Ooops. Typo. Username: bondezire On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Darren Addy <pixelsmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for doing that Steve. > I still can't figure out how you are linking the names to the photos. > > In round 3, if the 6th place guy is Bondezaire (#20 with 53 votes) > then I think I could still have a mathematical problem. It looks like > it could be, to me. Time will tell. > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM, steve harley <p...@paper-ape.com> wrote: >> on 2014-08-17 9:29 Darren Addy wrote >> >>> There was a runaway winner in Round 2, so it is possible according to >>> the rules above, that the photographer who took that Round 2 shot >>> could be the eventual winner, even if he only got approximately 50% of >>> the votes my photo got in Round 3. And it is likely that has happened, >>> but since names aren't put to the photos yet, I'm not sure which one >>> is his. >> >> >> it seems you can put names to photos by clicking on them from the galleries >> linked from the poll results pages; based on that, i looked at the top 5 in >> the two latter rounds (couldn't find numbers for round 1), and the two sets >> don't intersect at all; here are the weighted scores from those two rounds >> >> round 3 ( n / 102 ): >> 9 cheeky: 102 -> 1.0 >> 30 s christ: 93 -> .912 >> 12 harry: 61 -> .598 >> 6 buhlman: 59 -> .578 >> 22 pentor: 54 -> .529 >> >> round 2 ( n / 102 * 0.5 ): >> 4 bondezire: 93 -> .5 >> 5 bonnieb: 63 -> .339 >> 31 ve2cj1: 44 -> .237 >> 38 atrej: 40 -> .215 >> 2 alcazar: 36 -> .194 >> (50 cheeky: 23 -> 0.124) >> >> so if i've got that right, then the maximum score of 0.2 in the first round >> wouldn't possibly put anyone over your score from rounds 2 & 3; don't get >> your hopes up, i did this mainly to demystify the calculation >> >> >> >>> I'm no mathamatician, but there is something that seems very illogical >>> to me about the formula (in addition to the "anomaly" I've pointed >>> out, above.) >> >> >> by anomaly do you mean the large number of votes for the round 2 winner? >> perhaps they simply did what you did, but more successfully: asked a lot of >> people to vote for their image … as we all do sometimes, you were willing to >> set aside your unease at the "fairness" of the competition because the >> potential reward was high; i don't mean to imply that by participating you >> forfeit your right to object to the terms >> >> >> >>> That requires >>> calculating all 32 3rd round scores, for ALL 3 rounds. They made >>> themselves a lot of work, if nothing else. >> >> >> not a lot of work, just dump the results in a spreadsheet, write one simple >> calculation and apply it to all the rows; i did a few by hand rather quickly >> without the benefit of tabular data >> >> >> >>> I'll keep you posted. But I wanted to sincerely thank all of you >>> PDMLers who are also PF members who voted. THANK YOU! >> >> >> you're welcome, i did vote for yours; good luck (if luck is what it is) >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > > -- > Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs > look like photographs. > ~ Alfred Stieglitz
-- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
