| Author |
Message |
SJS
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 13:18
Reply
I think it is great, and constructive that this matter, on Jonny's forum of December, has burst into life again.
Boxclever, you live up to your name, lol!
To be serious, your idea is well thought out and rather good. WATCH - I like it. But on the other hand, I feel there is a 'natural', in-built downside. Your idea calls for a large increase in the amount of time and study to go into the consideration of each photo we choose to look at. In other words, start really thinking about what we see, what it evokes in us - and at the end, go to the calculator.
I can't see how it would be possible (a) to get the scheme across to the whole woophy universe and (b) then get all the members to obey it and implement the scheme. Surely, a vast number of members don't, or can't, invest the kind of time this would require when they look and comment? This means that the comments input would be bound to decline dramatically. Folks would then get upset & frustrated.
On the whole, there's nothing to prevent any of us actually giving it a try, although the receiving member will only know they are getting a "WATCH" rating if we refer to Boxclever's forum suggestion.
Maybe that it a further refining of your suggestion: Finish each comment with, for example,
" WATCH 4".
Interested to see what others think.
|
pansa
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 14:59
Reply
@Boxie
Woophy just changed the rating system, so that's not the problem. Johnny's complaint was about low rating without a comment.
|
Geoffrey McElwaine
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 17:23
Reply
pansa. You are, of course, absolutely right, but during course of this Forum another question has emerged - how does the Woophy 2 rating system actually work ? I've already mentioned my own concern about this ( see comment dated 13 March ) : sometimes, if I'm the first member to comment on / rate a picture ( and I always do both !!! ), I may award, say, 5 stars. The system records that I've done so. Yet when I return to the thumbnails, my " vote " has been recorded as 4 stars. It is this apparent discrepancy between the rating members award to a picture, and what the system gives, that is of primary concern to me.
Re. Boxie's suggestion : lacking Stewart's sophistication of thought, my ( simple ) mind finds it too complex. For example, how is it possible to objectively assess a picture's " Wow " factor : I may think a picture is fantastic which another member finds uninteresting.
No, I suspect that were an explanation of how the new ( and much improved ) rating system works to be provided, most of this discussion would fade away.
Regards
Geoff. ( Geoffrey McElwaine )
|
A.Miguel Oliveira
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 18:24
Reply
Hi, everyone!
Trudy, I'm not sure if you realize the way it goes about the rating, but I'm afraid you don't, as well as I'm afraid that a great number of members don't, too(mainly those with more difficulties with english and those who never came to any Forum's topic)! And that's the reason why I always wonder what a member can think about, when I comment and rate 5, as a first comment, to a particular pic, and it appears 4 in its rating! Indeed, this doesn't mean I lied. Of course I don't know the algorithm Joris is using to the new system rating (I must confess that nowadays I agree it's better than before to keep anonymous downraters with less importance, so: congrats Joris for this!), but I think he'll not mind if I try to mathematically guess how it works.
Firstly, facts: I realized that you need the first 6 votes on a certain pic to be "5" , to get a overall "5" at our rating in that particular pic, and till there you get a 4 at the maximum! That because our pics, on account of the secret algorithm, start with something different from zero, but with one vote counting.
If the first member rates you 4 or even 3, you will see 3 at the beggining!
(oh, Trudy, that's right, also, that sometimes people don't want to vote, even doing either good or bad comments on a pic, and that's their right to behave so _ I myself don't do it _ but sometimes some members say 5 and we realize the vote wasn't rated; here, I feel that one possibility is to be considered: just forgot to click on the stars after the comments _ I already realized I had done that 3 times since the 8th February, only because I had forgotten!! And corrected after!)
Suppositions: as I said, after that fact, I can now try and guess the secret. My idea is that your rating will turn 5 whenever you get approximately 4.7 in the traditional average system, as before in woophy1. On the other hand, I guess we all start with a 3 from the member "algorythm"  . Making counts: from the beggining, you count 5 members who you believe rated your pic with 5, all of them. So, 3+5+5+5+5+5=28 and 28:6=4.66 , not yet 4.7 and so still a 4 on your rating. Now, the next member goes on giving you a 5. So: 3+5+5+5+5+5+5=33, and 33:7=4.71, and then you get 5 on your rating! But there is, then, much more combinations and possibilities of different ratings ,just from the beggining on a particular pic, so, as you won't see the real vote from members, your control on how they did vote is impossible (only possible in the particular case I mentioned, when the first 6 members say 5 and, if so, you must then get a 5 overall). But this impossibility, now, I realize it's better than if we could know it, as the same goes with anonymous downraters who don't worry so much to do their job, as they also don't know the overall accounting of each pic, and besides a 4.7 rating is just the same of a pure 5 : both get 5! Maybe this last fact could be the only one we could call "unfair", but I believe the advantages are greater than the desadvantages, and that's why I agree and congratulate Joris and Marcel for this particularity of the new system, which, before, I thought it would be wrong!
Geoff: I also hope I could clarify some of your doubts!
Boxclever: now, which way we use to rate, that's much more complex to get harmonious among all of us! I'd say impossible. It would be enough so many thousands of members never enter and read Forum's topics, to say we never could go the same criterium. I understand your feelings, but it's realistic to think things can be changed this particular question. Anyway, we belong to an amateur community and that's not a serious problem to rate as amateurs towards amateurs! My only concern, at this point, I'd say, it's the unfriendly anonymous rating (as I said, now much less significant) or the cheating rating (as Trudy said, when someone says "x" and really votes "y")! As an ideal, I agree with you: better to get criterium closer to each others.
Best regards from Porto,
Miguel
|
TBM
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 18:59
Reply
Y'know, this matter of ratings seems to be made on purpose to put togheter 2 of Miguel's great loves - photography and numbers!  (the third, If I know him well, is football  )
|
|
A.Miguel Oliveira
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 19:20
Reply
Hey, Mario, don't be a bad boy . I just came across by chance to this topic and thought I could help Trudy and Geoff to get their doubts clear ( as far as I guess I'm right with those maths). Did my numbers confused you, or do you agree? By the way, you're almost right, but incomplete: I love football (did you realize FCPorto has only got 1 single goal against, at home matches, this season ?  ) but not 3rd place, just remember the topic you opened: actors,... !
|
trudy tuinstra
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 19:32
Reply
Thank you for explaining Miguel, I think I understand that it is teh system and not the person. And it seems fair, because it works both ways. I still think it is not the most important thing in Woophy, i like the comments more, the ones who tell you they like your picture and the ones with good advice. I think Miguel must have a great hart with all those loves. bye, Trudy.
|
|
TBM
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 20:20
Reply
I quite agree with Miguel, and I would simply add that with Woophy 2.0 reading and posting comments has become a little more complicated, exp. if you work in the "read all comments" page: because you have to go to the bottom of the page to post the comment and then, if you want to give a rating, you have to go back to the top... maybe that's the reason why many forget to give the rating they have promised in their comments...
|
Leon van IJzendoorn
Moderator
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 22:14
Reply
I just made a whole piece on why we should ignore downraters and learn from honest comments, but I forgot to register so its all gone.
But the ones with problems are dowraters and they should seek help, and we should take the comments we do get to learn from it and try to even better on our pics. What's the problem if you're not rated a 5 if the comments are good you know what to do, or feel the warmth of succes. This is a site for amateurs around the world, let's keep it this way and ignore the pessimist's and go one with what we like to do the most.
|
TGB
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Mar 08 22:27
Reply
All this speculation on the new rating system is quite facinating. It shows that members are not only passionate about their photography, but also about the way their talents are appreciated by fellow enthusiasts.
Perhaps Joris could put us all out of our misery and give a clear and concise explanation how the rating system works.
Regards
TGB
|
|
Geoffrey McElwaine
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Mar 08 01:04
Reply
Miguel : Great photographer, mathematician, football supporter - a true 21st. Century Renaissance Man ! Thanks for taking time to explain the Woophy 2 rating system. As calculations involving more than simple arithmetic are beyond my innumerate mind, most of it was out of my depth . You did, however, satisfy me that -
i. There IS a system ; and that
ii. It is logical and fair.
My troubled mind is now at rest. Thank you.
Regards
Geoff. ( Geoffrey McElwaine )
|
Nathan Servi
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Mar 08 01:42
Reply
Hello Everybody!
THank you MIguel for writing down the simple Algorithm that i was studying and getting ready to explain to the whole community, You've saved me another really long and boring post. <<< don't even think for a moment that I'm going to give away the award for longest post ever... thats mine.... and you can't take it from me !!!!
Anyway, one thing that you forgot to mention, and that is really very relevant....
- Putting aside the fact that it is still not possible to do a search according to date - (the most views or best rating from a date to another) - but it is now possible to search on single days' best rated photos, we should all notice that this new system has dramatically solved a huge problem of woophy 1.
Remember the numerous complains about the many pages of photos rated with AVERAGE 5 in the old system? When one had to browse trough many hundred pictures with only 1 vote (a single 5) that would determine its average. Well now this does not occur, and it cannot happen. So as a result, self rating becomes almost completely useless, and a 5 stars picture is indeed a picture that is honestly rated 5 by a certain number of people.
This results in a dramatic drop in the number of 5 stars pictures, and a consequent better system for acknoledging photos on the site.
Thank you Joris and the other members of staff for this, I'd still like to have a date to date search option in order to be able to not miss all the amazing photos that are uploaded each day.
By the way, can anybody suggest a good way of browsing the photos on the site?
Hugs to all,
Nathan
|
|
A.Miguel Oliveira
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Mar 08 02:57
Reply
@Trudy: you're welcome
@Mario (TBM): you're quite right about that chance of someone forget rating after a comment.
@Geoffrey: thnak you so much for your friendly nice words!
@Nathan: I'm glad I've saved you another 5star extended text 
Seriously now: You wrote "Anyway, one thing that you forgot to mention, and that is really very relevant". Sorry to disagree, I didn't forget anything, that just wasn't the point! I only participated as a try to clarify Trudy's and Geoff's doubts about how the rating system is working (and I'm not 100% sure I'm right, the algorithm is a secret indeed, as Joris said. Another great woophy member _ I only won't mention his name as I wasn't "asked" to do so_ I know he also thinks the rating starts with that "fictional" 3, but we can be all wrong, at least partialy wrong). But I agree with what you mention.
By the way, you have just surprised me with something I hadn't realized yet, and still don't know how: "it is now possible to search on single days' best rated photos"!!!
Please explain me that!
About your question on browsing the site, no new ideas, sorry! I also hope to hear from someone else's good opinions!
Hugs to all,
Miguel
|
|
Nathan Servi
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Mar 08 10:38
Reply
Ehm...
Fine, you win... It was 1 a.m, I was drunk and tired, I just wanted to write something so that I could fall asleep peacefully!!!!!!!!!
YOu're right, you DID NOT forget anything and mine was just an adding, and IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SEARCH ACCORDING TO RATING OR VIEWS ON A SINGLE CALENDAR'S DAY -
I just imagined it.
Dear Miguel, remember the back pain? It was me doing wodoo's on you !!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, now that I've realised that I can't even search on a single day's best photos, I really would like some suggestions on how to browse pictures.
FRIENDS, HOW DO YOU DO IT????? HOW DO YOU SEE WOOPHY'S BEST IMAGES???
I think i'm gonna open a forum on this...
Hugs to all,
overworked Nathan
|
joris
Moderator
|
# Posted: 17 Mar 08 12:11
Reply
Nathan,
The search function will be improved soon.
The reason we temporary changed it like it is now is because the heavy strain on the database by the old search system in 1.0
Give us a little time to come up with improvements
Joris
|
Boxclever
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Mar 08 12:35
Reply
Great to see some more debate on this. Thanks Geoff for responding first and some general support.
Jonny raised this topic from getting malicious '1' ratings. I agree that can be really annoying. I think that the new star system is a bit better (with its secret alogorythm) - its explained well enough in the q&a section of Woophy.
However if its worth having a star system, then in my view there ought to be some consistent understanding of what 1 star and 5 star means. In Woophy1.0 '1' was average (if I remember correctly) and '5' was excellent. Does that still translate?
Personally I only ever vote 3 star or over because, a) I haven't got time to consider (click and comment) on what are obviously (from a very quick WATCH assessment) average or average+ and b) people see a 1 or 2 star vote as ' downrating'. I suspect many people follow the same thinking.
So, for me, therein lies the issue. Too many stars, too many considerations, too many choices (e.g. vote without seeing it in large view, not voting at all, vote for favorite photographers / friends, downrate for whatever perverse reason).
Options -
* Leave as it is - accepting it for its weaknesses (and people's weaknesses),
* Change it to a simple 1 vote system with no other complications (stars could be generated from formula, e.g. 1-5 votes = 1 star, 6-20 = 2star etc. )
* Change it to a 5 element vote along the 'WATCH' lines - to generate a 1 to 5 star rating
* Scrap it - leaving people to comment and score in free format
I don't know which is the right answer (if any) but for now I do think we need to recognise that the current system isn't perfect and we shouldn't get too hung up on it.
By the way I still think Woophy 2.0 is overall much better than 1.0. Well done to those concerned!
Regrds
Boxie
|
Raulcanc
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Apr 08 01:31
Reply
Wicked voters?. There is no problem.
Worthy of a pity they are, and this is very easy to warn it.
The majority of the woophys, are an honest people. They are they those who weigh, and matter. (IMO, of course)
|
Scott Staley
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Apr 08 15:36
Reply
I dont know if it is lack of talent on my part or just meanness on the part of lowend voters as to why I cant get a gold camera. It does bruise the ego, but I hope that Woophy sets things up to where only votes with a fair amount of ledgeable comment count toward anything. I'm retired and have some time to help if required.
|
|
Boxclever
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Apr 08 13:30
Reply
I dont know if it is lack of talent on my part or just meanness on the part of lowend voters as to why I cant get a gold camera
Scott - I took a look at your pictures and will do a bit of voting / commenting soon but I thought I'd comment more generally on your point above.
You have a lot of really good pictures (and some excellent) in your section (particularly as you have only been shooting for a short while) and I'm pleased to see you now have the 'gold camera'. However, I have to say you have some decidely 'average' ones in there which are not even worth one star in my view. For example, the 'stars and stripes' picture where you asked for the person to own up / add some comment on the low rating. Well, 1 star for patriotism maybe but hey the picture is nothing special is it? It wasn't me that voted by the way, I don't vote lower than 3 stars because, as I have said previously, people see it as criticism when in fact in most cases it is not).
My advice would be to only upload ones you have critically appraised yourself as truely a 3star or above. Before you upload it, think if it would benefit from cropping or straightening (Google's Picassa2 is good for these tasks). I know this works because I put a picture of a bridge in Tavira - which I thought was wonderful - and it got no votes and no comments. After a while I removed it. I cropped it into a panoramic picture and put it back - low and behold - nice comments and better votes.
I hope you (and others) see this as a constructive criticism - we are all learning, afterall no-one takes perfect shots every time.
Good luck and happy shooting.
Boxie.
|
chasamatazz
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Jun 08 18:12
Reply
Okay, I read this all, and it is very interesting. There is something I don't understand though, maybe someone can explain it?
If a comment is left, but they commenter doesn't rate it, is it counted anywhere? And likewise, can it be rated without a comment?
|
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 1