I'll ask again - Can we see those who don't vote?

ANDY00 said

YorVikIng said

ANDY00 said

It seems to me that it would be better to remove the need for people to vote or to require them to vote before allowing them to enter. I could be wrong, but just a thought—if they had to cast their votes before they were allowed to enter, wouldn't that solve the issue?

Edited by ANDY00

It would give poster number 1 a difficult problem. He would probably walk away without posting. Then poster number 2 would have the same problem, and probably be forced to chose the same solution.

[1] The system could add random votes until there are 5 submissions; that would solve the quick start issue. Then, zero out those votes once it’s moving.

[2] or if there’s only 1 submission, you’d only need to add one vote; for 2 submissions, you’d add 2 votes, and so on until it reaches 5, then business as usual.

With the first suggestion being the fairest, as accumulated votes would be removed, making it more fair for everyone.

 

Edited by ANDY00

Right. So following your suggested rules... if you are submitter number one, you don't need to "prove" your voting intention, but you do need to remember that you couldn't vote and therefore you must come back later and cast your vote.

If you are submitter number 2, then you MUST vote for submission number 1, and then you have to remember to come back later to cast your remaining votes.

Only submitter number 7 onwards gets any real choice, for he/she at least has 6 images to share his votes across.

I'm sorry, but this seems horribly complicated, and if I ever were to be submitter number six, I would be mightily miffed with being forced to vote for entries number 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, with no opportunity to view the remaining submissions.

Andy McG said

Or just show those disqualified entries at the bottom as I can't think its much of a code change and I'd know the buggers who are wasting my time :)

This seems like a very sensible - and achievable - suggestion.

YorVikIng I’m not going to answer this because you clearly haven’t read or understood what I’ve said and I have given multiple ideas including removing the requirement to vote altogether. they are just thoughts and ideas as I’ve said nothing to get so angry about.

Edited by ANDY00

I have the answer....do it like the Lottery.....either choose or it'll be a lucky dip. Then all submissions will be included, sorted.

I'm sorry, but if they enter but can't be bothered (or forget) to vote, surely that's their problem, not anyone else's?

Not sure if anyone has suggested this yet but why not keep the need to vote, but, no vote = no reward for the winner 🤷🏻‍♂️

Phillip J said

Not sure if anyone has suggested this yet but why not keep the need to vote, but, no vote = no reward for the winner 🤷🏻‍♂️

See that is a good idea :-) no votes = cannot win - simple 

no votes =cannot win.. still means that if you vote for a 'no voter' your votes are still wasted....

how about a 2 day window... if an entrant has not voted by the end of the first day then their entry is removed and the system notifies anyone that voted for them on the first day that those votes are reinstated allowing them another choice for entrants that have voted :)

I think too many people are trying to solve the wrong problem, hence are coming up with convoluted and impractical ways to address it, ways which would be expensive to code.

The problem is that some people (typically around 10% of competition entrants) forget to vote once they've submitted an entry, hence get disqualified.

The question should surely be how they can be encouraged to vote, or if they are serial "offenders" how can their forgetfulness impact fewer people in future?

I suspect (and Russ would have to run a query on the database to confirm this) that it's people who have turned off their competition alert notifications, something which I have done because I have little interest in the competitions.  The fact that there's only the one notification for all competition alerts may have something to do with it, as it'll cover alerts for several different events in a competition's lifecycle.  Can someone who has the alerts turned on confirm exactly what notifications you do get?

I have two new suggestions which I think would go some way towards addressing the OP's frustration:

1. Separate out the alert for "you have entered the competition but not yet voted" from the others.
2. Invalidate their competition entries for the next 7 days, to provide an incentive to remember in future.  This would avoid the problem of "serial offenders", though again this is based on an assumption (which again could be checked by a database query) that it's the same set of people.

I don't get what the OP's problem is with others not voting and thinking his votes are wasted. If others don't vote and get disqualified I would just think 'Great there is more chance of me winning. Yippee!!' If you only vote to try and win the free month's subscription it might be a problem possibly, but I only vote to try and win. I don't fret about what other people are doing and want to shame them. I honestly don't understand what this is about. The competitions are a purely voluntary bit of fun.

Sensual Art said

I think too many people are trying to solve the wrong problem, hence are coming up with convoluted and impractical ways to address it, ways which would be expensive to code.

The problem is that some people (typically around 10% of competition entrants) forget to vote once they've submitted an entry, hence get disqualified.

The question should surely be how they can be encouraged to vote, or if they are serial "offenders" how can their forgetfulness impact fewer people in future?

I suspect (and Russ would have to run a query on the database to confirm this) that it's people who have turned off their competition alert notifications, something which I have done because I have little interest in the competitions.  The fact that there's only the one notification for all competition alerts may have something to do with it, as it'll cover alerts for several different events in a competition's lifecycle.  Can someone who has the alerts turned on confirm exactly what notifications you do get?

I have two new suggestions which I think would go some way towards addressing the OP's frustration:

1. Separate out the alert for "you have entered the competition but not yet voted" from the others.
2. Invalidate their competition entries for the next 7 days, to provide an incentive to remember in future.  This would avoid the problem of "serial offenders", though again this is based on an assumption (which again could be checked by a database query) that it's the same set of people.

how would any of that cost less in coding than just removing the necessity to vote ? and how is it less convoluted ? I'm no coder, but I'm guessing that its easier just to say votes are not essential than change all those things you mentioned.

Don't get me wrong I'm happy with which ever way works best 1000% 

Edited by ANDY00

How about, if you vote for someone that entered but didn't vote at some point in the recent past, you are unable to vote at all.

What about, for example, if on Tuesday you voted for more than one entry that didn't vote, then you cannot vote on Tuesdays for six weeks.

How about, if you vote for people that entered but didn't vote, then you get docked 1 month of VIP. 

If mercury is rising, and your star sign is dinosaur, and you voted for people that excluded themselves because they didn't vote, then you get 3 months VIP for free.

So many options. I am trapped by analysis paralysis. Maybe we need a way to vote on ways to change the voting methods and punishments/rewards.

DM Photos said

I don't get what the OP's problem is with others not voting and thinking his votes are wasted. If others don't vote and get disqualified I would just think 'Great there is more chance of me winning. Yippee!!' If you only vote to try and win the free month's subscription it might be a problem possibly, but I only vote to try and win. I don't fret about what other people are doing and want to shame them. I honestly don't understand what this is about. The competitions are a purely voluntary bit of fun.

Ok, let me try and explain...

Its very frustrating after spending several minutes the day before working out my top five to find that 60% of that time was wasted.

I like to think I can spot a good photo and it pleases me when I see several of my choices in the top 10.  I live a simple life and simple things bring me pleasure.

Therefore not knowing what the 60% of my vote did is frustrating and ruin my fun.

The simple answer is that it is just a bit of fun & getting wound up is pointless.

Russ Freeman said

So many options. I am trapped by analysis paralysis. Maybe we need a way to vote on ways to change the voting methods and punishments/rewards.

So take the easy option and display the disqualified entries at the end. They remain disqualified but at least I'd know how 40-60% of my vote goes.  And might incentivise people to vote if they saw they would have got a free month (for example) if they'd only voted!

I can't believe its that hard to just replicate the previous code, but select the disqualified entries (unless unfortunately deleted!).  Even those NSFW in SFW comps :)