i was kinda wondering too...some of my photos went from 6 or 7 down to 4 something...and these were old pictures that didn't have the 10's rating. i don't care i just was wondering who would go around and just throw low ratings.

The problem wasn't really people bombing them, it was that somone voted 10 initally, then other people who think that your photo doesn't deserve a 10, overcompensate. So when the rating gets recalculated there are all the people that voted 2's to try and get it off the first page of results that add up and the photo gets bombed.

I am trying to think of a way to avoid this, but it seems hopless.

The lag was implemented to discourage hate bombing, but as I predicted it would, it apparently has backfired, giving time for more users to try to "correct" a rating that they think is too high.

I agree that this feature accomplishes nothing and tends to backfire, but I think we're probably kidding ourselves to think that there is a perfect system.

Jay, you recently stated that you voted a 9 on a photo simply because you didn't understand the comments that had been made regarding the photo.

well, i just know they aren't 3's either

Well, it's not the first time I've been dense enough to miss the joke. Sorry about that.

Get rid of the lag time, and update the mean rating immediately. The lag was implemented to discourage hate bombing, but as I predicted it would, it apparently has backfired, giving time for more users to try to "correct" a rating that they think is too high. When the updated rating is finally posted, it is even lower than it would have been had there been no lag time.

-Jay

There alredy is a weighted outliers algorithm , but it is weighted either 0 or 1 .. there is no semi-weighting .. maybe I could look into that and see if it helps, but right now I don't see the need. The system works alot better than it did before, and seems to work good enough.

As for the delayed recalculation, It does serve a purpose, and it works well. Here is what used to happen
A good photo would recieve a 10
Some jackass would see the 10 and say .. ha I'll bomb that one, give it a 1, and the photo was gone into the middle pages forever.

Now, the jackass can give it a 1, but it will not take effect untill the next day, so everyone else can give it their honest opinion. And the photo stands a chance at staying.

I monitored votes before and after the delay was implemented, and noticed a significant decrease in the number of bombing votes, for me that is proof enough that it works.

Now, the jackass can give it a 1, but it will not take effect untill the next day, so everyone else can give it their honest opinion. And the photo stands a chance at staying.

My question is that if one jacka** can give it a photo a 1 just to downgrade it. then can't several other people who see it as a 10 for the day, not realizing it has already been downgraded

Yes, That is possible, and it does happen. The Idea behind voting is that people should vote what they feel the photo deserves. But often people vote to try and get the photo to the ranking they feel it deserves, or vote low because they don't like the user who submitted the photograph, or vote high becuase the submitter is their friend.

When I vote I try to not let the previous rank effect my opinion. Sometimes when I feel that a photo is between 2 values (eg. 7.5) I will vote an 8 if I know the photo is ranked low, or a 7 if I know it is voted high. Usually I use the Random Photo page and have no clue what the photo rank is before I vote.

I would be less convinced based on a single day's sample, but what you are saying makes sense.

Also, if one jackass can pull the rating down from a 10 to a 5.5, then there might be room for improving the way outliers are handled. If the current mean rating is 10, then perhaps 0 should be considered an outlier, even though there is only one vote comprising the mean. Just a thought. You might need separate small-sample and large-sample downweighing algorithms.

Aggggggggggh. It's "rating," not "ranking."

How 'bout allowing users to vote, but not showing the rating for the first 36-48 hours so that people won't be so easily influenced by their peers' votes?

The problem wasn't really people bombing them, it was that somone voted 10 initally, then other people who think that your photo doesn't deserve a 10, overcompensate.

I am trying to think of a way to avoid this, but it seems hopless.

They can't, as votes by the submitter are ignored.

Really it comes down to this .. when there are 2 votes on opposite sides of the spectrum .. how do you decide which is honest?

The whole site is political.
Move away from a statistical approach. It is art. Photography is an art form.

Appoint a board of editors. Have them decide. Alow people trained in the field with more expertise to make decisions based on a consensus view of a panel of 5 to 12 (or some such number).

For the two-vote problem I would say, either:
1. Give greater weight to the higher vote, or
2. Give greater weight to the earlier vote.
(1) seems more appropriate if you think that the higher vote is usually the more honest one, regardless of whether it is the first or second vote, whereas (2) seems more appropriate if you think that the later vote is likely to be an over-reaction to the earlier vote.

In general, I believe that no vote should be given a weight of 0. I see the votes in terms of a model in which all votes have a probability of being honest, no matter how disparate they are. However, the more a vote differs from the mean, the more likely it is to be dishonest. In theory, then, an outlying vote's weight should equal its probability of being honest. Assigning weights is, thus, a two step process. First, outliers need to be identified; and second, an appropriate weight needs to be assigned.

This won't solve the 2-vote problem, but once you have enough votes, you can use the number of standard deviations (SD) a vote is from the mean to determine whether the vote is an outlier. I suggest using the SD because it is a true measure of how outlying a vote is. Simple distance from the mean is not, which I can I demonstrate with a counterexample by PM if you are interested. For simplicity, I would suggest using two cutpoints, beyond which reduced weights would be assigned. You could, for instance, assign a weight of 0.5 to votes that are more than ± 1.65 SD from the mean, and a weight of 0.25 to votes that are more than ± 2 SD from the mean. You could pick the weights and the cutpoints arbitrarily, but it sounds like you have a good enough feel for the data to make educated estimates.

And art is a subjective media.


Why have someone else tell me what I like? My subjective opinion is as valid as anyone else's, I submit.

Appoint a board of editors. Have them decide. Alow people trained in the field with more expertise to make decisions based on a consensus view of a panel of 5 to 12 (or some such number).

Lets try to keep to the topic about preventing photos from being bombed .. thanks.

Wott a kludge! I'd been hoping you'd propose a more elegant solution, Tukey's biweight or a Huber function, mebbe just a trimmed mean, or even -- KISS principle -- a median. There are standards, criteria, a whole literature about such things after all. Not that Rockclimbing.com needs them, but what the hell, it's Friday. 8)

As an example, please explain how/why this photo appeared as a 6.
A professional photographer friend of mine really liked it, and he tends
to be very critical of my "work":

When the issue first came up, I suggested just using the median, but someone (I thought, you, actually) shot down the idea. At that time, I looked at several trimmed means, but none of them seemed well-suited for our purposes although I don't recall now exactly why I thought that, but off the top of my head, they give 0 weight to some of the data, and they wouldn't work well for small samples. I like the idea of using the z-score as a measure of how unusual a vote is, because, well, that's what it is.

But surely you see the paradox of using z scores for outlier detection....

All of my photos were bombed last night. They were all previously rated 6 to 7.5. In no case were they given an initial 9 or 10 so that they would appear on the front page. I find some of the images interesting and I think other people might too. They are obviously not professional quality but I don't think the photos are bad enough to deserve a 1 vote. Why do people do this? I'm mostly a lurker on this site and I haven't intentionally (and probably not even unintentionally) offended anyone. I'm not striving to get my pictures on the front page (not that I would mind if that happened) but it would be nice to get some honest opinions and constructive criticism. So what's the deal?

and yes i know you can uncheck the vote box...jsut figured people would be more mature then that. guess not. :roll:

give them notices of internet ethics.

Dont feel bad, I didnt do it. Im just pointing out the obvious solution to avoid getting blown out of the water.



....never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people...........

thanks for "rate bombing" some of my photos. yall know who you are. reeeal cool. :roll:

All this happens because the user name does not appear every time he/she votes.
I have experienced the same and really sucks.....

i didnt say all of my photos were great i just said that some were rated alot lower than they should.

I've gotten pretty excited about this subject in the past, being the sensitive arteest that I am.

But then I got all zen-like (or whatever.) I almost never allow voting on my pics now, if I even submit them. And when I DO submit pics, I tend to keep it to snapshots for my friends. I reserve my good stuff for my personal web site, which anybody can see- and no they cannot vote.

Not sure, but I think the original code used to have all Highs @ 9.00, Meds @ 8.00, and Lows @ 6.00 when they first are approved.

Should we kick such users off the site, or solve the problem algorithmically?