Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

UPDATE: DECISION REACHED: HERE ON PAGE 2

I'm working on some updates to the gallery at the moment, and will be adding a 'disable voting for this image' feature for those who literally just want image hosting, as well as some bug fixes and minor feature additions.

One thing that I have been thinking about is adding accountability for voting. Basically, each image would have a link that would show the full list of who voted with what scores for each image (including anonymous/guest voters). At the moment I am about 60% I should not do this, and 40% I should do this.

Implementing it would allow people to ask users exactly why they voted the way they did. It would also cut down on the perception of unfair voting.

On the other hand, back scratching and moaning/bullying until higher scores are given would possibly become an issue, and some of the less secure users out there would have a bad time. Anyone who has ever voted purposefully high or low to balance out unfair voting would also be penalised.

So what do you think? Should it be done or not?

Right now, we have about 210K votes, of which about 19K are abusive. I can automatically remove the abusive votes and ban those users from voting again (which I will at some point - the scripts are good to go, just need some more testing). The system is however able to cope with an abuse rate of 20% - double the level we have now. All images will ignore votes outside the 80% median once they have 5+ votes, removing the extremes and making things much fairer. Any image with 10+ votes pretty much always has a fair rating because of this and it works well. Getting more votes would solve all perceived issues with unfair voting, but it is a slow process and we are a victim of our own success in attracting gallery uploads. The view to vote ratio is about 6:1 which is not that bad imho.

Let voting begin

I think it should be done.

It will discourage people taking their post grudges out on peoples images.

My 2pence worth.

With quite a few gallery votes to my name, I definitely think it should be done. It'll prevent people purposely giving low scores on the gallery and encourage better scores for images encouraging users to upload more images of their work and generally creating a more optimistic atmosphere.

I was wondering if there could also be a button indicating poor image quality? I realise that the gallery is supposed to be there to comment on paint job, but it can be really hard when the image is so fuzzy. It might be enough to get folks to raise their photo game a little. I have no problem with a bit of fuzz, because it can be damn hard to photograph such small items really well, but when its just a fuzzy blob of colours its hard to vote.

I like to see how people rate PJ/C. I know 5 is tabletop quality, but everyone's idea of TTQ varies a lot. 3 color standard is a good basis, however I like to paint in 2 tone style and for the most part it looks at least TTQ if not higher on the models I enjoy/focus on more.

TL,DR: Could standardize the prereqs for scores by visual example.

Flinty wrote:I was wondering if there could also be a button indicating poor image quality? I realise that the gallery is supposed to be there to comment on paint job, but it can be really hard when the image is so fuzzy. It might be enough to get folks to raise their photo game a little. I have no problem with a bit of fuzz, because it can be damn hard to photograph such small items really well, but when its just a fuzzy blob of colours its hard to vote.

Also this. Like a "Photo Quality too low to score" button or some such.

Flinty wrote:I was wondering if there could also be a button indicating poor image quality? I realise that the gallery is supposed to be there to comment on paint job, but it can be really hard when the image is so fuzzy. It might be enough to get folks to raise their photo game a little. I have no problem with a bit of fuzz, because it can be damn hard to photograph such small items really well, but when its just a fuzzy blob of colours its hard to vote.

The standard for this seems to be tagging it 'blurry photo'. Having two voting options is bad enough for discouraging people's voting due to the additional mental capacity needed compared to standard hot-or-not style scripts. A third voting option would be even more detrimental I'm afraid.

I think if possible there should be a set scale on the page when you view it e.g. 5 = tabletop 10= pro and everything in between at the moment peoples scales are very inconsistent.

4M2A wrote:I think if possible there should be a set scale on the page when you view it e.g. 5 = tabletop 10= pro and everything in between at the moment peoples scales are very inconsistent.

Agree with that. Makes sense.

All images will ignore votes outside the 80% median once they have 5+ votes, removing the extremes and making things much fairer. Any image with 10+ votes pretty much always has a fair rating because of this and it works well.

Because of this i would say no, it doesnt need history to be shown. Also i think people may vote less if they know it can be traced to them.

Definitely a yes. But with the caveat that there should be a small textbox you're required to fill out before your vote is "counted".

Something small, just asking them why they voted they did and what comments/criticisms they have in regards to the model itself. If there's a way to make the comments/criticisms anonymous while making the votes public it might go a long way though.

legoburner wrote:
Right now, we have about 210K votes, of which about 19K are abusive. I can automatically remove the abusive votes and ban those users from voting again (which I will at some point - the scripts are good to go, just need some more testing). The system is however able to cope with an abuse rate of 20% - double the level we have now.

I am all for removal of abusive votes and following consequences.

Its fine the system can cope with 20%, but I dislike the 10% ratio we have yet.
Under 5% it could be sit out, but 10% means a lot of pics get at least 1 abusive vote.

A history will change this, lack of anonymity generates maybe less voting but I would prefer a single honest vote against a dozen
questionable ones.

+1 to voting with open visor.

While some of the voting that goes on is clearly designed to cause grief I suspect part of the problem is the fact that people have very different rating standards.
How about replacing the voting buttons with a graph showing the grading curve on a sliding scale of poor to excellent. That way there would be a standardised method of grading with a builtin curve for people to base their own voting perceptions.

I don't think that removing anonymity from votes would be beneficial and would most probably just lead to grief from the community. How about implementing community moderators for gallery votes and flagging users that consistently vote low for a review of their votes? If it was found that they had unfairly been rating otherwise good quality models then they could receive a warning and eventually a ban.

You raise some interesting and thoughtful points in the initial post here. I find everything said there to be valid and very well considered. It also raises the issue that nothing you do here will be fool proof and that the current system and the proposed new system have certain inherent flaws and vulnerabilities that will be exploited and misused by some. The current system clearly has its shortcomings and so will the proposed new system. I am glad you are treading carefully before making this decision.

I make it a point to find the blurry, WIP, or otherwise less than tabletop pictures with 1 vote at 10/10 and vote low to average out to a normal score. Often times the user will have done so for multiple images within their gallery, so I follow through. I look forward to being banned for abusive votes! Although really, as long as I can host my army pictures here I'm happy, don't need an ability to vote to do that.

Adding a text box to allow people to explain their vote is great, but shouldn't be mandatory. It also already exists. If you comment on the photo, it shows your vote as well. Making an explanation mandatory will cripple the voting system. I speak only for myself, but I know it would stop me from spending those 4-5 minutes downtime at work between projects going through the "Images that need more votes" category.

The problem people seem to be having is having one or two votes with a score they disagree with. Or users holding grudges and voting like little children. Adding accountability might stem that, and it might not. It will make it easier to single out users and nuke them individually, creating more work for a [Gallery Mod]. Adding code that ignores outliers also solves that problem.

In the end, voting is 100% subjective. People's individual values they conceive for X, Y, or Z quality are 100% arbitrary when compared to any other user. FWIW, I voted no, but I trust Legoburner to do whatever is necessary to keep Dakka on the top of the wargaming forum heap.

Showing who voted what will incite useless discussion and even worse: it won't guarantee to prevent vote abuse. So I'm against voting history.

I'd love a button that says "bad photo, next please" close to the "next image" button. The last time I was voting there were simply too many pictures not worth voting.

I never think accountability is bad, but people should be willing to accept that not everyone has the same taste. I've voted pics up or down if I didn't agree with the score presented, just like Teek has (and so many others, I suppose). Maybe the mod team should make their position in this clear? Is this acceptable or not?

Still, several people have stated that they've posted less pics because of the voting down, so I feel it should be adressed. I voted yes.

Still, several people have stated that they've posted less pics because of the voting down, so I feel it should be adressed. I voted yes.

This is a very valid concern. I'd love to see a checkbox for "Disable gallery voting for this image" when uploading. I post a lot of WIP photos myself, and there is no real reason for me to clog the voting priority list with images of a half finished battlewagon or armless ork boy.

Teek wrote:I make it a point to find the blurry, WIP, or otherwise less than tabletop pictures with 1 vote at 10/10 and vote low to average out to a normal score. Often times the user will have done so for multiple images within their gallery, so I follow through. I look forward to being banned for abusive votes! Although really, as long as I can host my army pictures here I'm happy, don't need an ability to vote to do that.

Adding a text box to allow people to explain their vote is great, but shouldn't be mandatory. It also already exists. If you comment on the photo, it shows your vote as well. Making an explanation mandatory will cripple the voting system. I speak only for myself, but I know it would stop me from spending those 4-5 minutes downtime at work between projects going through the "Images that need more votes" category.

The problem people seem to be having is having one or two votes with a score they disagree with. Or users holding grudges and voting like little children. Adding accountability might stem that, and it might not. It will make it easier to single out users and nuke them individually, creating more work for a [Gallery Mod]. Adding code that ignores outliers also solves that problem.

In the end, voting is 100% subjective. People's individual values they conceive for X, Y, or Z quality are 100% arbitrary when compared to any other user. FWIW, I voted no, but I trust Legoburner to do whatever is necessary to keep Dakka on the top of the wargaming forum heap.

See, that's why I feel the text box really should be mandatory in a voting system where we're voting on each others' work. This is, first and foremost, intended for improving and getting feedback on your modeling/painting prowess.
Not a popularity contest.

That's why I said it should only "count" the votes that have explanations. Now, there's nothing saying you can't go back and comment later when you have free time...but it does seem more and more that people are just going through the galleries and voting, just so that they can have the "Gallery Vote" tag under their name go up. The way I'm proposing it:

You still get to have your vote, it just doesn't mean jack since you're not really contributing to help the OP. Helps cut down on the spam votes or the people who're doing it to be douchebags, and builds up feedback for the painter/modeller.

Teek wrote:

Still, several people have stated that they've posted less pics because of the voting down, so I feel it should be adressed. I voted yes.

This is a very valid concern. I'd love to see a checkbox for "Disable gallery voting for this image" when uploading. I post a lot of WIP photos myself, and there is no real reason for me to clog the voting priority list with images of a half finished battlewagon or armless ork boy.

Good point Teek. When uploading WIPs, you could disable the voting. Or maybe, when uploading,a dd anothe roption to check: WIP, construction finished, painting finished? I have a few models that were kitbashed from painted models and shown in all their un-undercoated glory, and then got a 3 for painting... This way, WIPs wouldn't be getting votes, and unpainted models only get coolness votes, not painting... It's a tad more work when uploading, but it would benefit the whole gallery no end.

EDIT: this one's even better: P: 4.5, C: 4.5; 2 votes

If you vote for something you should be able to give reasons for your vote. I say it should be open.

my biggest beef with the gallery is seeing my work, as well as other people's, being put up in people's galleries here without credit being given to the actual painters...

cheers
jah

jah, there is a link at very the bottom of every image page - "Was this image made by you but uploaded by another user? Click here to send an alert to our moderators to dispute ownership."

Just click that and ownership will be transferred to you by a moderator. In some cases more evidence will be requested but usually we take care of it within a week.

BrassScorpion wrote:You raise some interesting and thoughtful points in the initial post here. I find everything said there to be valid and very well considered. It also raises the issue that nothing you do here will be fool proof and that the current system and the proposed new system have certain inherent flaws and vulnerabilities that will be exploited and misused by some. The current system clearly has its shortcomings and so will the proposed new system. I am glad you are treading carefully before making this decision.

I have to say, I agree. Your first post was the most intelligent, well thought out post I've read on Dakka.
I think that for sure, the user should be able to determine the voting status of an image he/she uploads, but I don't think that a voter's name is necessary. A text box would be a positive improvement, calling for less spam votes (which I must admit, I did quite a lot a few months ago).

jah-joshua wrote:my biggest beef with the gallery is seeing my work, as well as other people's, being put up in people's galleries here without credit being given to the actual painters...

cheers
jah

I'm guessing you do commission painting?

So, if you want your work being noticed...put it up in your own gallery with the notice that it was "done for a client".

Problem solved.

I voted yes for the history, as I think you should be able to stand by your opinion if you are going to give. This should make people think about the voting not just vote 3s for game line you don't like.

@legoburner: thanks man...
i don't have a problem with people using my pics, especially if it is for articles and such, i just think they should credit the artist in the description...

at least i'm here, and know what is what...
for other's who don't use this website, it's really a bummer to see their pics not being credited...

@Kanluwen: the minis of mine that i've seen in other's galleries are in my gallery as well...
i'm not looking to get commissions, just to be credited for my work...
it's more about other people who i know don't frequent Dakka, and thus don't know that they are having there work voted on in someone else's gallery without being credited...

cheers
jah

I know one thing I'd like to see is pictures with only a couple votes not getting put on the top rated pages showing up in a person's gallery as their best images.

Curious if me uploading stuff to articles is messing with the ownership side of pictures. I know
the only comments I ever get in my gallery are for pics I've uploaded for articles from other
users.

There really is no reason for anonymous voting on this site. If you wish to vote down an image, you should be willing to stand by your action.

Breotan wrote:There really is no reason for anonymous voting on this site. If you wish to vote down an image, you should be willing to stand by your action.

This.