| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2004 09:30:49 AM · #26 |
I think it's a great idea... I can definitely see this motivating more and better critiques. I actually like the photosig system of requiring a certain number of conforming critiques before you can ask for them yourself. If DPC had a base level of "credits" it would help someone get started without any pain.
For what it's worth, I agree with the "colored stars" by the name, like eBay, in order to preserve the sanctity of the ribbons. Also like the idea of getting away from money and just calling them critique points, or whatever.
The SC obviously put in some hard work thinking through all the details, as this is a great set of proposals. Thanks for sharing the vision and soliciting feddback - very much appreciated!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:31:14 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by autool:
It might be an idea to consider that people could earn the status to make critigues without further SC approval. Say, if they had done a certain number of successful critiques, then they could be trusted to do them on their own, giving the SC or CC honchoes a break. |
I think this idea has merit. Perhaps have a semi-random review after a given number of approved critiques. I.e. you 'graduate' but still have to get recertified every now and then.
Is there going to be an appeals process ? After all I've 'paid' for this feedback - is the customer always right ?
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 09:31:47. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:33:05 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
For what it's worth, I agree with the "colored stars" by the name, like eBay, in order to preserve the sanctity of the ribbons. Also like the idea of getting away from money and just calling them critique points, or whatever. |
However it is done, it should appear under your name in every forum post you make. Positive advertising and a competitive aspect to doing the CC's can only ecourage more participation. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:40:15 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
However it is done, it should appear under your name in every forum post you make. Positive advertising and a competitive aspect to doing the CC's can only ecourage more participation. |
Absolutely.. I didn't even think of the forums, that's a great idea!
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 09:40:25.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:41:49 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by autool:
It might be an idea to consider that people could earn the status to make critigues without further SC approval. Say, if they had done a certain number of successful critiques, then they could be trusted to do them on their own, giving the SC or CC honchoes a break. |
Ahh, now that sounds like a good idea! The cutoff point should probably be the lowest award (ie the bronze medal / star / whatever), since that would tie together nicely.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:42:37 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
However it is done, it should appear under your name in every forum post you make. Positive advertising and a competitive aspect to doing the CC's can only ecourage more participation. |
I'm not to sure if it should appear on your forum posts, since ribbons currently don't, but it should definitely appear on every challenge comment and critique.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:51:01 AM · #32 |
I can already see the problems with this...such as won't it make site council even busier trying to approve all the critiques.
But I would support this completely and think it is a wonderful idea if the constant requests for comments on a photo would be stopped in the forum, and also if you would lose credits for posting outtakes prior to the ending of a challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:51:22 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is there going to be an appeals process ? After all I've 'paid' for this feedback - is the customer always right ? |
Hmmm, good point, I'd not thought about that aspect...
I guess what we'd need is some way for the requestor to "reject" the critique. If this should occur, the CC admins would then review the critique in question, and decide whether the critique is valid or if it should be recritiqued. However, since everyone has to go through the review process (at least to begin with), this shouldn't happen too often.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 09:53:54.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:53:45 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I can already see the problems with this...such as won't it make site council even busier trying to approve all the critiques. |
This is why we'd introduce the CC moderators to help review the critiques, rather than just rely on the SC to do this.
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
But I would support this completely and think it is a wonderful idea if the constant requests for comments on a photo would be stopped in the forum, and also if you would lose credits for posting outtakes prior to the ending of a challenge. |
I don't think credits should be penalised for anything (unless there was a breach of the site's T&C, which has more serious consequences). As for the image discussion threads, they will probably reduce a bit, but not disappear, since forums posts are free.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:56:48 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by autool:
It might be an idea to consider that people could earn the status to make critigues without further SC approval. Say, if they had done a certain number of successful critiques, then they could be trusted to do them on their own, giving the SC or CC honchoes a break. |
I think this idea has merit. Perhaps have a semi-random review after a given number of approved critiques. I.e. you 'graduate' but still have to get recertified every now and then.
Is there going to be an appeals process ? After all I've 'paid' for this feedback - is the customer always right ? |
Both of these are very good points.
I think with the first one, going on from OP point l)
l) A further incentive could be to award "medals" once a user has completed a certain number of critiques. For example: 50 critiques (ie 250¢ earnt) = bronze, 100 critiques (500¢) = silver, 250 critiques (1250¢) = gold, and possibly 500 critiques (2500¢) = usericon sunglasses.
that maybe halfway to bronze, i.e. 25 critiques, would establish the autonomy of the critic, with CC mod maybe every 10th-20th critique from thereon.
The other point - Is the customer always right? What will happen if, let's say, I request a critique and I'm not at all happy with the result. For example, if the critic missed the point. I really can't think of a good example at the moment :(
Can I say: this is an bad critique, I want another one? (without spending CCC). If yes: then what happens to the CCC awarded to the original critic?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:00:13 AM · #36 |
Manic,
I think this is an excellent plan. I think you may also want to consider an additional higher level of critique above 'priority'. Add a $0.50 critique level that keeps a photo in the priority queue until it receives 4 or 5 critiques. This would help a 'buyer' by ensuring a higher level of feedback across multiple critiques.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:04:45 AM · #37 |
I like the idea in general. Here are two slight concerns:
1. I would guess that the ability to effectively critique is highly correlated to one's photographic ability in general. The better a photographer you are, the easier it will be to earn credits from effective critiques, thus affording greater access to "priority critiques". Those who could potentially benefit the most from these critiques (i.e. amateur/new/learning/student photographers), will likely be the one's least likely to be able to earn the credits necessary to afford such a "luxury".
2. Giving an initial amount to non-member users (those who have not yet paid) may encourage the learning process and sense of community that we all want. However, this could be abused if some members start creating multiple non-member user accounts and posting one picture, just to get a "free" priority critique. Unless you can come up with a technological work around for this (i.e. one account per IP address, etc.), I would propose that only paid membership accounts are granted an initial allocation of credits. Following this reasoning, there can also be no free transfer of credits between accounts.
It think the idea is good enough that it should be implemented even without addressing these concerns. I just wanted to put these possible problems out there so people can think about them and come up with easy and ingenious solutions to them. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:11:04 AM · #38 |
If you're going to start attaching value to comments, and there's no restriction on CC membership, why shouldn't voters get partial credit (say 1/10 of a CC credit) for every comment they make during a challenge?
It would finally give some meaning to the "helpful" button, and ought to encourage more commenting in general. It would also give less-experienced commenters a place to "practice," while still rewarding the more substantial, peer-reviewed critiques appropriately. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:15:41 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you're going to start attaching value to comments, and there's no restriction on CC membership, why shouldn't voters get partial credit (say 1/10 of a CC credit) for every comment they make during a challenge?
It would finally give some meaning to the "helpful" button, and ought to encourage more commenting in general. It would also give less-experienced commenters a place to "practice," while still rewarding the more substantial, peer-reviewed critiques appropriately. |
Excellent idea! That'll help keep comments coming in (and maybe even increase them)... but they'd need to be reviewed (to stop users posting crappy one word comments just to build credit) - perhaps this is what the 'mark helpful' button should be replaced with?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:18:29 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Manic,
I think this is an excellent plan. I think you may also want to consider an additional higher level of critique above 'priority'. Add a $0.50 critique level that keeps a photo in the priority queue until it receives 4 or 5 critiques. This would help a 'buyer' by ensuring a higher level of feedback across multiple critiques. |
Perhaps the option to purchase a second opinion, for an sliding, increasing fee ? 15c, 20c, 25c and so on. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:19:51 AM · #41 |
Right, I meant for the regular comments to be evaluated by the photographer as to whether it was a useful comment worthy of giving the person 1/10 credit. If people post crappy one-word comments, the photographer doesn't mark them, and the commenter gets no credit.
Since it costs the photographer nothing to give the commenter credit, there shouldn't be any hesitation about marking those which are OK. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:19:58 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by techtraum:
I like the idea in general. Here are two slight concerns:
1. I would guess that the ability to effectively critique is highly correlated to one's photographic ability in general. The better a photographer you are, the easier it will be to earn credits from effective critiques, thus affording greater access to "priority critiques". Those who could potentially benefit the most from these critiques (i.e. amateur/new/learning/student photographers), will likely be the one's least likely to be able to earn the credits necessary to afford such a "luxury".
|
I don't think is true. In fact, most of the more respected photography critics in the world at large are certainly not considered great photographers. It is a very different skill after all, to construct
useful feedback verbally, than to put together a fine composition visually. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:20:29 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think you may also want to consider an additional higher level of critique above 'priority'. Add a $0.50 critique level that keeps a photo in the priority queue until it receives 4 or 5 critiques. This would help a 'buyer' by ensuring a higher level of feedback across multiple critiques. |
Assuming you're referring to critique credits, not real money, I suppose that we could add this tier in, but I don't really see the point - if you want more than one critique, wouldn't it be better to get one, then apply for another, etc etc? This way each subsequent critiquer will be able to see what's been said before, and be thus not keep on rehashing the same thing...
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:23:33 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Right, I meant for the regular comments to be evaluated by the photographer as to whether it was a useful comment worthy of giving the person 1/10 credit. If people post crappy one-word comments, the photographer doesn't mark them, and the commenter gets no credit.
Since it costs the photographer nothing to give the commenter credit, there shouldn't be any hesitation about marking those which are OK. |
I disagree with this idea, at least from the perspective of having photographers actively give feedback responses that have a 'value' associated with them.
We already have occasional witch-hunts about 'why wasn't my comment marked helpful' Now mix in to that a value. Not pretty.
Some sort of automated credit system, perhaps related to word count would be useful. Have a threshold that earns partial credits. Yes
someone will try to abuse it by posting random crap - but that's an abuse that can be dealt with. Maybe there should be a 'mark for review/removal' option for the comments. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:27:20 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you're going to start attaching value to comments, and there's no restriction on CC membership, why shouldn't voters get partial credit (say 1/10 of a CC credit) for every comment they make during a challenge? |
Don't give credit until the photographer marks it helpful. That would make it a "I might get credit" situation for the commenter though, but what's wrong with that? Talking to myself...... |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:28:27 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Right, I meant for the regular comments to be evaluated by the photographer as to whether it was a useful comment worthy of giving the person 1/10 credit. If people post crappy one-word comments, the photographer doesn't mark them, and the commenter gets no credit.
Since it costs the photographer nothing to give the commenter credit, there shouldn't be any hesitation about marking those which are OK. |
I disagree with this idea, at least from the perspective of having photographers actively give feedback responses that have a 'value' associated with them.
We already have occasional witch-hunts about 'why wasn't my comment marked helpful' Now mix in to that a value. Not pretty.
Some sort of automated credit system, perhaps related to word count would be useful. Have a threshold that earns partial credits. Yes
someone will try to abuse it by posting random crap - but that's an abuse that can be dealt with. Maybe there should be a 'mark for review/removal' option for the comments. |
Perhaps, I guess I'm thinking of the 95% of the people who'd manage to use the system appropriately. Maybe the "helpful" box could become checked by default once the word-count is over some limit, and the photographer can uncheck it if the box is filled with garbage.
Ultimately, though, isn't the photographer the appropriate judge of whether a comment is "helpful" or not, just as the voter is the ultimate judge of whether a photo is "good" or "bad?" |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:29:20 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by autool:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you're going to start attaching value to comments, and there's no restriction on CC membership, why shouldn't voters get partial credit (say 1/10 of a CC credit) for every comment they make during a challenge? |
Don't give credit until the photographer marks it helpful. That would make it a "I might get credit" situation for the commenter though, but what's wrong with that? |
See Gordon's cautionary note. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:32:14 AM · #48 |
I think it's a bad idea to let the photographer decide if the comment was helpful by checking it. They don't check those boxes now for a lot of helpful comments they receive. A lot of what I see says that if the photographer doesn't get a 'kudos' comment, they don't consider it helpful. Requiring photographer approval to get credit would make all the comments become pats on the back rather than critical.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:37:50 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea to let the photographer decide if the comment was helpful by checking it. They don't check those boxes now for a lot of helpful comments they receive. A lot of what I see says that if the photographer doesn't get a 'kudos' comment, they don't consider it helpful. Requiring photographer approval to get credit would make all the comments become pats on the back rather than critical. |
Right on the money! If the critiques has already passed muster of being reviewed, then credit should be given. Asking the photog to pass judgement will inevitably lead to "critique brown-nosing."
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:38:49 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Ultimately, though, isn't the photographer the appropriate judge of whether a comment is "helpful" or not, just as the voter is the ultimate judge of whether a photo is "good" or "bad?" |
Sure. If they bother to use it. Not everyone does. It depends if you think only the helpful comments should be considered valuable. Now you have to define 'helpful'. As a quick 'for example' I occasionlly use shallow DoF in my entries. I know people don't like it. Some people post long comments telling me how to correct the mistake in my image. This is not helpful, as I know it is there and it was not a mistake. I also know how to correct it. Now - it isn't helpful, at all, to me.
Should I mark it helpful - so they get the money - after all, it is a detailed, technical comment on how to fix a problem? Or should I not mark it helpful, so they consider that it isn't helpful at all to me and that they should think about the fact that it might be done deliberately before trying to fix things ?
Sure, I'd probably mark it helpful and move on but there are plenty of cases where someone may think they are giving useful detailed feedback when in fact it is either completely redundant (because the photographer already understood this) or totally off topic - because it was for example intentional.
I'd rather not see this subjectivity introduced in to the rating process for every single comment - which it will do if you earn 'money' for them and others through disinterest, laziness or disagreement, don't pay up.
All this potential nastiness (and we've seen enough of it before to realise it'll happen) can be avoided by breaking the comment/ payment cycle between commentor and photographer - or at least making it a whole lot less active than has been proposed.
1905 comments made, 761 helpful so far.. (yes that's historical - but there are quite a few recent ones I'd think were helpful - that aren't marked - would I be chasing the photographer now?)
|
|
