New Contest Phase?

[Brad]

It is my opinion that a balanced ratio between voters and entries would make for a better contest. To try and illustrate what I am talking about, imagine this extreme example: 100 voters and 100 entries. The results would be many zeros, ones and twos. The winner would likely have as few as four or five votes. I would like to see a larger number of votes per entry. I believe this would cause ties to become more rare and create an overall better contest.

My proposal is to add an extra phase to the photo contest:
1.) contest entry submission
2.) entry reduction
3.) public voting
4.) judge ranking
5.) results announced

Entry reduction would involve removing photo entries in order to keep a balanced ratio between voters and entries. A 'maximum entry number' could be used and determined by the previous month's total voter count. This would be done by the administrator, moderators, or judges. First, entries that did not meet the rule requirements would be removed. If the number of entries are still above the maximum number, additional photos would be removed until the maximum number is met.

If I decide to do this, a ratio needs to be determined in order to get the maximum entry number every month. This ratio number might have to change as the contest grows and receives more participation.

1/2 = 50 entries for 100 voters
1/3 = 33 entries for 100 voters
1/4 = 25 entries for 100 voters
1/5 = 20 entries for 100 voters
1/6 = 16 entries for 100 voters
1/7 = 14 entries for 100 voters
1/8 = 12 entries for 100 voters

Not sure how many people will make it this far... kind of a long post. Any suggestions or comments are welcome.

 

[lowendfrequency]

Brad,

I understand what you're trying to accomplish, as everyone votes for themselves in the near 1:1 ratio. However, I wonder if limiting the entries is the solution. You can't predict the amount of votes ahead of time and you can't choose certain entrees to remove without being unfair.

I think a better solution is to disable the ability to vote for yourself. Most of the people with one vote, voted for themselves, obviously we all want to win. If everyone was forced to actually pick who deserved to win as opposed to who they wanted to win (themselves), it would be a much more effective vote IMO.

 

[Eric Adrignola]

have a runoff. The first round of votes early on, eliminating half or 3/4 of the photos, and then a second and final round of votes to determine the winner. If you remove my ability to vote, I won't vote! You'll end up with the contest being decided by the person who won the last month (cause they have no entry to vote for!)

OR, to streamline it, have the owner/moderators/judges pick finalists out of the main batch, then have the rest of us vote on the best pic. That would be fair.

 

[Frank Castle]

To be fair, I chose to vote for a pic other than my own. That Idea might work, I dont know how you would moderate that. I also like the idea Eric put up. Having the judges pick a hadfull of acceptable photos and then letting the public vote.

Frank

 

[Chamgirl]

I must admit I think there is a worse problem here. I suspect most people who enter a photo have multiple user names. I promise you I only use Chamgirl to post under, I have no second account but I think I could be in the minority here. I think if we were banned from using our own vote then some entrants will be able to carry on voting for themselves with their alternative alias.

 

[Eric Adrignola]

The more I think of it, the more I think there should be "finalists" chosen by the judges. The remaining members can then vote on the finalists.

This keeps things from being too cumbersome, and eiliminates most problems that are in need of being addressed.

This does bring up a new problem - people might get annoyed if they are not in the final vote. I think, despite that possible problem, it'll work out better. If you've got 15 pics and 20 voters, and 15 of them submitted pics of their own, then you really leave the decision up to the 5 that didn't submit. If the 20 voters had to choose among a top 3, a top 5 or even a top 10 (I don't know, it could vary all the time, depending on the judges decisions), the overall decision will be that much more clear.

Here's what I think would work:

Total # of pictures accepted is 20, for example.

Judges choose the ones they believe should go to the "next round" (sorry, my wife watches too much reality TV - I am unable to escape its influence). This could be a top 3, top 5 or even a top 10, should there be 10, REALLY nice pictures. This number is arbitrary, as log as the total number of pics is thinned.

After the judges make a decision, the members can then vote on the remaining pics. If someone didn't get their pic to the next round, they might be disinclined to vote. To prevent this, enforce a rule stating that you cannot submit a picture unless you activly participate in the contest.

It may or may not be easier to have the judges vote in the (final) equal a regular vote, have a different weight, or not vote in the final altogether.

Regardless, I feel some sort of preliminary elimination wil make future contests results more definitive.

Eric A

 

[Zerah Morris]

Just a thought but rather than trying to make the number of entries proportional to the number of voters, why not just eliminate down to a group of finalist, say five or even ten pictures? These could be judged by moderators or a small voting group, and then these finalists would be submitted for public voting. If a set of well established criteria are used for this elimination it would be fair and impartial. Things like photo quality, composition, originality, rarity of species, representation of species, etc are not as subjective as "hey I like that one."

This would help eliminate some of the self voting because the voting would only occur for the five finalists entries.

Just my 2 cents.

Zerah J Morris

 

[ChameleonsTree]

I would think you could make the businesses that sponsor the contest be the judges for semi finals

 

[Prism Chameleons]

These are very good ideas. I like them. Keep the thoughts coming...

 

[Brad]

I really appreciate every one's thoughts on this. Discussions like this help me tremendously.
thanks

I think a better solution is to disable the ability to vote for yourself.

This is a good idea and would definitely make a noticeable difference. However, you are still left with a possibly very cumbersome vote. I assume the fewer options people have, the more time they end up studying each photo before making a vote. More time per photo could make for a more accurate vote.

To be fair, I chose to vote for a pic other than my own. That Idea might work, I dont know how you would moderate that.

Yes, I agree it would improve the contest. I would not try to moderate this manually; it will require some code modification.

I must admit I think there is a worse problem here. I suspect most people who enter a photo have multiple user names. I promise you I only use Chamgirl to post under, I have no second account but I think I could be in the minority here. I think if we were banned from using our own vote then some entrants will be able to carry on voting for themselves with their alternative alias.

This is a very good point and unfortunately this has already happened on a small scale. One of the main reasons for judges is to help counteract this. When I started the contest last year there was a list of requirements that members had to meet before voting (you may recall). I removed this list because we really did not have enough members voting. Contest participation has increased since then, maybe it is time to bring back some voting prerequisites.

Judges choose the ones they believe should go to the "next round" (sorry, my wife watches too much reality TV - I am unable to escape its influence). This could be a top 3, top 5 or even a top 10, should there be 10, REALLY nice pictures. This number is arbitrary, as log as the total number of pics is thinned.

I believe your suggestion is similar to my proposal above. One way to help keep the process more open would be to decide the maximum number before members even submit their photos. A set maximum or a maximum dependent on the previous month's voter count would both work. Each could be refined as needed. Having to remove someones photo before public voting begins is the biggest disadvantage to this idea. People affected by this entry reduction will not like it and feelings will be hurt. It is impossible to get around this, but I believe keeping the process as open as possible will help.

 

[westcoastchameleons]

Not a bad idea.

 

[MWheelock]

Apparently I'm the one choosing the winner as I do have not summitting photo's and have been picking the photo's I like the best.

I didn't realize that people were only voting for themselves...

I guess if someone is willing to cut me in on the prize action, my vote can be bought...

 

[Will Hayward]

Well, not everyone votes for themselves. There are people that give votes on who actually has the best photo.

I like the "first round elimination" idea. Down to ~8 photos.

 

[arcorl]

I agree with ChameleonTree - Sponsors should be offered the opportunity to be the judge(s).. IMHO, there should be a cap on the number of entries and you can not vote for yourself or not permitted to vote..

 

[a23cham]

I agree with ChameleonTree - Sponsors should be offered the opportunity to be the judge(s).. IMHO, there should be a cap on the number of entries and you can not vote for yourself or not permitted to vote..

i dont think you should be permitted to vote since you could pick one you don't think would win so you would havea better shot at winning

 

[lowendfrequency]

I gotta say, the whole concept of a members photo contest is entirely wasted when all the members can't compete. If I submitted a photo and it was removed before other members could vote on it, I would be extremely upset. Letting a judge pick out photos would turn this from a contest into a drawing. Simply disable the ability to vote for yourself, hold a vote and pick a top 6 from the results. Then re-vote on the finalists.

I prefer democracy.

 

[Eric Adrignola]

In general, I prefer a democratic republic, where we allow elected officials vote on most issues. It has democratic processes, without the instability of a true democracy. However, since we don't elect the judges... hehe

One thing that I think would be agreed by most, is that the winners should be chosen out of a group of finalists - not the original entry pool.

How we get these finalists is a different matter.

We can either have the judges choose, or voters choose. Both have drawbacks. The voters will be encumbered by an additional voting period, an dnot everyone will get around to voting twice a month - it's a bit messy, especially for the moderators.

If judges decide, then people will be eliminated before anyone has a chance to vote. It gives the impression that your pictures are "less qualified" for a public contest, simply because they didn't make the final vote. As it stands now, all photos are treated equally until the final vote - it seems more "fair".

Ideally, we would have everyone vote first for th esemifinals, and then again for the finals. This presents a problem - it means two votes per month. If we allow 2 weeks for entry, then that allows only one week per voting period.

A possible way to remedy this is to have staggered votes. for example: The next contest, goes as normal, however, only the finalists are announced at the end of the month. September, has two votes: one for the NEXT perliminary vote, and one for the FINALIST for the August contest.

Yeah, it sounds complicated, but it may be simpler for Brad to implement. Besides, it keeps things lively.

 

[Brad]

The august contest will not have an entry reduction for photos that meet the requirements. I have been very busy with work this past week and wanted more time to think about the contest before making any changes. There may be some voting prerequisites added.

I agree with ChameleonTree - Sponsors should be offered the opportunity to be the judge(s).. IMHO, there should be a cap on the number of entries and you can not vote for yourself or not permitted to vote..

Sponsors are always welcomed as judges. Currently though, the number of judges is limited. If more judges were added, the public vote would have less meaning. Currently there has to be a large consensus among the judges to greatly change the results of the public vote. I do have ideas on some related changes, but that is getting off the topic of the overall entry count.

i dont think you should be permitted to vote since you could pick one you don't think would win so you would havea better shot at winning

Hmm, that is a good point I had not though of. Not allowing participants to vote would decrease our overall voter count substantially; maybe something that could be added in the future. I think the real problem is not people voting for themselves, but the ratio of voters to entries. If 100 people were voting on 5 photos, the actions of the owners of the 5 photos would not greatly affect the results. The larger this ratio is, the more accurate the vote will be.

I gotta say, the whole concept of a members photo contest is entirely wasted when all the members can't compete ... Letting a judge pick out photos would turn this from a contest into a drawing.

There will never be any randomness involved in the contest, so I don't think it will ever be classified as a drawing. All members are allowed to compete, and all photos are subject to the same criteria. How many entries do you think would be too many for the public to vote on? 100 entries? 1000?



I am a little wary about adding an additional public vote to create a list of finalists. Won't this additional vote encounter the same problems we are trying to negate in the current implementation? I also think the photo submission and voting should be as simple as possible for members.

 

[Brad]

bump

The current contest has got me thinking about this topic again.

 

[wslinky]

After reading all of the previous suggestions I think the best option is 2 votes, one for finalist and one for winner. This would eliminate people saying "Why wasn't my photo selected..." I do see this causing more work for you (Brad) but seems to be the best option. I also think the idea of having the winner of this months contest announced at the end (or middle) of next month is a good idea, this way you could always have a vote going and you get a full 2 weeks per voting cycle which would possible get more voters over the longer time. Problem is you wouldn't know who the winner was to eliminate for next months contest, maybe when the winner is know their picture can be removed if they have already submitted one.

Possible Time Line

Jan 1 
   Jan photo submission starts
Jan 17 
   Jan Photo submission ends
Jan 18 (:cough: 19)
   Jan Finalist Voting Starts
Jan 31 
   Jan Finalist voting ends
Feb 1 
   Feb photo submission starts
Feb 3 
   Jan Winner Voting Starts
Feb 15 
   Jan Winner Voting Ends
Feb 16
   Jan Winner Announced
   Jan winner photo removed from Feb contest if necessary
Feb 17 
   Feb Photo submission ends
Feb 18
   Feb Finalist voting starts
......

Will