DA Photo Contest Forum / Website / Site Issues / Outlandish Voting Numbers!!! / Latest Posts

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Dunester — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:39:30 GMT

I guess so. But this just shows it is not fool proof, if the quick vote system was the reason then it lost me a couple of points in this particular situation. Oh well :D

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

wemor — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:11:20 GMT

He could have been causing the "Quick Vote" feature to take effect.

The voting software requires at least a 5 second delay between votes. If a vote is attempted before the five sec delay, it is not accepted. A warning message appears and the image is offered for a second vote.

If this voter missed the warning message, it would appear to them like the image keeps coming up for vote when in fact none of the earlier "Quick Votes" were recorded.

Once an image records a vote, that unique image (based on the image ID) will never reappear for the voter (it can reappear if it is deleted and resubmitted under another image ID). WE

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Dunester — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:01:25 GMT

[quote][b]jill028 (7/14/2008)[/b][hr]Just curious-

How do you know it is the same person voting on the image?

The images come up randomly and a person can only vote once on a photo unless it is re-uploaded and going through over 500 images to vote down the few you dislike seems like a lot of work when you would have to do it over and over and over.

Could it just be that there is more than one person who does not like the photo? The conspiracy theory is alright but I really don't think anyone has that much free time on their hands.[/quote]

I had a vote low yesterday, from an unmasked voter, and when I asked how I could improve he replied that the photo was fine. He said he gave it a high vote at first, but it came up numerous times in one voting session, and so he started voting it lower - seems I got the last vote!

Now obviously he could be trying to hoodwink me, but on the other hand he is not masked, and in the past I've had a photo come up twice in the same session - maybe a bug in the system?

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

patweeka — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:23:24 GMT

I wish there was a link on the member profile page that would give you access to see the voting history of that member like you can in the image stats.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

jill028 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:09:15 GMT

Something of value I learned when my husband went to Alcoholics Anonymous and our subsequent divorce and while I watched his following two marriages fail...people do not change, our reaction to them change.

Accept the things I cannot change, have courage to change the things I can and have the wisdom to know the difference.

A person can apply that to many things when dealing with people. Also, "The customer is always right" (whether they are an idiot that doesn't know photography or not) The customer/average guy is the one that gives us the money so loosing sight of their interests and opinions would make us loose customers if we sent away everyone who disliked or photography or style.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Wilrobking — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:30:14 GMT

Well, I'm still hoping it was glitch. I just don't see why someone would take the time and energy to be silly and malicious like that.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

SkyBlueRose — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:13:45 GMT

[quote][b]Wilrobking (7/14/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]SkyBlueRose (7/14/2008)[/b][hr]Was it the same exact comment over and over again? I don't remember if it was a comment or a reply to a comment but I recently saw a comment duplicated a bunch of times from a regular here on the forum's and it was definitely a glitch.

[/quote]

No. It was 5 seperate negative quick comments.

"Lacking Interest"

"Unlevel Horizon"

"Low resolution"

"Poor compositon"

"Out of focus"[/quote]

That's crazy! Well, at least it was reported. I sure see a side to human behavior that I don't normally see.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Wilrobking — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:30:32 GMT

[quote][b]SkyBlueRose (7/14/2008)[/b][hr]Was it the same exact comment over and over again? I don't remember if it was a comment or a reply to a comment but I recently saw a comment duplicated a bunch of times from a regular here on the forum's and it was definitely a glitch.

[/quote]

No. It was 5 seperate negative quick comments.

"Lacking Interest"

"Unlevel Horizon"

"Low resolution"

"Poor compositon"

"Out of focus"

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

SkyBlueRose — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:10:21 GMT

Was it the same exact comment over and over again? I don't remember if it was a comment or a reply to a comment but I recently saw a comment duplicated a bunch of times from a regular here on the forum's and it was definitely a glitch.

I would be very disappointed if DA were to split between experience levels. I don't think I would even stick around. That is one of DA's best features. I value everyone's opinions; amateurs probably the most of all. I'm just starting out when it comes to photography as a career. My business will mostly be with everyday people so they give the opinions I value most. I never could see myself thinking a newbie don't know what they are talking about if they voted in a honest and thoughtful manner. They know what they like and don't like and that is good enough for me.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Wilrobking — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:00:07 GMT

[quote][b]jill028 (7/14/2008)[/b][hr]Could do it by using the back browser button and putting it in the comments[/quote]

I guess that's possible although I don't know why one would choose to do that.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

jill028 — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:54:14 GMT

Could do it by using the back browser button and putting it in the comments

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Wilrobking — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:36:17 GMT

As Lisa stated, he was unmasked. I'm not sure how he managed to leave 5 comments on an unarchived photo. I didn't even send him an RFC.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Lisa Townsend — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:30:59 GMT

He was unmasked when he left the comments..... :cool: And yes, the comments didn't make any sense.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

jill028 — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:20:06 GMT

Just curious-

How do you know it is the same person voting on the image?

The images come up randomly and a person can only vote once on a photo unless it is re-uploaded and going through over 500 images to vote down the few you dislike seems like a lot of work when you would have to do it over and over and over.

Could it just be that there is more than one person who does not like the photo? The conspiracy theory is alright but I really don't think anyone has that much free time on their hands.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Wilrobking — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:20:03 GMT

There was a new member who left 5 negative quick comments in a row on ONE of my images. Most of them didn't even make sense. "Low resolution" "Unlevel horizon". It was a portrait. It's probably a bug or a troll.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Lisa Townsend — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:54:26 GMT

[quote][b]4fun (7/13/2008)[/b][hr]

Anyway, after answering his quick comment response, which he sent 3 times, "Lacks Interest", I'll probably get kicked off... so be it.

Very Disappointed;

Frank Ertl / 4fun (or at least it used to be)[/quote]

I got hit by that voter too. He voted 200 something times and sent out that many comments. Managed to pound all of my images and leave more than one comment on them. - I reported it to Eric. ;)

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Gesta — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:03:38 GMT

[quote]
We don't expect athletes to just jump from high school level to pro status immediately. Until this issue is addressed we will continue to have these problems.

I think the problem is that people lose interest in the site when they see the pro's constantly winning the daily, weekly, and monthly awards.This is not a bad thing, I'm just saying we need to separate the pros from the amatuers ......[/quote]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's only the pro's that are constantly winning, but I agree with your theory.
I have contacted Eric on a few occasions to suggest some kind of league/division tables (as in UK football etc) but apparently this would involve a major restructure and is impractical.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

ktr — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:47:38 GMT

I'm pretty new as well, and here are my thoughts:

First there are a lot places where there is not usable internet ... but than again most people probably aren't sailing around the world and still trying to participate in sites like this :) so you are right - people could vote even on vacation. What MIGHT be helpful is a vacation status. I asked about something like this before because I was getting ready for a passage and would be gone for three weeks ... what I wanted was to be able to put a "hold" on my account so that I couldn't receive votes until I was back in "civilization". I didn't want to archive my images because they hadn't really received enough votes yet and were doing well. In the end I spent 3-4 days before I left trying to get in a lot of votes (still I don't think I every voted more than 200 in one day - so how someone voted 1,000 amazes me), so that my ratio would be high and sustain me during my time away. Then (now) that I am back around internet I am again trying to vote-vote-vote. Also I have not uploaded any new images and have finally archived my older images ... my plan is to not upload anything new until I get my voter ratio even (that only seems fair to the site). But some type of official "vacation/hold" status might make things easier. Then again I realize I'm in a unique situation and don't expect any site to cater to my needs when I'm the odd one out!!! I totally agree there is no reason for no activity for 30-45 days.

As a newbie the way I vote (and please tell me if this is wrong) is that I consider a 5 right around average. The photo is okay, nothing really wrong, but nothing really pops out either (it's a fine line between a 5 & 6). From there I go down (noise, blur, bad comp, etc) or go up. I figure a 6 means "yeah, your photo is just above average but doesn't stand out". A 7 means there is at least some feature to the photo that makes it "better". 8 and higher need to be well above average (and I must say there are a lot of those on this site). Rarely do I come across anything below a 4. I look at the full sized images often, but not always, and if I vote lower after looking at the full size I usually say so in the comment.

Pros & Amateur - didn't realize there were pros on this site - that would explain why the photos are so great! Now I don't feel so bad for not being up there with the rest of them!!! I don't think we need to be separated (I am very much an amateur) ... it gives me something to stride towards. I suppose though that people have different reasons for joining the site - me I don't care much about winning, I'm all about the comments & improving (of course winning means good scores, so in sense I do want to "win"). I don't want to be discounted by a pro though just because I'm not one ... there's nothing worse than the "well they obviously don't know what they are talking about" attitude, just because I'm an amateur instead of a pro. (BTW I haven't experienced that attitude myself - my time so far has been great - but I've seen some of it in other cases reading through the forums). And I still go back to the photography is art theory - what one hates another will love.

Also maybe people are voting without photos yet posted because they want to see what others have put up and get a sense for the site (to help them select their own photos to post). It can be a big jump for an amateur to throw up some photos for others to review ...

And I agree with Tonka ... even in the days before digital and before photoshop, photographers could manipulate photographs in the dark room - does that make a good photo any "less good"??? I personally don't think so, I don't care how much touch-up or change a person makes to a photograph, if it's good it's good .. period. In the digital age it must be recognized that "Photoshop" is now part of the digital photograph workflow.

Anyway that's my two-cents ... personally I enjoy this site and look forward to my time on land when I can participate more fully.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

jill028 — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:11:01 GMT

[quote][b]...but I have seen, in my short membership here that 5's are given out pretty frequently. I have to believe in many of those cases that it's a means to knock ones average down, especially when I ask what I could have done to improve the photoand never receive a response. ....

... If it's a valid 4, 5, or even 2 and you can give a reasonable critique, then so be it, but don't hide behind a mask.

Most Sincerely;

Frank / 4fun

:D[/quote]

Everyone has to start somewhere and set their base/average score at something. If they start with a 6 then one or two flaws are going make a photo a 5 or less. It isn't an issue of targeting, it is an issue that the base score is 6.

The site says the average or score is 5.5 New members start out believing that 5 is a good thing to score a photo then they get attacked for doing it. Some people who are really full of themselves think a 7 is offensive. I think that a lot of people are reading the comments and not associating them with the voter that gave them a low score, then when they request a comment and do not get feedback it is creating hard feelings. Even though the comment has already been made.

A lot of people think that they are being harassed or targeted because they receive a lower score but if you go with the theory that a 5.5 is the site wide average then 5 is a normal number and 7 or 8 is extremely high. I do not think that it is right to assume a 5 is a vindictive vote because we can not know what score the voters base number is, although I am not stupid enough to think it doesn't happen.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

jill028 — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:49:32 GMT

From what I have read so far, the site issue that is the main concern is that people become members, then they become inactive. They could either fade from the site, get discouraged, or just try to participate on a limited basis. 10% of the subscribers use the site to their advantage and have benefited from being here. The newcomers that arrive do not realize it takes awhile to acclimate to the environment and some get discouraged before they even begin.

It is essential that the new members vote. It is important to learn to break away from what one person sees as their 'style' and vote for other styles and techniques. Sometimes voting helps a person define their style or what they feel is important in their work. Sometimes it helps a person learn what is important to the people here at DailyAwards. Discouraging voting of any kind, even if it annoyingly low votes or marathon votes should not be the issue.

What I can see is that people join, they upload photos leave them there and don't come back so that there is no activity on the account except for the photos that are in the voting pool getting votes but no voting is happening from that member.

Other sites have policies about how often you use an account before it becomes canceled. If you do not vote or upload a photo or access your account within so much time, your membership is first in-active, an e-mail is sent out then it is canceled if there is still no response or activity. Usually 30 days for the warning and 45 for the cancellation.

Even while on vacation, in todays world there is access to the internet. From cafe's and restaurants, libraries, malls and markets, hotels, even cell phones have access to this site. The vote ratio needs to be based on user activity within the last thirty to forty-five days. If someone hasn't used their account in that amount of time they are probably not going to use the account. Most people do not cancel their membership, they just drift away.

[b]If the non-active accounts (no activity for over 45 days) were not there would the voting ratio become more even? [/b]It is nice to say that the site has over 5,000 members but how many of those are accounts that have not been used because of lost member names or passwords? How many accounts are actively being used compared to accounts just sitting there doing nothing but receiving votes for months and months.

It can still say there have been over 5,000 memberships but [b]when it comes down to it, the active users, who log in to their accounts on a regular basis should be the only thing influencing the site wide voting ratio[/b] instead of the overall memberships. Even while being on vacation a person can access the site or send notification that it is a temporary absence. Most normal people do not take month long vacations or they would get fired.

Just something to ponder that feels like it is being over-looked. :cool:

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Tcall — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:08:28 GMT

This kind of voting dose seem bizarre. Perhaps a kid or someone who stopped taking thier meds. Hard to control for everything out there on a public site. Hard to imagine they can keep that up for long.

As for the #2 vote it was someone either ignorant or hostile about something in their life. An open forum like this is going to have all kinds responding. I'm relatively new to this site and so far, knock on wood, 98% of my contact has been positively experienced. One woman did rip me a new one for accidently uploading a photo with my copyright and name on it. It was my error and I removed the image, but it was handled poorly. Sa La Vie!

Tom

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Tonka — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:15:07 GMT

Storm, I couldn't agree with you more..though I do not prefer to open all the full size images, I feel obligated to...When the once in while WOWZER pops up , I am always thankful that I have taken the time to open the big version..sometimes I notice a full size version just as I vote..so sorry about those rare ones that do miss..

Anyway, if a member CHOOSES to upload a full size, I agree that they ought to know the quality..I check every one of mine after I have uploaded it to make sure the quality is as good or surpasses that of the 640 size..sometimes an image really needs to be seen at all its glory.. But I will score down for quality suffering in full size..absolutely and I would expect mine to be marked accordingly as well...I don't care if they get huffy, it is their responsibility to know what they upload..sorry not being harsh that is just how I feel..

As far as separating ?...I am not thinking it is a good idea...I thought about maybe three different levels before but for those who have a competitive, stubborn,need to strive nature..well being in with the "big fish" is the ticket...

Oh yeah, and newbies are very well Pros too...we don't know who is experienced and who isn't....just a thought though..

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Stormhaven — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:32:12 GMT

Maybe we need someone to make up for my recent lackluster voting. I've really been struggling to make myself vote. Here's the reason why.

I have gotten into the habit of always looking at the full size version of a photo. That slows me down, but also makes me more attentive to the effort put into the shot. The consequence has been that while I, personally, look at the larger version, many (most??) don't, and there frequently is a 1-3 vote gap in what I give and what they typically receive.

With rare exceptions, I start at 5 and go down if there is noise or focus deficits. The majority of the photos that you can see full size have suffered from the engine resizing, and they show it. They usually have noise and OOF issues. Of course, you might have those problems before you load the pic. I know that I have tried to "sneak in" something that I liked, but I always get caught.

Just this last week, a member responded rather sharply that they had won two awards with their shot that I saw noise and focus issues in. No wonder they were snippy. I had to conclude that that wouldn't have happened if everyone had taken the time to see the full size version. This photographer will never understand (or believe) why I voted like I did, and other members gave plaudits.

I have talked to Eric quite a bit about this, and I have referred him to some good forum threads. I asked, and he promised, that he would send out an all-member email discussing the full size issue.

Meanwhile, I'm having a hard time motivating myself to keep on voting. I tried skipping photos, by changing categories, but that's not a good solution. In fact, it's no solution at all. Which brings me back to our marathon voter. Maybe, just maybe, that member will make up for me.

I've just thought of another way to solve this problem. It seems fair, and the results would be consistent. Remove the option of loading photos larger than 640x on the long side. There is no benefit to loading large photos, and the change would level the playing ground for every member. Then, if a shot had problems, you would know that the original version had problems also.

Sometimes, I'm so brilliant it scares me. I'm horrified right now.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

wemor — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:12:15 GMT

Voting always drops off a bit during holidays (USA / 4th of July). There are about 39,000 images on the site, with ~4,200 being active. The site needs ~6,300 votes per day to maintain the 1.5 votes per image ratio.

Still, there are no where near 5000 active voting members at the Daily Awards site.

I ended a Voting Check a little less than a month ago (see link for detail). Over that period there were 430 different (unique) voters that rated images. Over 1/2 of those unique voters rated images on three days or less during the data collection.

Of the 5,135 member reported, 3,903 (76%) are ONE weights (those have voted on less than 150 images). Another 721 (14%) are TWO weighted members. Only 511 (10%) members have rolling weights of THREE or more.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

hahn23 — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:03:50 GMT

[quote][b]SkyBlueRose (7/6/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]lover1969 (7/6/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b] We have over 5,000 members at DA so why does the voting ratio stay so low? Are there a lot of inactive users? On a good day I might get 3 votes on one of my photographs. It boggles my mind. :crazy:[/quote]

I read in the forums that there is more inactivity in the Summer months.[/quote]
[color="indigo"]As I write this, the current site-wide vote ratio is 1.2771. That means that in the past 24 hours, 1.2771 votes have been cast, on average, for every image in the active voting pool.

So there are two variables which are used to compute the site-wide vote ratio.

1. The number of votes cast in the past 24 hours. (the numerator in the fraction)
2. The number of active images in the voting pool. (the denominator in the fraction)

My point is.... a surge in the number of images uploaded to the contest will suppress the ratio. And, a slump in the number of votes cast will suppress the ratio.

The site statistics indicate there are about 5500 votes cast per day on average. (Less on the 4th of July, but a dip on a holiday is common.) Using the site-wide ratio, one can conclude there are about 4300 active images in the voting pool.

Finally, with a vote ratio of 1.2771, one can expect to receive an average of 1.2771 votes on each active image in your portfolio. This will vary due to the random nature of the image selection by the system. On any particular image, some days will be zero votes. Some days will be four votes. Over several days, the average number of votes received will approximate the site-wide vote ratio[/color].

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Tonka — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:57:02 GMT

Personally in the beginning, I was an over zealous voter..I was really trying to be a productive and positive member, striving to give back all and more that I had received..and I did also wish to be able to get as many votes as possible..one of those silly self acknowledged accomplishments..

I have long since slowed down especially after have hitting the buffer which was quite awhile ago..it was cool to keep up with every new image in the pool but I did realize, aside from the buffers, that many photogs were getting my votes as the first 15...I don't like it either so I have chilled considerably..

I personally enjoy voting very much usually...

As for the insinuation Richard...while I acknowledge and validate your ire about the motive behind the 2..

Why on earth would that be justifiable even if you HAD combined two images??? There is no such rule about that and it would fit well in landscape or digiart...for technicality's sake..
dunno...

anyway, I just think it is a positive thing to not vote on quite so many...I mean. . even 800 is a huge amount of images in one day as it is.. overall in the long run, I just think it is a positive thing to pace oneself but that is only from my personal perspective..

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

SkyBlueRose — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:46:32 GMT

[quote][b]lover1969 (7/6/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b] We have over 5,000 members at DA so why does the voting ratio stay so low? Are there a lot of inactive users? On a good day I might get 3 votes on one of my photographs. It boggles my mind. :crazy:[/quote]

I read in the forums that there is more inactivity in the Summer months.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

lover1969 — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:20:23 GMT

Richard, I do see where you are coming from. Let me just chime in here for a minute.

When I first started voting at DA I was a speed voter because I was inexperienced. I didn't take the time to really look at the photographs that were being displayed in front of me. I didn't take voting seriously. After a few weeks and submitting some photographs of my own, it finally sunk in. Maybe after this person submits some photographs, he or she will start to understand the concept of how DA really works.

That's just my two cents.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

lover1969 — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:14:55 GMT

[quote][b]wemor (7/6/2008)[/b][hr]All those votes and the site is still below the 1.5 voting ratio. Even with a voting delay of 5 sec/image, one could still vote on 1500 images in a little over 2 hours of steady voting.

Wemor, that is something that I have often wondered about. We have over 5,000 members at DA so why does the voting ratio stay so low? Are there a lot of inactive users? On a good day I might get 3 votes on one of my photographs. It boggles my mind. :crazy:

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

hahn23 — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:08:05 GMT

[quote][b]wemor (7/6/2008)[/b][hr]....
I don't recommend (or enjoy) marathon voting but why would you wish to limit others? If that is whatsomeone wishes to do and they vote fairly and consistently why should we care? WE:ermm:[/quote]
[color="navy"]We should care because marathon voting is not sustainable. Quick burn out will occur. The marathon voter's own photography is neglected. Marathon voting represents a lack of balance. The obsessive/compulsive nature of the person who votes 1100+ times w/in 24 hours will push the person up against the buffers in a few short days.

Assuming the person sleeps for 8 hours, the remaining 16 hours represent 960 minutes. So, 1100+ votes computes to more than one vote per minute. Yes, it obviously can be done. But, that's pretty intensive. Maybe I'm the foolish one to take time to look at the image, review a full size version, if available, give careful consideration to my vote and leave suggestions for improvement. It's a struggle for me to get through 100 images in a day.

The point is.... the person who is voting on more than a thousand images in one day will not be voting with such intensity in seven days. Wouldn't it be healthier for everyone to encourage regular voting in moderation, rather than such quick, massive voting sessions[/color]?

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

hahn23 — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:52:19 GMT

The member who offered a "2" on one of my images said she was certain I had manipulated the image. She said the light on my subject was different than the light on the landscape... insinuating I had combined two images. I don't do that kind of thing. I don't think she had ever seen light at high altitude in the early morning. So, she should be forgiven.

I sent her a copy of the original, unaltered image with EXIF file attached. That wasn't good enough, of course. She then tried to turn the situation around.... suggesting I am unable to accept criticism. And, she said I was trying to "bully" her voting. The vote of "2" was the lowest vote that person had ever cast on any image by 2 or 3 notches. I suspect she had some other burr under her saddle. She was just lashing out for some reason.... not a fair, nor objective vote. She was under the mistaken impression that her vote of "2" would be discarded by the vote check system. Since it was one of the first 15 votes on the image, the vote was not discarded. Her weight was not substantial. The "2" vote would blend in. It was the spurious accusation of image manipulation which was most troubling. She persisted in her charges, even in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

It will be okay. I have deleted the image and re-submitted another image from the series. It was a bizarre episode which I don't completely understand.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

wemor — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:45:32 GMT

All those votes and the site is still below the 1.5 voting ratio. Even with a voting delay of 5 sec/image, one could still vote on 1500 images in a little over 2 hours of steady voting.

I don't recommend (or enjoy) marathon voting but why would you wish to limit others? If that is what someone wishes to do and they vote fairly and consistently why should we care? WE :ermm:

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

LAC — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:34:36 GMT

Perhaps this person had a weekend like we just had......3 days of rain:hehe:.........picnics are canceled, no fireworks, no parades.......

Stir crazy!!!!!!:w00t:

Seriously...........there should be a limit put.........maybe a max of 300 per 24 hrs?

**
**

As to the low vote, Richard........I got one also......the member honestly did get the scale upside down.......:hehe:........or so they claimed.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Tonka — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:10:52 GMT

I agree too...and what the heck IS going on ?

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

photofan47 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:57:13 GMT

A 2? wow that is either incredibly uninformed voting or they had the scale backwards.

I agree that it may be good to limit voting to a reasonable number- I have noticed this on occasion as well. I have voted as many as 350 in a day ( not frequently) and I know my eyes are like this :w00t: . I believe people can be objective during such a voting spell, but I think it diminishes the chances of fair voting.

RE: Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

hahn23 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:59:34 GMT

[color="navy"]I agree 100%. It's not healthy, nor wise, for anyone to vote on 1100+ images in a 24 hour time period. I'm actually surprised that anyone could do that with the speed voting throttle in place. It's not clear to me why anyone would want to engage in such activity which is clearly not deliberate, nor careful, voting on images.

Sure, more votes are better... in an aggregate sense. But, this type of activity is not "voting".... it's obsessive/compulsive behavior. In a day or two, this same person will complain that they've exhausted the current active image voting pool of 5k or 6k images. There are nearly 40k images, if one adds the active to the archived. So, if someone is trying to "run the table", they will run into the buffers in place. And, they will never be able to touch the archived images. So, what's the point of trying to vote on "everything".... fast? It's a short term disruption to receive a vote (high or low!!!) from the exact same person as the first vote you receive on every new image in the contest.

When the DAGC begins to deliberate on issues again, I will propose or support a motion to throttle the number of votes in 24 hours. This will be for the health and welfare of everyone..... especially the rabid voter. Maybe something reasonable, like 300 votes per day..... for users/members with less than 100 days of voter status.

I received a "2" vote today on one of my highest rated images. What's that all about? While I don't think it was from the frenetic voter mentioned above, there are some strange happenings going on. I'm used to taking shots, but I'd like to receive the shots from a wide variety of users and members. :angry:Well, you know what I mean.[/color] (/rant)

Outlandish Voting Numbers!!!

Stormhaven — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:06:24 GMT

I almost never look at the list of top voters, but I was cruising, and I made an astonishing discovery. A new member has voted 1,136 votes (as of this time) in the last 24 hours. She appears to have no photos entered. This can't be good for her or for the site. In my opinion, there should be a limit to how often you can vote in 24 hours, or maybe even a week, especially if you aren't submitting pics. Perhaps this calls for a change of policy or site design. What do you think, my friends?