Caedes
Upload Images
Welcome guest
Log In or Register
User Stats
- 0 total users online
- 44 users active today
- 259185 total members
- +show users online
Feature Bloat / Bug Squash
Discussion Board -> Feature Bloat / Bug Squash -> Contest voting etc
Contest voting etc
=Samatar
10/29/10 1:41 AM GMT
I know there is specific info on how voters for the contests are chosen but I can't find it now... maybe add it to the FAQ? And any other details about the contests (eg how many entries, how to enter etc). Alternatively this info could go in the header on the "contests" page.
0∈
[?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Comments
Post a Comment - Subscribe to this discussion
re: voting eligibility. A kind and clever person found it for me :)
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Board::Topic&id=3073391
Good idea to have all the info in one place.
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Board::Topic&id=3073391
Good idea to have all the info in one place.
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Not sure if I should post this here or start another thread.?
"The voters for each contest are chosen among the people who have entered one of the last 4 contests and received at least 5 votes total in those contests."
I was hoping to be eligible to vote in the contest just closed, having entered 3 of the last 4 contests, but I am again "not on the authorized voter's list"
Not to have gained 5 votes total in those is slightly depressing, especially as my entry in the last contest gained second place.
My maths is not always the best - but there were 5 placegetters, and my second did not get 5 votes, so assuming it received 4 - the 3rd, 4th and 5th placegetters must have received 3,2, and 1 respectively, and the remainder of the entries (62 of them) no votes at all.
I can understand the first placegetter having a lot of votes but am puzzled that the unplaced entries apparently received no votes. Surely this can not be correct?
Perhaps it is a very small voting pool?
I always took it for granted in the past that I would be asked to vote because I had not realized there were requirements, I just assumed if you entered you could vote.
Something seems not quite right ?
:)LE
"The voters for each contest are chosen among the people who have entered one of the last 4 contests and received at least 5 votes total in those contests."
I was hoping to be eligible to vote in the contest just closed, having entered 3 of the last 4 contests, but I am again "not on the authorized voter's list"
Not to have gained 5 votes total in those is slightly depressing, especially as my entry in the last contest gained second place.
My maths is not always the best - but there were 5 placegetters, and my second did not get 5 votes, so assuming it received 4 - the 3rd, 4th and 5th placegetters must have received 3,2, and 1 respectively, and the remainder of the entries (62 of them) no votes at all.
I can understand the first placegetter having a lot of votes but am puzzled that the unplaced entries apparently received no votes. Surely this can not be correct?
Perhaps it is a very small voting pool?
I always took it for granted in the past that I would be asked to vote because I had not realized there were requirements, I just assumed if you entered you could vote.
Something seems not quite right ?
:)LE
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
It may also be that there are lots of people who are eligible and you just haven't been lucky enough to be randomly selected... I don't know how many are actually chosen.
0∈
[?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
I don't think it's a good idea to have the link for voting available to everyone. It looks like an invitation.
0∈
[?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night.
-- Kai Lung
:) I guess I did not pay enough attention to the words 'chosen among' :) :)
Did it used to be different? In the past I seemed to be invited to vote on each contest I entered.
Did it used to be different? In the past I seemed to be invited to vote on each contest I entered.
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Lyn, I too used to be invited to vote in the contests. I have had pictures win a couple of placements in this year's contests, but I have not been asked back to vote for (about) the last five contests and not for the one being voted on currently.
0∈
[?]
I made the qualifications for voting on the contests a bit easier to meet. If you get a specific invitation to vote in the contest, then you are "on the list". Otherwise, you won't be able to vote.
0∈
[?]
-caedes
I am still puzzled, because I always used to get an invitation - now I don't, so it seems from my personal point of view it has actually become much more difficult to meet the requirements to be 'on the list' :)
Is the choice of voters made randomly from those who meet the requirements?
I would be interested also to know the size of the voting pool - and if any other considerations are used to chose those who may vote - :)
Is the choice of voters made randomly from those who meet the requirements?
I would be interested also to know the size of the voting pool - and if any other considerations are used to chose those who may vote - :)
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
The new method of selecting voters would have been introduced at the same time as the automated contest system, I imagine. I'm not sure how voters were selected prior to that.
0∈
[?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
When I say I was always invited I am referring to the end of last year before I took a break.
Sam - it still does not explain how the voters are selected - they are "chosen from" the qualifying participants i.e 'entered one of the last 4 contests and received at least 5 votes total in those contests' - but how, and how many, and why not all qualifying members ?
Sam - it still does not explain how the voters are selected - they are "chosen from" the qualifying participants i.e 'entered one of the last 4 contests and received at least 5 votes total in those contests' - but how, and how many, and why not all qualifying members ?
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Actually LynEve, there was a problem. We selected contest judges by the number of votes that there images received in the past contests. Therefore there was a chance that the total judge pool would gradually decrease (fewer judges beget fewer voting "points" beget few judges next time). By requiring fewer voting points to become a judge I have made this decreasing trend much less likely. We will see how it goes for the next few contests.
0∈
[?]
-caedes
TY:)
My initial concern was that after entering 3 of the last 4 contests my images must have collected a total of less than 5 votes. Thats is ok, I have no problem with that - but 4 votes or less for a second place seems low and that I why I thought there must be a very small voting pool, even allowing for the fact that the first place-getter may well have been a run-away choice.
A possible 10 votes being given to place-getters is a small number and it seems incredible that the remaining 62 entries can have received no votes at all - but that is only based on the premise that those who meet the criteria are automatically selected as judges, hence my wondering if not all are invited to be on the voting list - but a selection made from those eligible.
My initial concern was that after entering 3 of the last 4 contests my images must have collected a total of less than 5 votes. Thats is ok, I have no problem with that - but 4 votes or less for a second place seems low and that I why I thought there must be a very small voting pool, even allowing for the fact that the first place-getter may well have been a run-away choice.
A possible 10 votes being given to place-getters is a small number and it seems incredible that the remaining 62 entries can have received no votes at all - but that is only based on the premise that those who meet the criteria are automatically selected as judges, hence my wondering if not all are invited to be on the voting list - but a selection made from those eligible.
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
why is it that you have to have had an image in a contest to be a judge? just because members haven't entered a contest shouldn't mean that they left out of judging.. many members are quite capable of judging who don't enter contests.. anyway in my opinion it shouldn't be entrants voting on the images it should be members who are not in the contests.
0∈
[?]
MY GALLERY
........... "You are not alive unless you know you are living." Amadeo Modigliani
Well, I believe one of the considerations when choosing voters for the contests, are those voters most likely to participate and return a vote ... as expeditiously as possible.
And in turn, provide timely results.
So as to not frustrate the participating members by publishing results three, four weeks after the fact.
And since 'you' (speaking generally here) are not prohibited from entering contests, could garner enough votes to meet the one criterion ... there is no bias at work here.
The impetus to participate lies entirely with the member. There are no barriers to entry.
And I can think of a past contest, wherein, it was no a bad idea to have only the participants as judges.
Perfect example?
The "fractals" contest.
And in turn, provide timely results.
So as to not frustrate the participating members by publishing results three, four weeks after the fact.
And since 'you' (speaking generally here) are not prohibited from entering contests, could garner enough votes to meet the one criterion ... there is no bias at work here.
The impetus to participate lies entirely with the member. There are no barriers to entry.
And I can think of a past contest, wherein, it was no a bad idea to have only the participants as judges.
Perfect example?
The "fractals" contest.
0∈
[?]
If all members could vote, then we would have contest participants soliciting for votes, as happens in many art contests elsewhere.
0∈
[?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night.
-- Kai Lung
I wasn't referring to ALL members.. there are many members who are very active on the site but don't enter the contests.. I for one don't have as much time for creating for a contest as I used to but would like to have the opportunity to participate by voting.. but.. anyway thats the way things are so be it.. I'll just look and comment when I can..
Good luck to everyone in the contest.
Oh and btw.. doesn't matter whether it is contest participants or other members either way soliciting for votes can and will still happen regardless
Good luck to everyone in the contest.
Oh and btw.. doesn't matter whether it is contest participants or other members either way soliciting for votes can and will still happen regardless
0∈
[?]
MY GALLERY
........... "You are not alive unless you know you are living." Amadeo Modigliani
But it is harder to solicit for votes if you don't know who the voters are. Rather than being able to ask all your "friends" to come and vote for you.
0∈
[?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night.
-- Kai Lung
I agree that if friends are going to vote for friends it will be done whether they are participants or not - the entries are not annonymous. I must be fortunate to have an honourable group of 'friends' because never once during my membership here has there been any suggestion made that I favour them in any of the voting areas. If it did happen I would have no hesitation in reporting the offender. Most of us do not like cheats.
I have no opinion on who and who should not be permitted to judge any contest but I can not see how opening it up to non-participators would extend the time taken for voting to be completed to three or four weeks. Given the same time scale as is used now those who did not vote 'expeditiously' would miss out on voting, just as those chosen by the current method would. .
I have no opinion on who and who should not be permitted to judge any contest but I can not see how opening it up to non-participators would extend the time taken for voting to be completed to three or four weeks. Given the same time scale as is used now those who did not vote 'expeditiously' would miss out on voting, just as those chosen by the current method would. .
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Think more along the lines of predictability/probability, Lyn.
If person A is sporadically on/off the site, as compared to person B ... who, additionally, has an entry in the contest ... who do you think is more likely to be a 'reliable' voter?
/\ Simply put and to illustrate the point.
If person A is sporadically on/off the site, as compared to person B ... who, additionally, has an entry in the contest ... who do you think is more likely to be a 'reliable' voter?
/\ Simply put and to illustrate the point.
0∈
[?]
"If person A is sporadically on/off the site, as compared to person B ... who, additionally, has an entry in the contest ... who do you think is more likely to be a 'reliable' voter?"
Obviously person B ! I understand that :)
but....
- I was thinking more along the lines of if there was no discrimination (and I do NOT mean discrimination in a negative way, I just cannot think of another word) between participants and non participants in that case those who are most likely to take the time to consider and vote would do so in the allocated time anyway.
I am here every day, I have participated, but I am not a voter in the contests. I guess I am a non voting person 'B' with the reliability factor up to others to decide.
As I said I have NO opinion about whether the voters should be participants, non- participants or a combination of both. My only opinion is that the more (reliable) voters taking part the more balanced results. In the past when I have been entitled to a vote I have sometimes abstained because I did not feel qualified to judge, given the subject/genre.
If I was a person A I would not expect the voting time to be extended to accomodate my infrequent visiting of the site and I dont think any other A persons would either. When time is up - its up and thats that.
This is something I had not considered before - until now
If I were a really suspicious person I would say it could be argued that the voting has the capacity to be skewed when only participants are eligible - but I am not, so I won't :)
or perhaps I will . . . . .
Think about it - you have an entry you think is a masterpiece. You see one other masterpiece that is better than yours - so vote for a lesser deserving work.
Obviously person B ! I understand that :)
but....
- I was thinking more along the lines of if there was no discrimination (and I do NOT mean discrimination in a negative way, I just cannot think of another word) between participants and non participants in that case those who are most likely to take the time to consider and vote would do so in the allocated time anyway.
I am here every day, I have participated, but I am not a voter in the contests. I guess I am a non voting person 'B' with the reliability factor up to others to decide.
As I said I have NO opinion about whether the voters should be participants, non- participants or a combination of both. My only opinion is that the more (reliable) voters taking part the more balanced results. In the past when I have been entitled to a vote I have sometimes abstained because I did not feel qualified to judge, given the subject/genre.
If I was a person A I would not expect the voting time to be extended to accomodate my infrequent visiting of the site and I dont think any other A persons would either. When time is up - its up and thats that.
This is something I had not considered before - until now
If I were a really suspicious person I would say it could be argued that the voting has the capacity to be skewed when only participants are eligible - but I am not, so I won't :)
or perhaps I will . . . . .
Think about it - you have an entry you think is a masterpiece. You see one other masterpiece that is better than yours - so vote for a lesser deserving work.
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
"In the past when I have been entitled to a vote I have sometimes abstained because I did not feel qualified to judge, given the subject/genre."
On the surface, this might appear to be a reliability issue then. Where your vote is concerned.
If 'you' receive an invitation and don't exercise it ... for whatever reasons ... seems to me that being culled from the potential list or being prioritized lower (in the instances where a second round is needed to provide a statistically accurate number of polled votes) ... makes sense.
As the 'system' is unaware of the motives/reasons behind a 'non-vote'.
On the surface, this might appear to be a reliability issue then. Where your vote is concerned.
If 'you' receive an invitation and don't exercise it ... for whatever reasons ... seems to me that being culled from the potential list or being prioritized lower (in the instances where a second round is needed to provide a statistically accurate number of polled votes) ... makes sense.
As the 'system' is unaware of the motives/reasons behind a 'non-vote'.
0∈
[?]
On the surface it might - but I am confident of my reliability in all areas of voting and I DO take the time to exercise it in the voting booth as well, which may I suggest gives a bit of 'practice' in evaluating an image.
I am able to abstain from voting in the AC - and am even given that option so I do not see abstension as a sign of unreliability. "Sometimes' not exercising a vote does not mean it is done because I can't be bothered, it has been a considered decision, taken with the same care as I use in all voting.
It seems that this one aspect of what I said above has been singled out to label me as unreliable - according to the 'system'
So be it.
Over and out. I have AC & VB voting to attend to - a better way to occupy my time than discussing this.
I am able to abstain from voting in the AC - and am even given that option so I do not see abstension as a sign of unreliability. "Sometimes' not exercising a vote does not mean it is done because I can't be bothered, it has been a considered decision, taken with the same care as I use in all voting.
It seems that this one aspect of what I said above has been singled out to label me as unreliable - according to the 'system'
So be it.
Over and out. I have AC & VB voting to attend to - a better way to occupy my time than discussing this.
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Well in my opinion... I vote on the council, I participate in most "stuff" on here but dont have time on my hands to go out take pics or do fractals at the moment or even enter contests... I just feel that for those like me and LE are as she says being "Discriminated" against because we don't enter contests.. When I have been invited to judge I always voted.. just seems a bit odd getting people who are in the contest to judge that contest...
Oh well I'm over it... said my piece.. i'll do what I always do everyday on here... and get on with life.... good luck all who are in the contest and judging... over and out.. ')
Oh well I'm over it... said my piece.. i'll do what I always do everyday on here... and get on with life.... good luck all who are in the contest and judging... over and out.. ')
0∈
[?]
MY GALLERY
........... "You are not alive unless you know you are living." Amadeo Modigliani
I could be mistaken but I don't believe you are allowed to vote in a contest you have entered. The requirement was that you must have entered at least one of the last four contests.
Personally I think it's not a bad idea and may provide some further encouragement for people to enter a contest every now and then (once every four months isn't so many...)
Personally I think it's not a bad idea and may provide some further encouragement for people to enter a contest every now and then (once every four months isn't so many...)
0∈
[?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Sam, the requirement was that you must have entered one of the last 4 contests and collected a total of 5 votes. That was what initiated my first (I thought) simple enquiry. I am not 'miffed' because I am not eligible to vote - I was just surprized that the number of votes cast must have been low if a second place apparently only gained 4. But that was BEFORE taking into account that the judges are *chosen from* those who qualify and not simply because they meet the requirements. Obviously there are other factors involved - maybe failure to cast a vote when invited that Les pointed out is one of them. Being rejected because of this makes no sense to me - surely it is better to miss a vote than to vote on something you are not confident of making a good choice on, and decide to abstain.
Perhaps if it could be clarified whether those entered in the current contests are able to vote then some misunderstandings would be cleared up.
Better add that I do not feel discriminated against because I do not enter contests - in actual fact I do enter contests. I was just interested in the mechanics of the whole voting issue, because in my unreliable way I had assumed (not a wise thing) I would get to vote on the last contest. I did't and I don't mind, time saved. In an hour's time the results will be in and I will still enjoy seeing who was placed, just as I have enjoyed participating and seeing the other entries.
:) LE
Perhaps if it could be clarified whether those entered in the current contests are able to vote then some misunderstandings would be cleared up.
Better add that I do not feel discriminated against because I do not enter contests - in actual fact I do enter contests. I was just interested in the mechanics of the whole voting issue, because in my unreliable way I had assumed (not a wise thing) I would get to vote on the last contest. I did't and I don't mind, time saved. In an hour's time the results will be in and I will still enjoy seeing who was placed, just as I have enjoyed participating and seeing the other entries.
:) LE
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
"As always, original photos/images that have not been previously uploaded to caedes.net.
Official Entries should be submitted/selected via the drop-down menu provided on the Contest page.
Only those images uploaded since the start of the contest are eligible."
Official Entries should be submitted/selected via the drop-down menu provided on the Contest page.
Only those images uploaded since the start of the contest are eligible."
0∈
[?]
It's not that I feel discrimated against.. I really couldn't give a rats.. It seemed unfair for regular active members not been able to be given the opportunity to vote because they don't enter contests..
No worries.. time to move on
No worries.. time to move on
0∈
[?]
MY GALLERY
........... "You are not alive unless you know you are living." Amadeo Modigliani
I thoroughly see both Jackie and Lyn's points of view and they make perfect sense. I do feel discriminated against since you have changed the contest system, I have not been allowed to vote in ONE single contest! Just because I don't usually enter, shouldn't preclude the fact that I am capable of having an informed and justifiable opinion on the merits of the posts that are submitted to this site based on the fact alone that I have been a regular participating member for over 4 and 1/2 years, have multiple..... (Hey, what happened to the rest of my comment?) It said that it isn't fair that some who only enter contests and don't vote in the VB or on the AC and/or don't even comment, should have more qualifications for voting in a contest than those who do participate regularly in the other functions of the site.
4∈
[?]
Life is precious; therefore, do not waste it by doing things mechanically without love. We should try to put love into everything we do. - Amma