/ Cynical posters rating photos as rubbish?
I swa them and thought that most were ace! Inspiring shots and made me think about a trip out there sometime...
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.
As in life, on this site are geniuses, normal people and cretins. Cretins can only count to one with difficulty, pity them.
I get the same with some of mine, multiple 'rubbishes'........doesn't bother me though, I do find it quite sad.
Thats why i don't bother uploading anymore Tom...
Could be him http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=1854
or him http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=15854
or him http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=59946
or him http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=39063
The no. 5 voter in the top 10 list 'Darkhorse' has voted on 581 photos - 32% rubbish and 24% poor, so a possibility?
Thier photos are not that great either, more point and push! My kids take better photographs;-)
Have you spent hours trawling profiles to locate them?
They do seem like prize knob-jockeys.
Used advanced search in google. Took 30 seconds.
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
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.
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?
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).
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
For example - we took some pictures of Cae Du since none existed on the DB, but alas people decided to vote for them.
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)
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.
Agreed - and it also might help you to pick up a few tips on photography.
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.
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
How about using the median rather than the mean? It is less affected by rogue votes.
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.
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.
P.S. If anyone wants beta on the Czech, feel free to ask!
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes, most have only commented on photo techical issues... And by luck some hae even commented on composure (he was also a climber).
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"
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.
> -- 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.
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!
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?
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
> 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)
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
I now feel like I'm being overwhelmingly generous!
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 :(
but is voting 'good' for lots of things just as bad as voting 'rubbish'?
<starts to fret>
Nick, how about cancelling out votes from those who vote rubbish just to piss people off(see Mokkel above)
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
> 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...
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
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
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!
"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.S. The rubbish are all yours! (Joking!)They're Kevins!
" 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?
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
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.
"Criticism or comments like that are neither use nor ornament. "
THAT was the point I was trying to make!
1. average (bad name as it clearly can't be the average)
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.
"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?
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.
Ha! I've just done exactly this with work, will email you in the morning. Likelyhoods, that's what you want.
"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...
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???
I looked up "spite" in a thesaurus... ;P
> Not heard that before, sorry! Is that why your gallery is currently not available???
Bingo - sorry, no prize though.
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!).
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.S. The UKC team seem to have excelled themselves tonite!
> 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 ;)
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*n + vote*n + ... vote[N]*n[N] ) / ( n + n + ... 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.
Should have been:
score = ( vote*n + vote*n + ... vote[N]*n[N] ) / ( n + n + ... n[N] )
I usually don't bother to grade photos myself unless I like them. Of course that biases my grading the other way...
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.
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!)
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.
Elsewhere on the site
The release of Peter Jackson's new film The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies on 12th December may not appear to link to... Read more
On Saturday 13th December Greg Boswell and Guy Robertson kicked off their Scottish winter season early by making the... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more
Perhaps the perfect Xmas gift for the climber in your life... Wild Country's Crack School has two of the worlds best crack... Read more
Rock shoes stink – let’s face it. Boot Bananas are the perfect way to fight the funk and keep them fresh. They help... Read more