« Smile! In the Dark | Main | Wolf...We Think...This Time There Really Is a Wolf.... »

Friday, 30 August 2013

Comments

Like Wal-mart and Starbucks, I guess I will never understand what gets preference from the masses...

Sarge's methodology favors photographs presented in earlier batches as they get a vote for being liked best even before all their competitors have been presented. Then these photos from early batches can get a second (or third vote?) from the same person if he or she comments that they still like that same photo best after they have seen another batch of photos.

In the third batch (the only batch of comments I counted), much of the time there is no way to tell if the image mentioned first is the commenter's FIRST choice, sometimes it is clearly not - i.e."Again, in order that they are presented:"

I think a better methodology would:

1. only counts votes in the third batch from posts that make it clear they are judging the entire contest, not just the third batch. (Even when they didn't explicitly say they were judging the whole contest, if they made a list that included a photo presented in an earlier batch I would accept that as a vote that considered the whole contest, but if their list did not include any photos from earlier batches and they did not explicitly state that they were judging the whole contest I would not count it.)

2. The commenter would have to make it at least implicit that the first photo they mention was their favorite (and make it clear they were not referencing the order the images appeared on the page).

Given this methodology the Turkey man is still the clear first choice of the commenters. It gets twice the votes of its nearest competitor.

The names in column "B" were the photographers?
Or the judges? Or just interested parties?

[Hi Bryce, Column B of the spreadsheet lists the commenters whose "votes" or mentions were being tallied. --Mike]

The comments to this entry are closed.