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 -- 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.
