|
|
Forum
Attention: New Forum in Progress
Unfortunately, our current forum software is causing us some problems, so we have decided to turn off the posting capabilities - for now. We decided to develop our very own forum to get it just right - and it will be up and running again towards the end of May.
We're sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. Until the new forum is available, you can still browse and read the old forums, but unfortunately not post new messages.
Thank you so much for your patience!
Voting not fair? it continues...
Posted
in Crestock Photoshop Contest 2006
on
11. December 2006
by silance
After a few days of analyzing voting process, i must say that i am really disapointed. Right now while i am typing this there are about 4-5 really good artworks on the fourth page, but they all got grade "1". Why? Because there are some people here who want to eliminate other contestants by asking their friends to give them a 10 and other good artworks bad grade. Why dont all the BAD artworks have a bad grade? yes, because they are not important, and everybody knows that judges will not pick them. How come that some AVERAGE artwork has near 100 votes, and all others far less than that? What, are you al FASCINATED with it? with something that is obviously AVERAGE work? And who am i to tell whats good and whats bad artwork? come on! some things are obvious... There is a bunch of crazy people just going from page to page from work to work and giving a "1" to everybody? WHAT IS HAPPENING? and why am i the olny one that finds it odd?
Crestock:
Looking at the scores for various entries over the weekend, it looked like this perhaps wasn't the case. After validating the votes on Monday (and removing 5595 duplicate votes), I think most of us would agree that the scores now look much more like what you'd expect.
The remaining votes will also be validated before counting towards the final public vote score.
By eliminating duplicate votes you will solve only part of the whole problem. its not about the duplicate votes, its about unfair votes, and about spaming and trolling. I think that Crestock staff should really consider eliminating audience votes, and leave the judges to determine what artwork should win. The prices are not so small, and people will do anything to get them.
Another solution would be that only participants can vote. I saw this many times and it worked pretty well.
"In plain English: you can't win the contest through vote-rigging, so please don't spoil your chances of winning by resorting to unfair means."
how can you separate vote-rigging and vote-riggin done by someone else just to disqualify someone elses work? Its really hard to tell if person was building its own votes or someone else boosted his rank just to get him out of the game?
Crestock is really a good website, some really profesional work done so far, so i hope that contest will go in the same way.
thanks for hearing me out.
-Silance
RE: Voting not fair? it continues...
and what is this all about?
http://myspace.com/kobylinski
"Check my last design by contest of the crestock and if U think that is it good - vote please! this link will open page and scroll automatically to my job :) signed mareksy "where is my mom?"
press check out and give me UR vote please :)
tNX U for UR vote!
markovy aka mareksy"
calling people from myspace to vote?
Posted: 11. Dec 2006 by silance
RE: Voting not fair? it continues...
I have to agree - public voting is easily corrupted :( as said, some images are absolutely fantastic and are being rated by 'the public' as 1 or 2, when I bet that the judges are looking at them and awarding 9's or 10's
Posted: 11. Dec 2006 by MarcP
RE: Voting not fair? it continues...
We have to agree that vote-spamming is still a problem in this round, which is disappointing, particularly because the best entries are most affected by this. We are looking into this right now, but it is likely that the final public score for this week will only be correct after the end of voting.
Unfortunately, it looks likely that there will have to be some disqualifications this week due to vote manipulation. We are confident, however, that the overall scores will be more than 90% correct following vote verification on Wednesday, although we will have to focus our efforts on verifiying the entries that have a realistic chance of winning the prize.
From this week, the weighting of the judges' and the public votes have changed, with a 60% weighting of the judges' votes. Even if the votes went unchecked, manipulation of the public votes would simply not be enough to win this contest.
The Crestock team
Posted: 11. Dec 2006 by Crestock
RE: Voting not fair? it continues...
Just for the fun of it, after posting my image for this round, I followed how people were voting for my photoshoppery. First four points were 2+2+3+5 and that gave my image an average score of 3.0 or something (if I remember correctly). After that, the 1's and 2's started raining...and within two hours or so my average score was about 1.9. If someone gave a bit better points, it didn't take long for someone to come in and give that gorgeous 1 or 2 so that my average score would stay below or around 2.0. These are one of those things that make you go hmmm...
I think that there have been images in every round so far that I would not mind losing to in this competition. Really! They are just so quirky and fun and amazing...you know the "why on earth didn't I think of that!"-kind...:) But knowing how much effort and photoshop-headache I've put into my participating images...the average scores I get make me think, is my photoshoppery really THAT bad? Anyways, even with this anxiety, I feel that in the previous rounds the right images ones have won.
I probably should not follow the score-status at all before the voting-deadline, because in previous rounds the final score has been more "satisfactory" (the level I think my works are worth atleast) after vote cleanup than during voting. I feel kind of sorry for the people at Crestock for having to do extra work to try to keep things fair for all participants.
Could it be possible that in the final round, the judges votes would have 100% weight on who wins? Considering what prize (!) the winner gets. Public would get to vote, but only so that we could see which works are public favourites. Maby this would calm down the vote-riggers...
Well, gotta go recharge my batteries for the next round...:)
Posted: 13. Dec 2006 by alisommer
RE: Voting not fair? it continues...
I agree with this ... if the judges have a 90% of the total vote it will be better. there's no way that next week with the ubber mac the voting will be fair ... if it almost didn't matter (like only weightening 10%) it will be more true ...
the week2 winner was not the best design, it only won, after crestock dumped the 5000+ votes, and it jump ahead.in the votes
this week I got only 44 votes, and after the pool was closed I dumped to merely 19 votes ... while others have 100+ votes .. how can this be fair ?
I know crestock are doing a superb effort on this matter, but I think it can't won against the internet.
any sysadmin can create thousands of email addresses, log in from many ip address and randomize the vote for some entries, in a way it will boost his or his friend art, and dump the others
Well just my 2 cents
Posted: 13. Dec 2006 by grillo
RE: Voting not fair? it continues...
I entered my image yesterday but it hasn't appeared in the entries in the forum. Not that I can see at least and upon trying to reupload I get the message only 1 entry allowed so I assume it is there. I just cannot see it and when I search the page for my username it still doesn't show???
Posted: 18. Dec 2006 by pjmorley
RE: Voting not fair? it continues...
pjmorley (12/18/2006)
I entered my image yesterday but it hasn't appeared in the entries in the forum. Not that I can see at least and upon trying to reupload I get the message only 1 entry allowed so I assume it is there. I just cannot see it and when I search the page for my username it still doesn't show???
It's right here:
http://www.crestock.com/forum/FindPost2187.aspx
Posted: 19. Dec 2006 by Crestock
|