Zero Bombing

msclfn

Sep 01, 2014 - permalink

I suggest to publish the names of the User you regularly vote zero.
This morning, the first page of the new pictures had all the vote 0, and the pictures were of different bodytypes.

chinchin

Sep 01, 2014 - permalink

This has been something of a perpetual issue, and it seems that (without completely revamping the scoring system) there's not much that can be done about it. Public shame of the individuals involved hasn't had any effect.

Now, I don't know who might have given us our latest rash of zeros, but one can go to the "Members" page, and see what every member's average score is:

http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/members/

I just checked, and discovered that my average score is running 7.8.

The cool feature is that you can also sort the columns (by average score given) to discern who's giving us mostly 10's or mostly 0's.

One fellow, for example, is showing that he's cast 8369 votes, for an average score of 0.51. Now, THAT'S a freaking zerobomber.

But, it has to be admitted, there are a whole bunch of ten-bombers as well - so I guess it goes both ways.

I don't have a good answer to this, I'm afraid.

Chainer★

Sep 01, 2014 - permalink

We (the mods) can see who gave each rating on each picture, and we're aware that some people have a tendency to 0-bomb. However, like chinchin said, there are also a fair number of members who vote very highly on average, so this more or less balances out.

I think some members have their own "system" for rating pictures; for example, they'll rate most pictures 0, but then give 10's to the ones they really like, so in this way their 10's have more of an effect. I'm OK with this happening, and see this as them making full use of the ability to rate each image once that comes with their account.

Now, there have been cases where members have registered multiple accounts to try to rate images multiple times, thus disproportionately impacting the ratings. This is abuse, and we have ways of dealing with it (and have done so in the past).

massiveshelly

Sep 02, 2014 - permalink

I know for a fact that some members zerobomb out of spite, esp when they feel offended in the chat room. I have had people offended with me in chat who said in the chatroom that they planned to zerobomb all my photos and any I put up.
I had given two zeros and that was because there was a high possibility the pics were fake, based on the fact that they did not match the person's true physique. I have removed those zeros, realizing I have a very biased opinion of this person do to a personal, long standing conflict with them. Even though my judgement on those pics is sound and well agreed upon by many people, I felt the need to remove my vote due to conflict of interest.

I do not condone zerobombing out of spite or because someone doesn't like a person's attitude in the forum or the chatroom. However it goes on, and I can tell that grudge based zeros are very common here.

Chainer★

Sep 02, 2014 - permalink

How do you propose we ensure, or even find out, whether people are voting based on their opinion of the picture or for some other reason?

Also, keep in mind that while some people may be voting 0 out of spite, there will be others who vote 10 out of good will. For example, as of this writing, this picture has 11 out of 26 votes that are 10s.

msclfn

Sep 02, 2014 - permalink

Well, I originally did this post because there was a sequence of new pictures that got "0" close to the moment they were published. The girls in the pictures looked different, so it seemed that the votes did not make any sense.
I understand that if someone does not like a picture or girl votes "0".

brian9731

Feb 23, 2015 - permalink

I tend to give a high quantity of 10s but I don't 10 bomb. I'm just a positive kind of guy and I think if I really like a pic enough to favourite it, it probably should be given a 10. Plus I think if a woman has worked for years on her body, it seems rather rude to mark it down. As for ten bombing - indiscriminately giving 10s to a whole page of shots - that's just as silly as zero bombing.

As for what to do about it, I agree, the moderators can block IP addresses presumably from which multiple accounts are set up and that will curb the hard core zero-bombers. Apart from that, it's all part of the "democratic" process I guess.

knocker

Feb 28, 2015 - permalink

Maybe there is a real problem I don't understand here. Pics with less than a certain score drop off the board and out of the collection? If that's not the case, who cares what score is given if it doesn't really mean anything.

I see pictures rated all the time, both high and low, that make me believe most of the rest of you must be blind. So what?

fbbwallpapers

Oct 16, 2015 - permalink

We really need to sort this ratings thing out. I guess the idea is if enough people give the image a fair rating it will balance out in the end. However I can't see how a grainy selfie of a regular looking girl gets the same score as a high quality glamour photo of an athlete. Would love to hear what criteria some people use to rate pics

chevron

Oct 25, 2015 - permalink

Apart from anything else, the prevalence of zero/ten-bombing means that the 'Highest Ratings' menu selection becomes less and less reliable.

halfkorean

Jan 09, 2016 - permalink

I don't care that much about the ratings, but let's be honest: a zero has a much greater effect on a score than a ten. It's basic math. The idea that zeroes and tens balance each other out is just wrong. If 3 people give a picture a 10 and then one idiot gives it a zero, that knocks it down to a 7.5. That's a very mediocre score and not at all indicative of a true consensus on the picture.

Another example, if 3 people give a picture an 8 and then a fourth person gives it a 10, that only raises the score to 8.5. But if that fourth person gives it a zero, that drops it all the way down to a 6, which is kind of an insulting score. However you try to argue it, a zero has far more power than a 10, or even multiple 10's. If the true average score on GWM was 5, tens and zeroes would have equal weight, but since the actual average is probably 8 or above, a 10 will make very little difference while a 0 will make a lot of difference in the score.

Some people only rate pics that they think are extraordinary, so they give a lot of 10's. I see nothing wrong with that. Since (I'm guessing) only a small percentage of people do that, it really doesn't affect scores that much. Other people only rate pictures they want to "punish" for some reason, so they give a lot of 0's. I do have a problem with that. If you're consistently giving 0's, you're on the wrong website, so you should be sent home. My two cents.

fbbwallpapers

Jan 09, 2016 - permalink

I think a good solution is to make the minimum score be higher than a zero. A zero to me means that the image has no place on the website. Moderation of the images weeds out pics that don't belong, therefore there should be no image that makes it on the site that deserves a zero.

I say make the minimum score a 5 and strengthen the moderation section of the page, by making more people having to come to a consensus before the image is posted.

halfkorean

Jan 10, 2016 - permalink

I think a good solution is to make the minimum score be higher than a zero. A zero to me means that the image has no place on the website. Moderation of the images weeds out pics that don't belong, therefore there should be no image that makes it on the site that deserves a zero.

I say make the minimum score a 5 and strengthen the moderation section of the page, by making more people having to come to a consensus before the image is posted.

I've made this very argument in the past and have been ridiculed for it. I think if you raise the minimum score to a 3, you give much more of an equal weight to the lowest and highest scores. But some people can't deal with anything that isn't 0-10. Something like 3-10 blows their puny little minds.

fbbwallpapers

Jan 21, 2016 - permalink

I've made this very argument in the past and have been ridiculed for it. I think if you raise the minimum score to a 3, you give much more of an equal weight to the lowest and highest scores. But some people can't deal with anything that isn't 0-10. Something like 3-10 blows their puny little minds.

Exactly HalfKorean, The fact that the images are moderated negates the need for a 0. Moderation should eliminate the 0's and 1's

wide_stance

Feb 27, 2016 - permalink

I've made this very argument in the past and have been ridiculed for it. I think if you raise the minimum score to a 3, you give much more of an equal weight to the lowest and highest scores. But some people can't deal with anything that isn't 0-10. Something like 3-10 blows their puny little minds.

o.0 "People who disagree with me are stupid and inferior"

Riiiight.

An easier option than arbitrarily dropping 0-3 would be simply weighting someones vote based on past votes. If they've given a lot of 0s in the past month, their vote is not "counted" until a lot of votes go through. Likewise with a 10.

Let's say someone votes 0 on 10 pictures. The 11th picture onward is completely ignored until the picture has more votes. If they all seem to skew below 6, then his vote is counted as part of the extreme low end. If they all skew towards 10, it'll get weighted about half as much (so it'd take 10 0s to count as much as 5 of any other rating)

Alternatively, throw the rating system out the window and just keep the "Favorite" button! Honestly, having a numbered rating seems completely arbitrary if we don't DO anything with it besides sorting/ranking. And with such a varied level of interest (some people might hate the big bodybuilders and love the skinny girls with giant boobs. I am the opposite), it seems like it's more trouble than it's worth.

fbbwallpapers

Mar 04, 2016 - permalink

Sounds like you want to add some complex statistical analysis to the process.
They could possibly take the average of the numbers with a variance of 2 or 3 about the most common score and ignore the rest as outliers or use one of the commonly accepted statistical methods of determining outliers and eliminate those from the calculation of the average.

kaia

Apr 02, 2016 - permalink

There are some zero bombers active right now who give 0s to fitness girls and 10s to manly looking steroid monsters.

chief ouray

May 01, 2016 - permalink

I find that I've been giving more 3s, 2s, 1s in recent months, and even some 0s, as "protest votes." The pictures so rated are mostly non-muscular women who seem to get through the voting process. Some are trim and seem to be fit, but not showing noticeable muscle. Some are your basic skinny "bikini chicks," with minimal muscle and often large chest "enhancements." Others may have big glutes (implants?), but no other real muscle showing. I realize that some members like these body types, but they do seem out of place on a muscle web site.

sthenolagnia

May 01, 2016 - permalink

I find that I've been giving more 3s, 2s, 1s in recent months, and even some 0s, as "protest votes." The pictures so rated are mostly non-muscular women who seem to get through the voting process. Some are trim and seem to be fit, but not showing noticeable muscle. Some are your basic skinny "bikini chicks," with minimal muscle and often large chest "enhancements." Others may have big glutes (implants?), but no other real muscle showing. I realize that some members like these body types, but they do seem out of place on a muscle web site.

Same here, Chief. I usually gave 8, 9, and 10's and just ignored the pics that I think deserve lower scores. But once a pic has no merit, it deserves a 0, and the poster should be informed of that.

tuabuela007

May 14, 2016 - permalink

I also. When a girl does not show muscles 0 are deserved.
One of the things that seems to me worrying is that I have seen some of these photos are uploaded by moderators.

chevron

May 14, 2016 - permalink

A lot of the 0s I've seen handed out have been to women of color and/or with tattoos or punk hairdos -- even when their physiques are exceptional. Straight-up prejudice.

tuabuela007

May 14, 2016 - permalink

It is true also.

sthenolagnia

May 31, 2016 - permalink

I took the attached screen prints at 7:58 central times. While these are not the works of a zero bomber literally, somebody sure has a lot of time and anger issues.

Also, having seen the profiles of many zero bombers, I'd bet this is someone who doesn't contribute much to the website.

I am not the poster of those pics, and have nothing against giving low scores, just the abuse of them.

fn1a

Sep 02, 2016 - permalink

To filter out the effects of zero bombers, as well as people who do the opposite (they inflate their scores and give 10s for no good reason), the moderators should consider ranking photos by the MEDIAN score, not the average score. Median means that half the scores are higher, and half the scores are lower. It's right in the middle of all the votes, and represents the typical voter. Moderators should give that a try and see if the rankings are more stable over time.

My non-scientific observation is that the highest ranked photos come and go very quickly, probably because the early votes are inflated, and later the zero bombers come in and retaliate. People are motivated to boost the overall score for their favorite women.

fn1a

Sep 11, 2016 - permalink

Let me improve on the suggestion I just made. The idea is to get rid of the influence of zero bombing and their opposites (people who inflate their scores). Throw out the high and the low scores like they do in sports like gymnastics BEFORE you calculate an average of everyone else's score. That way, a picture's score will be more stable over time and there won't be so much turnover of the top-ranked pictures.

On the other hand, it may be too late to implement that, since there are so many photos already on the site. It's food for thought anyway.