Model
starr111
Posts: 4
Aurora, Colorado, US
Post hidden on Apr 10, 2011 11:44 pm
Reason: gobbledegook
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
starr111 wrote:
. Thank you for dropping by.
Retoucher
Blake Baker
Posts: 36
Bellevue, Washington, US
I submitted a photo for tomorrows contest, but left it wit the wrong color profile, so it is displaying very muted/incorrectly. Is there a way to re-upload the version with the correct color profile?
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
Blake Baker wrote:
I submitted a photo for tomorrows contest, but left it wit the wrong color profile, so it is displaying very muted/incorrectly. Is there a way to re-upload the version with the correct color profile? I have removed the image from the queue.
Please resubmit 
Retoucher
Blake Baker
Posts: 36
Bellevue, Washington, US
JoJo wrote:
I have removed the image from the queue.
Please resubmit Appreciate it. Big Difference. Thanks much 
Model
Vita Bussola
Posts: 637
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Vita Bussola wrote:
So let's pretend a photo that doesn't follow the contest rules ends up getting the most votes because nobody disqualified it.
Do you let that person win? JoJo wrote:
Please CAM this entry "Hi everyone,
This discussion thread is meant to address questions and concerns regarding Model Mayhemâs new Picture of the Day competition. "
Not trying to be rude, why do I need to CAM this question?
I'm sure a lot of people would like to know the answer to this and I am not singling any particular member out, I just want to know how that sort of thing is handled. So I don't understand why I can't ask this question here.
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
Vita Bussola wrote:
So let's pretend a photo that doesn't follow the contest rules ends up getting the most votes because nobody disqualified it.
Do you let that person win? JoJo wrote:
Please CAM this entry Vita Bussola wrote:
"Hi everyone,
This discussion thread is meant to address questions and concerns regarding Model Mayhemâs new Picture of the Day competition. "
Not trying to be rude, why do I need to CAM this question?
I'm sure a lot of people would like to know the answer to this and I am not singling any particular member out, I just want to know how that sort of thing is handled. So I don't understand why I can't ask this question here. OK, so we have some pretend entry that doesn’t follow some rule and somehow manages to win the contest.
If someone reports this entry and the entry is in violation then the entry is disqualified.
If no one bothers to report the entry then how am I supposed to know about it?
Maybe you could make your question a little less hypothetical and a little less vague so I can give you a little less vague reply.
Model
Vita Bussola
Posts: 637
Nashville, Tennessee, US
JoJo wrote:
Vita Bussola wrote:
So let's pretend a photo that doesn't follow the contest rules ends up getting the most votes because nobody disqualified it.
Do you let that person win? JoJo wrote:
Please CAM this entry OK, so we have some pretend entry that doesn’t follow some rule and somehow manages to win the contest.
If someone reports this entry and the entry is in violation then the entry is disqualified.
If no one bothers to report the entry then how am I supposed to know about it?
Maybe you could make your question a little less hypothetical and a little less vague so I can give you a little less vague reply. I guess what I am more specifically interested in knowing is if a winner who is in violation of the rules gets put in the winners gallery.
Also, I am aware that being in charge of this forum must be an irritating job, but I will tell you again that I am not trying to push buttons, I just have valid question.
Photographer
Ali Mere
Posts: 28
London, England, United Kingdom
Photographer
David Simonson
Posts: 104
Wailuku, Hawaii, US
I know I said I would never post back here again. LOL But I simply had to say... Thank you MOD's... Specifically, yes you JoJo, for making a fair and just decision against recent vote-stacking attempts.
Photographer
David Simonson
Posts: 104
Wailuku, Hawaii, US
Two EASY suggestions to make the POTD contest better (because we all can agree it will never be free from cheating):
1.) Remove the "Current Standings" feature all-together. It only tempts/incites people to stack votes on their entry and to see the "live results" of their efforts if they do solicit votes.
Once this feature would be removed... the winner will be known when the contest is OVER. Clearly showing "live tallies" has flawed the democratic voting process of our own country's electoral process... so why do we need this on the ModelMayhem POTD contest voting process?
2.) Make it a REQUIRED function that THREE votes MUST be cast in order for a member to vote. In this way, even if someone is casting a vote due to a vote-stacking effort/attempt by another member, they will still have to cast two more votes on two other images. This would improve the potential for other contestants to have a "chance" and win the contest despite all the crazy vote-stacking attempts of some. And when contestants only cast one vote for their own image... If they MUST cast 3 VOTES to vote... then they will have to vote on two other submissions as well.
These are both easy changes to make and thus would be easy to test the results of these changes on future contest voting statistics. Clearly the contest is flawed from vote stacking. So why not TRY to change these two features?
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
David Simonson wrote:
Two EASY suggestions to make the POTD contest better (because we all can agree it will never be free from cheating):
1.) Remove the "Current Standings" feature all-together. It only tempts/incites people to stack votes on their entry and to see the "live results" of their efforts if they do solicit votes.
Once this feature would be removed... the winner will be known when the contest is OVER. Clearly showing "live tallies" has flawed the democratic voting process of our own country's electoral process... so why do we need this on the ModelMayhem POTD contest voting process?
2.) Make it a REQUIRED function that THREE votes MUST be cast in order for a member to vote. In this way, even if someone is casting a vote due to a vote-stacking effort/attempt by another member, they will still have to cast two more votes on two other images. This would improve the potential for other contestants to have a "chance" and win the contest despite all the crazy vote-stacking attempts of some. And when contestants only cast one vote for their own image... If they MUST cast 3 VOTES to vote... then they will have to vote on two other submissions as well.
These are both easy changes to make and thus would be easy to test the results of these changes on future contest voting statistics. Clearly the contest is flawed from vote stacking. So why not TRY to change these two features? Neither one would even come close to minimizing cheating.
1.) People are going to solicit votes as soon as they put in their entry. You only have 24 hours, you don't wait until you find out you are in 5th place before you go out and 'campaign'. You do know you have to give voters time to response, don't you. Not everyone is glued onto Modelmayhem everyday, every minute, every second.
2.) You do remember seeing real bad photos that have 3 to 4 votes? Knowing those would never have a chance to win. ???
My suggestion is to disclose voters' identities.
Photographer
David Simonson
Posts: 104
Wailuku, Hawaii, US
Okay... ummmm... it was "simple" and valid suggestion. Not sure why you would think it would have no effect on the outcome? Not sure how showing voters is better either? Keeping votes private is part of any democratic process. Hell, even in Afghanistan I think they use a private ballot. And in case there's a comment on my use of Afghanistan's voting process... I am not trying to infer that I know anything about the voting process in that country. But I am fairly sure they, at least, write their vote on piece of paper, fold it and stuff it into a ballot box without having to put their name on it. LOL Call it "campaigning" if you like. But that sounds like a nice word for "vote stacking". Contests should be free of campaigning or vote stacking. Elections... well... that is another story and a debate nor education I am not looking for. Do you really see people at a show or state fair... that has a photo or painting entered in the art contest... walking around saying "hey... vote for me"? Not any legit one at least. Or... "Hey I will buy you a cotton candy if you go over and vote on my picture in the contest". LOL Anyway... YES, I feel that both ideas I suggested have a chance at SLOWING DOWN the violations of the contest rules. Not "solving the problem". And like I said... easy to try them out and see the results. Certainly not a huge rewrite of the back-end code. And if they do not work... well... easy enough to switch the code back to the old way. Both ideas have merit and still keep some anonymity of the voting process. I do not see how showing WHO votes on something is a better idea. Unless you worry about people being able to vote on the same image more than once? Showing who votes simply does just that... it shows who voted. You would be left with a long list of names and how does that prove anything related to vote-stacking or violations of the rules? Chuckarelei wrote:
Neither one would even come close to minimizing cheating.
1.) People are going to solicit votes as soon as they put in their entry. You only have 24 hours, you don't wait until you find out you are in 5th place before you go out and 'campaign'. You do know you have to give voters time to response, don't you. Not everyone is glued onto Modelmayhem everyday, every minute, every second.
2.) You do remember seeing real bad photos that have 3 to 4 votes? Knowing those would never have a chance to win. ???
My suggestion is to disclose voters' identities.
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
David Simonson wrote:
Okay... ummmm... it was "simple" and valid suggestion. Not sure why you would think it would have no effect on the outcome? Not sure how showing voters is better either? Keeping votes private is part of any democratic process. Hell, even in Afghanistan I think they use a private ballot. And in case there's a comment on my use of Afghanistan's voting process... I am not trying to infer that I know anything about the voting process in that country. But I am fairly sure they, at least, write their vote on piece of paper, fold it and stuff it into a ballot box without having to put their name on it. LOL I stated above in my post why your suggestions would not come close to work. It will have some impact, but it's minimal.
Voting POTD is not the same as voting in Afghan. No one here is risking their lives to vote POTD.
Take a look at the forum POTD original edition. Everyone knows who is voting for who. If you see certain people consistently voting for certain individuals, some fishy has to be there. Disclosing voters will put pressure on collaborators wit the cheaters, you know what I mean? Say if you consistently have the same people vote for you over and over again, time after time. What does that tell you? Or if you keep voting for the same people over again, time after time even when the pictures suck. Does that tell you anything?
Photographer
D a v i d s o n
Posts: 1216
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
Chuckarelei wrote:
I stated above in my post why your suggestions would not come close to work. It will have
some impact, but it's minimal.
People vote for there friends simple as that also if your pic is really good it will win regardless and it feels much better than having a win once a week as that is clearly silly like wining the loto once a week and right now there are about three photogs who clearly don't win on merit ...
Voting POTD is not the same as voting in Afghan. No one here is risking their lives to vote POTD.
Take a look at the forum POTD original edition. Everyone knows who is voting for who. If you see certain people consistently voting for certain individuals, some fishy has to be there. Disclosing voters will put pressure on collaborators wit the cheaters, you know what I mean? Say if you consistently have the same people vote for you over and over again, time after time. What does that tell you? Or if you keep voting for the same people over again, time after time even when the pictures suck. Does that tell you anything?
Photographer
Ali Mere
Posts: 28
London, England, United Kingdom
Post hidden on Apr 09, 2011 11:30 am Reason: other Comments: empty post
Photographer
Ali Mere
Posts: 28
London, England, United Kingdom
Post hidden on Apr 09, 2011 11:30 am Reason: other Comments: empty post
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
Vita Bussola wrote:
I guess what I am more specifically interested in knowing is if a winner who is in violation of the rules gets put in the winners gallery.
Also, I am aware that being in charge of this forum must be an irritating job, but I will tell you again that I am not trying to push buttons, I just have valid question. If a ‘winning image’ is listed in the Winner’s Gallery and that image is in violation of the rules of the applicable contest or the image rules then please report the image to me via CAM and I will take a good look at the problem.
Why report it in CAM?
If you report it in this thread it might be construed as outing.
Besides, CAM is private
Photographer
TBM
Posts: 29
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, New Jersey, US
I have a problem when trying to upload a POTD photo. It keeps telling me that the file is to big it's under the 88kb limit, i even dropped it to 600kb and it still says it's to big. And clue what i'm doing wrong or how to fix it?
Thank you
TBM Photography
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
David Simonson wrote:
I know I said I would never post back here again. LOL
But I simply had to say... Thank you MOD's... Specifically, yes you JoJo, for making a fair and just decision against recent vote-stacking attempts. Cheers
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
David Simonson wrote:
Two EASY suggestions to make the POTD contest better (because we all can agree it will never be free from cheating):
1.) Remove the "Current Standings" feature all-together. It only tempts/incites people to stack votes on their entry and to see the "live results" of their efforts if they do solicit votes.
Once this feature would be removed... the winner will be known when the contest is OVER. Clearly showing "live tallies" has flawed the democratic voting process of our own country's electoral process... so why do we need this on the ModelMayhem POTD contest voting process?
2.) Make it a REQUIRED function that THREE votes MUST be cast in order for a member to vote. In this way, even if someone is casting a vote due to a vote-stacking effort/attempt by another member, they will still have to cast two more votes on two other images. This would improve the potential for other contestants to have a "chance" and win the contest despite all the crazy vote-stacking attempts of some. And when contestants only cast one vote for their own image... If they MUST cast 3 VOTES to vote... then they will have to vote on two other submissions as well.
These are both easy changes to make and thus would be easy to test the results of these changes on future contest voting statistics. Clearly the contest is flawed from vote stacking. So why not TRY to change these two features? We're already working on something to this affect
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
Chuckarelei wrote:
My suggestion is to disclose voters' identities. Not going to happen
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
Ali Mere wrote:
. Ali Mere wrote:
. housecleaning empty posts
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
TBM wrote:
I have a problem when trying to upload a POTD photo. It keeps telling me that the file is to big it's under the 88kb limit, i even dropped it to 600kb and it still says it's to big. And clue what i'm doing wrong or how to fix it?
Thank you
TBM Photography Most probable problem – your image is greater than 800 pixel wide.
Can you upload this image into your port?
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
Chuckarelei wrote:
My suggestion is to disclose voters' identities. JoJo wrote:
Not going to happen Lets' make it happen. You have the power?
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
Chuckarelei wrote:
Lets' make it happen. You have the power? Actually, I don't think it should happen. You'll get too many people with too much time on their hands sitting down with the lists of voters and concocting too many conspiracy theories, and then posting long diatribes about how unfair everything is because they don't win.
Cue lots of wasted time for JoJo, et al.
Model
Kasumi_Noir
Posts: 91
Ayr, Scotland, United Kingdom
have just entered the POTD contest but have accidently uploaded the wrong image (set instead of single image) from my computer, is there any way to remove it to avoid a ban for rule breaking?
xX.maz.Xx
Photographer
Brightonian
Posts: 779
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
I have read with interest the ideas which have been put forward and I can see a couple of flaws in the argument
The first is that people don't get to see the current standings till after they have cast their vote - so at the time of voting they have no idea which picture is winning etc
The second is imagine this scenario 'you have a friend in the contest but you don't care for their entry so you vote for someone else" Do you want your friend to know this? I don't think so
In almost all contests, even voting for the party who governs you (and me) we are all able to vote in secret and nobody should ever know how we cast our vote - it is a basic demorcratic principle
I have noticed that those contests where the voter's name is made known don't get a fraction of the interest which the POTD and the POTD 18+ seem to attract
It isn't broke so why fix it
Just my thought and best wishes to you all
John
Photographer
David Simonson
Posts: 104
Wailuku, Hawaii, US
Brightonian wrote:
I have read with interest the ideas which have been put forward and I can see a couple of flaws in the argument
The first is that people don't get to see the current standings till after they have cast their vote - so at the time of voting they have no idea which picture is winning etc
The second is imagine this scenario 'you have a friend in the contest but you don't care for their entry so you vote for someone else" Do you want your friend to know this? I don't think so
In almost all contests, even voting for the party who governs you (and me) we are all able to vote in secret and nobody should ever know how we cast our vote - it is a basic demorcratic principle
I have noticed that those contests where the voter's name is made known don't get a fraction of the interest which the POTD and the POTD 18+ seem to attract
It isn't broke so why fix it
Just my thought and best wishes to you all
John How many times have you seen, received, or heard someone say... "I am only 3 votes away from being at the top of the POTD... vote for me"?
To remove the "current standings" suggestion is not because it influences the people that vote. But it inspires and informs the people that solicit votes and therefore vote-stack in their favor. It gives those individuals "live stats" on their vote stacking efforts. I am not saying that this would stop vote-stacking. But it would certainly leave those that do it... "blind" to the fruits of their efforts until the contest would be over.
Sometimes I think it inspires a contestant to vote stack, where if they had no idea where they stood in the contest (if the tallies were hidden unitl the contest is over) they might (and I use the word "might" loosely) not be inspired to send those messages out, or twitter and facebook, their pleas of "vote for me... I only need 4 more votes to be at the top".
I do not EVER, EVER... yes... EVER... think I could win... by the way. I just think that changes to any contest, in the effort of bettering the odds and playing-filed, is a positive thing. And not many things, when it comes to programming, code or contests is seldom perfect. So the "if it ain't broke" theory only applies to things that are "perfect in design".
Forcing members to cast 3 votes (vs. the current 1-3 vote option) would help "spread the wealth" around. Many people may only cast 1 vote for themselves. So, by forcing someone to cast 3 votes would cause other entries to get votes in the process from those that only came in to vote for themselves or to vote on their "friend's" entry.
In fact for those that continue to vote stack and attract people to vote in the contest... it would actually create more votes for everyone else in the contest.
I always have agreed that showing voter's names does not do anything except go against all democratic ideals.
And as far as the earlier comment "You do remember seeing real bad photos that have 3 to 4 votes?". Well, if someone want to cast a vote for a piece of crap... then that is their right as a voter to cast their vote on whatever floats their boat. But to show their name would only give others a chance to ridicule them for their vote. And well... that would simply mean-spirited, violate member privacy, and do nothing positive for the contest.
Well, that's my measly two-cents. But I am stickin' to it. LOL And I do not think my suggestions are perfect either. Just "suggestions".
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
sinister-apathy wrote:
have just entered the POTD contest but have accidently uploaded the wrong image (set instead of single image) from my computer, is there any way to remove it to avoid a ban for rule breaking?
xX.maz.Xx I have removed your entry from the queue.
Please reenter
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
David Simonson wrote:
Sometimes I think it inspires a contestant to vote stack, where if they had no idea where they stood in the contest (if the tallies were hidden unitl the contest is over) they might (and I use the word "might" loosely) not be inspired to send those messages out, or twitter and facebook, their pleas of "vote for me... I only need 4 more votes to be at the top".
I do not EVER, EVER... yes... EVER... think I could win... by the way. I just think that changes to any contest, in the effort of bettering the odds and playing-filed, is a positive thing. And not many things, when it comes to programming, code or contests is seldom perfect. So the "if it ain't broke" theory only applies to things that are "perfect in design".
Forcing members to cast 3 votes (vs. the current 1-3 vote option) would help "spread the wealth" around. Many people may only cast 1 vote for themselves. So, by forcing someone to cast 3 votes would cause other entries to get votes in the process from those that only came in to vote for themselves or to vote on their "friend's" entry.
In fact for those that continue to vote stack and attract people to vote in the contest... it would actually create more votes for everyone else in the contest.
I always have agreed that showing voter's names does not do anything except go against all democratic ideals.
And as far as the earlier comment "You do remember seeing real bad photos that have 3 to 4 votes?". Well, if someone want to cast a vote for a piece of crap... then that is their right as a voter to cast their vote on whatever floats their boat. But to show their name would only give others a chance to ridicule them for their vote. And well... that would simply mean-spirited, violate member privacy, and do nothing positive for the contest.
Well, that's my measly two-cents. But I am stickin' to it. LOL And I do not think my suggestions are perfect either. Just "suggestions". Take a look at the Forum's POTD original edition. It shows everything you said is incorrect.
Photographer
David Simonson
Posts: 104
Wailuku, Hawaii, US
Okie dokie. I will concede to your infinite wisdom and vast knowledge. Clearly I am simply wrong. Chuckarelei wrote:
Take a look at the Forum's POTD original edition. It shows everything you said is incorrect.
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
David Simonson wrote:
Okie dokie. I will concede to your infinite wisdom and vast knowledge. Clearly I am simply wrong.
No.
Photographer
Jay Hooker Images
Posts: 258
Charleston, South Carolina, US
I'm not sure how the complicated search mechanism works on here...so forgive me if this has already been discussed.
Why can photographers put watermarks on photos that are up for a contest? Having watermarks on a photo turns it into a reputation contest as much as a photo contest.
Wouldn't the contest be more of a true photo contest if watermarks were not permitted?
Model
_Tara_
Posts: 1
Mukilteo, Washington, US
Model
AiTenshiMisha
Posts: 499
Dayton, Ohio, US
Yesterday a photographer of mine (Alicia C) posted a photo of me and she won 1st place by 8-9 votes. However, when time went by (even though it declared that said she was the winner for May 19th), her photo got removed and the 2nd place winner took over. We were confused on why it got removed?
I, myself put in a picture of myself on May 18th (completely different photographer and photo set) and won POTD...but it had nothing to do with that photographer (Alicia C) for the 19th, is there a reason why her photo got deleted?? Is it because I was the model in her photo and that I won the day before? Even though I never submitted the photo??
Photographer
Alan Pedroso
Posts: 10159
Miami, Florida, US
Hey Jo , was my image disqualified again ?
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
Alan Pedroso wrote:
Hey Jo , was my image disqualified again ? Yes, again from the PotD18+
Focusing on genitalia with an ‘in your face’ presentation… not to mention the spread labia
Photographer
Alan Pedroso
Posts: 10159
Miami, Florida, US
JoJo wrote:
Yes, again from the PotD18+
Focusing on genitalia with an ‘in your face’ presentation… not to mention the spread labia And here I was thinking that that was what it took to win , that or a well endowed penis , LOL .
|
