If Tommy has a 24mm lens, and is shooting at a distance of 4 feet, and Mary has a 80mm lens and is shooting at a distance of 12 feet, and they are both traveling at the same speed parallel to the subject and all other factors being equal, which image will be the sharpest?
that depends. are we assuming an Eulerian or Lagrangrian reference?
As Emily's little conundrum eloquently proves, you don't get an answer until you have all the necessary information. It has been said, that a little knowledge is dangerous. It certainly comes before flippancy and ridicule.
Hypothetically speaking (since any other kind of speaking here is censored) - - -
If in the voting for a challenge, 75 out of 100 voters, for the sake of argument, vote for photo A, that photo is the winner.
How then are the other four photos to proceed to the next challenge level chosen?
At present, the first is chosen by the votes of the 25 voters who did not vote for photo A. Let's say that 20 of these voted for photo B. That photo would go into the higher level. The next photo to be promoted would be decided by the 5 voters who neither voted for photo A nor B (etc).
It is clear that while the winning photo is democratically decided by all 100 voters, all the other four to progress are chosen by an increasingly unrepresentative sample of the original 100 voters. This is because of the rule that only one photo can be voted for per voter, and because 5 place-getters are decided on the basis of that.
As the number of voters decreases each time a photo is chosen the value of their votes increases, from 1/100 to 1/5, in our example, so that the votes of the last mentioned 5 people have far greater value than the votes of all the other voters.
Travis, and others before him, have realised that this is hardly fair to all the entries after the winning one. To be fair, all five place-getters should be chosen by all voters.
A manageable approximation to this is to ask not one question but two on the voting form, your first choice and your second choice. The most voted first choice of all voters is the winner, and the ranking of the first and second choices combined of all voters determines the other four place-getters.
Asking these two questions does not seem to be impossible with the setup presently used.
Hypothetically speaking, again, we have the chance to make the results of the voting sensible.
Emily's cryptic little bit of nonsense is a moral story about how problems which are unclear are impossible to solve.
What I have explained is barred to no one to understand.
Say we all agree that our voting system is flawed. Here are our only current available options (please add any that you feel might be possible given our current limitations):
1) Devise a new system where five polls are posted at once (Who do you think should come in first, who do you think should come in second, and so on). Stick all polls to make sure everyone sees them. Cross check each voter to make sure no one has duplicated their votes in each of the polls (would have to be done by an administrator as I don't have these powers). Would this then make a accurate, albeit unreasonable, method?
2) Agree that our current system isn't perfect, but know that without taking up immense amounts of moderator/administrator time to ensure accurate vote counts, it will work for our purposes and keep it in mind for fututre enhancements.
3) Drop the public vote and have just myself and the co-judge decide who comes in 1st-5th.
4) Drop the Mega-Challenge altogether, which gets rid of the "selected advencement" issue, but not the overall placement issue.
Here are our only current available options (please add any that you feel might be possible given our current limitations
5) Ask not one question but two on the voting form, your first choice and your second choice. The most voted first choice of all voters is the winner, and the ranking of the first and second choices combined of all voters determines the other four place-getters. The results hidden as now until voting ends.
Say we all agree that our voting system is flawed. Here are our only current available options (please add any that you feel might be possible given our current limitations):
1) Devise a new system where five polls are posted at once (Who do you think should come in first, who do you think should come in second, and so on). Stick all polls to make sure everyone sees them. Cross check each voter to make sure no one has duplicated their votes in each of the polls (would have to be done by an administrator as I don't have these powers). Would this then make a accurate, albeit unreasonable, method?
2) Agree that our current system isn't perfect, but know that without taking up immense amounts of moderator/administrator time to ensure accurate vote counts, it will work for our purposes and keep it in mind for fututre enhancements.
3) Drop the public vote and have just myself and the co-judge decide who comes in 1st-5th.
4) Drop the Mega-Challenge altogether, which gets rid of the "selected advencement" issue, but not the overall placement issue.
(NB: my comments are referring to the voting on the regular rounds; the Megachallenges are a different issue entirely, and not part of my response)
My newcomer-ish thoughts, fwiw (or not, as the case might be!). Obviously, a poll which allowed each voter to rank the top 5 would be ideal, but since it's not an option....
An additional possibility to the ones Emily listed, since there is only 1 prize and 4 (equal) runner-ups: Two polls, one for first and one for everybody else.
If that isn't a viable option (and I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work, both statistically and practically, I'm just throwing it out as yet another possible alternative), then leave everything as it is. I really like the community involvement that the voting engenders, and I think it would be a real shame to lose that element of the experience. Similarly, I think the higher stakes of the megachallenge is a great idea, and since the top 5 are advancing a statistically accurate vote isn't really a big deal(and it seems to me in general those top 5 have been pretty self-definining - the polls I've seen have a STEEP drop in votes for the entries which place below the cutoff point, and therefore I suspect there wouldn't be much difference in a different voting system).
Bottom line is that while these are competitions which by definition result in "winners", they seem to me to be focused more on stretching everybody's skills and creativity in a positive competitive environment rather than being All About The Prize. While the prizes are a lovely bonus, I get the feeling "winning" isn't necessarily the main reason people are participating... therefore clinically accurate statistical voting isn't, IMO, necessary per se.
The reason I have wound up at dgrin instead of one of the other photo sites on the net is because I like the atmosphere here; much friendlier and more encouraging. Even in the more professionally-biased forums (ie weddings), there is a sense of support and community which makes it a nice place to hang out and learn more about this photography thing in a positive way.
Say we all agree that our voting system is flawed. Here are our only current available options (please add any that you feel might be possible given our current limitations):
1) Devise a new system where five polls are posted at once (Who do you think should come in first, who do you think should come in second, and so on). Stick all polls to make sure everyone sees them. Cross check each voter to make sure no one has duplicated their votes in each of the polls (would have to be done by an administrator as I don't have these powers). Would this then make a accurate, albeit unreasonable, method?
2) Agree that our current system isn't perfect, but know that without taking up immense amounts of moderator/administrator time to ensure accurate vote counts, it will work for our purposes and keep it in mind for fututre enhancements.
3) Drop the public vote and have just myself and the co-judge decide who comes in 1st-5th.
4) Drop the Mega-Challenge altogether, which gets rid of the "selected advencement" issue, but not the overall placement issue.
Seeing that I started this discussion (I definitely need to find a way to get over my insomnia), I want to reiterate that this is not an attack on the current series or the moderators/judges. The current contest is far better than how LPS was run and the moderators have done a great job keeping it moving smoothly. I brought up the issue for us to think of ways to improve the future DSS series. So going by the selections above, I would agree that #2 (agreeing that the system has a flaw and we should look to future enhancements) is the correct answer until this series completes.
My reasoning is that not only would it be difficult and confusing to the contestents to implement a new system, it would not be fair those that entered and were selected/not selected in the previous rounds. One thing I hated about LPS is how the rules seemed to change from round to round. Lets continue on the path that we set out on but also be open to entertaining ideas on how to improve the future of our contest.
My reasoning is that not only would it be difficult and confusing to the contestents to implement a new system, it would not be fair those that entered and were selected/not selected in the previous rounds. One thing I hated about LPS is how the rules seemed to change from round to round. Lets continue on the path that we set out on but also be open to entertaining ideas on how to improve the future of our contest.
Say we all agree that our voting system is flawed.
Emily, thanks for constantly trying to be the do-gooder.
However,
While this has been fun, our voting system is NOT flawed. A single vote ranking system yielding a distribution is 100% statistically sound. There are always alternatives, but I believe as I tried to make clear on a previous page, this has been a exercise for those few (you know who you are) that enjoy a good overthink.
Emily, thanks for constantly trying to be the do-gooder.
However,
While this has been fun, our voting system is NOT flawed. A single vote ranking system yielding a distribution is 100% statistically sound. There are always alternatives, but I believe as I tried to make clear on a previous page, this has been a exercise for those few (you know who you are) that enjoy a good overthink.
In other words, Em, don't worry about it.
Yay...that means rather than spending more brain cells stewing on Dgrin voting, I may actually get some time to shoot! What a novel idea!!!
Let's all chill. Dgrin is the best and these challenges are awesome, fun, challenging, etc. Nothing is perfect, and everyone has an opinion. Emily and Dr. IT, run this as you see fit and maybe some day you will shift the format in an attempt to get to a higher level of excellence, but let's all be clear that what we have now is EXCELLENT. Let's all get back to shooting and helping each other get better. :ivar
Let's all chill. Dgrin is the best and these challenges are awesome, fun, challenging, etc. Nothing is perfect, and everyone has an opinion. Emily and Dr. IT, run this as you see fit and maybe some day you will shift the format in an attempt to get to a higher level of excellence, but let's all be clear that what we have now is EXCELLENT. Let's all get back to shooting and helping each other get better. :ivar
With great affection
Dan
Yep, yep, yep.
Pretty much what I was trying to say, only you did it in about 1/3 as many words!
But if you can't, maybe you could tell me why you made a comment about being "censored"? Because I'm 100% you haven't, ever, and I don't take kindly to you saying those kind of things about Dgrin, which is just about the most open and friendly internet forum I've ever experienced.
But if you can't, maybe you could tell me why you made a comment about being "censored"? Because I'm 100% you haven't, ever, and I don't take kindly to you saying those kind of things about Dgrin, which is just about the most open and friendly internet forum I've ever experienced.
Neil, asking two questions in the poll is not a viable option as far as I can tell. Voters are allowed a single vote or "multiple votes", which means as many as they like. That would mean someone would have to verify that all voters had entered only two votes - not something I have the time to do.
In the same way, two separate polls would also have to be verified.
I might not be correct here, but it seems to be that this is the simplest way to do things.
Travis, I'm very sorry you were offended. I appreciate your comments, have taken them to heart and am always looking at ways to improve things.
Neil - We do like comments, but you do seem to get personally offended when someone disagrees with you. That's called a debate, which is also allowed here. People, including myself, are allowed to shoot down ideas and comments whenever they suck up more time and energy. Personally, I am always on the verge of dropping my duties here altogether, because as long as I can focus on the straightforward tasks of running it, I can scrape by. When it takes extra time sorting out issues, it is a drain on my family and I can't allow that. That's no threat, just a fact. So, please keep the comments coming, have discussions, and know that I'm noting things down in the background to mull over. We do our best here, and I'm sorry if that's not good enough for some, but it's all I've got.
Tallyho...and let's move forward to the awesome photography you all provide!
Neil, asking two questions in the poll is not a viable option as far as I can tell. Voters are allowed a single vote or "multiple votes", which means as many as they like. That would mean someone would have to verify that all voters had entered only two votes - not something I have the time to do.
In the same way, two separate polls would also have to be verified.
I might not be correct here, but it seems to be that this is the simplest way to do things.
Travis, I'm very sorry you were offended. I appreciate your comments, have taken them to heart and am always looking at ways to improve things.
Neil - We do like comments, but you do seem to get personally offended when someone disagrees with you. That's called a debate, which is also allowed here. People, including myself, are allowed to shoot down ideas and comments whenever they suck up more time and energy. Personally, I am always on the verge of dropping my duties here altogether, because as long as I can focus on the straightforward tasks of running it, I can scrape by. When it takes extra time sorting out issues, it is a drain on my family and I can't allow that. That's no threat, just a fact. So, please keep the comments coming, have discussions, and know that I'm noting things down in the background to mull over. We do our best here, and I'm sorry if that's not good enough for some, but it's all I've got.
Tallyho...and let's move forward to the awesome photography you all provide!
Appreciate these sentiments, Emily.
Finding answers to problems is not necessarily a destructive rejection of the way things are, nor a threat to the people who have taken responsibility for the way things are.
I have a great time at DGrin, and I have done nothing to warrant claiming any credit for that, while people like yourself and DoctorIt have a rightful claim on my gratitude.
Comments
Jill. Tommy and Mary are both facing north.
why Jill & Mary ofcourse....
women will always be more sharp
Who's got the coffee jitters?
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
But if they fall in the forest, do they make a sound?
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Oh dang, trust you to make me google.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
No, but I'm quite certain it has something to do with a hedgehog, a naked man and a ring of fire.
BWAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Touche!!
Which means it's time for me to post the DSS Challenge mascot again!!!
<!-- BEGIN bunnyhero labs pet code -->
<!-- END bunnyhero labs pet code -->
Hypothetically speaking (since any other kind of speaking here is censored) - - -
If in the voting for a challenge, 75 out of 100 voters, for the sake of argument, vote for photo A, that photo is the winner.
How then are the other four photos to proceed to the next challenge level chosen?
At present, the first is chosen by the votes of the 25 voters who did not vote for photo A. Let's say that 20 of these voted for photo B. That photo would go into the higher level. The next photo to be promoted would be decided by the 5 voters who neither voted for photo A nor B (etc).
It is clear that while the winning photo is democratically decided by all 100 voters, all the other four to progress are chosen by an increasingly unrepresentative sample of the original 100 voters. This is because of the rule that only one photo can be voted for per voter, and because 5 place-getters are decided on the basis of that.
As the number of voters decreases each time a photo is chosen the value of their votes increases, from 1/100 to 1/5, in our example, so that the votes of the last mentioned 5 people have far greater value than the votes of all the other voters.
Travis, and others before him, have realised that this is hardly fair to all the entries after the winning one. To be fair, all five place-getters should be chosen by all voters.
A manageable approximation to this is to ask not one question but two on the voting form, your first choice and your second choice. The most voted first choice of all voters is the winner, and the ranking of the first and second choices combined of all voters determines the other four place-getters.
Asking these two questions does not seem to be impossible with the setup presently used.
Hypothetically speaking, again, we have the chance to make the results of the voting sensible.
Emily's cryptic little bit of nonsense is a moral story about how problems which are unclear are impossible to solve.
What I have explained is barred to no one to understand.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Say we all agree that our voting system is flawed. Here are our only current available options (please add any that you feel might be possible given our current limitations):
1) Devise a new system where five polls are posted at once (Who do you think should come in first, who do you think should come in second, and so on). Stick all polls to make sure everyone sees them. Cross check each voter to make sure no one has duplicated their votes in each of the polls (would have to be done by an administrator as I don't have these powers). Would this then make a accurate, albeit unreasonable, method?
2) Agree that our current system isn't perfect, but know that without taking up immense amounts of moderator/administrator time to ensure accurate vote counts, it will work for our purposes and keep it in mind for fututre enhancements.
3) Drop the public vote and have just myself and the co-judge decide who comes in 1st-5th.
4) Drop the Mega-Challenge altogether, which gets rid of the "selected advencement" issue, but not the overall placement issue.
5) Ask not one question but two on the voting form, your first choice and your second choice. The most voted first choice of all voters is the winner, and the ranking of the first and second choices combined of all voters determines the other four place-getters. The results hidden as now until voting ends.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
(NB: my comments are referring to the voting on the regular rounds; the Megachallenges are a different issue entirely, and not part of my response)
My newcomer-ish thoughts, fwiw (or not, as the case might be!). Obviously, a poll which allowed each voter to rank the top 5 would be ideal, but since it's not an option....
An additional possibility to the ones Emily listed, since there is only 1 prize and 4 (equal) runner-ups: Two polls, one for first and one for everybody else.
If that isn't a viable option (and I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work, both statistically and practically, I'm just throwing it out as yet another possible alternative), then leave everything as it is. I really like the community involvement that the voting engenders, and I think it would be a real shame to lose that element of the experience. Similarly, I think the higher stakes of the megachallenge is a great idea, and since the top 5 are advancing a statistically accurate vote isn't really a big deal(and it seems to me in general those top 5 have been pretty self-definining - the polls I've seen have a STEEP drop in votes for the entries which place below the cutoff point, and therefore I suspect there wouldn't be much difference in a different voting system).
Bottom line is that while these are competitions which by definition result in "winners", they seem to me to be focused more on stretching everybody's skills and creativity in a positive competitive environment rather than being All About The Prize. While the prizes are a lovely bonus, I get the feeling "winning" isn't necessarily the main reason people are participating... therefore clinically accurate statistical voting isn't, IMO, necessary per se.
The reason I have wound up at dgrin instead of one of the other photo sites on the net is because I like the atmosphere here; much friendlier and more encouraging. Even in the more professionally-biased forums (ie weddings), there is a sense of support and community which makes it a nice place to hang out and learn more about this photography thing in a positive way.
Just my n00bish 2c
Seeing that I started this discussion (I definitely need to find a way to get over my insomnia), I want to reiterate that this is not an attack on the current series or the moderators/judges. The current contest is far better than how LPS was run and the moderators have done a great job keeping it moving smoothly. I brought up the issue for us to think of ways to improve the future DSS series. So going by the selections above, I would agree that #2 (agreeing that the system has a flaw and we should look to future enhancements) is the correct answer until this series completes.
My reasoning is that not only would it be difficult and confusing to the contestents to implement a new system, it would not be fair those that entered and were selected/not selected in the previous rounds. One thing I hated about LPS is how the rules seemed to change from round to round. Lets continue on the path that we set out on but also be open to entertaining ideas on how to improve the future of our contest.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
I support this, Travis.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
However,
While this has been fun, our voting system is NOT flawed. A single vote ranking system yielding a distribution is 100% statistically sound. There are always alternatives, but I believe as I tried to make clear on a previous page, this has been a exercise for those few (you know who you are) that enjoy a good overthink.
In other words, Em, don't worry about it.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
5) We cancel the whole thing, tell Andy to keep his prizes, and go sip margaritas on the beach!
:cavig
:hide
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Yay...that means rather than spending more brain cells stewing on Dgrin voting, I may actually get some time to shoot! What a novel idea!!!
Oh wait...that sounds pretty sweet!
No comment
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
With great affection
Dan
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Pretty much what I was trying to say, only you did it in about 1/3 as many words!
For the one decision it is capable of making, the winner, yes. Otherwise, no.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
A most unpleasant experience for me to read this.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
But if you can't, maybe you could tell me why you made a comment about being "censored"? Because I'm 100% you haven't, ever, and I don't take kindly to you saying those kind of things about Dgrin, which is just about the most open and friendly internet forum I've ever experienced.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Yes, when it's funny!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
In the same way, two separate polls would also have to be verified.
I might not be correct here, but it seems to be that this is the simplest way to do things.
Travis, I'm very sorry you were offended. I appreciate your comments, have taken them to heart and am always looking at ways to improve things.
Neil - We do like comments, but you do seem to get personally offended when someone disagrees with you. That's called a debate, which is also allowed here. People, including myself, are allowed to shoot down ideas and comments whenever they suck up more time and energy. Personally, I am always on the verge of dropping my duties here altogether, because as long as I can focus on the straightforward tasks of running it, I can scrape by. When it takes extra time sorting out issues, it is a drain on my family and I can't allow that. That's no threat, just a fact. So, please keep the comments coming, have discussions, and know that I'm noting things down in the background to mull over. We do our best here, and I'm sorry if that's not good enough for some, but it's all I've got.
Tallyho...and let's move forward to the awesome photography you all provide!
Appreciate these sentiments, Emily.
Finding answers to problems is not necessarily a destructive rejection of the way things are, nor a threat to the people who have taken responsibility for the way things are.
I have a great time at DGrin, and I have done nothing to warrant claiming any credit for that, while people like yourself and DoctorIt have a rightful claim on my gratitude.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
You wanna try that in English, please?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter