Low voting fu***s

Hi there I have found some dickheads that are makin fake accounts only to vote low ratings...
https://whatboyswant.com/users/profile/997039
https://whatboyswant.com/users/profile/972115

Admin do something with that !

everyone has different taste and some people don't agree with your ideas of whats hot deal with it and move on don't let it keep you from enjoying the site

There you go,one more...

https://whatboyswant.com/users/profile/989374

Quote:

Originally posted by jerryseagrahm

everyone has different taste and some people don't agree with your ideas of whats hot deal with it and move on don't let it keep you from enjoying the site

What the hell are you talking about.S2K1 is talking about the ones that vote everyone a ''1''.and if these peoples taste does not rate over a 1 then why the fuck are they even on this site

Don't worry about it. Continued voting bellow average will eventually disable their voting rights.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Don't worry about it. Continued voting bellow average will eventually disable their voting rights.

Are you sure?

The reason I ask is because in order to get an "average" someone must always be voting below an average. I suspect it disables voting if someone consistently votes very low, like ones and twos. I don't think voting below an average is against the rules though. It's a mathematical requirement that someone is voting below average in order to establish an average.

PS: On a 1-10 scale, an average vote is actually 5.5 - and I don't see very many of the babes that come through this site that have a 5.5 any more. Most of them are 7 or higher. If anything, our votes are skewed high, not low.

I wrote, "PS: On a 1-10 scale, an average vote is actually 5.5 - and I don't see very many of the babes that come through this site that have a 5.5 any more. Most of them are 7 or higher. If anything, our votes are skewed high, not low."

So I decided to do some checking, because I like math.

Of the last 100 photos uploaded to this site - which I presume is close to a random sample, only 16 pictures have a score lower than 7, and several of those are within a few one-hundredths of a 7. Examples are:

6.98 for one
6.96 for another
Four others are at over 6.8

In absolutely none of the cases - not a single one - is the vote lower than 6. Not a single picture out of the last 100 uploaded to this site is within .5 of the average score - and NONE are at what should be an average score - and none are below an average score.

I said above that "If anything, our votes are skewed high, not low."

I take that back.

The votes on this site are so heavily skewed high that it really doesn't matter what the vote is at all. It really hoses the old pictures that were voted more fairly, but our voting system is as broken today as it ever was before. This was the concern I raised when there was a discussion about trying to "fix the low votes."

I repeatedly said that fixing part of the problem with how voting is done on this site would only lead to an even more broken rating scale, but it fell on deaf ears. I'm not certain if that's because it wasn't actually heard, or because it was heard but they just didn't like the answer.

In any case, this site heavily skews votes to the high end - and older pictures get shafted as a result. It also makes the ratings pretty much worthless.


The entire voting system on this site is as broken as it ever was, if not more broken than it was previously from a badly implemented "fix."

Quote:

Originally posted by S2K1

Hi there I have found some dickheads that are makin fake accounts only to vote low ratings...
[Link]
[Link]

Admin do something with that !

By the way dude, "goddam."

You have great taste in chicks. I was just snooping through your favorites and you have quite a few I have, plus some I want but hadn't seen before. You and I should wing man for each other some day.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

...

Are you sure?

The reason I ask is because in order to get an "average" someone must always be voting below an average. I suspect it disables voting if someone consistently votes very low, like ones and twos. I don't think voting below an average is against the rules though. It's a mathematical requirement that someone is voting below average in order to establish an average.

PS: On a 1-10 scale, an average vote is actually 5.5 - and I don't see very many of the babes that come through this site that have a 5.5 any more. Most of them are 7 or higher. If anything, our votes are skewed high, not low.

I'm not sure how it works, but yes...there is some function in WBW that automatically removes users voting rights if they continue to vote low. It may not be average per se, it might just be a certain number of 1 or 2 votes out of 100, or something like that.

Recently joined, first post is to bash on people that vote in a manner you dislike?
Personally I only throw down low votes on pictures that are so ugly it freezes me for a second to consider just how ugly it is,
or the fake red heads.

I'm curious about why people get so bent out of shape over the votes. Get the fuck over it.

Quote:

Originally posted by wjw

I'm curious about why people get so bent out of shape over the votes. Get the fuck over it.

There are answers for that question, if you're interested.

A couple I can think of are:

1. The votes determine which babes are in the top categories, thus if the voting is fucked up, so are the hottest babes. I can think of several totally stunning babes that are not on the top of the charts now but should be. The reason they're not on the charts now is because when the voting methods were changed for the site, it wasn't implemented in such a way as to be fair to those pics that had already been rated under a harsher set of rules.

2. It determines what's on the front page.

3. We take the time to rate them, so it should mean something.

There are more, but there are three reasons right off the top of my head.

From the FAQ :

Quote:

Voting rights
To avoid people only voting low score for whatever reason, voting rights can be automatically taken if your average voting score is lower than 1.5 (for babes and cars) or 1.25 (for movies or forum threads) with a minimum of 50 vote in the concerned category.

So yes, if they only vote very low scores, they won't be able to vote anymore at one point.
Other than that, people are free to vote whatever they want according to their tastes.

Tarquin - I think that responses as to why voters who consistently vote high aren't banned was pretty thoroughly discussed as well. Perhaps you just didn't like the responses.

I'm not going to say that it's a bad idea to do something about the users who have an average of 9+, but there are legitimate reasons for having an average skewed high, which I'm not going to bother going into again much here. I'll just say that bad pics (for quality of photo or subject in the photo) are much more likely to get rejected from the queue, there is no reason why the votes would be 5.50 even though that would be the mathematical average - girls on WBW are hopefully better than the average girl on the street, and many/most of our members simply don't click into pictures they know won't tickle their fancy, so it makes sense that they vote higher.

Quote:

Originally posted by omuh

From the FAQ :
...
So yes, if they only vote very low scores, they won't be able to vote anymore at one point.
Other than that, people are free to vote whatever they want according to their tastes.

Yeah, so basically if you're a bot, you'll get banned. Otherwise, the cutoff is now so low, you really shouldn't get banned.

As far as vote averages going higher, I don't think it's a coincidence that once votes became public, averages went up. We saw averages go up once you could see anyone's votes, and that was before users with extremely ow averages were losing their voting rights.

If they weren't at least a 6, I doubt if anyone would bother to post them. (Maybe why my pic isn't on the site anywhere.)

And exactly how many people care about this ?

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

Tarquin - I think that responses as to why voters who consistently vote high aren't banned was pretty thoroughly discussed as well. Perhaps you just didn't like the responses.

I'm not going to say that it's a bad idea to do something about the users who have an average of 9+, but there are legitimate reasons for having an average skewed high, which I'm not going to bother going into again much here. I'll just say that bad pics (for quality of photo or subject in the photo) are much more likely to get rejected from the queue, there is no reason why the votes would be 5.50 even though that would be the mathematical average - girls on WBW are hopefully better than the average girl on the street, and many/most of our members simply don't click into pictures they know won't tickle their fancy, so it makes sense that they vote higher.

Kyle, I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. I think you've grossly read into what I wrote and mischaracterized it quite badly.

In fact I don't at all advocate banning people who only give high scores.

I agree with the powers that be that people who only rate high should be allowed to continue to do so. I don't think those people are very intelligent. I don't think they're helpful. I do think they contribute to the problem of the scores being meaningless. But I don't think they should be barred from rating pictures.

I also think that blocking people that only vote low all the time is appropriate. They're just as bad for the system as those that rate highly all the time, except that I'm pretty sure they have a malicious intention behind their actions and thus, they deserve to be blocked.

The easy solution, and the one I've always advocated, is not what you've implied from my writing above, but rather is one where only the last 100 votes (or 500, or even 1000 if we really think that's a good idea) count for determining a picture's score.

That way even the older pictures that had to deal with the bots are relatively unaffected, and over time it'll come out in the wash. It would also put those old scores on par with the new way scoring is conducted, balancing out the two different methods that had been used on the site.

In that way, all the bots and the shit-raters would be found and blocked, and their scores would be removed from the system over time. Those bots and shit-raters would be replaced by people who are voting legitimately.

As for those that rate very highly, as time goes on that too would balance out in the wash since the lower votes of the older pics would slowly drop off the rating scale, and be replaced by the current and substantially higher voting trends.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I advocated banning people that only rate highly. I think what they do is just as thoughtless and dishonest as those that only rate ones and twos, but they may not be meaning any ill affects, while those that rate lowly probably do.

I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated blocking people that only rate highly.

But you're right about one thing: I do not like the answer. I never like an answer that leaves something broken and pretends to fix it, or worse, makes the problem worse.

I don't like those kinds of answers, because they are in fact, bad answers.

The problem with only the x last votes being counted is that even legitimate members get their votes wiped at one point. And as you can't vote twice on a pic it would encourage people to create another account just to get their vote active (for those who cares much about votes). I think a good solution would be that when someone get his voting rights taken, all his previous votes are wiped too.

As for voting in general, I don't know if the votes mean should be 5 or more. It depends on how you exactly vote : if you consider a 5 an average woman in general or an average woman you'd except on a porn/sexy site.

I just voted this thread a "1"

<------------ FAKE ACCOUNT!

Quote:

Originally posted by omuh

The problem with only the x last votes being counted is that even legitimate members get their votes wiped at one point.

That's true, but if it was a pic someone cared about, they could re-rate it. That's not an ideal system, but it at least seems more fair than our current mish-mosh of voting systems.

Quote:

Originally posted by omuh

And as you can't vote twice on a pic it would encourage people to create another account just to get their vote active (for those who cares much about votes). I think a good solution would be that when someone get his voting rights taken, all his previous votes are wiped too.

Which really should be fixed too, honestly. I vote in error sometimes, or I vote without noticing the giant scab some chick has on her va-jay-jay. Conversely, I've been looking at a picture and wasn't impressed with someone's face, only to realize that somehow their face worked perfectly with their body and pose - but only after I dropped a 3 on their picture. I wouldn't mind a do-over on some of my votes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Omuh

As for voting in general, I don't know if the votes mean should be 5 or more. It depends on how you exactly vote : if you consider a 5 an average woman in general or an average woman you'd except on a porn/sexy site.

The actual best approach for finding a fair rating would be to build a system that determined the average for the outgoing votes of a particular person. For example if I always rate a four, the system would determine that if I give a four on a 10 point scale, I'm actually rating it the same way I normally do, and thus it would assign a value of 5.5 to that picture. Rating higher than a four would result in a higher rating for that picture. Rating a 3 would mean I'm rating it lower than the "average" picture, and thus is deserves a proportionately lower score.

But that's a very elaborate system and one I don't think is worth the trouble.

I do think we should have the ability to re-rate a picture however. I always have. In fact, I've asked for that for a long time, and even said it should cost a credit to do it so that people don't abuse the fuck out of it. I've asked just because there are a lot of pictures on this site that I've rated errantly over the years, and I wouldn't mind correcting some.