Just curious i noticed the polished eggs contest gort and aaanen had the exact same votes at the end. But it showed gort as the winner. So my question is how are ties handled? sorry if its a noob question hehe

i beleive its whoever posted their's first is the winner in a tie, i could be wrong, if i am, one of the guys will correct me

Lrossa, you're so right!

ahh cool i never saw it happen b4 thanks for the answer

http://photoshopcontest.com/faq/read-me.html

wouldnt it make more sense for the person who got to that number of votes first to win? For example, if I got 43 votes, then someone else got 43 votes after I did, regardless if that person posted their pic first, I would still win?

That would make the 43rd vote on the first entry worth more than the 43rd vote cast on the other entry or in other words puts the results of the tie in the hands of a late voter rather than using a preset criteria.

I dunno...Its like the person who got to the final ammount of vots first crossed the finish line first, with the other a millisecond behind, if you see what I mean. You say it "puts the results of the tie in the hands of a late voter." Isnt the way it is now putting the results in the hands of the person who is luckier to have more free time? I personally rather have the voters decide who wins rather than the poster not being able to do the contest as soon as it starts. I guess either way is equally fair...Just my opinion. And just in case some people dont see that I am peacefully giving my opinion and mistake it for a personal attack or argument, its not, so dont start raging at me for saying the above.

Thanks for the input.

By the same logic, wouldn't posting first also count as "crossing the finish line first" ?

I already thought about this, but think farther. This contest may start midday for someone on the world, right when they get home and start up their pc. For others, it may start at 1 in the morning. So some people have a major advantage over others when it comes to posting first. But if it goes by whoever gets more votes at the end of the contest, this means that everyone had plenty of time to complete their entry and submit it, and this way leaves the results purely up to the voters to decide who wins. Would you like it if there was half a minute left and you were 1 vote ahead and thought you were going to win, then you check back later and see that the other person got one more vote and tied with your score, but since they just happen to live on the right side of the planet, they win? I really hope that you see where i'm coming from on this matter, i know that the first time I explained this it wasnt worded very well, hopefully this makes more sense.

To be honest, I am not certain that either of the two ways described above represents the fairest way to determine who is first in the event of a tie. Using either of those two methods, the outcome of the contest for first place is decided by something other than the quality of the post and that is "Time".. In my view, if two images receive the same number of votes, then a tie should be declared and each contestant's image identified as "tied for first place". There is no shame in tying for first place, and the winners are entitled to that recognition because each of their pictures received the same number of votes. The bottom line is that I believe that the image ranking in any given contest should be governed by the quality of the post as it is determined by the number of viewers that vote for it. Allowing "Time of submission etc" to control who is first,second or third suggests that there is something more meritorious and/or outstanding about the first submission etc..I don't think, for example that the same criteria would apply to evaluating art in the "real world". Cave art, for example, assuming all other facts were equal, would not be awarded the exclusive first prize in a contest simply because it was created first.

I believe there should two 1st places awarded. Not sure if the database would allow that here, but it seems the fairest way imo.

Thats what one would think, Patre, but I crossed that option off, since that wasnt used in the first place. I figured that JMH had areason for not doing that, and as thats an obvious option im pretty sure he conciously didnt do it that way on purpose. I dont know why it isnt done that way, but that is definately a good, old-fashioned alternative.

Patre, I wish there were more people like you out there, the world would be so much better! (and I mean that!!)