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

Andy McG

Sounds good to me.

I stopped participating in and voting in the competitions, when the link was made between entering and voting on most likely to win. I used to vote because I felt it was worth doing and did not expect anything back, I used to enter because I felt I had something worth entering.

This sounds like an attempt to make it even less appealing, more like sucking the life out of it

As for "shaming" people who forgot and listing them so like minded angry mobs can sneer  is just plain nasty, when the site decided to bring in the connection. It will just make even more people decide not to participate.

Most people do not have the time or patience for things being made complicated or having to wade through tonnes of notifications. If you want people to give up their time or contribute, make thinks nice, simple and pleasurable to be involved in and keep those who want to regulate it out

Gerry99111 said

As for "shaming" people who forgot and listing them so like minded angry mobs can sneer  is just plain nasty, when the site decided to bring in the connection. It will just make even more people decide not to participate.

Guessing you missed my smiley face after the comment, it was not serious ;)

Andy McG said

Gerry99111 said

As for "shaming" people who forgot and listing them so like minded angry mobs can sneer  is just plain nasty, when the site decided to bring in the connection. It will just make even more people decide not to participate.

Guessing you missed my smiley face after the comment, it was not serious ;)

What was not serious? The "shaming" part or listing them, because if you list them, they will be shamed.

It doesn't change a single thing about my post. A decision to link two things in the competitions to make them more complicated will have the life sucked out if you decide to create even more crap to deal with problems caused by the link

Russ Freeman

Could you shed some photons on this apparent contradiction:

I would imagine of those who enjoy participating in the daily competition there are a mixture of entrants & voters…

And that not everybody enters every competition…

And that not everybody votes on every competition…

Voters don’t have their votes excluded from the results just because they haven’t entered an image.

So why are entrants’ entries excluded from results if they haven’t voted?

In essence, what’s the point of the rule in the first place?

They’ve already participated in the social event by entering… as much as non entrants have participated by voting.

So why the punishment?

This post has been filtered based on your content filter settings because it is NSFW. View reply

I think showing all competition entries in their ranked order would be good, with images slightly greyed out/opacity reduced for images that were disqualified because their owner didn't vote, would be great.

As somebody else has mentioned - if an entry otherwise ranks highly but is disqualified, it could be a incentive for the entrant to vote in future competitions.

This wouldn't really be a change, per see, except for the amount of information given at the completion of a competition.

Doing things because they are easy doesn't make them the right choice. Nothing is as smiple as it seems, and besides, I see no harm in keeping things the way they are.

Raj Singh - It's a requirement for entering the comps, not a punishment.

Russ Freeman not a punishment?

Might I respectfully suggest perhaps a little reflection then on the last sentence of your first comment on this thread is in order.

“ Maybe we need a way to vote on ways to change the voting methods and punishments/rewards. “

A thing is just a thing until its owner gives it a definitive definition…

Cosographer the problem with including the disqualified entries in the rankings is that it validates the behaviour of entering but not voting as the disqualified entrants get the kudos of "x" votes.

Raj Singh My first comment on this post was 100% pure sarcasm, and I was hoping that would be clear since no one has the star sign of "dinosaur."

Russ Freeman sarcasm?

Seems more like a very poor cop out from the founder of this platform when they’ve been caught out by their own words.

You know very well that what you write and how you write it as a founding representative of this social platform matters.

Referring to the exclusion for non voting entrants as a ‘punishment’ tells your paying (& free) membership what you think of them… especially if you don’t make it explicitly clear you are being sarcastic.

There are ways to do so.

Otherwise words, and their meaning, are quite justifiably read literally.

Referring to the people who take your written words literally… as ‘dinosaurs’ is equally a comment on you..

Aren’t there rules for throwing dummies out and being openly insulting?

Hence the respectful suggestion to perhaps reflect on your own words… 🤪

Oh wait, scrub that last emoji..

Wouldn’t want you to mistake that comment for sarcasm by adding something that would make it obvious.

Russ Freeman

I see now your ‘dinosaur’ reference is not directed at me but rather referring to a sentence in your first comment in this thread.

So I withdraw the accusation that you are insulting me or anyone else who reads words literally.

However, my reference was clearly to the words of the last sentence of your first comment on this thread.

I accept those sentences above it are sarcastic, but I don’t agree that final sentence can be bundled in to “100% sarcasm” and taken as such.

“ Maybe we need a way to vote on ways to change the voting methods and punishments/rewards. “

That is a very telling indication of you seeing exclusion of non voting competition entrants as a punishment.

FarmerSteve I disagree mate - you'd still not be able to 'win' anything if you enter but don't vote as your entry would still be disqualified. There is no actual gain/reward just from showing everyone the true results of the vote (with annotations for disqualified entries). I don't think that knowing seven people voted for your image (that still ended up at like 32nd on the list) is much kudos or validation, whereas if somebody were to have won and then been disqualified they'll kick themselves because they'll know they could have had some free VIP access 🤷🏻‍♂️

I don't feel absolute in any of this and different things work for or motivate people differently if course. Do you feel like the need to deprive non-voters of kudos is of more value than giving everyone more information about the way voting played out?

I think actually there might be a fair amount more pressure on somebody to vote if they're listed on the rankings as a non-voter. For instance, if I voted for an image in one competition and saw they'd not voted and effectively wasted one of my votes, then that same image came up again.... I'd not vote for it the next time. So if anything it'd hold people a little more accountable to their peers 🤷🏻‍♂️

Other reasons aside, I think it'd interesting to see the change. But obviously it's not something that will revolutionise anything, but it seems a relatively easy modification to the system.

And on that, back into my box I go 😂

Russ Freeman There's absolutely no harm in keeping things the way they are. It would be an otherwise minor modification that wouldn't bring significant change. But, conversely, do you think making a change at this point would be harmful?