jackharr wrote:It has already been confirmed that not rating a picture effectively gives in nul points.
Correct.
jackharr wrote:Yet it seems that the average rating credited to a picture is only based on those who in fact gave a rating between 1 and 10.
Correct - which is why this average rating *will not* be used to determine the winners - the total number of points will. If we were to use the average rating, a photo that gets a single 10 will "beat" a photo that gets a hundres 9s. That's just wrong! Therefore - I've suggested that the winner is the one with the most points.
jackharr wrote:Take my own entry for example. I have received 20 points from the five people who thought it worth voting for; I am thus given an average of 4.0. But assuming another 35 people thought my photo was so poor that it didn’t even rate as much as a 1 (so effectively gave it a zero), my total of 20 points should be divided by the 40 people who looked at it. So I should in that case be credited with an average of 0.5. So the score as presently worked out doesn’t mean a lot.
Only if you use the average rating as the basis of the scoring - which I've suggested we won't be. Anyway - you end up with the same result, mathematically, whether you add up the number of points or whether you figure out the number of voters and assume that they've given 0 for those photos they've not voted for. I've added a filter that allows you to sort an album based on points.
jackharr wrote:As a further example, if only one person votes for my mate Nick, but gives him a massive 10 points (dream on Nick - but I am open to bribery), he surely wouldn’t rate a 10, that being higher than someone who had been given 50 votes of 9 each time.
See above.
Cheers,
- Pete