to see what other people think of my pictures as much as anything combined with a touch of ego massaging. I certainly don't rate my photo skills as being special but it is always nice to get a 4 or a 5 vote on a picture that you have taken.

bluebrad
Tom, UKC News Editor - on 18 Jun 2007
Thanks for the replies. It's natural being a bit sensitive if you've spent some time uploading your pics. It looks like the rogue voter element is wiped out once a few more votes have been added.

P.S. If anyone wants beta on the Czech, feel free to ask!
TRip - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: it looks brill Tom. How do you get there? Is it cheap? Are the flights cheap? Are the grades all mega though? Are you allowed to place any conventional gear? or is it all knotted slings and huge bolts?

Cheers,

Tom
Hugh Cottam - on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

To look at some of the voting profiles mentioned above:

Gus (has 47 of his own photos) - 22 votes
-- 4% superb - 0% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 95% rubbish

Wingman (has 15 of his own photos) - 15 votes
-- 6% superb - 0% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 93% rubbish

Mokkel (has 2 of his own photos) - 22 votes
-- 9% superb - 4% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 86% rubbish

philip sneyd (has 0 of his own photos) - 16 votes
-- 12% superb - 0% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 87% rubbish


whereas:

Darkhorse (has 18 of his own photos) - 581 votes
-- 6% superb - 14% good - 22% average - 24% poor - 32% rubbish




The first 4 look like people who are simply spoilers whilst to be fair the last one looks like someone who has made a genuine attempt at rating the photos.

It wouldn't be all that hard to design a system that ignored voters who don't appear to display a genuine range of voting behaviour.
sutty on 18 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

My voting record;

Click to list photo comments written by me. (94 comments)
I've voted for 353 photos, average vote 3.9.
(18% superb - 53% good - 21% average - 5% poor - 0% rubbish)

I often do not give average as that is what is already given. I give a good if I think it is above average and deserves moving up, probably why that has the largest vote.
I think most of the poor markings have gone with a comment on the pictures so the poster can do something about things.

stuckonarock - on 19 Jun 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Good suggestion, or better still, use the mode score. That way, just the most popular rating holds and these eejits who deliberately put other people's photos down don't even register. It could default to the highest score if there's a tie, just to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt :)

It would be a really simple code change too.

All in all, I think the photo galleries and the ratings system are a great idea. It really makes me try a bit harder when taking a shot (not that any of mine have been uploaded yet, but just you wait, 5 stars here we come!). It encourages users to develop some superb personal galleries and therefore a great record of their progress climbing.
Chris F - on 19 Jun 2007
In reply to HeMa: Have you ever tried using a photography orientated forum? Most of them do not get climbing at all and often go on about either how dangerous and irresponsible it is, or how amazing it is that people can do that, when it's a pic of someone toproping a diff. At least the idea here is that it's "supposed" to be a trial of your peers, until some feeble minder with a vendetta throws a spanner in the works.
HeMa on 19 Jun 2007
In reply to Chris F:
> (In reply to HeMa) Have you ever tried using a photography orientated forum?

Yes, most have only commented on photo techical issues... And by luck some hae even commented on composure (he was also a climber).
philo - on 22 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

I've voted for 1,099 photos, average vote 4.3.
(73% superb - 8% good - 1% average - 0% poor - 14% rubbish)


if i like a photo its normally a 5 and if its crap then a 1.

i only genuinly vote for decent photos i see on the main photo page, and in the "new this weeek" or "featured gallery"

brixton climber - on 22 Jun 2007
In reply to philo:
dear phyl.
You know have been fined for not providing the font photo in time.
A red 2inch spot will growth on your noise in the next 2 month.
brixton climber
Brian Birtle - on 22 Jun 2007
In reply to Hugh Cottam:
> Gus (has 47 of his own photos) - 22 votes
> -- 4% superb - 0% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 95% rubbish
>
> Wingman (has 15 of his own photos) - 15 votes
> -- 6% superb - 0% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 93% rubbish
>
> Mokkel (has 2 of his own photos) - 22 votes
> -- 9% superb - 4% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 86% rubbish
>
> philip sneyd (has 0 of his own photos) - 16 votes
> -- 12% superb - 0% good - 0% average - 0% poor - 87% rubbish

Somebody do a favor and when one of the above get in some ridiculous flame war or upload a photo of their own, make a point to cut and paste it into the discussion. Clearly these guys are absolute wankers.

I happened to notice one of the Czech photos in question, randomly, and was surprised to see it had a "1" rating. I gave it the "5" it deserved.
kevin stephens - on 22 Jun 2007
In reply to Brian Birtle:

Steady on there, the above haven't voted for many photos, and maybe the ones they have voted on really are crap, there are certainly plenty of crtap ones to choose from.

Now if only I could find out who has voted 1 or 2 on MY favourite pics!
ads.ukclimbing.com
kevin stephens - on 22 Jun 2007
In reply to kevin stephens:

Oh what a surprise, hahahahahahaha

just after the above post re supporting others cited on here and a jokey remark a 1:rubbish appears on my most recent photo

maybe somebody should find something more intersting to keep them amused, like climbing maybe?
philo - on 22 Jun 2007
In reply to kevin stephens:
it happens all the time, ive think ive got more 1's on my pics than 4's and 5's combined!
proberbly says something about my photos tho! yours are nice tho
CJD - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Hugh Cottam:
> (In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor)



>
> It wouldn't be all that hard to design a system that ignored voters who don't appear to display a genuine range of voting behaviour.

just skimming through this and noticed this bit...

it would stop me voting as I generally don't vote for pics i don't like... my breakdown of voting is:

I've voted for 640 photos, average vote 4.5.
(56% superb - 40% good - 0% average - 1% poor - 2% rubbish)



kevin stephens - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to CJD:

Me
I've voted for 2,269 photos, average vote 2.9.
(3% superb - 18% good - 46% average - 25% poor - 4% rubbish)

Come on Nick! name and shame. Let's have a link to see who voted what for what

or at least for the 1 and 5 votes
CJD - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to kevin stephens:

I now feel like I'm being overwhelmingly generous!
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: I'd be interested in improving the photos ranking system so that votes are weighted based on how 'reasonable' a voter you are.

So a long-standing user of UKC who gives good quality votes has each of their votes worth '1.0', while some recently registered user who just votes rubbish for everything has their votes worth '0.01'.

I've asked stats experts to get in touch with me in the past about this, but never had a single email :(

Cheers
CJD - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

but is voting 'good' for lots of things just as bad as voting 'rubbish'?

<looks worried>
<starts to fret>

:-)
kevin stephens - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Nick, how about cancelling out votes from those who vote rubbish just to piss people off(see Mokkel above)
Barra - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

But what if you only vote on the pictures you genuinely think are rubbish as you want to get the dross off the website?

Yeah, you should give credit where it's due, but I don't like to inflate peoples ego. You know if you've taken a good shot, and that's all that REALLY matters. Similarly I don't like to vote on pictures that are mid-grade as in-between is neither here nor there.

Luv Barra! xx
Ian Hill on 25 Jun 2007 - 81.168.42.241 whois?
In reply to kevin stephens:
> (In reply to CJD)
>
> Me
> I've voted for 2,269 photos, average vote 2.9.
> (3% superb - 18% good - 46% average - 25% poor - 4% rubbish)
>
> Come on Nick! name and shame. Let's have a link to see who voted what for what
>
> or at least for the 1 and 5 votes


that's a nice curve you have there!

I'm virtually the same, I've voted for 2,158 photos, average vote 3.0.
(8% superb - 14% good - 49% average - 22% poor - 4% rubbish)

but of course a 'normal' curve depends on the range of photos on the site being 'normal'...and having looked at just about every photo on here I'd say that the average pic is actually in the 'poor' range of voting (I think I'm too generous with my votes and often tend not to vote on poor or rubbish pics, and this despite the fact that I reckon the average vote cast by users across the site is probably in the 'good' range)

if I have any conclusion it's to let us opt out of voting...
Ian Hill on 25 Jun 2007 - 81.168.42.241 whois?
In reply to Barra:

good point - it's seen as OK if like CJD you only vote superb or good but despicable if you only vote poor or rubbish
kevin stephens - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Ian Hill:

my criteria is usually

1: bin in
2: keep it but don't show anybody
3: show it to your mates
4: put it on the wall
5; put it on the wall, even if taken by somebody else
Bob on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

I think that any vote should require a comment to justify why that vote has been cast in the way that it has. Alternatively drop a percentage of votes cast at either end of the scale in the same way that voting on ice skating drops the top and bottom vote - you'd have to scale this to take into account the number of votes - no point in removing the top and bottom vote if there are only two votes!

boB
Padraig on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to CJD:
"but is voting 'good' for lots of things just as bad as voting 'rubbish'?"

I'm not sure BUT I have to admit to USUALLY only voting on the Top 20/30 photos. Generally means I have a historty which reads.....
78% superb - 12% good - 3% average - 1% poor - 3% rubbish)

P
P.S. The rubbish are all yours! (Joking!)They're Kevins!
Padraig on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Bob:
" think that any vote should require a comment to justify why that vote has been cast in the way that it has"

You're having a laff??
Comment = I voted "Rubbish" cos it was "rubbish" is a comment?
NEXT!
James Moyle - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: The idea of using the mod is a great idea, this would produce a rather large number tied in first place, and so then the total number of votes in this category could be used.

Personally the reason I vote, normally a five, is to add support for a photo I would like to see make it to photo of the week, and therefore allow more people to see it
Bob on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Padraig:

But why was it rubbish? Criticism or comments like that are neither use nor ornament. However having to leave a comment (of any kind) means that you are identifiable. While this may bring out reprisal voting in certain cases, it will certainly help stamp out the anonymous cynical voting.

An alternative would be to enable/disable voting on a photo by photo basis.

boB
Padraig on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Bob:
"Criticism or comments like that are neither use nor ornament. "

THAT was the point I was trying to make!
Philip on 25 Jun 2007
I know it sounds "american" but do you think the ratings should be changed from the current system to:

1. average (bad name as it clearly can't be the average)
2. good
3. great
4. excellent
5. outstanding

The reason being, in the current system 3,2,1 are all quite derogatory but in fact 5 should be amazing shots that pros hope to get, 4 should be great shots the kind you get a few on each trip, 3 - well composed but nothing special, 2 either a good photo of something boring or a poorer photo of something nice, 1- the rest.

As for voting system. How about you get 5 votes per gallery per week.
Padraig on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Philip:

"How about you get 5 votes per gallery per week"

Good idea! Actually, thinking about it what about you get 10 x votes per week (no carry-over)?
Dont'ya just love democracy?
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: Right, I've written a new voting analysis script, which hunts out and destroys those rogue voters. It has just deleted about 2500 of the votes in the system, from 50 different user profiles.

Please have a look in your galleries and see how effective (or not) it has been at getting rid of the obviously malicious votes. We'll run this new script once a week.

Cheers
Jon Read - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
Ha! I've just done exactly this with work, will email you in the morning. Likelyhoods, that's what you want.
Padraig on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
"getting rid of the obviously malicious votes"

..and how was "malicious" arrived at??
Does it just target rubbish states (sorry I mean votes!- it's just your post reminded me of a George Bush press conference!!!) or excellent ones??
I feel another witch hunt looming...
Glyn Jones - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Padraig: I've said this before - as soon as I post a picture on my gallery it is voted 1 if my picture is posted on someone elses gallery it doesn't - go figure.
Padraig on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Glyn Jones:
I've said this before - as soon as I post a picture on my gallery it is voted 1 if my picture is posted on someone elses gallery it doesn't - go figure.

Not heard that before, sorry! Is that why your gallery is currently not available???

In reply to Padraig:
> ..and how was "malicious" arrived at??

I looked up "spite" in a thesaurus... ;P
Glyn Jones - on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Padraig:
> (In reply to Glyn Jones)
> Not heard that before, sorry! Is that why your gallery is currently not available???

Bingo - sorry, no prize though.
Bob on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Well no votes have been removed from mine but I did notice a reduction in the number a month or so ago, presumably when your previous system picked up some anomaly (thought that up rather than looked it up in a thesaurus!).

boB
Padraig on 25 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
> ..and how was "malicious" arrived at??

I looked up "spite" in a thesaurus... ;P

Is THAT supposed to be an answer??

My original Q was (I thought?) an attempt at finding out the logarithm was arrived at? Never mind!
P
P.S. The UKC team seem to have excelled themselves tonite!
timjones - on 26 Jun 2007
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
> (In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor)
>
> Thats why i don't bother uploading anymore Tom...

Is that a tacit admission that you only upload photos so that others can tell you how great a photographer you are ;)

Jon Read - on 26 Jun 2007
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
Ok, two ways to go about things to try and reduce the biases brought in by new voters (A) and malicious voting (B).

(A) When contructing the 'histogram' for each picture, at the moment (or until recently) you weight every vote equally. You use likelyhood estimation here, but having thought about it more it's only really going help with voters who have made very very few votes. So, it's probably best to ignore this effect, except for when you derive the 'average' vote for deciding which number star you award the image, where you can weight each vote based on the number of votes made by that user, as you outlined above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_mean

So, if score is the final score of the image, vote[i] is what user i gave it, and n[i] is the number of votes user i has made across all the galleries, and N is the number of votes the image has received:

score = ( vote[1]*n[1] + vote[1]*n[1] + ... vote[N]*n[N] ) / ( n[1] + n[2] + ... n[N] )



(B) More complicated. Each user, given they've voted sufficient times, has a mean vote and a distribution around this.

For instance, (just picking out of top 10 voters)...

Darkhorse tends to vote below 'average', call this #3:
I've voted for 730 photos, average vote 2.4.
(6% superb - 15% good - 22% average - 23% poor - 31% rubbish)


Some chap called Jon Read votes slightly above #3, but with a nice spread:
I've voted for 5,519 photos, average vote 3.3.
(8% superb - 33% good - 41% average - 13% poor - 2% rubbish)


whereas someone like Dave Yardley votes around #3 but very tightly around #3:
I've voted for 9,241 photos, average vote 3.2.
(0% superb - 27% good - 62% average - 9% poor - 0% rubbish)



So, you could use this information to contruct an expected model of a users voting. Firstly, you could address any bias in the voting where, crudely, a Darkhorse vote of #2 is the same as aDave Yardley #3, i.e. they both think the image is 'average' according to their voting behaviour.

Also, you could weight each vote (similar to above), but here if Darkhorse gave something a #5, (s)he must really like it, and the same, perhaps more so, if Dave Yardley gave something a #5, or a #1 he really hates it. Whereas if I gave something #5 superb, it should probably carry less weight as I'm more likely to dish #5s out.

This would end malicious voting overnight. However, it does assume that the average image on this site is worthy of #3.

It would be slightly tricky to adjust each vote, such that the distribution of votes you can see for each image reflects the weighted system rather than the original votes. We can correspond about the algoriths for this though.

Any use?
Jon Read - on 26 Jun 2007
In reply to Jon Read:
Doh!
Should have been:
score = ( vote[1]*n[1] + vote[2]*n[2] + ... vote[N]*n[N] ) / ( n[1] + n[2] + ... n[N] )

obviously.
In reply to Jon Read: Thanks Jon, but it is too early in the morning to get my head around this. I'll email you once I've had more coffee!

Many thanks
davidbeynon - on 02 Jul 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

I usually don't bother to grade photos myself unless I like them. Of course that biases my grading the other way...
Gorrilla on 02 Jul 2007 - dyn134014.shef.ac.uk
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

Quit whinging. If someone wants to be an arse who gives monkeys?
Do u like your photos?
If they are good enough, in time more people voting will mean u get a more accurate score.
climber123 - on 02 Jul 2007
In reply to Jon Read: Yaaaaargh .... help ... this is rubbish
Jon Read - on 02 Jul 2007
In reply to climber123: Why?
jools - on 02 Jul 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

Another way to observe this endless point:

To place your photos in place to be seen is an attempt to share your images with others, with the hope that those 'others' will stop and look. If you achieve this, your photo is a success. They have grasped the attention of someone's precious time.

It may be of some use to show the 'views' a photo has received?

The crowning achievement with sharing your images is to generate some response, an emotion or just a reaction. If this is achieved then your photos truly are potent. They have diverted that someone's time, engaged and provoked them to do something unexpected.

So if you get a vote, well done, you've poked someone in the ribs with just a picture. (Or you may have actually poked them in the ribs and this is their only outlet, in which case, don't rise to it, it will make their ribs feel worse!)
climber123 - on 06 Jul 2007
In reply to Jon Read: very technical ... very complicated
Jon Read - on 06 Jul 2007
In reply to climber123:
Well for the simple reason that it's not a straightforward problem! If there's an elegant simple solution we're all missing please tell us.
climber123 - on 06 Jul 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: Perhaps the photograph rating system is at fault... we should not 'rubbish' a photograph submitted in good faith. Perhaps the lowest grade that of 0% should be labelled as poor quality or similar non derogatory label. I however feel that the rating scale is not to be taken too seriously … just as we should not take too seriously the comment of ‘rubbish’ for anyone’s work.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.