This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
While looking at this excellent photograph:
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=299229
It occurred to me that it would look much better if it used the full screen width, rather than the 3/4 it is using now.
Especially as 99.9% of the photos are in landscape format anyway, why not maximise the screen area?
(I know I can enlarge the picture to screen width, but why not have that as default, with all the votes and comments underneath). I'm sure all the photos would benefit from a different default screen layout.
If there is a technical reason this can't be done, then fine, but it just seems a simple layout thing.
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=299229
It occurred to me that it would look much better if it used the full screen width, rather than the 3/4 it is using now.
Especially as 99.9% of the photos are in landscape format anyway, why not maximise the screen area?
(I know I can enlarge the picture to screen width, but why not have that as default, with all the votes and comments underneath). I'm sure all the photos would benefit from a different default screen layout.
If there is a technical reason this can't be done, then fine, but it just seems a simple layout thing.
Post edited at 11:40
7
In reply to Fredt:
Good effort in trying to get this as photo of the week...
deserved by the way if it does, its great.
Good effort in trying to get this as photo of the week...
deserved by the way if it does, its great.
4
In reply to Fredt:
Hi, I'm going to be working on the photos section in a few weeks and will take another look at the way they're displayed.
If you've got any other feature requests then please let me know.
Cheers, Paul.
Hi, I'm going to be working on the photos section in a few weeks and will take another look at the way they're displayed.
If you've got any other feature requests then please let me know.
Cheers, Paul.
4
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Few nice features that I wouldn't mind:
Pull EXIF data automatically (at least camera/lens/date);
Support for larger uploads;
Support for viewing larger photos;
Full screen preview when scrolling photos using keyboard arrow buttons;
Auto-rotate photos when voting with keyboard.
Thanks in advance, regardless if these features will be considered or not .
Few nice features that I wouldn't mind:
Pull EXIF data automatically (at least camera/lens/date);
Support for larger uploads;
Support for viewing larger photos;
Full screen preview when scrolling photos using keyboard arrow buttons;
Auto-rotate photos when voting with keyboard.
Thanks in advance, regardless if these features will be considered or not .
Post edited at 21:13
4
1
4
1
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Do away with the negative voting options of 'Poor & Rubbish' and just have nice positive ones.
The good photo's will still get recognised and the rest will vanish into the background of anonymity without effectively being labelled as crap/why did you bother, etc.
Do away with the negative voting options of 'Poor & Rubbish' and just have nice positive ones.
The good photo's will still get recognised and the rest will vanish into the background of anonymity without effectively being labelled as crap/why did you bother, etc.
4
5
In reply to Fredt:
Not sure where you get that figure from. Looking at the first 3 pages of the Latest Photos suggests about 43% of photos aren't in landscape format.
But I generally agree with your ambition. Full screen, black out sideshow would be great, similar to Windows Picture Viewer.
> Especially as 99.9% of the photos are in landscape format anyway, why not maximise the screen area?
Not sure where you get that figure from. Looking at the first 3 pages of the Latest Photos suggests about 43% of photos aren't in landscape format.
But I generally agree with your ambition. Full screen, black out sideshow would be great, similar to Windows Picture Viewer.
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
But then 3 will become the new "rubbish". Perhaps best just to have 1 or 0 (ie effectively "likes") to avoid the gratuitous, sometimes personal, down-voting that goes on.
> Do away with the negative voting options of 'Poor & Rubbish' and just have nice positive ones.
But then 3 will become the new "rubbish". Perhaps best just to have 1 or 0 (ie effectively "likes") to avoid the gratuitous, sometimes personal, down-voting that goes on.
Post edited at 07:33
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
It would be convenient to have a direct way of returning to the thumbnails when clicking through the photos.
It would be convenient to have a direct way of returning to the thumbnails when clicking through the photos.
1
In reply to Fredt:
It may be just me, but a small percentage of thumbnails appear rotated 90° to the actual angle of the picture when you click on them.
It may be just me, but a small percentage of thumbnails appear rotated 90° to the actual angle of the picture when you click on them.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
But then 3 will become the new "rubbish". Perhaps best just to have 1 or 0 (ie effectively "likes") to avoid the gratuitous, sometimes personal, down-voting that goes on.
Drop the 'Rubbish', 'Poor' & 'Average' options altogether and replace them with 'Good', 'Very Good' & 'Superb'.
Bit like the system used in Guidebooks for rating route quality.
But then 3 will become the new "rubbish". Perhaps best just to have 1 or 0 (ie effectively "likes") to avoid the gratuitous, sometimes personal, down-voting that goes on.
Drop the 'Rubbish', 'Poor' & 'Average' options altogether and replace them with 'Good', 'Very Good' & 'Superb'.
Bit like the system used in Guidebooks for rating route quality.
In reply to Robert Durran:
That function already exists - it's the button to the left of 'Next Photo', called, wait for it ..... 'Thumbnails'
> It would be convenient to have a direct way of returning to the thumbnails when clicking through the photos.
That function already exists - it's the button to the left of 'Next Photo', called, wait for it ..... 'Thumbnails'
2
In reply to Fraser:
Thanks. Never noticed that!
> That function already exists - it's the button to the left of 'Next Photo', called, wait for it ..... 'Thumbnails'
Thanks. Never noticed that!
In reply to FactorXXX:
Yes, so "Good" becomes the new "Rubbish"........
> Drop the 'Rubbish', 'Poor' & 'Average' options altogether and replace them with 'Good', 'Very Good' & 'Superb'.
Yes, so "Good" becomes the new "Rubbish"........
2
In reply to Chris Harris:
Lazy moderators - there's a "rotate" option to sort this out when approving, but some people don't seem to use it.
> It may be just me, but a small percentage of thumbnails appear rotated 90° to the actual angle of the picture when you click on them.
Lazy moderators - there's a "rotate" option to sort this out when approving, but some people don't seem to use it.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes, so "Good" becomes the new "Rubbish"........
What sort of maniac would do that?
Oh, hang on...
Yes, so "Good" becomes the new "Rubbish"........
What sort of maniac would do that?
Oh, hang on...
In reply to Fredt:
Paul,
There may be a bug in the photos climb database linkage. For example, my photo here
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=148008
for this climb
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=155875#overview
....links to the route in the logbooks OK, but does not show if I select the photos tab for the climb (yet it does for the crag).
Paul,
There may be a bug in the photos climb database linkage. For example, my photo here
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=148008
for this climb
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=155875#overview
....links to the route in the logbooks OK, but does not show if I select the photos tab for the climb (yet it does for the crag).
Post edited at 10:27
In reply to Robert Durran:
Of course the gratuitous down voters and personal "rubbish" stalkers would soon be sorted out if the weighting of number of votes and average vote is adjusted so that any vote at all will increase the ranking - this would effectively mean that it was impossible to vote lower than "good". I really do think this ought to happen. I believe than nobody at UKC actually knows what the ranking formula actually is (I once enquired!) so maybe it is about time the system was updated.
> Yes, so "Good" becomes the new "Rubbish"........
Of course the gratuitous down voters and personal "rubbish" stalkers would soon be sorted out if the weighting of number of votes and average vote is adjusted so that any vote at all will increase the ranking - this would effectively mean that it was impossible to vote lower than "good". I really do think this ought to happen. I believe than nobody at UKC actually knows what the ranking formula actually is (I once enquired!) so maybe it is about time the system was updated.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I think it is fine to have "poor" and "rubbish" votes to help maintain the generally very high standard. I use the old slide show criteria for these. "Poor" is a photo that would bore the pants off the entire audience, "rubbish" is a picture that is so unintelligible or technically poor (blurred etc) that it has to be thrown straight into the bin.
I think it is fine to have "poor" and "rubbish" votes to help maintain the generally very high standard. I use the old slide show criteria for these. "Poor" is a photo that would bore the pants off the entire audience, "rubbish" is a picture that is so unintelligible or technically poor (blurred etc) that it has to be thrown straight into the bin.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Of course the gratuitous down voters and personal "rubbish" stalkers would soon be sorted out if the weighting of number of votes and average vote is adjusted so that any vote at all will increase the ranking - this would effectively mean that it was impossible to vote lower than "good". I really do think this ought to happen.
That makes sense and is what I was basically aiming for.
Of course the gratuitous down voters and personal "rubbish" stalkers would soon be sorted out if the weighting of number of votes and average vote is adjusted so that any vote at all will increase the ranking - this would effectively mean that it was impossible to vote lower than "good". I really do think this ought to happen.
That makes sense and is what I was basically aiming for.
1
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
How about improving the search capability, crag name etc, also looking for any word in the title this may encourage posters to put more useful info in the title
Also there used to be a randomly chosen gallery of the week or day which was interesting - how about resurrecting it?
How about improving the search capability, crag name etc, also looking for any word in the title this may encourage posters to put more useful info in the title
Also there used to be a randomly chosen gallery of the week or day which was interesting - how about resurrecting it?
Post edited at 11:54
2
In reply to John Stainforth:
Agreed, Ideally yes, if everyone voted sensibly and fairly, but there is certainly quite a bit of abuse of low votes going on for personal reasons.
Anyway, the rubbish will sink to the bottom and off the radar just because it will get no votes at all (well I suppose the odd really awful ones will get ironic comedy votes...... )
> I think it is fine to have "poor" and "rubbish" votes to help maintain the generally very high standard.
Agreed, Ideally yes, if everyone voted sensibly and fairly, but there is certainly quite a bit of abuse of low votes going on for personal reasons.
Anyway, the rubbish will sink to the bottom and off the radar just because it will get no votes at all (well I suppose the odd really awful ones will get ironic comedy votes...... )
Post edited at 12:28
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
It would be good if you could do away with the maximum file size as I find resizing images a bit tedious. Is there some sort of third party software that you could use instead to crunch the file size down during the upload process?
> If you've got any other feature requests then please let me know.
It would be good if you could do away with the maximum file size as I find resizing images a bit tedious. Is there some sort of third party software that you could use instead to crunch the file size down during the upload process?
In reply to Mr. Lee:
The max file size is already 8MB. That's pretty high for jpeg!
The new uploader I'm looking at adding will crunch it down in the browser before the upload though so it should alleviate this and enable faster uploads.
The max file size is already 8MB. That's pretty high for jpeg!
The new uploader I'm looking at adding will crunch it down in the browser before the upload though so it should alleviate this and enable faster uploads.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
There's a script that runs once a week that identifies malicious voting. I don't think this is a problem.
There's a script that runs once a week that identifies malicious voting. I don't think this is a problem.
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
As mentioned above to Robert, voting that's out of the ordinary vs the average vote on a photo (whether it be lots of 1* votes or 5* votes) results in that user being flagged and the vote deleted.
As mentioned above to Robert, voting that's out of the ordinary vs the average vote on a photo (whether it be lots of 1* votes or 5* votes) results in that user being flagged and the vote deleted.
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
I'll take a look at this.
Hmm, I think the only place we have that is on the weekly newsletter at the mo. I'll add that back in.
> How about improving the search capability, crag name etc, also looking for any word in the title this may encourage posters to put more useful info in the title
I'll take a look at this.
> Also there used to be a randomly chosen gallery of the week or day which was interesting - how about resurrecting it?
Hmm, I think the only place we have that is on the weekly newsletter at the mo. I'll add that back in.
1
In reply to PPP:
Thanks, a few of those are already on the todo list.
We already pull the camera name from the EXIF data but I agree, would be handy to have more info from there too (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, etc).
Thanks, a few of those are already on the todo list.
We already pull the camera name from the EXIF data but I agree, would be handy to have more info from there too (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, etc).
In reply to Fredt:
When I click on the top 10 photos thread title I'd like to go straight to thumbnails.
When I click on the top 10 photos thread title I'd like to go straight to thumbnails.
3
In reply to Fredt:
I'd like to see a way of making sure any photo of a climb, location etc is referenced. i.e. no photos of incredible looking routes or landscapes with no way of knowing what or where.
I'd like to see a way of making sure any photo of a climb, location etc is referenced. i.e. no photos of incredible looking routes or landscapes with no way of knowing what or where.
1
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
I must say I strongly disagree with this suggestion. I've seen quite a few 5 star photos to which I'd struggle to award a 2. People have different tastes in what's 'good', so in fairness the voting facility should reflect this.
Next stop the thought police.
> As mentioned above to Robert, voting that's out of the ordinary vs the average vote on a photo (whether it be lots of 1* votes or 5* votes) results in that user being flagged and the vote deleted.
I must say I strongly disagree with this suggestion. I've seen quite a few 5 star photos to which I'd struggle to award a 2. People have different tastes in what's 'good', so in fairness the voting facility should reflect this.
Next stop the thought police.
3
In reply to Fraser:
A user needs to consistently vote high or low on a specific user to trigger the malicious voting script to kick in and they're always reviewed.
A user needs to consistently vote high or low on a specific user to trigger the malicious voting script to kick in and they're always reviewed.
Post edited at 18:07
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Ah gottcha, thanks for clarifying. I thought it was on a per-individual-photo basis, but I can understand the rationale behind the scenario you describe.
Ah gottcha, thanks for clarifying. I thought it was on a per-individual-photo basis, but I can understand the rationale behind the scenario you describe.
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
So basically if I were to vote, I'd be flagged in a day or so. Considering, I'm not keen enough to vote middle of the pack pics. I generally only vote Bestest ever or Rubbish (well, to be honest, I haven't voted Rubbish, since when I still bothered to vote, it wasn't an option).
I agree with Durran in the sense that the voting should only be on the positive side... Sure, you still might get voters that only vote high, but odds are that they would not vote all that many pics per day (I wouldn't have the time).
Oh, and if hard pressed for the Rubbish kind of votes, how about Report Offensive (unless you already have one?), meaning mods would have to re-check it. Though, a simple button would not suffice but a proper explanation would also be needed...
So basically if I were to vote, I'd be flagged in a day or so. Considering, I'm not keen enough to vote middle of the pack pics. I generally only vote Bestest ever or Rubbish (well, to be honest, I haven't voted Rubbish, since when I still bothered to vote, it wasn't an option).
I agree with Durran in the sense that the voting should only be on the positive side... Sure, you still might get voters that only vote high, but odds are that they would not vote all that many pics per day (I wouldn't have the time).
Oh, and if hard pressed for the Rubbish kind of votes, how about Report Offensive (unless you already have one?), meaning mods would have to re-check it. Though, a simple button would not suffice but a proper explanation would also be needed...
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
As mentioned above to Robert, voting that's out of the ordinary vs the average vote on a photo (whether it be lots of 1* votes or 5* votes) results in that user being flagged and the vote deleted.
Sounds a good way to get rid of any deliberate voting bias either positive or negative.
However, I was thinking more of getting rid of negative voting altogether and just have (for example): 'Good', Very Good' and 'Superb'.
As mentioned above to Robert, voting that's out of the ordinary vs the average vote on a photo (whether it be lots of 1* votes or 5* votes) results in that user being flagged and the vote deleted.
Sounds a good way to get rid of any deliberate voting bias either positive or negative.
However, I was thinking more of getting rid of negative voting altogether and just have (for example): 'Good', Very Good' and 'Superb'.
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Could we also have away of voting for "photo voting" threads? There are so many of them that it's hard to know which to comment on.
Could we also have away of voting for "photo voting" threads? There are so many of them that it's hard to know which to comment on.
1
In reply to HeMa:
If you went on someone's gallery that was full of 4's and 5's and voted 1 on a lot of them, then you'd be flagged. It doesn't just look at good or bad votes. It's compared against the average.
Any offensive photos wouldn't get approved by the photo mods in the first place!?
> So basically if I were to vote, I'd be flagged in a day or so. Considering, I'm not keen enough to vote middle of the pack pics. I generally only vote Bestest ever or Rubbish (well, to be honest, I haven't voted Rubbish, since when I still bothered to vote, it wasn't an option).
If you went on someone's gallery that was full of 4's and 5's and voted 1 on a lot of them, then you'd be flagged. It doesn't just look at good or bad votes. It's compared against the average.
> Oh, and if hard pressed for the Rubbish kind of votes, how about Report Offensive (unless you already have one?), meaning mods would have to re-check it. Though, a simple button would not suffice but a proper explanation would also be needed...
Any offensive photos wouldn't get approved by the photo mods in the first place!?
1
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Really. that's funny as when I have posted in the panorama format, and file size is above 250 kb, then it seems to resize the image smaller. The same sometimes happens when I submit a pano at 1600px wide. Perhaps I didn't realise that the limits had been upped. Resampling some larger images really can degenerate the image, especially if it has a lot of detail. I sometimes try to overcome this problem by converting to B&W as this is generally a smaller file size. Interesting discussion.
The argument over the voting ststem is an old chesnut and tends to go around in circles. Whatever is done, somebody will complain. If you don't like it select 'no votes' or don't submit your pics.
> The max file size is already 8MB. That's pretty high for jpeg!
Really. that's funny as when I have posted in the panorama format, and file size is above 250 kb, then it seems to resize the image smaller. The same sometimes happens when I submit a pano at 1600px wide. Perhaps I didn't realise that the limits had been upped. Resampling some larger images really can degenerate the image, especially if it has a lot of detail. I sometimes try to overcome this problem by converting to B&W as this is generally a smaller file size. Interesting discussion.
The argument over the voting ststem is an old chesnut and tends to go around in circles. Whatever is done, somebody will complain. If you don't like it select 'no votes' or don't submit your pics.
2
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
So when I post 4 reasonable (definitely not "rubbish") photos at the same time (as I did last week) and someone comes along and simultaneously gives them all 1 as their first vote with subsequent votes pulling the average up to about 3.5 to 4, would that get picked up? If a photo starts with a vote of 1 from your stalker, I suspect plenty of people wouldn't even bother looking at it subsequently and it would sit further down the rankings than a lot of people would even bother looking.
I would have thought that a good approach would be to delete single outlying votes as a matter of course
> As mentioned above to Robert, voting that's out of the ordinary vs the average vote on a photo (whether it be lots of 1* votes or 5* votes) results in that user being flagged and the vote deleted.
So when I post 4 reasonable (definitely not "rubbish") photos at the same time (as I did last week) and someone comes along and simultaneously gives them all 1 as their first vote with subsequent votes pulling the average up to about 3.5 to 4, would that get picked up? If a photo starts with a vote of 1 from your stalker, I suspect plenty of people wouldn't even bother looking at it subsequently and it would sit further down the rankings than a lot of people would even bother looking.
I would have thought that a good approach would be to delete single outlying votes as a matter of course
Post edited at 21:08
In reply to Sean Kelly:
Panos need their vertical height to fill the screen allowing the image to overflow the sides and be scrollable. Nothing more annoying than a 180 degree pano you can't see properly because it's been made to fit the width of your screen.
> Really. that's funny as when I have posted in the panorama format, and file size is above 250 kb, then it seems to resize the image smaller.
Panos need their vertical height to fill the screen allowing the image to overflow the sides and be scrollable. Nothing more annoying than a 180 degree pano you can't see properly because it's been made to fit the width of your screen.
1
In reply to Fredt:
What about pulling metadata from pics and allowing searching on that? I plan to start adding metadata to my shots so I can search them in my folders, it would make sense to allow this here.
What about pulling metadata from pics and allowing searching on that? I plan to start adding metadata to my shots so I can search them in my folders, it would make sense to allow this here.
In reply to Sean Kelly:
Ah, I was getting confused with your previous message. You can upload up to 8MB now but they will get crunched down to 250kB on the server. This is mainly to try and keep our bandwidth bills down as they're already pretty high.
I think the auto-crunching has a max width of 1200px (maybe 1000px) at the mo. This is going to be changed.
The current plan is to set the max to maybe 1920px (this is the width of 1080p screens) and generate a few different sized versions on server. We might limit the largest versions to the weekly top 10 but we'll see how it goes bandwidth-wise. Maybe just limiting that to logged in users will suffice.
> It would be good if you could do away with the maximum file size as I find resizing images a bit tedious. Is there some sort of third party software that you could use instead to crunch the file size down during the upload process?
Ah, I was getting confused with your previous message. You can upload up to 8MB now but they will get crunched down to 250kB on the server. This is mainly to try and keep our bandwidth bills down as they're already pretty high.
I think the auto-crunching has a max width of 1200px (maybe 1000px) at the mo. This is going to be changed.
The current plan is to set the max to maybe 1920px (this is the width of 1080p screens) and generate a few different sized versions on server. We might limit the largest versions to the weekly top 10 but we'll see how it goes bandwidth-wise. Maybe just limiting that to logged in users will suffice.
In reply to Toerag:
Are you referring to tags on the photos?
> What about pulling metadata from pics and allowing searching on that? I plan to start adding metadata to my shots so I can search them in my folders, it would make sense to allow this here.
Are you referring to tags on the photos?
2
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Great news Paul. I should look forward to that, as long as squeezing down to 250kb can retain the detail, but then again... 250kb is the real problem as it looses definition in the image.
> The current plan is to set the max to maybe 1920px (this is the width of 1080p screens) and generate a few different sized versions on server. We might limit the largest versions to the weekly top 10 but we'll see how it goes bandwidth-wise. Maybe just limiting that to logged in users will suffice.
Great news Paul. I should look forward to that, as long as squeezing down to 250kb can retain the detail, but then again... 250kb is the real problem as it looses definition in the image.
Post edited at 19:32
1
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
I don't see the point of limiting the width of images at all. Surely the only limit should be on file size if it's your bandwidth you're concerned about. If photographers know what the file size limit is they can use that figure to choose the best width size of the image. Images with a lot of detail might tend to be smaller, those that have less can be bigger. They might even choose to blur part of the image to reduce the file size.
Also I tend to agree that only good photos need to be large. But instead of the top ten why not go by rating. If a photo gets a 4 or 5 say it can be large. That way if one week produces a lot of good photos they can't all be in the top ten yet they'll all still be large.
I don't see the point of limiting the width of images at all. Surely the only limit should be on file size if it's your bandwidth you're concerned about. If photographers know what the file size limit is they can use that figure to choose the best width size of the image. Images with a lot of detail might tend to be smaller, those that have less can be bigger. They might even choose to blur part of the image to reduce the file size.
Also I tend to agree that only good photos need to be large. But instead of the top ten why not go by rating. If a photo gets a 4 or 5 say it can be large. That way if one week produces a lot of good photos they can't all be in the top ten yet they'll all still be large.
1
In reply to davidbeynon:
Maybe, but if the algorithm is changed so that any vote increases the ranking, it will effectively be a positive vote and make down-voting pointless.
> Then "good" will be assumed to mean rubbish.
Maybe, but if the algorithm is changed so that any vote increases the ranking, it will effectively be a positive vote and make down-voting pointless.
In reply to Robert Durran:
A histogram of votes might be more useful, something like the grade voting display. If a couple of people vote unusually high or low then they will show up as outliers rather than skewing the grade completely.
I'm not sure it is possible to change the algorithm to calculate overall "grade" in a way that would be completely resistant to malicious voting, but switching to the mode or median is a simple option that would help in cases where a pic gets lots of votes.
A histogram of votes might be more useful, something like the grade voting display. If a couple of people vote unusually high or low then they will show up as outliers rather than skewing the grade completely.
I'm not sure it is possible to change the algorithm to calculate overall "grade" in a way that would be completely resistant to malicious voting, but switching to the mode or median is a simple option that would help in cases where a pic gets lots of votes.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Only if it's a decent photo in the first instance - 'lipstick on a pig' etc!
> 1920 x 1080 would be amazing.
Only if it's a decent photo in the first instance - 'lipstick on a pig' etc!
In reply to davidbeynon:
My suggestion above would be ok. A low might affect the average, but only the photographer ever sees that. But if any vote increases the ranking score (ie the number of votes weighting outweighs the decrease in average in the algorithm), then the low vote can only push a photo up the "league table" or the Top Ten. Under such a system, anyone would be welcome to vote as low as they like for my photos rather than not at all!
> I'm not sure it is possible to change the algorithm to calculate overall "grade" in a way that would be completely resistant to malicious voting.
My suggestion above would be ok. A low might affect the average, but only the photographer ever sees that. But if any vote increases the ranking score (ie the number of votes weighting outweighs the decrease in average in the algorithm), then the low vote can only push a photo up the "league table" or the Top Ten. Under such a system, anyone would be welcome to vote as low as they like for my photos rather than not at all!
In reply to davidbeynon:
Easy: vote either 1,2 or 3 Sum the scores. Every vote is positive. You could weight differently though.
> you need to mock it up and throw test data at it I think.
Easy: vote either 1,2 or 3 Sum the scores. Every vote is positive. You could weight differently though.
In reply to Robert Durran:
if you make every vote equivalent to 1, 2 or 3 likes then the blatant pimping of peoples photos in the forums will get even worse. There is already too much positive feedback with pictures getting thousands of 5* votes as soon as they hit one of the weekly top 10 lists and other equally good ones being seen by 3 or 4 people.
TBH I think the best solution is probably to stop caring.
if you make every vote equivalent to 1, 2 or 3 likes then the blatant pimping of peoples photos in the forums will get even worse. There is already too much positive feedback with pictures getting thousands of 5* votes as soon as they hit one of the weekly top 10 lists and other equally good ones being seen by 3 or 4 people.
TBH I think the best solution is probably to stop caring.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...