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."