Sorry, I'm going to whine a bit again... try to understand :)

  I noticed that at least one person gave to the stills winner image full
20,20,20 points.
  I really don't understand this. Why?
  Technically the image surely deserves all 20 points. Technically it's just
great.
  Artistically... well, it's a nice picture, but I don't think it's SO nice
and SO artistically talented that it deserves full 20 points. Maybe 18 or
something like that. But ok, 20 points may be well argumented.
  But the originality, interpretation of theme... Come on! There is only
a river and some rocks in the image. Where is the originality? I don't think
this part deserves 20 points at all. Something like 10 sounds much better.

  I'm NOT saying that this is not a good winner image, because it is. I'm
just whining about how some people make their votes. 20 points for originality
is not a unprejudiced vote in my opinion. It's more like "Wow! What a great
image! This is absolutely great! I'll give full points!". Seems like some
people don't distinguish between the different voting categories, but
give lots of points for all categories if they just like the image.

  IMHO, if an image is technically excellent, that doesn't mean that it
automatically is also very artistical and original.
  I'm sure that this doesn't work the other way: If an image has a great
concept and it's extremely original, but it's technically awful, it will not
get many points.
  It seems like the technical part of the voting gives 80% of the total points
and the other categories the rest of the 20%.
  This doesn't sound very fair to me.

  (I'm not going to flame anyone disagreeing with me; this is just my opinion)

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Well, that's democracy!

There is absolutely *no* guarantee that the voters are experiencied
enough to vote correct (if there is anything like this). 

Remember when I asked for advice on voting?

Thanks for Jerry I had a guideline to look for and I agree that 20
points are too much for the artistic part of this picture (although I
hoped that this one was going to be the winner).

In a voting not the extremists are of importance but the overall result,
and that is, to my opinion absolutely OK.


Marc


-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
>   It seems like the technical part of the voting gives 80% of the total points
> and the other categories the rest of the 20%.
>   This doesn't sound very fair to me.

I agree, it is not fair to those who count on 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 to even
out categories during creation of an image. But isn't the overall result
of this weakly categorized voting a dynamic weighting of the categories?
People who think art|tech|crea is the most important and then get
influenced by that in the other categories make this count more. Maybe
most voters focus on tech, then your 80% would be quite fair in a way?

The next problem is that "uneven" voters have more ionfluence on the
result, as there are more extreme values in a total of only 3*tech than
in the average of all 3. A quite similar effect could be reached by
runnning some algorithm over your vote that maximises the range of all 3
categories to from 0 to 20. 

If someone really thinks he needs an algorithmic boost for his
opinion... 

The only thing to saveguard against this a bit would be to do that to
every vote before averaging, or whatever more sophisticated. Maybe there
exists a goodwilling statistics guru out there to do this kind of
overkill?

But, back to topic, you are right, people's perception tends to be open
to most opportunities to get corrupted.. .  .   .    .      .        
.            .

Ulf
   _ _ _ _
 _- - - -
-_ Computerspezialisten sind Leute, die es einmal mehr probieren.
  -_-_-_-_

Post a reply to this message