Group: IPERNITY - Ambassador Images

Supplementary explanation to item 1:

The lack of readiness could be due to the fact that suitable jury candidates feel too constrained by the previous weekly assessment period. In addition, the previous evaluation method via Discord was too labour-intensive.

With the new Poll Unit tool, the workload is much lower. A monthly rhythm would be less restrictive. It would also have the benefit of being able to choose a 'Picture of the Month' on this basis. This could increase the group's appeal.

(It also could be a step in the direction to elect a 'picture of the year' at some point in the future, as also envisaged by Andreas.)

Supplementary explanation to item 2:

A two-thirds majority or even stricter criteria make sense in the case of a very limited amount of available presentation space or a very large amount of proposals. The former does not apply in our case, and the current volume of proposals is manageable with Poll Unit. However, if it were to increase significantly as a result of the proposed changes, stricter criteria could be considered.

Supplementary explanation to item 3:

At present, there is a settled jury consisting of 9 members. If these members are willing, they could continue until the consequences of the other changes are foreseeable. This is especially relevant with regard to item 1.

Supplementary explanation to item 6:

If the jury's voting period is changed to monthly (see item 1), the best picture from the judging could be defined as 'Picture of the Month'.

If the ima team agrees, this picture could become a regular part of the monthly Club News. This would draw more attention to the group, but also increase the attractiveness of the Club News.

Supplementary explanation to item 7:

Let's assume that an average photographer would exhaust the quota of 3 proposals per week (= 156 per year). At an acceptance level of 50%, 78 of the proposals would be included in the group. The pictures of this photographer would be overrepresented due to the proposal intensity. The goal of diversity would be compromised:



If it were a very good photographer, the overrepresentation would be double. Above all, it would be to the detriment of other good photographers, as well as club members who cannot participate so often due to their life situation. Because pictures just above the acceptance threshold would now be dropped below it:



With a lesser photographer, it would have the opposite effect of lifting pictures above the acceptance level into the group:



Fortunately, such an extreme case (permitted so far) hardly occurs. But in at least 10 cases, abnormal proposal accumulations are detectable, so that these effects are nevertheless effective. They are based solely on the calculation of probability. The measures proposed in the other points can only dampen the effects, but not prevent them.

However, such distortions can be eliminated if all members are given the same chance to propose their pictures. So also the less well-connected members. The right to self-suggestions would also increase the motivation to participate in the group, because it is always more attractive if one has the prospect of a reward. In contrast, it is not very attractive to suggest other members' pictures without one' s own pictures ever being taken into account.

Supplementary explanation to item 8:

1 Proposal per 14 days corresponds to 26 proposals per year (= 52 weeks). With an acceptance probability of 50% for an average good picture, 13 pictures make it into the group. This corresponds to one picture per photographer and month that is really worth showing + 1 bonus picture.

This limit makes sense in terms of the greatest possible diversity in this group. In addition, it also gives those who have less free time a reasonable chance. The jury is relieved because the multi-submitters make a better pre-selection.

Supplementary explanation to item 9:

With such a limitation, the total stock would be renewed about every two years. This renewal is desirable in order to create an impression of topicality.

Ich würde Aktualität eher bei einem als bei zwei Jahren sehen !
Gruß Karin

I think all of these are valuable, relevant, and positive to the group’s variety and quality.
Thank you!

zu Punkt 3. "Schritte & Lösungen"
mein Vorschlag : Kriterien zur Jurierung den Jurymitgliedern als Hilfe zu geben.
Punktevergabe:
30% für Bildaufbau & Bildgestaltung
30% Idee,Originalität,Inhalt
30% technische Umsetzung (Schärfe,Kontrast usw.)
10% Emotion beim Juror
10 Punktesystem = ein Bild mit z.B.10 Punkten bekommt alle Sterne
ein Bild mit z.B. vier Punkten "nur noch" 1 Stern
herzliche Grüße Karin
PS.ich melde mich bis Ende September ab :-)) Ferien :-)) Hurra :-))

Danke für Deine Hinweise!
Poll Unit ermöglich glücklicherweise sehr individuelle Abstimmvarianten:
pollunit.com/de/fotowettbewerb

It is clear much time and effort has been put into this, and I find little to disagree with and much to commend. These proposals will I am sure be for the benefit of jury members and group quality.

Feel free to voice what you disagree with and what you commend. We are interested in everyone's opinions!

Thank you for your time and effort on this. I am a bit overwhelmed by all the information, but will try and respond to the further steps and solutions.
-------------------------
But first a few things:

1) I find our current Explore/Noteworthy page to be very successful. It is visually interesting. it is of good quality (i may not like all the photos, but I don't consider any of them to be something I wouldn't want to share with a newcomer). It peaks and keeps my interest whenever I visit it, that is I see images from people and in styles that I don't readily find other places on ipenity.

2) If the desire is to get more jury members (so we can have a rotation) and get suggestions from more people, then I think we should focus on engaging members first as I feel the other issues will naturally work themselves out if more suggestions and more jury members actually comes to pass. This is my focus (after some of the logistics of the new voting system are figured out).

3) I think it is natural that some people will suggest certain people's work for the group - call that a 'buddy' system if you want, but this is inherent in having the membership suggest what they like. I may not focus on a particual person, but I myself tend to suggest photos from my contacts. I am not spending my time searching through new and different people's photographs and groups etc, for photos for the group. I think if we get more people making suggestions makes this becomes a non-issue.
-------------------------
item 1 - I agree that a reduced frequency of voting might make being a jury member more appealing to certain people, but i don't know if it is necessary with the new polling system. I personally don't have an issue with once a week, but don't object to the idea of extending the time to once a month, or maybe every other week. I do think having something every week keeps one remembering to do it *smile*.

item 2 - I agree 100% to stay with 50% acceptence level for now.

item 3 - I believe you are referring to keeping the current jury members. I agree. I'm happy to keep being part of the jury - happy to step down if/when there are more jury members who would like to take part.

item 4 - Again, thank you so much for finding an alternative (even though I didn't have any issues with discord, I completely understand the need for a different system)

item 5 - Completely agree. PollUnit seems very reliable, though how we use the star system needs to be clarified before the next vote.

item 6 - I personally don't have any issue with the idea of a 'picture of the month', but it definitely needs to be discussed with the ima team as I'm aware of some people being against 'contests' and the team will need to weigh the benefits to the distractions of such a thing.

item 7 - I agree with removing the rule that one can't suggest one's own photos. A nuance on this is that previously some jurors refused to vote on their own photos (even though they were allowed and hadn't made the suggestion themselves). I would still like to see a juror be able to vote on their own photo. If they weren't allowed, they would be placed at a disadvantage because they are a juror.

item 8 - I agree with the concept, but not the time frame/quantity (and not for the same reasons). I also am unsure of how you would enforce this rule with our coding as it stands. currently the coding allows for limits in terms of per day, per week or per month. Also, I am unsure about how those limits work in detail. I am checking with Rob about that. If we change this rule it should be clearly stated to all members of the group, especially if we also allow suggestions of one's own work. The restrictions would them perhaps make it more likely that people would only suggest their own work, and I think it is important that people suggest other people's work. Also, I completely disagree with "That's why older posts are hardly ever viewed." - this is a non-issue because the Explore/Noteworthy page is random! only on the group page does this arguement stand as true.

item 9 - I am NOT in favor of having a maximum number of photos in the group at this time. The only way i could see that working logistically is to remove the oldest photos when adding new ones. I worry that would remove representation from people who only have a single photo in the group, while not placing someone with lots of photos in the group at any real loss of representation.
So I suggest as an alternative solution that we place a maximum number of photos that a particular photographer can have in the group - that their older contributions would be removed after they have perhaps 30 photos total.

Thank you for your comments. They are a valuable enrichment of the discussion. I am also looking forward to the comments of others.

First measures (updated August 18, 2022):

Item ❶: The new rating period is once a month.

Item ❷: The jury agreed to set the acceptance level at 50% (= Median) until further notice. This means: Proposals that are above this level according to the jurors' scores will be included in the Ambassador Group. Distorting clusters of proposals are removed before determining the median. (See: Distorting influence of proposal clusters.)

Item ❹ + ❺: For the scoring, the jury will use the professional tool Poll Unit. This allows anonymisation of the proposals and a secret vote of the jury members. This prevents any prejudice or mutual influence. The overall results will be made public. This allows each proposer to see how his/her proposal(s) was/were ranked.

Item ❽: Until a final ruling is made, the number of permitted proposals has been limited to 1 per week. This immediately significantly reduces the result-distorting influence of large clusters of proposals without harming the opportunities of the vast majority of participants.

Désormais le groupe sera plus actif avec ces remarquables résolutions.
Merci pour cette admirable attention.

You mention here that "The overall results will be made public".
This was not discussed here, and I DO NOT agree with it.
(I mis-understood this when I first read it, I thought it eimply meant the accepted photos would be placed in the group and on the 'Noteworthy' page. I didn't realize you were saying you would show everyone what photos were reject3ed.)

I have written to you, Bernhard, about this particular issue via discord.

I didn't expect that this matter would require discussion. Because such transparency is common and highly valuable for the submitters. They can see from it whether it might be promising to submit a rejected picture again, and the general public can see how the result was achieved - without risking the anonymity of the decision-making process. The jurors remain as anonymous as the photographers.

The possibility to identify an author is extremely low. Even in the enlargement of the results chart, the thumbnails have a maximum of 120 x 180 pixels. All signatures have been removed. There isn't any inverse image search on ipernity. Apart from us administrators and the authors themselves, it is very unlikely that anyone will be able to identify the authorship.

However, for the photographers, presenting the result is useful feedback. It's also nothing unusual. With all public images at ipernity, feedback happens daily via favs/asterisks. We are all used to the fact that some images are ranked high by the other users, and other pictures are ranked low. The results overview is nothing else.

Bis jetzt wußte ich gar nicht, dass auch ich Fotos von Anderen vorschlagen kann. Wenn hier Gruppen gebildet werden um gegenseitg Fotos vorzuschlagen ist das mehr als traurig!
Die Vorschläge finde ich durchaus akzeptabel!

Die Bildung von Buddy-Gruppen ist völlig menschlich. Denn wer auf Foto-Sharing-Plattformen unterwegs ist, möchte schließlich, dass seine Bilder gesehen und gewürdigt werden. Das Verhalten ist außerdem (bisher) regelkonform.
Hinzu kommt, dass sich auch unabsichtliche, zufällige Cluster bilden. Wenn nämlich beispielsweise Jemand ausschließlich Bilder aus seinem Bekanntenkreis vorschlägt, entsteht derselbe Effekt: Es kommen Bilder von immer denselben, wenigen Fotografen auf die Vorschlagsliste. Das wiederspricht dem Gruppenziel einer großen Diversität.
Wir können die absichtliche Umgehung oder die unbeabsichtigte Wirkungslosigkeit von Regel ❼ nur verhindern, indem wir die Regel entsprechend überarbeiten.

I am fine with these proposals.

Many thanks to Arlequin Photographie, raingirl, the jury, and Rob St. for your excellent work. Thanks also to you, Bernhard, for taking over the group administration in collaboration with raingirl.
Another thank you for the detailed presentation of some group relevant issues and your proposed solutions, which I'd like to address below.

Re: Item 1:
PollUnit is a useful, easy-to-use tool for judging photos. It will hopefully help the jury to optimize their work as desired.

The change in the judging period, as I understand it, primarily affects the jury members and their work or availability. Therefore, as a simple group member, I'm abstaining here.

Re: Items 2, 3, 4 and 5:
These items also primarily seem to concern the jury. Therefore, I abstain from expressing an opinion here as well.

Re: Item 6:
The number of contributions from group members is lower than the number of contributions from non-group members.
So, although a not insignificant number of non-group members were apparently made aware of this group by the suggestion of one or more of their photos, this didn't lead to their joining …
The Club news aren't read by all members. To what extent there's an interest in them among visitors from the Internet, I'm not able to judge. But the question arises whether the effort involved in choosing a picture of the month or of the year for the jury is really worth the effort, taking these facts into account. Of course, you should and must decide that for yourselves.

Re: Item 7:
The previous rule, “Don't suggest your own pictures”, may seem restrictive and counterproductive at first glance. However, circumventing it creates more disadvantages than advantages in the long run for everyone, which also applies to its abolition.

However, I'm hearing raingirl's comments on this point in relation to jury members.

Unfortunately, I cannot make any suggestions for revising this rule, but I'm hopefully counting on the ingenuity of the administration or other resourceful members.

Re: Item 8:
Now I've to ask: “One proposal per 14 days” (now, one proposal per week), does that mean I'm only allowed to propose one photo of another member in this period, or does that mean I'm allowed to propose one photo of any number of members in this period?

Re: Item 9:
Despite the need for deceleration, in my opinion, renewing the total stock approximately every two years is too long a period of time to maintain the impression of topicality. I'd like to suggest a maximum period of one year.
Finally, I'd like to support the solution approach of raingirl in this item.

Danke für Dein ausführliches Feedback.

Re: Item 8: Das wäre eine logisch sinnvolle Grenze. Wie Raingirl erläutert hat, ist sie allerdings technisch nicht realisierbar. Deshalb wurde das Limit in den Gruppeneinstellungen als Erstmaßnahme auf 1 pro Woche gesetzt. Dies mindert die systematischen Ergebnisverzerrungen auf ein Drittel, ohne jedoch die zugrunde liegende Ursache zu beseitigen. Dafür brauchen wir noch kreative Ideen.

Ob die Software zwischen Eigen- und Fremdvorschlägen unterscheidet, weiß ich nicht. Das Thema ist für mich neu. Bitte helft mir, es auszuprobieren und gebt (hier) das Ergebnis bekannt.

I understand this limitation and consider it to be completely appropriate. It's just unclear whether I'm allowed to suggest only one photo of one other photographer during this period, or one photo of any other photographer.

Re: the distinction between own and third-party proposals:

Usually, for submitted posts, between each photo and the moderation options ("Accept/Refuse/Decide later"), you can see who proposed it (user ID of the proposing member) and when.

If a member proposes his/her own picture, you can read the following entry at said place:
"proposed (for example) 1 hour ago
by the owner"

Are these data not displayed, although the settings for this group seem to be set to review the posts?

Technisch gesehen kannst Du 1x pro Woche vorschlagen, was Du willst. Als Admin sehe ich allerdings, von wem die Vorschläge kommen. Also kann ich Eigenvorschläge löschen, bevor die an die Jury gehen. (Aus Sicht der/des Vorschlagenden wäre es allerdings 'verschossenes Pulver')

Eine weitergehende Behandlung der Vorschläge findet bisher nicht statt.

Theoretisch wäre es also möglich, dass wenige aktive Vorschlagende mit kleinem Freundeskreis immer dieselben Fotografen/innen vorschlagen. Und das ist nicht nur Theorie, sondern findet auch statt. Es gibt solche auffälligen Häufungen.

Re: your first paragraph:

Great. So, according to that, it works in this group like in other groups.

Re: your last paragraph:

That's absolutely true, and I'm aware of it, which keeps me trying as hard as I can to achieve balance.
Due to various circumstances, this is by no means always successful. Some active photographers, for example, keep posting excellent contributions, but your proposed solution triggered by Roger (Grisly) sounds promising and looks like a workable solution to this problem as well. I'm sincerely happy about this result.

Dear admins and jury, you are doing a fabulous work!
Please carry on like this!

Item ❼: Idea for a solution, triggered by a private e-mail from the jury member Roger (Grisly):

In the case of several proposals concerning pictures by the same photographer, only the picture that is most worth seeing in the opinion of the jury will be included in the group.

This simple measure prevents distorting clusters from forming (1). In addition, the group objective of achieving a high degree of diversity is met more closely (2). And last, but not least, there isn't any longer the need to distinguish between self-proposals and proposals of others (3).

ITEM 7:

RESTRICTIONS:
The restriction of one photo per week does NOT apply to suggestions, it only applies to acceptence into a group.

You may think this otherwise, but there is a difference between a group that has moderation - that is, the photos going in a group are first checked by the administrators - and one where a group member can simply add their photo to the group and the photo goes into the group immediately. Because the Ambassador group is moderated, one can suggest as many photos as one wishes. I've checked this and I've confirmed this with Rob.

--------------------------
SELF-PROPOSALS:
Andreas and myself always deleted any suggestions of a photographer's own photo so they didn't go to jury. Happily the programming does show the needed information and so this is a very simple task.

I do not have a strong opinion either way about self proposals. I only have the one point about being able to vote on one's own photo (as one has been able to in the past) no matter which way it is decided.

[Note to Bergfex - we need to discuss how we handle when/if one of our own photos, as admins of the group is suggested, there is a nuance I'll note to you in a message]

---------------------------------
PROPOSED SOLUTION FOR ITEM 7:
I agree with only accepting only the top voted photo per person per jury voting session. I think it is a simple and elegant solution.

❼ Self-proposals: Basically, it is very good to only let others suggest pictures. Because with your own pictures you are always biased. On the other hand, members who are new to ipernity or have little network for other reasons are at a disadvantage. They receive much less attention than the well-connected, long-standing members. So the previous rule had advantages and disadvantages. The new ruling removes this distinction, but may have other disadvantages that have not yet been identified. I would like to suggest that we gain experience with it for a while and then re-evaluate it.

❽ Number of proposals: I didn't know enough about it because I have hardly dealt with it so far. But I can confirm it, having tested it out in the meantime. So you can invite as many pictures as you like from other photographers, but you can only propose as many for the jury as the limit allows.

Evaluation of own pictures by jury members: An usual practice is that jury members should not rate their own entries. However, this is not feasible if the images are voted on in a hidden mode. In any case, I have not found a corresponding blocking function at Poll Unit. Manual surveillance would be a very big effort. I would therefore suggest that we do not regulate the rating of own pictures because this cannot be adequately controlled. In a larger jury, this effect also has very little impact.

Bernhard and raingirl, may I point out to you that you are discussing to item 7 what, according to my observation, belongs to item 8 and recommend you to correct the item numbers to avoid possible confusions or misunderstandings?

Thank you for pointing that out.
I have put it in a better order and made it more identifiable.

Thank you, Bernhard, well done.

However, that's not the comment of yours I referred to,
but the one I linked to with your name. ;)

Die Veröffenlichung des Gesamtergebnises in dieser Form ist so überflüssig, wie eine Pro- und Kontradiskussion darüber. Sorry, aber ich habe mir diese Form nur einmal angeschaut und für mich als absolut nutzlos eingestuft. Daher enthalte ich mich einer weiterer Meinung und schließe mich weder Laura noch Bernhard an.

I also, personally, find no use for results being shown.
I find the photos that are in Noteworthy to be of more use for picking new photos to suggest for the group.

Whether someone can identify other people's photos or not, one can certainly identify one's own photo, and if it shows up as rejected - that is not a good feeling. I know I would feel that way - much different than one of my photos simply not showing up in the group.

It feels heavy handed to me. I don't think any possible benefit outweighs the possible negative emotions for photographers seeing a red X on their own photos.

Maybe more to the point, what benefit ("useful feedback") are you suggesting? That by viewing results like this that somehow the suggested photos will raise in quality? What is that your goal, Benrhard?

Hi Laura, I am pleased to answer your questions. However, I would like to answer the questions on the benefits separately in order to take William's opinion into account as well.

1. Your question concerning the quality of the pictures. That is not my point in any way, because this group is not a best-of group.

2. Your question of my goal: It is to lead this group in such a way that the group's purpose is best achieved. I want to do this in a team-oriented way to obtain the best decisions. For this reason I have opened this discussion thread. Anyone can read along, contribute and enrich this group. However, on the issue of transparency of results, I had not thought at all that it could be questioned. That's why I didn't put it up for discussion. But it is good that you have made up for it. That way we now can discuss all aspects together.

(See also my answer to William, please.)

If I felt that the current photos in Noteworthy was of poor quality, then maybe I would see the need to post the results of the vote. Or if this was a vote that gave a monetary prize to someone, or voting on people (like we do for the ima board) then being transparent would be important - but this is very different from that. And again, I say that this seems like more than is necessary.

Also, in regards to the emotions of submitters, you say yourself that "it is an inherent problem of all selectoin processes". Yes, that is true - but that doesn't mean that we should then highlight the problem! I still completely disagree with this. Perhaps it is a different way fo thinking from German culture to American culture, I don't know. But your advantages you point out still do not convince me that we should post this information.

Based on Laura's concerns, I would rather not publish the results to such an extent. Even though the average member might not recognize the photo because of its small size, I believe the photographers who submitted them stand a better chance. For some it could be very demoralizing. Also no matter how one considers it, votes by human beings always have some degree of partiality giving the persons whose photos were rejected greater reason for discontent. Some will argue my photo was just as good as the one of the photos at the top of inclusion list and should have been included too. Without the list, none of the members have an idea where each photo ranked and thus the photo that was at the top of the list could very well have been at the bottom of the list. The best results are inclusion of the photos that made the cut. Last, does rank really matter or is inclusion the desired result?

William

p.s. The hint -- What is a "good" photograph? What makes us vote 'yes'? -- provides sufficient guidance.

William, what you and Laura are considering are possibly difficult emotions of some submitters. I am well aware of this aspect. However, it is an inherent problem of all selection processes, isn't it? We have all known it since our childhood. I think we can trust that all of us gathered here are practised in dealing with them in an adult manner. We cannot save anyone from it. I think this is not helpful for various reasons, which I would like to explain in more detail:

1. I think it is a mistake to remain silent about the rejections. Because one cannot 'not communicate' (Paul Wazlawik). Especially not about sensitive issues. Remaining silent is communicating in a dangerous way, because lack of information creates uncertainty and opens the space for speculation. In my professional past, the dialogue with employees who were not considered in a matter was more important than the dialogue with the others. It is just as true here, as I will explain.

2. You ignore the advantages. I admit that I have not explained them clearly enough. I would like to make up for this:

Advantage 1: The publication of the results is aimed at all group members. The jury becomes more tangible, the decision process more transparent and comprehensible. The resulting sense of unity has a positive effect on motivation. The number of views on the results so far shows that there is such an interest. At the same time, anonymity is preserved. No one is exposed.

Advantage 2: Of course, the publication is aimed at the submitters, too. They can see, whether a second, third or fourth proposal was actually promising but was only not accepted because only one picture per photographer and month can make it into the group. Such pictures, which are potentially worth seeing, can be suggested again. This is entirely in keeping with the purpose of the group and is therefore an advantage. (This option for acting is new. It arises from the new rules that we developed together. In this respect, the information about the results is very useful. Without it, one would not be able to act accordingly.)

Advantage 3: Transparency is also useful for those submitters whose proposals are rarely accepted. They neither have to speculate nor turn away in frustration. Instead, they can contact the jurors and ask for advice. This can be helpful in making more appropriate submissions, which benefits both the submitters and the group purpose as a whole.

I ask that these advantages also be considered appropriately.

edit
Advantage 4: The complete documentation is useful for jury members and group membersas well to be able to check at any time which proposals have already been processed.

To realise the dimension of advantage 2, please look at this chart:



Above the decision line are 8 rejections that could be promising for a re-proposal.
It would be a pity to surrender this opportunity.

that what I wrote to Bernhard yesterday:
I am for transparence and think like it has be done... is fine:)

Tody I add: may be we can skip the "red Cross", putting instead the not eligible photos under a red line....above ok, under it: criterias not met.....
but I am open to discussion, even if I agree with Bernhard in all points.

kind regards to all and thanks for your work
AM

According to the motto, “Remaining silent is communicating in a dangerous way (…)” I would like to ask you to consider the following without wanting to interfere further in the discussion of the admins and jury members:

Photos crossed out in red due to multiple nominations by the same photographer are difficult to find again without a link to the original to be able to propose them again.

If those arguments in favor of publishing all proposals (screenshots) are implemented, resp. maintained, a workable solution should be found for these photos if the described issue does not only concern me or individual group members.

Marking the ineligible multiple submissions with a red cross may really not be an elegant solution. If it is already seen critically here in the discussion, then it will be the same with the members. I am thinking about something else.

Even better, however, would be a creative alternative solution that on the one hand makes the advantages usable, but on the other hand avoids the justifiably feared disadvantages.

Give me a few days. I'm sure I' ll succeed, just as we have always found a way out of opposing positions so far. After all, that's what such debates are for.

I just got back from Helsinki tonight, where I visited my son and his family. That's why I haven't had a chance to work on solving the problem yet.

But I promise you that it is on my agenda and that I am looking for a creative alternative that also takes into account American sensitivities regarding honest feedback as much as possible.

I thank Laura for mentioning potential cultural differences. This is most likely the reason why we both feel as if we are not being understood. I have argued on the factual level in view of the opportunities of full feedback, whereas our US-Americans give more weight to the emotional level.

And indeed, the US feedback culture differs significantly from the European one. The distinctive friendliness of the US-Americans causes that feedback is mostly only expressed in a positive way. More delicate matters are often not addressed because it could disturb the harmony.

In Europe, on the other hand, people also like to talk about weaknesses. Before Europeans buy an expensive product, they study test reports. Athletes analyse their weaknesses after games in order to improve. The largest European hotel booking portal www.booking.com asks every customer after a stay what they liked and didn't like about a hotel. All answers are public, the positive as well as the negative ones.

So, as a European photo platform with members from other continents, we are faced with the challenge of solving an intercultural problem if we don't want to lose anyone. That's why we can' t just take a vote on it. Rather, we have to try to build bridges and approach each other. This includes getting down to the other person's level and taking his or her arguments seriously.

So I looked at my first proposal from a different perspective. What could give the impression that it is not a selection process, but a competition? What might be frustrating or off-putting?



1. One immediately notices the golden the asterisks underneath each picture, as well as the green goblets and the word 'best' in some pictures. Poll Unit adds this automatically during the analysis. Unfortunately, I have not found a way to remove this. But with a Photoshop mask it can be done manually in an additional step.

2.The red outcrossings already mentioned several times are also very discouraging. They too were due to my convenience, because I wanted to avoid a more labour-intensive solution. If one omits them and combines the pictures concerned in a separate cluster, the above-mentioned advantage No. 2 is even much better achieved. By calling this cluster 'promising', one combines European honest feedback with positive American phrasing.

3. Thirdly, one can rearrange the presentation from vertical to horizontal format. This avoids giving the third cluster the impression of being at the very end of a long list.

4. One should avoid the colour red, which is an alarm colour.

5. One can eliminate the long-winded explanations and figures at the bottom of the chart. Without precise expertise, they confuse more than they clarify. Explanations can be better given separately because they can be phrased more clearly then.

This results in the following improved approach:

I am willing to agree to the new layout for showing the results as created by Bernhard (thank you so much for that! Very well thought out.). However, I think these results should be shown only in the group - probably best in a discussion for each time we vote. If anyone is interested they could find the results easily.

Thank you for your willingness to compromise.
Of course, the results will only be shared within the group.

In the current voting period, there were 23% more submitters. In order to be able to show all accepted pictures, an additional row had to be created in the upper results sector of the chart. (An extension in the horizontal would have reduced readability):

━►detailed explanation

Since there were also 42% more proposals in total, rows also had to be added in the lower section.

I'd like to ask you to discuss again whether the photos, resp. screenshots, of the results of the monthly jury voting, should really only be shown in this group.

Cause of my request:
On Oct 4, 2022, the result of the jury voting for October 2022 was published in the team blog and linked to this group.
Since it was published in the team blog, it is freely available to all and so appeared in the ipernity Gallery as well, as the screenshot of the results of the last voting, unlike the previous ones also published in the team blog, was favored by at least seven members, so I dutifully invited it to the group Ipernity Photo Gallery.

Also, an invitation/suggestion of the photo, resp. screenshot, of that vote to the group
" A la découverte du BENELUX // Discovering the BENELUX - Countries" apparently was accepted.

If the request of raingirl to show these results only within the group IPERNITY - Ambassador pictures should be put into action, I'd like to suggest to make especially the screenshots of the monthly jury voting only accessible for members of this group in the team blog, if no other possibility can be found.

I'm sorry for delay of resopnse.

I don't quite know what you were trying to say. And then I got distracted by other ipernity tasks.

1) Are you requesting that the results by made public?

2) If so, is your reasoning because the first one is already public and in different groups?
or
3) If so, is it because you like the public being able to see the results?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would prefer that the results of this first example get removed, but I would be okay with this single example staying public.

Please not that William is in agreement with me, that the results not be public.

I didn't follow where Bernhard had posted that photo - I think a solution needs to be found for sharing the results only with group members. Perhaps it is that the image is private, but that it gets sent by admin ipermail to group members - that would keep it private, but they could see it.

Just one idea.

At the very least, group suggestions for the voting results should NOT be accepted.

Hi * ઇઉ *,

I've had a lot of other things to do in the past few days. That's why I didn't have time to take care of this matter.

To the matter at hand: Things are still in motion. A final and practicable procedure has not yet been found. At the moment we are still optimising the voting method. After that, we will certainly find the best form of publication.

Thank you, Laura.

Re: your first question, no, I'm not requesting that the results of the monthly voting be published outside the group IPERNITY - Ambassador pictures.

Re: your final statement “At the very least, group suggestions for the voting results should NOT be accepted.”, that was my thinking, taking into account the concerns publicly expressed here by some jury members.
It would be great if you discuss this together and find a mutually agreeable solution here as well.