 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'd like to find a nice way to prevent or reduce voting anomalies in the
new IRTC web site. I don't want people to be able to vote multiple
times in one contest and skew the votes.
So I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to do this.
1) How do we accept new voters?
- automatically with e-mail confirmation?
- only with admin approval?
- other ideas?
2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
- overall
- technical merit
- artistic merit
- concept and interpretation of theme
Each rating is on a scale from 0 to 10.
3) How should the scores be combined
4) Should we allow partial voting?
- by this I mean rating some images but not all
- I have no assurance that they even looked at all of them
- if you rated the first 5 pictures but none of the others,
should any of your ratings be considered?
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberon com> wrote:
> 2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
Definitely. My guess is that at least 90% of the votes will be from
the submitters themselves. Without their vote the amount of votes could
be very low.
Natually no voting for your own submission.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> I'd like to find a nice way to prevent or reduce voting anomalies in the
> new IRTC web site. I don't want people to be able to vote multiple
> times in one contest and skew the votes.
>
> So I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to do this.
>
> 1) How do we accept new voters?
> - automatically with e-mail confirmation?
> - only with admin approval?
> - other ideas?
>
> 2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
>
> I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
> - overall
> - technical merit
> - artistic merit
> - concept and interpretation of theme
>
> Each rating is on a scale from 0 to 10.
>
> 3) How should the scores be combined
>
> 4) Should we allow partial voting?
> - by this I mean rating some images but not all
> - I have no assurance that they even looked at all of them
> - if you rated the first 5 pictures but none of the others,
> should any of your ratings be considered?
>
> Your thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> David Buck
I'm not sure how easy it will be to program the system, but here's my idea for
you.
One, to prevent skew votes, only a panel judge (i.e. someone ruled by the IRTC
staff as a reliable voter) or an entrant can vote for a particular round. To
ensure voting is not skewed, a voter must enter the e-mail adress they
submitted an entrant with, and a password which is associated with an account
they have created. When a voter enters the system, they can vote, change
votes, and add coments in their name. The system will only allow voters with
proper access. The system allows them to vote on all images except their own,
and automatically stores their given score.
Partial voting can be allowed if a particular system is set up. In this system,
the total is calculated by the total score earned by an entrant, divided by the
number of votes the entrant recieved. This would make the scores comparable to
each other.
For example, entrant one had 5 votes, with scores of 35, 29, 32, 40, and 31.
Entrant two only had three votes, with scores of 28, 37, and 34. Their final
score would be 33.4, and 33. This way, despite vote amounts, the scores would
be close enough for a winner.
I personally would like a voter to be forced to vote for all, but that's how I
wuold deal with partial voting.
Also, if you don't mind, I suggest adding a fifth category called "Wow factor",
which is basically like, without thinking about this image at all, what did you
first intrepret it as. I.e. a first interpretation.
I think that answers everything. Hope I helped.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:34:09 -0500, David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
>Your thoughts would be appreciated.
I like the idea of voting without entering because I don't often have the time
to create an entry but am very interested in the contest. I think that votes
should only be counted if all entries are voted on.
As Warp pointed out Entrants will probably make up the majority of voters.
I think that the votes/scores should be hidden until the end of the competition
to stop skewed voting.
The concept of weighted scores for different categories should be discussed and
I have always had a problem with technical merit. How would I as a Pover know
how hard it is to use another programme? Also simple techniques can make great
art.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck wrote:
> I'd like to find a nice way to prevent or reduce voting anomalies in the
> new IRTC web site. I don't want people to be able to vote multiple
> times in one contest and skew the votes.
>
> So I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to do this.
>
> 1) How do we accept new voters?
> - automatically with e-mail confirmation?
> - only with admin approval?
> - other ideas?
If they're contributors to POV-Ray V4, they can vote. Otherwise they
have to have an entry in the round.
Not that programmers are better judges, but I was interested in
rewarding those who help program V4.
> 2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
Sure.
> I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
> - overall
> - technical merit
> - artistic merit
> - concept and interpretation of theme
I'm not sure the overall category is that important.
> Each rating is on a scale from 0 to 10.
That makes more sense than 1 to 20, but artistic merit and concept are
still too subjective to be directly quantifiable. On the other hand,
whether one work is more artistically pleasing, or has a more
interesting/entertaining topic, than another, is a question most people
can answer without difficulty.
We can argue until doomsday about what a six out of ten means, or should
mean, for artistic merit, and still not answer the question in any
meaningful way. On the other hand, while people may not agree on which
of two renderings is more pleasing, each person will have a good idea of
which one he/she prefers.
So we can vote on that basis, by having each voter rank the entries in
each category, and awarding points based on the ranking.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Disclaimer: I've never entered this contest, but I've always thought
"someday."
"Overall" and Nimish's "Wow Factor" sound the same to me. Either one
would act as a way for a voter to compensate if their general impression
is different from the average of what they think for the other
categories. I think the ability to use that category for such
compensation means that the final scoring can/should be a simple sum of
the category scores.
I'd keep voting to entrants and established panelists. A "people's
favorite" for anonymous voters can be an honorable mention, but not 1st,
2nd, 3rd.
I would set it up so that each voter automatically defaults to awarding
5 points for each category for each submission other than their own.
Assigned a voting key, voters can change their votes and comments up
until the deadline, except of course, for their own.
A variation:
There is a baseline of 5 to start with. Like liquid in a vessel, if a
voter ranks-up some entries, the baseline is displaced - it goes down
some fraction of a point. If the voter ranks-down some entries, the
baseline goes up. Un-scored submissions recieve the voter's baseline,
as limited to the range 0 to 10.
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> David Buck wrote:
>> 1) How do we accept new voters?
>> - automatically with e-mail confirmation?
>> - only with admin approval?
>> - other ideas?
>
> If they're contributors to POV-Ray V4, they can vote. Otherwise they
> have to have an entry in the round.
>
> Not that programmers are better judges, but I was interested in
> rewarding those who help program V4.
Hey, nice idea :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a question to the programmer responsible for the new site. Will comments
be automatically added to past rounds by computer, as I always submitted
comments on the old IRTC, and they never appeared.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> schreef in bericht
news:47d2ce11$1@news.povray.org...
> 1) How do we accept new voters?
> - automatically with e-mail confirmation?
> - only with admin approval?
> - other ideas?
Submitters+ judges are accepted voters (except for own submission of
course). A system should be in place to avoid multiple voting (not sure how
to do that)
Non-entrants should also be able to vote, again with security in place to
avoid multiple voting.
I am not sure if e-mail confirmation would be enough...
>
> 2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
yes, except their own submission.
>
> I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
> - overall
> - technical merit
> - artistic merit
> - concept and interpretation of theme
Overall could be the Wow factor mentioned elsewhere. Technical merit is
always a difficult category to rate. How does one define that really?
>
> Each rating is on a scale from 0 to 10.
Yes, much better I believe than from 0 to 20.
>
> 3) How should the scores be combined
>
> 4) Should we allow partial voting?
> - by this I mean rating some images but not all
> - I have no assurance that they even looked at all of them
> - if you rated the first 5 pictures but none of the others,
> should any of your ratings be considered?
No. I would discourage partial voting.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> I'd like to find a nice way to prevent or reduce voting anomalies in the
> new IRTC web site. I don't want people to be able to vote multiple
> times in one contest and skew the votes.
>
> So I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to do this.
>
> 1) How do we accept new voters?
> - automatically with e-mail confirmation?
> - only with admin approval?
> - other ideas?
>
> 2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
>
==============================================================
Opening judging to the general public is generally a bad idea
in that it invites voting fraud. I rather liked the TC-IRTC
idea of allowing voting by both those who have submitted entries
to the current round and those who have entered within a given
period of time (say three rounds back). Using an email
confirmed user name and password system seems the most
logical choice.
==============================================================
> I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
> - overall
> - technical merit
> - artistic merit
> - concept and interpretation of theme
>
> Each rating is on a scale from 0 to 10.
>
==============================================================
a "Wow Factor" could be incorporated by fine tuning the name of
the "overall" category (perhaps to something like "overall
impact") rather than creating a fifth category.
==============================================================
> 3) How should the scores be combined
>
==============================================================
A percentage of total possible points would be pretty clear and
easy to interpret.
==============================================================
> 4) Should we allow partial voting?
> - by this I mean rating some images but not all
> - I have no assurance that they even looked at all of them
> - if you rated the first 5 pictures but none of the others,
> should any of your ratings be considered?
>
==============================================================
Personally, I feel rather strongly that only the votes of those
who have taken the time and effort to rate ALL of the submissions
should be counted.
==============================================================
> Your thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> David Buck
==============================================================
Thank YOU for taking the time to seek participant feedback.
==============================================================
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
