i was wondering when this was going to happen...I've seen contests with only 7 or even less entries and the point system gives talent points to the top 7..so if there were only 7 entries total it made no sense for last place to receive talent points no matter what the final score was. I like the new system and I hope it stays this way.

I'm not sure about how it's working in the other categories, but for Photography - this bites. I received two 4th places this week. On one, I got 51 talent points, which is the exact same number of points 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd place got. All of the top 4 got 51 points. So what's the difference between scoring 1st or 4th? Seems to me that 1st place should be worth the most etc.

BUT... I also got 4th place in another contest. 1st through 3rd were within a few points of each other, but in this case 4th place got ZERO points! So, 4th in one contest is worth the same as the top three, and 4th in a different contest is worth absolutely nothing.

Basically, it looks as though under the new system the actual places are now irrelevent. 1st is not better than fourth, and hypothetically even 1st might not get any points. I didn't even vote this week. Not sure I will for a while

kyricom wrote:I'm not sure about how it's working in the other categories, but for Photography - this bites. I received two 4th places this week. On one, I got 51 talent points, which is the exact same number of points 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd place got. All of the top 4 got 51 points. So what's the difference between scoring 1st or 4th? Seems to me that 1st place should be worth the most etc.

BUT... I also got 4th place in another contest. 1st through 3rd were within a few points of each other, but in this case 4th place got ZERO points! So, 4th in one contest is worth the same as the top three, and 4th in a different contest is worth absolutely nothing.

Basically, it looks as though under the new system the actual places are now irrelevent. 1st is not better than fourth, and hypothetically even 1st might not get any points. I didn't even vote this week. Not sure I will for a while

I'm sure Kyricom isn't the only one who noticed. Good try, but no cigar on the new TP system.

The way I understand it, is that you get points from 65%. So if you look at the Bokeh contest, the first 24 places would have scored points, which I think is great as there were some wonderful shot in it.
On the other hand in the strange merchandise only the 3 top photos got any points, again, I think that's fair there really wasn't anything outstanding in that contest.
Personally I hate it when I get 8th or 9th place and really high score, but no TP.
I think we should try this for a while.
Vibeke

friiskiwi wrote:The way I understand it, is that you get points from 65%. So if you look at the Bokeh contest, the first 24 places would have scored points, which I think is great as there were some wonderful shot in it.
On the other hand in the strange merchandise only the 3 top photos got any points, again, I think that's fair there really wasn't anything outstanding in that contest.
Personally I hate it when I get 8th or 9th place and really high score, but no TP.
I think we should try this for a while.
Vibeke

FEH.

Yes, Vibeke, I think you're right. Entries with 65% or over will get points (at least that's what I understood). But (to me), that's problematic on a couple of fronts. Like I said above, this format basically makes the "places" irrelevant.

This format means that you could place 1st - and get ZERO points. It also means that LOTS of entries (24th place?) can get points. I, too, have dozens of 8th places (literally), and I agree it's a little frustrating to not get points for them... BUT, it becomes (again, for me) a question of quality. If there is going to be any meaning to the results, there needs to be a cut-off somewhere. Athletes in the Olympics are rewarded for being in the top 3, they don't give medals to every runner who runs below a certain time.

This format basically turns our "place totals" into the same thing as the reputation points. Nice to have (I guess), but with virtually no meaning. This will, over time, (and maybe not all that much time if we're awarding points for 24th place) also skew the site rankings. Right now they are based on the "places," but if we're giving points for everything you will soon see people skyrocketing in the rankings. People can vote 65%, 75%, 85% or whatever - and it wouldn't affect the place rankings, but now we will just see people voting high and everyone getting points.

VERY disappointing. I feel making it to where I have in the rankings was something of an achievement. I don't expect them to have much meaning in the future.

There is an easy fix to all of this but some might not agree. Nobody seems to agree anyway so this is my idea..Only 1st, 2nd and 3rd place get talent points. Plain and simple.

RickLaMesa wrote:There is an easy fix to all of this but some might not agree. Nobody seems to agree anyway so this is my idea..Only 1st, 2nd and 3rd place get talent points. Plain and simple.

Why not just go back to 1st through 7th get TP and leave it at that. I have no idea how to deal with entries with less than 7 entries. Maybe then only 1st, 2nd and 3rd place get talent points.

Bob is spot on and what I wanted to see from the start.
Leave it as it was but if there are less than 7 entries then only the top 3 should get talent points.
To me it is no longer a contest site, no need to try and win but try and get above 65%.
Totally meaningless as it is no longer a competition as such. Lets give everyone a ribbon for participating too.

After rereading the pros and cons I have to admit that although in a way I do like it that you get certain points for a high score (though by far not as much as what's set now), I mostly agree with this:

solkee wrote:To me it is no longer a contest site, no need to try and win but try and get above 65%. Totally meaningless as it is no longer a competition as such.(

You get points because you ended higher than the rest, regardless how high that was. If all entries had an average score, then so be it (who knows, maybe the contest was soso, can happen). Doesnt mean that you who ended nr 1 is better than the rest and you deserve points for that.
So yes, I'd definitely keep on focusing on that (as it was) and if really really needed there can be some tiny little extra bonus given to entries who scored high, but you may wonder if it's really needed then...
Bottonline: the new way of giving points is a nice try, but it loses its goal.