Test Drive of “possible” Contest System. Please Vote!

[F.Gordon]

Based on T-Nut’s thread and the comments posted on it I came up with this new “possible” Contest voting system. I am not trying to break tradition or suggest that THIS is way the contests should be run. I’m only offering it up here as a possible alternative to the current voting system that uses multiple threads. The advantages….

** No one would feel slighted because their photograph is in a “group” that has tougher “competition” than some other group. All the photographs would be on ONE thread. Everyone would be competing at the same time. All photographs.

** People voting will not know who is leading during the voting.. All the results will be completely secret until the voting is completed.

** People can vote for more than one photograph. With the incredible quality level of the photos being entered, why should voting be limited to just one photograph? Instead of the current “most votes” system now being used this would use a “points” system. The one with the most points (hits) would be the winner.

So, please take a moment to browse the photos in this fake contest and cast your vote(s). And please take another moment to ask questions, complain, rant, or anything else you’d like to do. The big question? Do you think this sucks or not. Please be honest. This would be a bit time consuming to do for 30-40 photographs but I’m willing to work with the monthly host and use this system if you think it’s okay. If you think it sucks then I could better spend my free time going for walks and clicking a few snapshots……

The “polls” :eyes: will close some time this coming weekend at which time I will announce the “winner”. :silly:

Oh, and this is the 2nd "alpha thread" I've started in as many days. I promise I'll back off. This is a group effort... don't ya know?
:grouphug:

Angel Island



Click here to vote for Angel Island

British Columbia



Click here to vote for British Columbia

Carmel



Click here to vote for Carmel

Corsica Cliffs



Click here to vote for Corsica Cliffs

Corsica Water




Click here to vote for Corsica Water

Lake Moraine



Click here to vote for Lake Moraine

[amazona]

1. I hope my question is not idiotic

But I never found out who won the last the contest. Or has the vote not yet finished?

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[F.Gordon]

2. It's still going

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3163609

I think the winner is a lock, but the contest is still running.

On Edit: Did you just vote for Lake Moraine? My two faves in this group are Carmel and Corsica Cliffs...

[amazona]

6. Thanks!

For some reason I lost the link to the contest. Now I have voted!

Yes, in the test, I thought I just voted for Lake Moraine.

[intheflow]

3. I voted for Lake Moraine. Twice.

Even if we went with a weighted system (as per your--or was it GOPFighter's--suggestion in TahitiNut's thread), it seems that this system wouldn't work because someone could just vote a thousand times for one photo.

Also, I'm not sure that people would participate in a poll where they couldn't see the results. Why bother? I think to many people it might feel like unverified electronic voting machines... no way to see the results in real time, no way to verify the votes when the contest is over.

I do agree with TahitiNut that seeing the results might influence some people's votes, but I don't think the majority of DUers have sheeple mentality. I think most vote for what they like best.

[F.Gordon]

4. So it was you?

The first vote cast was for Lake Moraine and only ONE vote was cast. You could vote for Lake Moraine 100 times and only ONE vote would be cast because this "system" won't allow you to "pack" the vote.

[intheflow]

7. No, I posted after you replied to amazona.

You should have more than one vote now.

[F.Gordon]

8. A followup

I'll put you down for "it sucks".

The idea here is to eliminate "early exit polls" that could influence overall voting. The points you are making go to the heart of our own election system. The instant gratification thing. I believe that this a serious cultural flaw of our society and contributes to the voting problems we've been having.

All the votes can be verified. I've offered to give the host my password, or I can post a copy and paste image of each photo stat page for all to see.

[intheflow]

20. "It sucks" is a little harsh.

Maybe "Needs work" is a fairer assessment?

As for insta-gratification in polling... I have never heard anyone on DU call for that in national elections. Verifiable voting is not the same as instant gratification or 100% accuracy in exit polls.

However, instant and verifiable polling is the norm for DU polls. If it appears that I can vote for the same photo twice, then that undermines my faith that the system is fair, regardless of whether or not my vote was only recorded once.

I also want to reiterate that I honestly believe that most DUers are not the "go-along" types. There has never been a photo contest winner that was not an extraordinary photo, even as the other photos it runs against have also been extraordinary. So far I have not seen one photo in the Top 10 that didn't deserve to be there, either for technical or aesthetic reasons. It could be that the photos that win are really and truly the majority of people's favorite photos.

I'm just sayin'...

[F.Gordon]

29. I chose "this sucks" as an option

Regarding the instant gratification thing. My point was meant to offer an explanation for why our own National Election system sucks. I know no one at DU advocates that. But you'll have to admit.... we certainly live in a "I Want It Now!!" society.

And like I said before. You can't vote for the same photo twice. Well you can, but it would still only record ONE vote from you. It records 'unique' hits. Individual users. It doesn't record total "views".

I tend to agree with everything you said in your last paragraph. My biggest complaint is that there were a few photos that should have been in the finals, but were not because of the way the voting currently works.

It appears that my "test drive" has drove itself into the ditch. I was tryin' something new. I'll apply that "needs work" thing when more free time is available to me. Thanks for being honest and thanks for the feedback.
:-)

[RagingInMiami]

5. I also just voted for Lake Moraine

And I like the idea that you can't see the results before you vote, but I don't like that vote as many times as you want concept. I think it is a recipe for a lot of confusion and abuse.

About the rating system, my experience from www.photo.net, is that it is far from perfect. If you're a member of photo.net, just read all the comments on the link below, which is their "ATA" forum. More than 80 percent of the members are complaining about unfair ratings.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1562


As a photo.net member myself, I've learned not to take those ratings seriously because a lot of people, it seems, give you low ratings out of spite.

For those unfamiliar with the photo.net rating system, it allows you to rate a photo from 1 to 7 in two categories, aesthetics and originality.

The ratings are as follows:
7 = excellent
6 = very good
5 = good
4 = average/fair
3 = below average
2 = bad
1 = very bad

I've received ratings of 1's and 2's on photos that received a few 6's and 7's. I understand judging a photo is subjective, but receiving excellent and very good ratings as well as bad and very bad ratings for the same photo seems unjust -- especially when those giving poor ratings refuse to leave a comments as to why they gave such a low rating.

Another concern I have about having all the photos on the same thread would be lengthy download times. You know how long it takes for the whole thread to open up when we're all submitting our photos.

EDITED cause I included the wrong link

[F.Gordon]

9. I'll also put you down for another "it sucks"??

Voting for more than one photo really can't be "abused". And you can't vote more than once for ONE photograph. If someone was bored they could vote for ALL the photos, but it was just be a wash and wouldn't influence the actual totals.

I'm aware of the "ranking" system you've mentioned. We're getting into having someone write a code.... I aint taking the time to do that. The other option would be for people to reply in the contest thread but they'd have to "expose" their votes for all to see. And the thread would get very long.

[ET Awful]

10. I have a possible idea, let me play with it later today or tomorrow

It would allow only one vote per person, and nobody could see the results before they had voted.

[ET Awful]

11. Another test drive

Using just three random pictures. Please go test, and without logging in, try to vote, then leave and return to the site and try voting again. Let me know if it works

http://duphoto.etawful.com/index.php

[Rocinante]

12. I voted for boathouse three times

It looks like it just took one vote from me.

[ET Awful]

14. That's exactly what it should do.

It lets you click to vote, but doesn't actually count it after the first.

Thanks.

[RagingInMiami]

13. I voted for the first photo

And I think my vote got registered, then I logged out and back in and tried voting for one of the other photos, but it did not register.

And I wasn't able to see the results until after I had voted.

I think we're getting somewhere.

[ET Awful]

15. Results look accurate so far, my initial test vote was for boathouse

as well, then I voted for each of the others and it wouldn't count it. Now I see two additional votes from you two.

I knew it would not reveal results until you'd voted, I was just concerned about whether it would accept votes from unregistered users.

[TahitiNut]

17. Well, that wouldn't stop folks from posting the intermediate results ...

... in a contest discussion thread. I don't know whether that would completely dampen the 'mandate syndrome'.

[F.Gordon]

18. It only recorded one vote

I did a log out log on mix and match thing. But I did see the up-to-date results on my first vote. From reading the posts on this I'm not certain whether that was the desired result or not.

Well done.

[intheflow]

24. I voted for the yawning kitty

because no one else had so I could easily see if my vote registered twice. I was able to vote twice (the second time after closing the window and returning), but only one vote registered. So I agree with F.Gordon and The Beatles: It's getting better all the time.

:)

[ralps]

35. I voted for yawn, then tried to vote for duck, it didn't let me. your's

seems to work pretty good. :hi: :loveya: :hug: :pals: :woohoo:

[TahitiNut]

16. I don't know whether to feel bad that I commented on this or not.

It wasn't my intention to diss the leading photos or agitate for change. It's merely that I saw one of many behaviors in voting where the information feedback loop apparently caused a change in individual behavior and amplified the variances. I certainly don't think it's the only behavior, and I don't believe it's a ubiquitous behavior. I'm the kind of "idealist" who envisions "pure" systems. While I envision them, I'm not necessarily inclined to think they're reasonably acheivable - their utility is, I believe, one of direction-setting and not necessarily goal-setting.

Elections are often metaphorically called "horse races" - but I'm not sure that's an entirely apt analogy. I don't know of any horse that wins a race merely because it got the most bets. I never saw a horse race where betting continued after the start of the race. To the degree (what ever it is), however, that any voter would subordinate their own interests (even to the extent of changing their perception of their own interests) to the "Pyrrhic Victory" of claiming to be among those who voted for the winner is, I believe, a disturbing view of sociology. It would help explain the emphasis on political polling. I'm not so free of skepticism that I believe the M$M publication of iterative political polling results is for goal-free educational purposes only. Back when a got my secondary-school education (apparently better in some respects to today's), I learned about "bandwagon appeal" and other propagandistic techniques. I don't recall this particular syndrome being among those we studied, however. It's more than just a "go along to get along" thing. In effect, it's an eradication/decimation of the diversity of minority opinions. For me, who views such diversity as highly valuable, this is disturbing. (I've learned more in my life from the "exceptions" than from the "rules.")

That said ...

I think I know of one way, using the current DU polling tool, that the effects might be minimized. Assuming a contest limited to two tiers (semi-finals and final), it would be to keep the number of entries in all the polls as close to equal as possible. That number would be the square root of the number of entries. In other words ...

With 16 entries, we'd have four semi-finals of 4, 4, 4, and 4 choices.
With 17 entries, we'd have four semi-finals of 5, 4, 4, and 4 choices.
With 18 entries, we'd have four semi-finals of 5, 5, 4, and 4 choices.
With 19 entries, we'd have four semi-finals of 5, 5, 5, and 4 choices.
With 20 entries, we'd have four semi-finals of 5, 5, 5, and 5 choices.
With 21 entries, we'd have five semi-finals of 5, 4, 4, 4, and 4 choices.
With 22 entries, we'd have five semi-finals of 5, 5, 4, 4, and 4 choices.
With 23 entries, we'd have five semi-finals of 5, 5, 5, 4, and 4 choices.
With 24 entries, we'd have five semi-finals of 5, 5, 5, 5, and 4 choices.
With 25 entries, we'd have five semi-finals of 5, 5, 5, 5, and 5 choices.
With 26 entries, we'd have five semi-finals of 6, 5, 5, 5, and 5 choices.
With 27 entries, we'd have five semi-finals of 6, 6, 5, 5, and 5 choices.
... and so on.

Make sense? (The final poll could optionally include one additional choice: one receiving among the highest of raw votes overall but not "winning" its semi-final.)

[F.Gordon]

19. Why should you feel bad?

Neither I, or ET Awful, didn't "try" something else because you told us to. And no one is dissin' any of the photos. I agreed with you to a certain degree and merely sought to experiment with an alternate system. I'm guessing ET Awful felt the same way.

The only problem I have with your square root system is the "Ohio Factor" .... since both of us have become fond of using associative labels.
:evilgrin:

"Voter Turnout" was not consistent on any of the 4 contest threads, and your system adds 2 or more threads to the contest.

Thread 1: 162 votes
Thread 2: 176 votes
Thread 3: 183 votes
Final 9 Thread: 194 votes

I can't explain the "Ohio Factor", but maybe it's close enough that it shouldn't be an ish-shue.
:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

21. Well, I'd guess that a 48-hour Friday+Saturday polling period ...

... might result in more uniformity of turnout. Many DUers seem far more likely to be active during the "40 hour work week" and others seem to be "weekend warriors" with some shorter 'catch up' activity during the week.

Stated more generally, polls seem to attract votes at least in part based on 'kicks,' degree of preference, expectation of making a difference, and the time period during which the polls are open.

[RagingInMiami]

22. You will get more accurate results

By having a contest where people do not see the results before voting.

[TahitiNut]

26. Yes, I gotta think so. I just don't know whether it's material.

Further, I don't know if an alternative approach introduces other deficiencies (just turnout, for example) that offset the presumed correction to whatever materiality that might exist. :shrug:

[RagingInMiami]

27. You're thinking too much into it (you probably have heard that before)

There's always room for improvement, especially with a contest that started off a one-time idea back in December(yes, Longgrain, we know it was you).

And the more we improve it and the more professional it becomes, the more turnout we will get.

[TahitiNut]

28. (LOL!) Yes, I certainly have heard that before.

:rofl: What was your first clue? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm almost nothing if not analytical. :silly: That's so hugely pervasive in my thinking, I can't even have sex (without a MJ assist) without having a little Observer on my shoulder saying "that's interesting..." :evilgrin:

[F.Gordon]

30. If we ever meet face to face for a sit down....

I'm planning on being incredibly HIGH. That way the stuff that makes absolutely no sense to me can take on a reality of its own and become crystal clear.
:smoke:

[RagingInMiami]

31. You're definitely the most left-brained person of this group

I'm very right-brained myself, so for me, you create the perfect balance as to making suggestions for this group.

[TahitiNut]

32. From the tests I've taken, I'm fairly balanced between left and right.

It's ranged from 60-40 to 45-55, give or take. A lot depends on the context, I guess. :shrug: I do a lot of "flip-side" empathic/dynamic stuff on the right-brain, too ... feelings within feelings. It's something I've worked on at various times ... emotive/meditative exercises and activities to align. Sometimes I'm inclined to complement what others do; sometimes I'm inclined to supplement. It's a "gut" thing.

At its base, I guess I'm driven by wanting not to miss out on anything. :silly:

"Give it to Mikey! He'll try anything!" :dunce:

[intheflow]

23. Eek! Math!

You lost me at "hello"! :P :silly:

[TahitiNut]

25. (rofl)

:rofl: Don't worry. It's just arithmetic, not math. :silly:

[Blue_In_AK]

34. Thank you, InTheFlow...

Is it a girl thing? My head was swimming too as I read through this thread.

By the way, I voted for Carmel, mainly because I was just down there and it was fabulous. I got some great sunsets -- surprise, surprise...

[DS1]

33. With a simple caveat that's been brought up already, that being

that you should be able to vote for more than one photo, but no photo more than once, I love it.

It's got the instant-runoff approach that our elections need, and it's blind.

As a group we could take this a step further and not even submit our photos publicly, to cut down on favoritism that I'm not insisting is present.

[ConsAreLiars]

36. There should be multiple winners

One limitation of voting is that it leads to one "winner" when most of us probably saw lots of work that was praiseworthy in different ways. Instead of declaring one "winner," the top three (or 5) should all be designated "most liked." This might encourage people to vote for photos that are 4th and lower instead of either not voting or picking among the few top ones, if that happens.

A further refinement would to give people a defined number of votes, so they could choose 3 (or more) that they like instead of just one. And then, to get really ornate, maybe have two rounds with the cumulative vote totals being deciders.
Edit to add - the "incentive to discussion" outcome assumes that the vote tallies are public info at all times.

I like to see people discussing what they see and interacting around the photos, rather than mostly just voting and waiting. More votes might mean people could feel freer to talk about what different things they liked, rather than which one they liked.

The discussion might help us better understand what makes a compelling image.

[F.Gordon]

37. And the winner is: Lake Moraine

With 10 points. However, I did make a huge mistake in this “test drive”. Gee, there’s a shocker. :eyes: I did not use a Forced View and I did not disable viewing the original which makes some of the other “math” a bit confusing. My bad.
:spank:

Anyhooooo….. The results are verifiable. (see below) Subtract my own unique hit on the Thumbnails and you have 10. Subtract my unique hit on the small and medium view, add them up... and you have another 10. The mistake I made was not keeping the photo size that was “hit” by the votes consistent so the “math” was simple and easy to figure out, and thus..... easy to verify.



I don't know if this changes anyone's mind on whether this would work. As I previously stated.... I don't want to break tradition or force a "system" here that everyone would not be agreeable to.
:shrug:

[Blue_In_AK]

38. F, are you an engineer?

You think like my marine engineer husband...LOL.