voting bug?

#21

Already the case as far as I’m aware.

#22

To be honest imho the system of 5 stars or nothing is totally pointless. The old system at least had some meaning, and there was a natural balance in the votes.

If a very nice picture had only 2 stars or if a very poor picture had 4/5 stars, I could vote to give it justice.

The system now is just an “XX people or more like this picture”, wich is just totally meaningless.

The old way was A LOT better, and I would probably prefer to have no option to vote at all instead of the system of 5 or nothing.

I hope you will soon find a good way to deal with the “I vote 1 star on awesome pics” idiots.

good luck. :wavey:

#23

oh hmmm. Well in that case I guess some people are just hard to please. Or some people just troll…

I agree here. For the most part I thought the old system was pretty good. I think 90% of the stuff got what it deserved. The new one indeed seems kind of pointless to me.

#24

Word…
Give back the power flexibility to the people, we are not all ink lovers to judge using just one color.

#25

Stating upfront that I understand that the old system had flaws and thtat people abused the system, I can’t really see how this system at the moment is an improvement on the old one.

At this moment, page one (25 entries) shows 18 entries with stars and 7 without them. Amongst these 7 “star-less” entries, are works that (in my opinion) are better than ones that have “5 stars”. This could mean that not everybody shares the same taste, but it could also mean that there are honest people that don’t have the heart to cheat at something like getting stars by asking their friends to vote them.

On the other hand, “consolidated artists”, or people with less time, and that used the stars system to separate the “junk” from the good pieces, no longer have a system to rely on. With 18 out of 25 pieces, “5 star quality”, I can’t really see this being an efficient system for this category of people.

I understand that the old system caused there to be a few “overrrrated 5 star pieces”, but in general, it was a system that more or less evened itself out, and was useful for everybody. At the moment, those 7 star-less entries must feel either completely useless, or without friends, because, I repeat, some of the “5 stars” now, are definately not better than some of them that haven’t got them.

This is my criticism. Now for some sort of solution. First off I must say that I don’t know all the ins and outs of a bulletin board, so I don’t know if this solution would be possible, but if we could have some kind of limit on the amount of times you can give “5 stars”, this new system coul work.

For example, each account can only give “5 stars” 3 times a day. And a thread gains the “5 stars” once ten people have voted it. I think this would make voting much more valuable, and each user would think more abut who it’s giving its “5 stars” to.

Anyhow, just a sugestion, cause I don’t like ranting for the sake of it. The fact that the system has been changed now, indicates that a solution is being searched for, and that’s positive. I think it just needs to be tweaked to find the proper balance.

#26

i agree with that.

#27

yeah me also… the new system isnt working…

just look at the 3d gallery page… there are many works on there which
have 5 stars though clearly in the old system would be barely 3 star work…

good luck though… its gonne be tough finding a system to please everyone.

#28

Vote – |obligated to| --> Leave a reason/comment for that.

maybe is good at something.

#29

The 5 stars for all system is not working hehe, even sucky work gets high ratings. This must be happy days for us who are crappy artists, i better run out and post all my crappy renderings now :smiley: …but it looks like they changed the stars to a thumbs up thingy now, better i think because it’s something i suggested long time ago in another thread that we have thumbs up/down instead of the stars system.

/ Magnus

#30

There is a simple mathematic resolve who use the weight of the numbers (weigth in this case is the number of the posts from the user who vote) and who make a better average…

     If I vote 5 star then multiply that with my number of posts lets say 50 posts, result 5*50=250 stars from me, another veteran vote 1 star but he have 1000 posts in the forum 1*1000= 1000 stars from that veteran... The thread average must memorate [b]just 2 numbers: [/b]the sum of the posts from voters till now 1000+50=1050 posts and the sum of stars voted by those 2 users: 250+1000 stars =1250 stars, thats 2 numbers iv divided give a [b]more real average [/b]no.stars ( 1250 sum of stars / 1050 sum of posts ) =[b] 1,19 stars [/b]   not (5* + 1*)/2 users = [b]3 stars[/b] like the old average  ...
    So... for every new user who vote, repeat that adding his no. of posts and stars, resulting new stars/posts sums... verify... it works better.
    
    So the new users cant influence to much the score... it will be more like an average score given by the veterans of this forum because theyrs vote "weight" more... Its like a critique from laurghita and bearfoot where bearfoot words weigth more than mine.... it will need dozens of low votes from new members to turn away a big vote from an old member...

Or if Kirt vote just one star it will need 6 old users like bearfoot to give 5* for a merely 3* average, not counting hundreds of new users who cant influence to much if a big one vote...

Its not a magicaly laurghita “weigth” average formula, its a standard usage in statistics to have a better average… maybe the english math geeks around here know this formula true name… I dont know why this method isnt implemented as standard in worldwide forums because its a better method than average standard…

P.S. Dont say its hard to compute/implement on forum because the numbers can be already there when we press that stars script choice… old time it memorate nr.of voters and sum of the stars, now instead we memorate sum of theyrs posts and sum of the stars.

#31

wont stop new accs spam the shit out of threads ande comments with simple,replies massively boosting their value in short time… at my active time i did atleast 20 posts a day and i was being moderatebut a resolute member… can spam epically xD

#32

also my thought for a ong while was simple… make the rating obligatory with a comment and visible, if someone trolls make it visible, this is also an easy way to separate trolls, but still even this has a massive fault making rating into a witch… or in this case troll hunt

#33 
 The spammers wont survive till they gain enough posts to cast a vote who count... And even if he manage to get a 100 posts thats multiply with 5 stars its just a sum of 500 stars "weigth vote" a vote who is easly destroied by just one old users who have 500 posts but vote just one stars (because really deserve one star) = 500 stars.....   
 
 spamer  100 spams * 5starvote4thread = 500 stars 
 veteran 500 posts  * 1starvote4thread = 500 stars
 
 result 1000 stars / 600 posts = 1,6 stars rating for the spammer thread... it will take just one vet to make justice not like now... dozens of normal votes to repair a bad vote...

Anyway its way easy now to make multiple accounts to throw one vote but its way harder and time consuming to make a spam account and that account survive enough to influence a vote by my method… I can say its impossible, at any time after he cast that bad vote the veterans of the comunity can negate his “hard work” if his vote is not real,… as i demonstrate by my examples.

#34

Prohibiting democracy to avoid anarchy? It appears more like limiting the possibilities of the users to show their dislike (by giving less than 5 stars)…

PS: After seeing the CGChoice gallery i have some doubts about the value of the awards. A cute girls face seems to be enough to get there (with only two simple pipes being done in 3D*). I would appreciate much more to know how other users vote about my work, which was one of the reasons for my signing in.

*: I understand when users downgrade votes at such awarded works, but the jury probably doesn’t like it. (why don’t they disable voting at CGChoice gallery only?)

#35

I know stars don’t really mean anything but damn, I really wish I had something to post right about now. Just screened this a couple minutes ago. Also according to this shot it looks like poser work can finally get 5 stars.

Looks like it’s safe to come back to cgsociety from deviantArt poser users! (sarcasm)

I remember when I started here and I was a big cgtalk noob in awe at all the big fish here I made it a personal goal just for fun to get accepted into the 3d stills gallery with 4 stars on an image I created. Now that has completely no meaning.

#36

My idea: Back to the old system and whenever someone gives stars, “Nickname XYZ gave X stars”

If someone votes, why should it be anonym? So the 1 star abuse voters (5 stars too for the own image), would be easily identified and so noone would do it anymore.

I wouldn’t have a problem if my nickname shows up with the amount of stars I gave. It’s just my honest voting.

  • no abuse
  • different rating possible
  • most easy solution

Cheers
Andre

#37

Well, I want to tell my opinion about voting stars. The old system maybe let some spammers to increase or decrease some ratings but, were that so important ? At the end, the great pictures had always more stars than less beautiful ones. It was readable on the forum. It allowed us to grant someone for a great work and moreover it was just fun for our own pictures. It was a real pleasure looking my picture navigating between 3 or 4 stars. And also it was very useful to compare the average between different pictures I made.

With this new system, it seems that anyone who make a correct picture will have stars. There is no challenge anymore. I think the old stars was something to achieve, now I don’t know if it has a real interest if everybody can have it.

For the one who say that every rating has to be with a comment…well, everybody has not the time to comment everything. So there just would be less vote. And even you have time, you have not always an interesting thing to say, maybe you just like the picture. If that is just to say “great I like it”, I’m not sure tha’s useful.

TO conclude, I think that stars are just fun, so let people play with it.

PS : On other forum (don’t remember which one, cgsphere I think but I’m not sure) there’s a system that make the average ratings made by each of the members. If it seems that someone always give very low ratings, he will not be able anymore to rate the threads (after a 1st alert). That’s maybe alittle complicated to do but that’s possible.

#38

I’ve been thinking about it for a couple of days and i have decided i really dont like this system.

I would rather have no stars at all.

Edit: Surprise surprise, this thread has five stars.

#39

it seems nobody likes this new system! Mods change back! change back! I too feel jipped because I’m in the middle of what I think is something cool and now I’ll never get to see what cg society thinks of it! I think someone aught to make a poll about this “old system or new system”.

#40

sorry but I disagree. I thought about that system also, but I think it would create tensions between members.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the old system was good enough.
Everybody knew there were stupid people giving one star on great pictures, and so the best pics were always 4*, even if they are worth 50*. And what? no big deal, at least we could instantly spot the good ones.

I don’t think I’ll lose a lot of time trying to find the nice pictures in the forest of 5* with the current system.

haha and there would only be one option!:slight_smile: