UKC

/ Moronic voting

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Flinticus - on 12 Jan 2018

My most recent photo had 6 votes with an average score of 4.5

Myself I think it 'good'.

Clearly someone else thought so too and applied a stupidly low score of 1 to bring the average down to 4 

This is not how the system works, you...

 

Post edited at 14:27
mal_meech on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

Can the UKC update not just introduce a trimmed mean average to the votes to stop this kind of thing?

mouseliveson - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

This is just another social media platform where morons reside. Of course you are going to get moronic votes...

Steve Perry - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

The keyboard warriors would stop doing that right away if UKC made it possible to click the votes box and see who voted what.

Flinticus - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to mal_meech:

Predictably the photo has now received more low votes presumably because of this post and the attention it brought.

This was something I considered beforehand.

planetmarshall on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

> Clearly someone else thought so too and applied a stupidly low score of 1 to bring the average down to 4 

I haven't seen the photo in question, but, generally speaking, just because the 1 is an outlier doesn't mean it's 'stupid'. Some photos divide opinion - take this one which came up in a recent thread about digital manipulation - 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=286465

This image contains some large-scale, and IMHO pretty crude, manipulation to remove a figure from the photo, which may not be to everyone's taste ( I assume those who gave it a 5 didn't even notice ). Even so, I couldn't blame anyone for giving it a 5, or a 1, depending on their taste.

It's subjective, innit.

Robert Durran - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:


> https://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=286465
> This image contains some large-scale, and IMHO pretty crude, manipulation to remove a figure from the photo, which may not be to everyone's taste ( I assume those who gave it a 5 didn't even notice ). Even so, I couldn't blame anyone for giving it a 5, or a 1, depending on their taste.
 

But that is a special case.

I don't see how anyone could describe Flinticus' photo as "rubbish".

 

Flinticus - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

It should be but I don't buy that as the evidence speaks otherwise. Especially since raising this topic, the photo in question and more in my gallery have been voted down. I'd be naive to think that was a result of simple subjective judgement of the photos. Given the voting prior to this thread, the average should have been maintained. 

None of my photos are manipulated, simply cropped or rebalanced (contrast etc. )

Glyno - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

Wouldn't a far simpler solution be to just 'click' to register your liking for a photo? At the end of the week, the photo with the most 'clicks' is the winner.

It's basically what I do anyway. I rarely (if ever) vote below 5, I just give a 5 to any photo I think merits it.

Post edited at 16:14
Flinticus - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Glyno:

I tend to only vote 4 or 5 and not vote if I think it below that. Good idea.

alx on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Glyno:

That would remove some aspects of subjectivity given people have their own scoring criteria.

Flinticus, whilst I like your shots I gave them a 4/5 as I reserve the 5 for stuff I think is perfect (I hope no offence was made!).

 

 

flour - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

As a matter of interest. Why did you think the photo merited good? A photo of a nice scene only becomes "good" with framing or additional interesting subject matter in my opinion. Most people could have taken that shot so I rate it average but not rubbish.

estivoautumnal - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to flour:

I agree. 

My first thought on seeing the photo was it looked like it was taken with a phone. Turns out it was. It's a point and shoot pic from a phone. 

If you submitted it to a group of pro photographers for review and scoring you would probably average 2. So 4 is certainly not worth moaning about.

Robert Durran - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Glyno:

> Wouldn't a far simpler solution be to just 'click' to register your liking for a photo? At the end of the week, the photo with the most 'clicks' is the winner.

All that is needed to make the "morons" go away is for every vote to be positive (ie any vote at all increases the overall ranking). I would favour just "Good", "Excellent" and "Superb".  I think mere "likes" is a rather blunt instrument.

 

buzby - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

well I've just given it a 5

Flinticus - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to flour:

Before settling on my scores I frequently check what the approximate consensus is for, say, 'average' or 'good'. 

Average includes a fair amount of photos I wouldn't post unless I had another reason  (i.e. to show my dog). So I take what I see ad the general grading standard here.

Glyno - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, but 'good', 'excellent', and 'superb' would surely just become the new 3, 4 and 5?

...which is still an improvement

Robert Durran - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Glyno:

> Yes, but 'good', 'excellent', and 'superb' would surely just become the new 3, 4 and 5?

Yes. Or call them 1, 2 and 3. It would make no difference.

Robert Durran - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to flour:

>  Most people could have taken that shot so I rate it average but not rubbish.

But you still have to make the effort be there to take it. To me "being there" (then pointing and shooting in the right direction) is the most interesting part of photography. If it looks good, who cares whether if it was taken on a phone or on a basic camera on auto?

 

Jonas Wiklund - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

Someone, or some people, are systematically going through sport climbing photos and give them all score 1. At least, every sport climbing photo I have ever published has achieved at least one score 1, fairly quickly after publishing (within one or two days).

That's life innit?

Pursued by a bear - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

> My most recent photo had 6 votes with an average score of 4.5
> Myself I think it 'good'.

 

Then carry on thinking that. Don't put your happiness with your photos in the hands of random anonymous internet strangers with access to voting buttons.

If you're happy, terrific. And thank you for sharing.

T.

 

Sean Kelly - on 12 Jan 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

This photo voting opinion on what grade is right is the same as what grade for Three Pebble Slab? It's purely subjective and inherently part of the fun of submitting your votes. It generally all evens out in the end. A good photo will generally score well and the crap or average will also score accordingly. There's always the option to opt out at the end of the day. We all have different tastes. I nearly always look at the worth of the actual photo, not the route, if it's  a sunset, or got a pretty girl posing on the rock. Originality scores higher for me, as does good composition and technical skill. The really great images have no problem as nearly everyone agrees with their quality and stand out appeal.  Sometimes I post not because I think an image is good but that others on here might might find the content interesting. This argument will run and run on UKC and all the better for that.

Flinticus - on 21:14 Fri
In reply to buzby:

Cheers!

bouldery bits - on 21:40 Fri
In reply to Flinticus:

Is this a 'whinging about the votes my photo got on a website where people can vote on my photos' thread???

 

Class.

Robert Durran - on 22:27 Fri
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Is this a 'whinging about the votes my photo got on a website where people can vote on my photos' thread???

No, it's about morons abusing a voting system to spoil the fun of those who enjoy using it properly.

bouldery bits - on 23:20 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

Is it not possible that someone didn't like the photo?

kevin stephens - on 23:42 Fri

Somebody on the internet is wrong! Well I never!

 

I like climbing - on 23:44 Fri
In reply to Flinticus:

Your photos are great ! And I like the idea mentioned that voters identities should be revealed

bouldery bits - on 23:47 Fri
In reply to I like climbing:

> Your photos are great ! And I like the idea mentioned that voters identities should be revealed

I agree.

Hugh Mongous - on 05:08 Sat
In reply to Glyno:

> Wouldn't a far simpler solution be to just 'click' to register your liking for a photo? At the end of the week, the photo with the most 'clicks' is the winner.

Wouldn't this just mean that the winner will be the most viewed non-crap photo?

Hugh Mongous - on 05:12 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> All that is needed to make the "morons" go away is for every vote to be positive (ie any vote at all increases the overall ranking). I would favour just "Good", "Excellent" and "Superb".  I think mere "likes" is a rather blunt instrument.

So instead there'll be regular threads started by irate photographers complaining that their "superb" offerings are getting downgraded to simply "excellent".  

Robert Durran - on 08:21 Sat
In reply to Hugh Mongous:

> > All that is needed to make the "morons" go away is for every vote to be positive (ie any vote at all increases the overall ranking). I would favour just "Good", "Excellent" and "Superb".  I think mere "likes" is a rather blunt instrument.

> So instead there'll be regular threads started by irate photographers complaining that their "superb" offerings are getting downgraded to simply "excellent".  

There will still be room for opinion (otherwise there would be no  point in having a voting system at all) but the whole point is that it would be impossible to downgrade the overall ranking; the sort of spiteful voting which is all too common would be impossible. Poor photos simply wouldn't get votes.

Post edited at 08:30
PeakDJ on 08:38 Sat
In reply to Flinticus:

I climb with someone who openly admits that if he disagrees with someone in a forum thread, the first thing he does is go to their gallery and vote 1 for all their photos.  There are possibly more like him!

Why care so much - as others have said it is just another social media platform where morons reside...

Jim C - on 09:19 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> >Most people could have taken that shot so I rate it average but not rubbish.

> But you still have to make the effort be there to take it. To me "being there" (then pointing and shooting in the right direction) is the most interesting part of photography. If it looks good, who cares whether if it was taken on a phone or on a basic camera on auto?

I agree, not all phones are just point and shoot, there are tutorials online for iPhones for example where there are various settings that can be changed (before) taking the photo.

Then there is the skill of selecting the subject matter, I have gone on many a trip and walked the same walk as my friend then looked at his photos uploaded to Flickr, and kicked myself for not 'seeing'some his great shots because  I just don't have the 'eye' for shot selection that he does.

I doubt that if I were given a top of the  range camera, that I would take better photos than many talented photographers with much inferior equipment, so Indon't necessarily agree either with the statement that was made that,  'most' could have taken that shot, you would really need to have been there to decide that, (unless it is a well known subject matter taken from an often used veiewpoint)

 

 

Robert Durran - on 09:44 Sat
In reply to PeakDJ:

> Why care so much - as others have said it is just another social media platform where morons reside...

But if a few simple changes would neutralise the morons, then why not take them?

Glyno - on 09:45 Sat
In reply to Hugh Mongous:

> > Wouldn't a far simpler solution be to just 'click' to register your liking for a photo? At the end of the week, the photo with the most 'clicks' is the winner.

> Wouldn't this just mean that the winner will be the most viewed non-crap photo?

no, because a 'view' doesn't guarantee a vote

gman2012 on 10:41 Sat
In reply to Flinticus:

This is exactly how the social media like/vote model is designed to work. We feel good about the likes, then get dissatisfied so we generate more content hoping for more likes. You'll submit more photos and you've started a thread on the forum. Other users will spend more time engaged with UKC on this thread and viewing your photos. It's like complaining about the workplace but instead of going on strike you do unpaid overtime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7jar4KgKxs

Post edited at 10:42
Flinticus - on 10:49 Sat
In reply to gman2012:

I agree with a lot of what you say though I never work unpaid overtime!

Big Lee - on 11:34 Sat
In reply to I like climbing:

> And I like the idea mentioned that voters identities should be revealed. 

You just need to look at Summitpost to see the flaws of this. Everybody votes 10/10 because identities are revealed. Even a 9/10 seems to get people moaning. People start down-voting the person who just down-voted them. When I used the site I remember being sent PM or two asking why I had only voted 8 or 9. All a bit silly really. Life is pretty good is these are the sorts of things we are worrying about. 

kmhphoto - on 11:35 Sat
In reply to Flinticus:

If you're not happy with the way people judge your photos whether those votes are genuine or not  you could always do what Sal Cincotta did:

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/28/photo-contest-owner-won-contest-pitchforks-came/

 

planetmarshall on 11:59 Sat
In reply to Big Lee:

Yes I agree. People who want to know the identity of likers/dislikes or voters should ask themselves why they really want to know. That the outcome would be mostly personal abuse seems obvious to me.

I like climbing - on 12:02 Sat
In reply to Big Lee:

I understand your point but I think the bigger issue is to stop online bullying or victimisation and would make people more careful about pressing the dislike button. Once their dislike is shown they will inevitably be asked to explain why. This should apply to all forums / photos......

Perhaps UKC should trial this for a month and then review it ?

planetmarshall on 12:05 Sat
In reply to I like climbing:

> ....make people more careful about pressing the dislike button. Once their dislike is shown they will inevitably be asked to explain why.

Why should they be made to be careful, and why should they have to explain anything?

 

kmhphoto - on 12:22 Sat
In reply to I like climbing:

Disliking a post or ranking an image low is hardly bullying or victimisation. If someone wants their comments or images judged then they have to accept they'll get negative responses even if some are from the trolls who downvote everything. 
I've been a professional photographer for 40 years and as long as the cheque cleared I could care less what people thought of any image I've taken.

TobyA on 12:41 Sat
In reply to kmhphoto:

 

> I've been a professional photographer for 40 years and as long as the cheque cleared I could care less ...

Are you American? Surely that saying only makes sense if you "couldn't care less" but Americans all say it the way you did, so just wondered.

Otherwise I agree. I'm not a pro photographer and it's nice when people give you five on your photos here, but if someone gives me 1 or even just average 3 I don't dwell on it and don't really expect an explanation!

 

kmhphoto - on 13:14 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

I'm English and usually use "could care less". It's actually the older of the two phrases, predating "couldn't care less" by about 10 years.

You definitely have the right attitude when it comes to being judged on a photograph, I don't understand why people get so worked up over it.

I like climbing - on 14:11 Sat
In reply to planetmarshall:

Maybe you’re right.....

I like climbing - on 14:13 Sat
In reply to kmhphoto:

True - might help expose trolls but perhaps I’m wrong

kmhphoto - on 15:35 Sat
In reply to I like climbing:

Trolls hide behind their fake names and accounts so its far better for those who get affected by their negative votes or comments to realise that its part of the wonderful world of social media.  

Mike Peacock on 16:28 Sat
In reply to kmhphoto:

> I'm English and usually use "could care less". It's actually the older of the two phrases, predating "couldn't care less" by about 10 years.

This suggests the opposite:

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/do-we-care-less-about-could-care-less/

"Given the expected resistance of editors to 'could care less', the fact that it appears in print 11 years after the first citation for 'couldn't care less' suggests to me that the two expressions probably arose at essentially the same time, like quark-antiquark pairs in a high-energy collision."

Robert Durran - on 16:33 Sat
In reply to Mike Peacock:

Glad I wasn't losing the plot in thinking that, obviously, "could care less" is plain wrong if used with the intention saying that you don't care about something. The two phrases clearly aren't interchangeable.

Robert Durran - on 16:55 Sat

There have been some very disappointing views expressed in this thread. Some of us enjoy the fun of the photo voting on UKC and the weekly competition for POTW. For people who don't partake of this fun to come along and say that, because it's the internet, we're just whiners for wanting to sort out the problem of spiteful downvoting spoiling the fun is really rather sad, especially since the morons could so easily be got rid of by adjusting the photo ranking system. It's really no different from if a group of mates were enjoying a friendly competitive bouldering session and some arsehole came along and smeared grease on the smear for your left foot that you'd just found to unlock a problem; it's antisocial and should not be acceptable.

Lion Bakes on 17:13 Sat
In reply to I like climbing:

it is not bullying if someone does not rate your photo highly.  Part of the rich tapestry of differing points of view.

 

Robert Durran - on 17:18 Sat
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> It is not bullying if someone does not rate your photo highly. 

Absolutely nobody is claiming that it is. Obviously..........

timjones - on 17:28 Sat
In reply to Flinticus:

> My most recent photo had 6 votes with an average score of 4.5

> Myself I think it 'good'.

> Clearly someone else thought so too and applied a stupidly low score of 1 to bring the average down to 4 

> This is not how the system works, you...

Why fret over it or even bother to check on each individual has voted?

As for "how the system works" is there a set of rules hidden away somewhere ;)

Robert Durran - on 17:34 Sat
In reply to timjones:

> As for "how the system works" is there a set of rules hidden away somewhere? ;)

Obviously not officially, but clearly the spirit of the system is that people vote individually on the merits of of a photo as they see it.

 

 

timjones - on 17:46 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Obviously not officially, but clearly the spirit of the system is that people vote individually on the merits of of a photo as they see it.

In that case a 1 might not be so far wide of the mark, it would probably be a 2 for me as it has that eye itching element that you often find in photos that have been taken on mobile phones using "filters" that artificially enhance both depth of field and colour.

I tend to prefer photos where the photographer has picked a focus over those where technology strives to cram everything into a single image.

Robert Durran - on 17:59 Sat
In reply to timjones:

> In that case a 1 might not be so far wide of the mark, it would probably be a 2 for me as it has that eye itching element that you often find in photos that have been taken on mobile phones using "filters" that artificially enhance both depth of field and colour.

It's a big open landscape; I think it would be very odd for it to have a narrow depth of field (indeed I'd be surprised if any lens and camera could narrow the depth of field!).  The colours look admirably natural to me as well. The photo may well not be everyone's cup of tea (and that's obviously fine), but I genuinely struggle to see how anyone could describe it as "rubbish".

timjones - on 18:04 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It's a big open landscape; I think it would be very odd for it to have a narrow depth of field (indeed I'd be surprised if any lens and camera could narrow the depth of field!).  The colours look admirably natural to me as well. The photo may well not be everyone's cup of tea (and that's obviously fine), but I genuinely struggle to see how anyone could describe it as "rubbish".

I do have to admit that I tend to perceive any photo votes that I make as a mark out of 5 rather than carefully studying the words alongside the numbers.

At the end of the day it is probably highly unwise to fret over online votes and learn to value your own achievements instead.

PeakDJ on 18:05 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

As it stands, the morons clearly reside, so no point fretting about photo votes as per the OP.  But yes, if it's possible to easily neutralise them then indeed - why not?

kmhphoto - on 18:49 Sat
In reply to Mike Peacock:

"This suggests the opposite:

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/do-we-care-less-about-could-care-less/"

Ben Zimmer quotes an article which claims the phrase first appeared in 1969 but had he researched further he would have found the work of M. E. Braddon from 1867.

kmhphoto - on 19:20 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

"Glad I wasn't losing the plot in thinking that, obviously, "could care less" is plain wrong if used with the intention saying that you don't care about something. The two phrases clearly aren't interchangeable."

I don't see where anyone is claiming they are interchangeable, I originally used the phrase "Could care less" and this started the debate. Perhaps I should have explained that I have always used "I could care less" much to the annoyance of my wife because it was always said in a sarcastic manner though a slightly longer phrase "I could care less, but I don't"

Post edited at 19:26
Robert Durran - on 19:44 Sat
In reply to kmhphoto:

>  Perhaps I should have explained that I have always used "I could care less" much to the annoyance of my wife because it was always said in a sarcastic manner though a slightly longer phrase "I could care less, but I don't"

"I've been a professional photographer for 40 years and as long as the cheque cleared I could care less <but I don't> what people thought of any image I've taken."

I really don't know what that's meant to mean or what it logically does mean. My brain's hurting!

 

Mike Peacock on 19:59 Sat
In reply to kmhphoto:

> Ben Zimmer quotes an article which claims the phrase first appeared in 1969 but had he researched further he would have found the work of M. E. Braddon from 1867.

Now I'm intrigued. Have you any links or titles as to what work you're referring to? I'm in agreement with Robert's assertion that "thinking that, obviously, "could care less" is plain wrong if used with the intention saying that you don't care about something. The two phrases clearly aren't interchangeable."

 

 

keith-ratcliffe on 20:00 Sat
In reply to Flinticus:

I have just read the header to the Top Ten photos and it includes this line:
The 'ranking' is calculated from the average rating of photos in each gallery, as well as the total number of votes made.
How does this calculation work - specifically what weight is given to average vs total?

Robert Durran - on 20:07 Sat
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

> I have just read the header to the Top Ten photos and it includes this line:The 'ranking' is calculated from the average rating of photos in each gallery, as well as the total number of votes made.How does this calculation work - specifically what weight is given to average vs total?


I once enquired. I was told that whoever made up the formula was long gone and nobody knew anymore!" But presumably it must be in the code somewhere. I have considered trying to reverse engineer it from the average votes, number of votes and ranking of my own photos but decided I had better things to do!

Tom V - on 20:13 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

Agree totally.

Would you rather the vandals left an ID card with their work or slunk off anonymously?

Robert Durran - on 20:21 Sat
In reply to Tom V:

> Agree totally.

> Would you rather the vandals left an ID card with their work or slunk off anonymously?


I agree with the arguments others have made for anonymous voting; the way to eliminate spiteful voting is to make all voting positive - if you don't like a photo, simply don't vote.  Similarly, I'd rather there was no dislike button for posts.

keith-ratcliffe on 20:34 Sat
In reply to Flinticus:

I have just looked through the current 96 latest photos and I rated a couple as 1's and a couple as 5's, with the majority in that middle ground - I did think that there were a lot of 'average' pictures. This is consistent with a balanced distribution of a random sample. Robert D may be able to comment on the Maths. I did have difficulty with the term Rubbish for 1 - the less emotional 'Very poor' was my preferred label.

Robert Durran - on 20:47 Sat
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

> I have just looked through the current 96 latest photos and I rated a couple as 1's and a couple as 5's, with the majority in that middle ground - I did think that there were a lot of 'average' pictures. This is consistent with a balanced distribution of a random sample. Robert D may be able to comment on the Maths. I did have difficulty with the term Rubbish for 1 - the less emotional 'Very poor' was my preferred label.

That would seem about right. I presume people vote relative to other photos on UKC, in which case votes should probably be symetrically distributed about a median/mode 3 ("average"!) vote. I think that people will inevitably vote in context rather than in absolute terms - I have one photo in the Marmot competition thing, where it is currently sitting on an average of 4.1, whereas it originally got 4.9 and POTW.

Ciro - on 21:02 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I agree with the arguments others have made for anonymous voting; the way to eliminate spiteful voting is to make all voting positive - if you don't like a photo, simply don't vote.  Similarly, I'd rather there was no dislike button for posts.

All the voting is positive.... it goes from 1 to 5. I thought you specialised in maths?

kmhphoto - on 21:03 Sat
In reply to Mike Peacock:

"Now I'm intrigued. Have you any links or titles as to what work you're referring to? "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uLvy41oRE

There's also an interesting article below where they quote from Game of Thrones.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/03/18/why_i_could_care_less_is_not_as_irrational_or_ungrammatical_as_you_might.html

 

 

Robert Durran - on 21:04 Sat
In reply to Ciro:

> All the voting is positive.... it goes from 1 to 5. I thought you specialised in maths?

It can be negative in the sense that the overall ranking can be decreased by a low vote.

Robert Durran - on 21:13 Sat
In reply to kmhphoto:

I love the tangents that UKC threads can sometimnes go off on............

> There's also an interesting article below where they quote from Game of Thrones.

I would argue that the other examples given of where contradictory statements can supposedly mean the same thing are in fact just other examples of plain wrongness.

 

kmhphoto - on 21:22 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

Goof luck with your argument but personally I could care less

Robert Durran - on 21:27 Sat
In reply to kmhphoto:

> Goof luck with your argument but personally I could care less

Good to know that you care at least a little bit then

I like climbing - on 21:37 Sat
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> it is not bullying if someone does not rate your photo highly.  Part of the rich tapestry of differing points of view.

I didn’t say that.......

I like climbing - on 21:40 Sat
In reply to Lion Bakes:

One day I’ll treat you and everyone else to some of my photos. I claim to be the worst photographer any of you have ever seen.

Lion Bakes on 22:07 Sat
In reply to I like climbing:

 

You might suppose yourself.

 

FactorXXX - on 02:10 Sun
In reply to PeakDJ:

I climb with someone who openly admits that if he disagrees with someone in a forum thread, the first thing he does is go to their gallery and vote 1 for all their photos.  There are possibly more like him!

Otherwise known as sad inadequate tossers. 
 

Why care so much - as others have said it is just another social media platform where morons reside...

Because UKC is supposed to be a place where climbers can have a common place to view and discuss their opinions on a myriad of topics and as far as I'm concerned, it should all be done in a friendly manner.  If it transpires that a handful of users are abusing the various voting options (Photos/Likes/Dislikes) to score 'points' through vindictiveness, then yes, of course that should be addressed. 
Why would anyone think anywise?

 

 

PeakDJ on 05:29 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Otherwise known as sad inadequate tossers. 

I don't disagree. 

> Because UKC is supposed to be a place where climbers can have a common place to view and discuss their opinions on a myriad of topics and as far as I'm concerned, it should all be done in a friendly manner.  If it transpires that a handful of users are abusing the various voting options (Photos/Likes/Dislikes) to score 'points' through vindictiveness, then yes, of course that should be addressed. 

> Why would anyone think anywise?

I do not think otherwise.  I was merely stating that the status quo allows the morons to vote vindictively and that while that situation persists there is little point getting hung up on your photos being voted down out of spite etc.  

 

Robert Durran - on 08:57 Sun
In reply to PeakDJ:

> I do not think otherwise.  I was merely stating that the status quo allows the morons to vote vindictively and that while that situation persists there is little point getting hung up on your photos being voted down out of spite etc.  

But if nobody made an issue of the abuse of the voting system then the situation will almost certainly persist.

 

Robert Durran - on 09:02 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Why would anyone think anywise?

Indeed. It is utterly baffling.

But your "dislikers" presumably do think otherwise. It would be interesting to know why. 

Just noticed that someone has "disliked" my post at 21.04 last night, which it would be impossible to see as anything other than a helpful explanation/clarification. It's almost funny.......

Post edited at 09:22
FactorXXX - on 11:05 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But your "dislikers" presumably do think otherwise. It would be interesting to know why. 

Because they're sad inadequate tossers?

 

 

Lion Bakes on 16:51 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

 

Are they more sad then those who seek validation through likes and votes online but get upset when a few dislikes and low votes turn up?

This type of validation and the important placed on being "liked" is impacting teenager mental health.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/social-media-mental-health-teenagers-government-pshe-lessons

 

PeakDJ on 18:05 Sun
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> Are they more sad then those who seek validation through likes and votes online but get upset when a few dislikes and low votes turn up?

> This type of validation and the important placed on being "liked" is impacting teenager mental health.

And adult mental health too, based on some of the whining and easily dented egos on display here ;)

 

Robert Durran - on 19:33 Sun
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> Are they more sad then those who seek validation through likes and votes online but get upset when a few dislikes and low votes turn up?

The voting and ranking is bit of fun. A game. And like all games it is best played in a good spirit. That is all we are asking for.

If a bunch of kids are having fun playing football and someone comes along and kicks the the ball away for a laugh, I really don't think there is any doubt about who the sad one is.

And feel free to dislike this post if it gives you some sort of childish gratification - you're welcome to it.

Lion Bakes on 19:49 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

 

I am not bothered either way.  But fascinated that you get gratification out of likes and dislikes.  Anyone who puts store in likes or good photos is a bit sad. You must admit it is a strange thing indeed to be bothered about.

 

Robert Durran - on 20:03 Sun
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> But fascinated that you get gratification out of likes and dislikes.

I really don't give a shit whether anyone "likes" or "dislikes" my posts. What is disappointing is that people mindlessly "dislike" posts rather than engage in the actual discussion about spiteful voting on photos - some of it clearly is mindless because, as I pointed out earlier, even posts where there is nothing which anyone could possibly find contentious or even disagree with get dislikes.

> Anyone who puts store in good photos is a bit sad.

As I said, it's a game. If people aren't interested in it they can simply walk past rather than spoiling it. Do you find all games sad? Is it ok to kick the ball away?

 

Post edited at 20:05
Lion Bakes on 20:07 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

 

You come across as a toddler having a tantrum.  Someone out there does not agree with you and you call them mindless. Really!

 

Robert Durran - on 20:14 Sun
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> You come across as a toddler having a tantrum.  Someone out there does not agree with you and you call them mindless. Really!

FFS. My whole point is that the "dislikes" clearly have nothing to do with disagreement! Tell me how anyone could possibly have disagreed with my post at 21.04 yesterday (or indeed found anything to dislike about it).

Lion Bakes on 20:19 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

And likes have nothing to do with agreement by the same token. So if you believe that, as you clearly do, ignore it.  

Robert Durran - on 20:36 Sun
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> And likes have nothing to do with agreement by the same token. So if you believe that, as you clearly do, ignore it.  

So are you now agreeing that it is mindless? All I'm saying is that I'd rather have the sensible discussion I got involved in this thread to have (how you can characterise me as the toddler having a tantrum is beyond me!) than just have my contributions responded to with mindlessness.

kmhphoto - on 20:57 Sun

Could the owners of the site implement a new way of judging that just has the viewers select the photo they like the best that week with no 1-5, good, bad etc That way the morons who spitefully vote a 1 would lose their ability to upset the photographers and the people who genuinely believe a photo is only worth a 1 won't be accused of being morons?  

I'm quite surprised that the OP is complaining about a low score when 6% of the images he has voted on have only garnered a "poor" from him, does that make him a moron too?

Post edited at 21:04
Robert Durran - on 21:24 Sun
In reply to kmhphoto:

> Could the owners of the site implement a new way of judging that just has the viewers select the photo they like the best that week with no 1-5, good, bad etc That way the morons who spitefully vote a 1 would lose their ability to upset the photographers and the people who genuinely believe a photo is only worth a 1 won't be accused of being morons?  

The trouble with that solution is that everyone who took part in the voting would have to vote at the end of the week. It would also lose the effect that voting has of continuously sorting the photos into rank order so that we can enjoy looking at the best of the photos without sifting through all the dross as well. I prefer the solution I proposed earlier of simply making all votes count positively on the ranking - this would retain all that is good about the current system but make spiteful voting impossible.

> I'm quite surprised that the OP is complaining about a low score when 6% of the images he has voted on have only garnered a "poor" from him, does that make him a moron too.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of photos posted that many people would consider genuinely poor. By the way, as a professional photographer, what do you think of the OP's photo that started this all off?

 

kmhphoto - on 21:37 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

Good point about my possible solution, I hadn't considered that everyone would have to wait till the end of the week. If people genuinely think an image is poor then people also have the right to vote "rubbish" without being accused of being a moron?  I'm also sure that many people could be too polite and over vote an image from rubbish to poor I'm not sure which of the images the OP is on about but I never critique a photographers work unless they are working for me as assistants but I honestly don't believe any image is rubbish or poor because although they may be technically poor they have captured a memory that is important to the photographer.  I've got a house with walls covered in images and some of them are truly horrendous technically but they are priceless to me because they were taken by my granddaughter who is 4 and insists I put them up,  

 

Post edited at 21:39
Robert Durran - on 21:46 Sun
In reply to kmhphoto:

Have a "like"

 

kmhphoto - on 21:52 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

Returned
But I feel we are now abusing the system

alx on 22:01 Sun
In reply to kmhphoto & Robert Duran:

Have a brace of dislikes to even out your mutual online massaging!

 

deepsoup - on 22:06 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Tell me how anyone could possibly have disagreed with my post at 21.04 yesterday (or indeed found anything to dislike about it).

The post you were replying to was tongue in cheek, and quite witty.  You failed to recognise the joke and your response consequently seems rather humourless.  Perhaps someone who doesn't know how difficult you sometimes find it to pick up on such things thought you were being a bit pompous.

Robert Durran - on 22:17 Sun
In reply to deepsoup:

> The post you were replying to was tongue in cheek, and quite witty. 

I suppose it might have been (though, if so, pretty weak in my opinion!), though we can't know without the poster confirming one way or the other. I assumed it was someone who just didn't understand how the system worked and I politely corrected him in good faith.

> Perhaps someone who doesn't know how difficult you sometimes find it to pick up on such things thought you were being a bit pompous.

Well, if there was a misunderstanding by me or the poster or the disliker, it just goes to show how rubbish the dislike button is - there is often no way of knowing what is meant by it. I never, ever use it myself and believe the standard of the discussion would be better if it was discontinued.

 

Big Lee - on 07:50 Mon
In reply to Flinticus:

I think I'd be ready to vote this forum thread 1/5 were there a facility. 

Robert Durran - on 09:27 Mon
In reply to Big Lee:

> I think I'd be ready to vote this forum thread 1/5 were there a facility. 

Is this hypothetical vote serious, spiteful or tongue in cheek? I obviously should not in any way respond to your post until you have clarified. This post is serious by the way.

Post edited at 09:36
krikoman - on 10:40 Mon
In reply to kmhphoto:

> Goof luck with your argument but personally I could care less


I could less care about it too

To the OP, does it really matter that much?

Is your ego so easily dented by morons giving you a low vote.

Who are your pictures for?

What are they for?

krikoman - on 10:42 Mon
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

> I did have difficulty with the term Rubbish for 1 - the less emotional 'Very poor' was my preferred label.

Or even 1 = not to my liking.

 

 

krikoman - on 10:50 Mon
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Because UKC is supposed to be a place where climbers can have a common place to view and discuss their opinions on a myriad of topics and as far as I'm concerned, it should all be done in a friendly manner.  If it transpires that a handful of users are abusing the various voting options (Photos/Likes/Dislikes) to score 'points' through vindictiveness, then yes, of course that should be addressed. 

> Why would anyone think anywise?

Aren't you asking for everyone to agree with you.

I agree that voting someone's photos down because you've taken a dislike to one of their posts is nothing less than childish, but to suggest that disliking / voting low scores on photos isn't being part of friendly discussions is a bit much.

Once again I have to ask why do you care so much?

Big Lee - on 10:55 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

(3) followed by (1). Definitely not (2).

Robert Durran - on 10:56 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

> Or even 1 = not to my liking.

To me "not to my liking" means something different, probably a style of photo which just isn't my cup of tea such as long exposures of moving water or artificially lit bouldering. I just abstain from voting for such photos.

But I agree that "rubbish" seems a bit cruel. I just never vote 1 or 2 except occasionally when a photo is actually comically bad.

Robert Durran - on 11:01 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

> To the OP, does it really matter that much?

> Is your ego so easily dented by morons giving you a low vote.

It's not about dented egos.

 

Robert Durran - on 11:03 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

> I agree that voting someone's photos down because you've taken a dislike to one of their posts is nothing less than childish, but to suggest that disliking / voting low scores on photos isn't being part of friendly discussions is a bit much.

Nobody is objecting to genuine low scoring on a photo's merit.

 

FactorXXX - on 11:15 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

> Aren't you asking for everyone to agree with you.
> I agree that voting someone's photos down because you've taken a dislike to one of their posts is nothing less than childish, but to suggest that disliking / voting low scores on photos isn't being part of friendly discussions is a bit much.
> Once again I have to ask why do you care so much?

All I'm asking/suggesting is that people show some respect for fellow UKC users and use the various voting options in the way that they were intended.  
I personally don't think there should be a negative option available for Photo voting, but there is and if someone genuinely believes a Photo is rubbish, then they are perfectly entitled to vote that Photo as a 1.
I also don't like the 'Dislike' function and have never used it.  However it is there and if someone genuinely believes a particular post warrants a Dislike then fair enough under the current UKC system.
What I believe is unacceptable, is people using the various voting options out of spite and malice: That person said something I disagree with, I'll go through their Photo's and give them all a 1, etc.  
Does anyone genuinely believe that is the way the voting systems should be used?  If so, why not share why you think that is the case instead of hitting the 'Dislike' button.
As for caring so much, well I don't have any photo's, so zero in that respect.  As for generally, maybe because I believe all UKC users should be trying to use the free resource in a respectful manner and that should especially apply when interacting with other UKC users.
Bit like the way Corbyn thinks that politicians should behave... 

 

Robert Durran - on 11:56 Mon
In reply to Big Lee:

> (3) followed by (1). Definitely not (2).

Thanks. In that case have a "like".

krikoman - on 12:40 Mon
In reply to FactorXXX:

We've already covered someone voting for the sake of denigrating, but how do you know?

But "Dislike" can mean a wide range of things from "agreement" to "you're a f*cking idiot".

What I'm saying is simply getting rid of low votes or removing the "Dislike" button means nothing and you're gaining nothing.

krikoman - on 12:42 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It's not about dented egos.

Are you sure? Why don't think it's possible for someone above to "Dislike" your post above as a statement of disagreement, rather than anything else?

Robert Durran - on 13:35 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

> Are you sure?

I was referring to spiteful photo voting (what this thread was originally about) when I said it was not about dented egos). People might feel their egos a bit dented by genuine low voting, but that's a different matter.

> Why don't you think it's possible for someone above to "Dislike" your post above as a statement of disagreement, rather than anything else?

If you are referring to the one at 21.04 on Saturday, then it's not possible to disagree with by it's very nature - I simply explained what I meant by negative voting.

But very often, yes, a "dislike" might mean so many things that it is entirely unhelpful and adds nothing of value to the discussion.

krikoman - on 14:01 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I was referring to spiteful photo voting (what this thread was originally about) when I said it was not about dented egos). People might feel their egos a bit dented by genuine low voting, but that's a different matter.

I'm at a loss as to how you're identifying the spiteful votes,

> If you are referring to the one at 21.04 on Saturday, then it's not possible to disagree with by it's very nature - I simply explained what I meant by negative voting.

 

I was replying to both, but I really don't understand how you can't just ignore either. after all what difference does it make to your life?

I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

 

Wanderlust - on 14:28 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> it's not possible to disagree with by it's very nature

Ah, but the button doesn't say "Disagree", does it?

I have to say, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of abuse going on generally. Good pictures and good posts get the votes/scores they deserve (I can't think of any exceptions really, unless you're going to get obsessed over 1 dislike or score of "1").

I also don't think putting names to votes is a good idea, for the reasons mentioned above (i.e. it will clearly just cause a lot of petty arguments).

deepsoup - on 14:40 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

> What I'm saying is simply getting rid of low votes or removing the "Dislike" button means nothing and you're gaining nothing.

I'm starting to come round to the idea that getting rid of the 'dislike' button would gain one thing - that every other thread wouldn't be derailed by somebody moaning that a post has been 'disliked' and demanding to know who did it and why.

I'm not really fussed either way about the likes & dislikes, but I was hoping the novelty of whingeing about them would have worn off a bit by now.  It still seems as fresh as ever.

kmhphoto - on 14:41 Mon

Slightly off topic but it does illustrate how a "like" button when its the only option can cause confusion. Last year a dear friend passed away and a notice was put up on his Facebook page which then attracted over 200 "likes".  His daughter gave a wonderful speech about her devoted Father and then at the send said "As a family we always thought he was respected by his friends and peers but were shocked at how many people liked the fact that he had died".
She was of course bringing a sense of humour to a difficult time and the whole place erupted in laughter.

 

Lion Bakes on 15:19 Mon
In reply to Flinticus:

 

Strange how you don't get threads with people complaining about the number of likes their post got or number of 5 votes their photo got.  Definitely about ego.  How very dare they!

 

Robert Durran - on 15:29 Mon
In reply to kmhphoto:

I think this is the reason that the like/dislike buttons are (automatically?) sensibly disabled on UKC for threads with RIP in the title.

 

Robert Durran - on 16:34 Mon
In reply to Wanderlust:

> Ah, but the button doesn't say "Disagree", does it?

Yes, I know. I was explaining why there must have been another reason in this particular case.

> I have to say, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of abuse going on generally. Good pictures and good posts get the votes/scores they deserve (I can't think of any exceptions really, unless you're going to get obsessed over 1 dislike or score of "1").

I agree that overall the level of abuse is probably pretty low, certainly not enough to affect the very useful function of voting to continuously rank the photos so that we can easily look at the best ones without having to sift through all the mediocrity.

However, it can be not insignificant and quite annoying to be on the receiving end if you are someone who gets some bonus fun out of their photos from the weekly competition to make the Top Ten or POTW. A photo sitting on 20 votes averaging 4.5 (this would probably put it in contention many weeks) will have it's average taken down to 4.33 by a single vote of 1. This could easily effect it's ranking by quite a few places and knock it out of contention.

> I also don't think putting names to votes is a good idea, for the reasons mentioned above (i.e. it will clearly just cause a lot of petty arguments).

Agreed.

 

Post edited at 16:54
Robert Durran - on 16:46 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm at a loss as to how you're identifying the spiteful votes.

Well, they certainly exist - Earlier PeakDJ said that he knew someone who systematically voted 1 for the photos of people whose posts he didn't like.

It is, of course, not always possible to identify them. However, when a photo has only a handful of votes, it is possible to calculate the value of an additional vote from the change in average score it results in. Recently every photo I posted was receiving a score of 1 (all at the same time if I posted several together) very soon after I posted them. Now I know there is room for personal taste, but when it's every photo (one of which even made it to POTW!) and almost all ended up averaging about 4 or above, it seems overwhelmingly likely that it was systematic voting with nothing to do with the merit of the actual photos.

> What difference does it make to your life?

It partly spoils the little bit of fun I get from the voting to help brighten up my life - if you think that makes me a sad person, then so be it, but why deny me it? Does it bother you?

 

john arran - on 17:02 Mon
In reply to deepsoup:

I still think there's mileage to be had in refining the dislike visibility. My suggestion would be not to show the number of dislikes but to indicate somehow by colour when there is a significant number or a majority. For example, as long as there are at least 5 dislikes, show the thumbs down button in red instead of the thumbs up button in green when the dislikes outnumber the likes. That way malicious individual dislikers can't be seen but it still would be clear when a post is generally disliked.

krikoman - on 17:46 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well, they certainly exist - Earlier PeakDJ said that he knew someone who systematically voted 1 for the photos of people whose posts he didn't like.

I did see that, and there are always a few dickheads around.

I'm sorry they spoil your fun.

> It partly spoils the little bit of fun I get from the voting to help brighten up my life - if you think that makes me a sad person, then so be it, but why deny me it? Does it bother you?

I don't think it makes you a sad person, but I was only wondering why it bothered you, now I know.

I'm all for putting names to likes and dislike on posts, I'm not sure this would work on pictures as it seems a bit open to abuse / favouritism, you scratch mine I'll scratch yours issues.

I've had a serial stalker dislike stalker in the past, but it simply made me laugh. I'm sorry they spoil your fun, maybe there's away to see who's voting mainly rubbish for photos.

Next time it happens look who's on line and then check their user page, see if you can find someone on line with high 0% rubbish percentages.

I've just looked and I've given 0% poor and 0% rubbish, but I wasn't expecting that. ( I must be nicer than I thought )

 

 

Post edited at 17:46
Wanderlust - on 18:05 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, I know. I was explaining why there must have been another reason in this particular case.

Sorry, my bad! I was hastily jumping to the defence of the like/dislike functionality without properly reading your post.

I support the like/dislike feature as I think it's a good way to call out BS in a form people can easily see (esp. when BS climbing/safety advice is offered, even if this is not a common occurrence). It's also satisfying to see a good/funny post with 50 or 100 likes. Lets you know the community enjoyed it and you can "share" the joke together.

I don't hate John Arran's idea to hide a low number of dislikes, but where to set the level? What about "young" posts where there may be a solitary (but valid and important) dislike on a comment?

Re photo voting, I would dismiss outliers (perhaps where there was a solitary vote 2 points outside the rest of the range of voting) as others have suggested. It does seem a bit mean to be bumped out of photo of the week through 1 spiteful vote

 

jethro kiernan - on 10:14 Tue
In reply to Flinticus:

Here is an example of a photo website voting system, probably a little harsher than is applied here but the philosophy would be the inline.

 

https://fstoppers.com/critiques/critique-community-submit-your-landscape-photos-now-212692

Robert Durran - on 12:02 Tue
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Here is an example of a photo website voting system, probably a little harsher than is applied here but the philosophy would be the inline.

That seems to be more suitable for professional photographers aiming at and capable of technical perfection. I think it might be a bit intimidating for many of us on here who just want to share inspiring photos of climbing and the mountains.

Despite my whinging about rogue voters in this thread I think the UKC photo facility is fantastic more or less as it is. We get to see (and compete with!) many brilliant photos of inspiring places taken by like minded people. And it seems very democratic; people taking nice snapshots of climbs aren't scared away yet there are some really accomplished photographers to inspire complete punters like myself to try to up our game.

Just remove the option to vote negatively..........

 

jethro kiernan - on 12:35 Tue
In reply to Robert Durran:

Obviously the standards they are setting is "world Class" for 5*, its more the principle of recognizing effort  both actual and artistic (and a good dash of being there), so votes shouldn't really have many outliers if people are voting "fairly"

A photo may be technically perfect and fits the norms for "good composition" but some people may find it a doesn't stir them so it would be a 4* not 5*

A photo may be technically poor but capture a moment that is inspiring again possible 4/5* depending on personal opinion.

1* is really saying why bother posting? and should be reserved for overexposed bum shots of indistinct figures.

Robert Durran - on 13:03 Tue
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Different aspects of a photo appeal to different people, so I wouldn't want anything too prescriptive. I'd be happy with *nice, **very good, ***superb. 

DubyaJamesDubya - on 14:12 Tue
In reply to Robert Durran:

> All that is needed to make the "morons" go away is for every vote to be positive (ie any vote at all increases the overall ranking). I would favour just "Good", "Excellent" and "Superb".  I think mere "likes" is a rather blunt instrument.

I think you've hit on the answer but in order for it to work you need to tally the total votes not the average votes (presumably the vote would be 1, 2 or 3 points). That way any vote given would add to the score of the person you wish to spite thus removing the incentive to do so.

This does mean that photos with less views are likely to get less votes. Not sure if that is a bad thing or not.

jethro kiernan - on 14:24 Tue
In reply to Robert Durran:

There would be no way of being to prescriptive and generally the system does work and things do even out in the end.

Bogwalloper - on 14:34 Tue
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Here is an example of a photo website voting system, probably a little harsher than is applied here but the philosophy would be the inline.


So not one 5 star photo and just a handful of 4 star in the UKC top 200 then?

;-)

W

Robert Durran - on 14:55 Tue
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> I think you've hit on the answer but in order for it to work you need to tally the total votes not the average votes (presumably the vote would be 1, 2 or 3 points). That way any vote given would add to the score of the person you wish to spite thus removing the incentive to do so.

I believe the current ranking uses a combination of average and total number of votes.  I don't know what the weighting is but it certainly can allow a low vote on a photo to pull down the ranking despite the extra vote.  It would be perfectly possible to adjust the weighting in favour of the number of votes so that any vote at all increased the ranking (which is what is needed to eradicate spiteful voting).  A simple total of all the votes would, of course, also do this and would have the advantage of being very transparent. It could, of course, also be thought of as a simple total number of votes with bonus points for votes above the minimum "nice" vote.

jethro kiernan - on 15:18 Tue
In reply to Bogwalloper:

;-) I'm sure some photos have involved make up artists, lighting team and catering, I know some of mine have

Robert Durran - on 15:29 Tue
In reply to jethro kiernan:

And I always photoshop out my climbing partners and replace them with a celebrity.

kevin stephens - on 19:10 Wed
In reply to jethro kiernan:

5 Star: put it on the wall even if taken by somebody else

4 star: put it in the wall if I took it

3 star: show it to my mates

2 star: keep it for record

1 star: bin it

 

Martin Bennett - on 19:56 Wed
In reply to kmhphoto:

> I'm English and usually use "could care less". It's actually the older of the two phrases, predating "couldn't care less" by about 10 years.

Balderdash, to use the polite phrase. "I could care less" is self evidently wrong.

 

john arran - on 20:31 Wed
In reply to Martin Bennett:

> Balderdash, to use the polite phrase. "I could care less" is self evidently wrong.

Codswallop indeed. http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/could-care-less-versus-couldnt-care-less


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.