Photo Contest Problems

[anat1]

<p>I have noticed several issues with the latest Photo Contest (Earth Day) that I would like to raise here. I have posted this under "Photo Critique and Rating" as there is no forum category for contests.</p>

<p>1. The number of votes for the images (and the order of the rankings for the images) seem to continue to change *after* the deadline for voting has passed. I don't have anything to gain by raising this issue - my entry has in fact moved upward. I'm just not sure what is happening behind the scenes and how these contests are administered.</p>

<p>2. There have been bothersome comments being posted in nearly every photo that has entered the contest by a recent PN member. This was what prompted me to raise these issues in the forum. I find that there is no way to "report" a comment / critique - so that Admin may determine whether to remove them. A "Report this comment" type link (similar to "Is this comment helpful" link). For example, if you scroll down the page, you can easily spot said comment: http://www.photo.net/photo/17066622 . Similar/same comments found in many of the Earth Day image pages.</p>

<p>3. A very recent member is posting some good, but very low-resolution images that is raising some suspicion for me. That by itself didn't get me suspicious - but previously that member had another very low-res image of a boat at sea with lightning strikes - quite an image, which was doing extremely well in the contest, but now seems to have disappeared from the contest and the site: E.g. http://www.photo.net/photo/17169933</p>

<p>Till recently, I haven't joined any contests other than this one (Earth Day) on PN or elsewhere. So I am not sure if this is typical of online contests.</p>

 

[Not Here]

<blockquote>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=7592485</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking of the "bothersome comments", most seem to have been submitted by "blind ta" whose community member page I have referenced above. As of this writing he (she?) has 157 postings, all of which seem to be the same inane comment.</p>

<p>If a moderator finds this forum I would like "blind ta's" comment removed from my contest entries. If not I'm going to be forced to remove those images to eradicate the comments. I would think this member so egregious that any moderator monitoring this contest should have long ago banned his postings.</p>

<p>AN.... thanks for starting this forum... Mike </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>No idea who he/she is/was but I've removed that account and all the associated inappropriate comments.</p>

<p>I don't monitor the contest(s), but I do read this forum!</p>

<p>Not all stats are "real time". It's possible that counts may change after a given time due to refreshing of caches, syncing of servers etc. I don't know that's the case, but I do know that ratings, averages etc. are not all updated in real time.</p>

[Not Here]

<p>Thank you, Bob!<br>

Mike</p>

<p> </p>

[alfbailey]

<p><strong>A N</strong><br>

Sincere Thanks for raising this issue, and sending the link to my page.<br>

<strong>BOB</strong>,<br>

Thank you also for removing the "blind ta" comments from my image also. However while we are on the subject, perhaps you could also remove some of his aliases "Child Boy" , "Chimea Sam" and "Kow Hong" who it would appear, are all singing from the same hymm sheet, and posting similar comments relating my contest entry image.<br>

The comments appeared after there were large amounts of votes in a seemingly short space of time attached to my image "Island Pony"<br>

To save time I will post here the response to Mike (MLM) who ventured to ask what the hell was going on, and perhaps Bob or one of the PN team could forward an explanation to me, as I am still none the wiser.</p>

<p><em>MIKE</em></p>

<p ><em>Well I have been through several different states of mood in the last few days </em></p>

<p ><em>1. Surprise: - Seemingly overnight my image gets lots of votes, in fact more than anyone else. </em></p>

<p ><em>2. Delight: - I think "Hey I might have actually won something here"</em></p>

<p ><em>3. Disgust and anger: - After receiving the consequential angry comments and unbelievable emails!</em></p>

<p ><em>4. Confused: - Like yourself I want to know what the hell happened!</em></p>

<p ><em>Conclusion: Either my photo has been undermined by person or persons unknown. (all the clues are there) Or: Someone with misplaced loyalty has been voting for my image inappropriately and the votes have been disallowed. PN have not seen fit to provide me with an explanation. However, one thing is for certain, it is the last time I will enter a competition on PN. I think for a start PN admin should at least limit voting to fully paid up members, in order to curtail misuse. One last thing is, if this is the way that the site is run, then I might just find another. I really don't like the way that this has made me look! I feel embarrassed and humiliated! When I think, there are members of my family that are long standing members of PN who joined before me, and I didn't even ask them to vote, in fact they didn't even know I had entered the contest Very glad you asked the question though so I could get it out of my system! Cheers Mike</em></p>

<p ><em>Alf</em><br>

I Hope Bob will understand my anger and frustration at the time of writing the above, as apart from the comments, I had received some very unpleasant emails from the above mentioned person or persons.</p>

<p>One last thing question to Bob, you mentioned "I don't monitor the contest(s), but I do read this forum!"<br>

Perhaps you could advise me, who does monitor the contest(s)?<br>

Thank You</p>

<p>Alf</p>

<p> </p>

[anat1]

<p>Bob - Thank you removing that account and associated comments. However, ***that is by no means the only issue raised*** - by me and by others as you can see above. We would like to see all the issues addressed. So could you kindly bring this to the attention of PN contest "administration". Thank you again.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I don't know who monitors the contest. If anyone does I'd have to assume it would be Cara and/or Glenn. I'm sure they both read this forum on a regular basis, so whatever is said here will get to them.</p>

<p>I have no idea how this contest worked, how the scores were obtained or how any final outcome may have been decided. I'm not involved with the contest(s) in any way and I certainly don't know what's going on "behind the scenes".</p>

<p>Any sort of abuse issue can be reported via the contact form at <a href="/info/contact-us">http://www.photo.net/info/contact-us</a>. Just substitute Cara's name for Josh's since the page doesn't seem to have been updated yet.</p>

[G-P]

<p>It is important to note that we receive multiple votes from same IP addresses and we must eliminate those votes in order to insure that the contest voting is as accurate as possible. Please remember that because of this, winners can not be announced until all votes are counted and authenticated. We will be announcing the winners as soon as we receive the choice from the guest judge. </p>

[alfbailey]

<p><strong>BOB</strong><br>

Thank you for the clarification, and link to the reporting procedure. I intend to make use of it.<br>

<strong>GLENN</strong><br>

I am aware that repetitive votes from single IP addresses would need to be eliminated, and that indeed this process would take up considerable time.<br>

I should also stress I am not trying to undermine the fine images of the eventual winners.<br>

What I do think needs addressing is that:<br>

1. The IP address of voters should be recognised in the first place, and therefore repeating votes do not register. (surely we have the technology to achieve this?) thus saving time afterwards.<br>

2. The deliberate abuse,, misuse and assasination of the contest by newly registered, non paying members, is recognised and dealt with promptly.</p>

<p>3. That inappropriate comments and accusations against myself, other PN members and PN admin are removed from images. I refer specifically to those that still remain under my image "Island Pony" that seem disquietingly similar in content and grammar.<br>

I will take up these points with CARA using the link that Bob kindly provided, and allow 24 hours for the removal of the offending comments. If after this time I they are not removed I will remove the image from my portfolio, and further deliberate on renewing my subscription to PN.<br>

Thank You.<br>

Alf</p>

<p> </p>

[G-P]

<p>On points<br>

1.) Short of an IP check in real time, Jin is looking into a way to check votes against IP addresses at more frequent intervals than we had in place previously. We also discussed additional safeguards we can implement to address the issue of dealing with people that like to "game the system". I believe we have one which we will put in place on next contest.<br>

2.) The registered members that left those comments have been dealt with by being banned and nuked. <br>

3.) Please continue to report as soon as you find so we can delete. Unfortunately we can not track all comments and as a result need to reply on comments like those being reported so we can delete in a timely fashion.<br>

Thank you for your participation. Next contest will be announced by Cara on Friday and she will touch on the added safeguards we have put in place to the voting system at that point! </p>

[alfbailey]

<p><strong>GLENN</strong><br>

Many Thanks for your swift response and that of the PN admin generally.<br>

Thank you also for removing the offending comments in question so swiftly, I can see I should have taken a more direct route initially to report the problem.<br>

It is reassuring also to note that the points raised in this forum are being taken seriously and are being acted upon.<br>

Finally, I quite like the terminology "banned and nuked" it sounds befitting.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Alf</p>

<p> </p>

[anat1]

<p>Dear Glenn,<br>

Equating duplicate IP addresses to fraudulent votes can throw away legitimate votes - quite possibly *many* legitimate votes depending on the reasons duplicate IPs are being seen, as follows:</p>

<p>1. In a home where multiple family members or residents are PN members, they will likely all have the same *external* IP. Even though they have different IPs inside their home Wifi network, they will all have the same IP since they will have just one connection from their Internet Service Provider (e.g. Comcast). They could be family members or room-mates or tenants all sharing the same WiFi network, who also happen to be PN members.</p>

<p>2. Similarly when different people login to PN from a coffee-shop (e.g. Starbucks) using that coffee shop's wireless network, they will seem to have the same IP from PN's servers' perspective. So if over the course of the month different (unrelated) PN members were to visit Photo.net from the same neighborhood cafe, then only one of those votes will be counted if duplicate IPs are discarded. In many developing countries visiting "Internet Parlors" or "Internet Cafes" is common practice. The different PN members visiting the same internet cafe will be counted as duplicate votes as they will have the same IP.</p>

<p>3. Public WiFi is increasingly common in the US - in malls, *airports*, even in parks. Again, the many people logged on the public WiFi system will often have the same *external IP* address. Over the course of the month if different PN members login to Photo.net and vote from the same airport (or mall, or park), then their votes will be discarded since they will be considered duplicates.</p>

<p>In all the above three examples, legitimate votes of different (sometimes completely unrelated, unaffiliated) Photo.net members will be erroneously discarded due the duplicate-IP discarding scheme.</p>

<p>It is not clear why duplicate IPs or any IPs need to be looked into. Every PN account (which needs a login & password) can vote *once* for every entry. As long as no member is allowed to vote twice or more for the same entry (which can be checked as their votes are part of their account history), no IP checking seems to be necessary.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>People have been known to setup multiple accounts, each of which can vote. That's why duplicate IPs are suspicious.</p>

<p>My guess if that legitimate duplicate IPs are a very rare occurance. Out of 1000 votes I'd be surprised if legitimate duplicate IPs accounted for more than 1 or 2. I know from my experience as a moderator here for over 10 years that postings from duplicate IPs are FAR more likely to indicate a problem than not.</p>

<p>However I'm sure that plans are being put in place which will ensure against multiple voting by any individual, while making sure that all legitimate votes are counted. Both are important.</p>

[alfbailey]

<p><strong>BOB</strong></p>

<p>I think A N has listed some good examples of where duplicate IPs could legitimately exist. And although investigation could reveal their history on the site, including the time of registration and the amount of activity, I'm not altogether sure that would prove to be 100% conclusive in indentifying fraudulent / genuine voting in all cases.<br>

<br /> I take on board your experiences and the statistics you have quoted, but you have indicated that this is a guess.<br>

The problem it would seem, is that there is no sure fired way of actually knowing.<br>

<br /> Maybe parameters could be set for members who wish to enter the competitions that may at least reduce the problem, and consequently the time it takes to investigate and make adjustments afterwards.<br>

<br /> Personally I would be in favour of introducing a rule that would make eligibility to competition entry exclusive to subscribed members.<br>

Although I can appreciate that this may not be conversant to the spirit of PN where access is open to all, it would almost certainly eliminate the problem of members using multiple IPs for the purpose of cheating.<br>

<br /> Other than that, maybe time constrictions could apply to those enjoying free membership, a period of 12 months registration preceeding any competition entry.<br>

<br /> I am sure that PN could also more easily guage the activities of members over a 12 month period to determine their authenticity as genuine interested photographers, and therefore their eligibility to enter a contest or vote.<br /> These measures could prove to be a good deterrant, although I suppose for those determined enough to cheat, even this isn't foolproof.<br>

<br /> I am pleased to hear that plans are being put in place to counteract multiple voting by individuals, maybe the above suggestions could be considered also.</p>

[anat1]

<p>At the very least, restricting the duplicate-IP-discarding scheme to only free subscribers would:<br>

1. reduce the number of legitimate votes that are discarded<br>

2. focus the problem better on the problematic accounts.<br>

This would work under the assumption that multiple paid accounts will not be setup to cheat. One could further refine by looking at activity of the free account (number of postings given and recieved between that account and other paid accounts) and not filter that account's votes if they came from a duplicate IP if that free account is / has been "active" for a period of time before the contest (e.g. 6 months).</p>

<p>I don't see how one can get across the problems of throwing away legitimate votes if *only* duplicate IPs were used without other filters (paid vs free, amount of activity etc). The three examples I provided in the previous post are common usage scenarios of the web and will become more common as public WiFi use increases. Bob suggests, from anecdotal guesstimates, that those usage scenarios are uncommon for Photo.net. This may be true but I'm still skeptical (not that my skepticism should matter to PN).</p>

<p>Just for example (Alf - forgive me for using your case), Alf Bailey has been a member of PN for a while and is active in postings and in giving and receiving critiques. He seems to generally have a "good" reputation on PN. Why would he go to the trouble of creating multiple free accounts to simply vote for himself in this Earth Day competition just to win a photo bag? Or did other accounts created for the purpose of cheating (completely unaffiliated to Alf), *inexplicably* increase Alf's vote count (instead of increasing their own vote count)?</p>

<p>Neither scenario explains how the leading image (Island Pony) got to be the leading image and then after the votes from duplicate IPs were discarded fell to a lower position. One explanation that would fit is that legitimate votes were discarded based on duplicate IPs. And the IPs were duplicate due to the some of the *legitimate* usage scenarios I described in my previous post.</p>

<p> </p>

[carashilaire]

<p>The IP addresses are actually looked at to see what the history/pattern is. For example, a few cases this last time, there were several accounts created in a day from the same IP and these accounts messed up the legitimate voting. Those votes were were removed. Oddly, sock puppets don't actually just vote for their own photo. They randomly vote for other photos too (which still makes me scratch my head), so I think that is what happened a few times and I can see how very frustrating that would be for entrants who play by the rules. The votes don't necessarily mean the entrant is gaming the system at all. It is on the voters. If the IP address of the free accounts happens to also be the same as the contest entrant, we'll actually remove that photo from the contest entirely. I know - very weird! <br /><br /><br>

I'm setting up the new contest for today - please pardon my delay! It normally wouldn't go up this late in the month. I'm waiting for our guest judge, who is on the road. The big change is that it will be for paying subscribers only going forward. That will eliminate a bunch of false accounts being created to game the system. It is unfortunate, but we want to make sure it is a legitimate contest and remove the frustration you have experienced while dealing with with sock puppetry (and it is time consuming on our end as well). It may mean there will be less entries, but it will get rid of the suspicious activity and the flurry of new free accounts. <br /><br />So, overall - just want you all to know that we do monitor the suck puppet involvement in the contest (that is why the votes changed a few times last week) and we are putting in place a subscription only contest going forward to ensure the suck puppets stay away. I'm sorry that a cluster of bad apples had to uproot the system - the contest is meant to be fun and display work you are really proud of! The next contest will be "Monochrome" and we can't wait to see the photos! </p>

[Not Here]

<p>Cara...<br>

Forgive my IP ignorance but I couldn't help noticing in all of the contests so far it's possible for me to vote once for every entry, if I were to choose to do so. Is that allowed or am I considered a repeat offender ;-)... Tks... Mike</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Those dang "suck puppets " are always causin trouble.</p>

[carashilaire]

<p>Hi Mike - you actually can vote for as many as you'd like, but you can only vote once for each. Not an ignorant question at all. I know Gordon B - those dang sock puppets are causin' trouble! :)</p>

[alfbailey]

<p><strong>CARA</strong><br>

I too am still scratching my head at the seemingly random votes cast from the erm sock puppets or was it suck puppets : - ) Strangely both titles seem most befitting!<br>

It is reassuring to know that the loopholes are now being closed in the interest of fairness and for the benefit of genuine subscribers.<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>Alf</p>

[carashilaire]

<p>Sure thing, Alf - and again, so sorry that it caused such an annoyance.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The big change is that it will be for paying subscribers only going forward. That will eliminate a bunch of false accounts being created to game the system. It is unfortunate, but..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is indeed unfortunate that you have chosen this heavy handed response to disqualify all non-subscribers, the vast majority of whom I am certain did play fair. Now they are on the outside looking in through no fault of their own because of the juvenile, cheating behaviour of a few bad apples. You have effectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The irony is not lost to me that the Earth Day contest <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4857940"><strong>winner chosen by member votes</strong></a> (a non-subscriber who has been here for 4 years) and the <strong><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7592556">guest judge selected winner</a></strong> (the very same member who gave photo.net the <strong>most exposure to potential new members</strong> on Facebook), would not have been eligible to participate if these rules had been in place last month. So two talented photographers who played fair and were judged as "best in show" last month would not be welcome now (yes, I know they will be subscribers as a result of their <strong>well deserved</strong> winning entries, and can participate going forward).</p>

<p>I can understand and agree with restricting voting to subscribers only going forward to discourage cheating, but disqualifying non-subscribers (read potential <strong>new</strong> subscribers) from participating entirely seems to be rather "cliquish" and small minded.</p>

<p>(Note: <strong>Not</strong> "sour grapes" on my part. A <strong>former</strong> subscriber, I had no plans or desire to enter, but am disappointed in the direction I see this site going. Just a point of view "from the other side of the fence".)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It is indeed unfortunate that you have chosen this heavy handed response to disqualify all non-subscribers...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If you feel this strongly, you should put forward your proposal to deal with a serious problem that has plagued photo.net for years. Where is it?</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>Jeff - please read my previous post carefully. I have no problem or objection whatsoever to restricting contest <strong>voting</strong> to subscribers only as a means to combat "sock puppet" voting and cheating.</p>

<p>But denying non-subscribers the opportunity to <strong>submit entries</strong> to the contest does nothing as far as I can see except restrict participation to an elite pay-to-play clique. If that is what the site owners want, then so be it. It's their sandbox. But non-subscribers may get the impression that they are "lower class citizens" and therefore their artistic contributions are unworthy of exposure and recognition. Maybe I'm blind, deaf and dumb, but I don't see how allowing <strong>entries</strong> from non-subscribers increases the potential for cheating if non-subscribers can't vote. So the baby has been tossed out with the bath water looking for a quick fix to what is admittedly a serious and ongoing problem (gaming the system).<br /> -</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"you should put forward your proposal ... Where is it?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, here it is. Simple.</p>

<ol>

<li>Contest <strong>voting</strong> is restricted to subscribers only.</li>

<li>Contest <strong>submissions</strong> are open to all registered members.</li>

<li>To recognize the value of subscribers to the site, subscribers may submit multiple entries up to a limit of <em>n</em> photos per contest. Non-subscribers may submit only one (1) entry per contest.</li>

</ol>

<p>Maybe I'm dense or naive, but if anyone can explain to me how 2. compromises the integrity and fairness of the contest, I'm all ears!</p>

<p>As I noted, I have no personal stake in this one way or the other. But I've been here for awhile, have resided on both sides of the street (subscriber/non-subscriber), and perhaps can present viewpoints from the perspective of both. This site (community) should be as welcoming and inclusive as possible, should it not? These new photo contest rules are neither.</p>

[i_magen]

<p>I am trying to submit a photo for the B/W contest, but when I go to my image I cannot find a "Submit to contest" drop down menu. All there is in the Admin Tab is the "Submit to Current Monthly Project" link - I even ended up submitting my image to this one thinking perhaps only the name of the link was wrong.<br>

Is there something I should do in order to have access to the contests?<br>

Thanks.</p>