| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2004 12:33:35 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Some people mark no comments as helpful, either because they don't find ANY to be helpful or because they can't be bothered to give that feedback to those who have commented. |
... or because they intend to evaluate them all together at the end of the challenge and then forget.
I think overall the credits system is a good idea. A big virtual thumbs-up from me.
/me tries to sneak off unnoticed to go tick some boxes
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:34:31 PM · #77 |
I agree completely with what you're saying Kavey and Gordon.
But here's the thing and I see no way of getting around it. In October alone, there were 2,500 (round numbers) photos entered in challenges here. If most requested a critique, the volume of critiques dictates this process be largely without administrative effort. There is simply not enough time on the part of the CC to administer, let alone critique some large part of 2,500 photos a month.
With the rating scheme, I was trying to think of a way to make the ideas at the beginning of the post practical. In order to be practical, three things must be simultaneously true: 1) Number of critiquers must go up; 2) The helpfullness of critiques must remain high; and 3) Administration of the process must be low or zero.
If not, the process will die under its own weight.
By having the critiques open, they can be viewed by others and help others. (Your point Gordon.) And by having more, and more helpful, critiquers, there can be a dialog between photographer and critiquer. (Your point Kavey).
This is a good dialog about an important topic. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:38:09 PM · #78 |
I think under this system, the number of critiques requested will regulate itself.
Maybe at first 2500 photo will be requested, but a large number of these photographers won't do any critiques, so won't be able to afford to get more in the future, so the number will go down. If they want another critique, then they have to do some critiques of their own, meaning the number will be manageable.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:38:15 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
But here's the thing and I see no way of getting around it. In October alone, there were 2,500 (round numbers) photos entered in challenges here. If most requested a critique, the volume of critiques dictates this process be largely without administrative effort. There is simply not enough time on the part of the CC to administer, let alone critique some large part of 2,500 photos a month.
If not, the process will die under its own weight. |
I think you're confusing the current system (which is dying), with the proposed one. The whole idea is that you can only get a critique if you've recently signed up or if you've done a critique yourself. If everyone does as many critiques per week as they do challenge entries per week, then there will only be a small number of critiques (ie from new users) that are outstanding, which would be easily mopped up by users who want to build up enough credit to get priority critiques or portfolio critiques, etc.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:38:37 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Konador:
I think under this system, the number of critiques requested will regulate itself.
Maybe at first 2500 photo will be requested, but a large number of these photographers won't do any critiques, so won't be able to afford to get more in the future, so the number will go down. If they want another critique, then they have to do some critiques of their own, meaning the number will be manageable. |
Ya beat me by 6 seconds, you git ;o)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:40:15 PM · #81 |
About the expert vs beginner issue:
a detailed template/guideline will be very helpful, but our subjective, personal opinion will still influence us.
If you gave the same photo to the 10 "best" critiquers, you would end up with at least 5 differing opinions.
So how often will we spend much time and effort discussing a photo, following the guidelines etc, only to have it rejected because our "editor" disagrees with our opinion? |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:42:17 PM · #82 |
The 'editors' would be more like moderaters, simply there to ensure people dont abuse the system by leaving quick "Nice shot but could do with more colours" type of comments to get free credits. They wouldnt base whether it was acceptable on what opinions you've put forward.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:42:49 PM · #83 |
The point of my original post was to address keeping critique quality high without huge burden of jurying critiques. I like everything about the original suggested revisions, but I want to make sure critique quality is high or else the whole notion of critique will deteriorate.
Edit: Added a thought.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 12:46:32. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:45:20 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
So how often will we spend much time and effort discussing a photo, following the guidelines etc, only to have it rejected because our "editor" disagrees with our opinion? |
The moderator guidelines will have to be such that they wont be moderating the opinions of the critiquer, and instead would reject on grounds of 'not enough detail' or 'composition not analysed' etc.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:46:09 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Beetle:
So how often will we spend much time and effort discussing a photo, following the guidelines etc, only to have it rejected because our "editor" disagrees with our opinion? |
The moderator guidelines will have to be such that they wont be moderating the opinions of the critiquer, and instead would reject on grounds of 'not enough detail' or 'composition not analysed' etc. |
3 mins 3 secs :)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:47:51 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
The point of my original post was to address keeping critique quality high without huge burden of jurying critiques. |
This is why the moderators will be given credits for moderating, and also why it's been suggested that once a critiquer gets to a certain point, they're not moderated every single time (merely randomly / infrequently). Also, the more people that get into the upper tiers of the critique club, the more moderators there'd be...
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:48:19 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Konador:
3 mins 3 secs :) |
Hey, I'm also trying to work here ;oP
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:49:18 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Konador:
The 'editors' would be more like moderaters, simply there to ensure people dont abuse the system by leaving quick "Nice shot but could do with more colours" type of comments to get free credits. They wouldnt base whether it was acceptable on what opinions you've put forward. |
In my rating scheme, this would not be rated as helpful, therefore no credits, lower quotient, discourages this kind of "critique."
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 12:49:47. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:52:04 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by Konador:
The 'editors' would be more like moderaters, simply there to ensure people dont abuse the system by leaving quick "Nice shot but could do with more colours" type of comments to get free credits. They wouldnt base whether it was acceptable on what opinions you've put forward. |
In my rating scheme, this would not be rated as helpful, therefore no credits, lower quotient, discourages this kind of "critique." |
The moderaters would also realise that this comment obviously isnt helpful, and would reject it. The critique would then be sent back to the critiquer in order to let them have another go at critiquing it better. If they fail again, I assume the photo would be put back into the queue to let someone else critique it, so that the credits spent by the photographer aren't wasted.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 12:52:26.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:53:56 PM · #90 |
Konador, your approach would help fledgling critiquers. But has higher admin burden.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 12:54:25. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:58:54 PM · #91 |
| This would be easier in chat. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:59:32 PM · #92 |
Ahh right sorry, I see what you're saying now. You want the photographer to decide whether to award credits. This could work, but different people have such different interpretations of 'helpful' that the rewarding of credits would be quite inconsistant and that could put people off, especially if they spend a long time writing a critique only for the photographer to not reward it. Then they see another photographer marked "Nice shot, black border would be better" as a credit-worthy critique, and think it's very unfair.
Having moderaters is the only way that I can think of to keep the credit rewarding fair, uniformed, and unbiased.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 13:00:18.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:04:01 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Ahh right sorry, I see what you're saying now. You want the photographer to decide whether to award credits. This could work, but different people have such different interpretations of 'helpful' that the rewarding of credits would be quite inconsistant and that could put people off, especially if they spend a long time writing a critique only for the photographer to not reward it. Then they see another photographer marked "Nice shot, black border would be better" as a credit-worthy critique, and think it's very unfair.
Having moderaters is the only way that I can think of to keep the credit rewarding fair, uniformed, and unbiased. |
Why not both? |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:07:34 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by Konador:
Ahh right sorry, I see what you're saying now. You want the photographer to decide whether to award credits. This could work, but different people have such different interpretations of 'helpful' that the rewarding of credits would be quite inconsistant and that could put people off, especially if they spend a long time writing a critique only for the photographer to not reward it. Then they see another photographer marked "Nice shot, black border would be better" as a credit-worthy critique, and think it's very unfair.
Having moderaters is the only way that I can think of to keep the credit rewarding fair, uniformed, and unbiased. |
Why not both? |
If it were both, then exactly the same would happen, just replace "got no credits" with "only got 1 credit" and replace "got 1 credit" with "got 2 credits".
Giving out more credits also means larger numbers in the queue, which means more admin, so we're back to the start again :)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:20:46 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by Konador:
Ahh right sorry, I see what you're saying now. You want the photographer to decide whether to award credits. This could work, but different people have such different interpretations of 'helpful' that the rewarding of credits would be quite inconsistant and that could put people off, especially if they spend a long time writing a critique only for the photographer to not reward it. Then they see another photographer marked "Nice shot, black border would be better" as a credit-worthy critique, and think it's very unfair.
Having moderaters is the only way that I can think of to keep the credit rewarding fair, uniformed, and unbiased. |
Why not both? |
If it were both, then exactly the same would happen, just replace "got no credits" with "only got 1 credit" and replace "got 1 credit" with "got 2 credits".
Giving out more credits also means larger numbers in the queue, which means more admin, so we're back to the start again :) |
ok, give credits based on CC review, but track photog-generated helpfulness to award recognition for quality and quantity of critiques. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:23:25 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
ok, give credits based on CC review, but track photog-generated helpfulness to award recognition for quality and quantity of critiques. |
That sounds like a good compromise :)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:26:30 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Manic:
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. |
I haven't read the whole forum thread, but the number of posts alone are a good indication of the interest. Sounds like a great idea. Just thought I'd add to this one point if it hasn't already been mentioned...
If a bronze star sets you free to to critique without a chaperone (so to speak), then subsequent levels might also unlock additional priveleges. For example, a Gold or Platinum level might allow you to approve other critiques, thereby freeing up the admins as the site grows. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:42:55 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Yeah I agree that getting the ideas out on the table is the best thing. I hope you don't take arguments against such ideas as personal? I think it's better to express any potential flaws one sees sooner rather than later in the process.
I was at a language school in France recently and loved their expression for brainstorming: remue-meninge.
Remue = to stir
Meninge = part of the brain |
Nothing personal at all : )
but the idea of using deferred judgement is based on the idea that if you stop to find problems with ideas as they crop up, many potentially useful ideas will never get a chance to be mentioned as people "tweak" the ideas just presented. They (and we, the class) found it far more effective to just write down a list of ideas completely without commenting on them, until the time limit was up.
We did a before/after experiment where we were supposed to come up with a list of possible solutions to some problem in five minutes. Doing it the "usual" way, we had about 15 items on our list; when we employed the deferred judgement approach, we had about 150 ideas from which to choose. Many of those ideas were ridiculously impractical, but there were also more possible "good" solutions on the longer list.
The meninges are three distinct layers of tissue which form a sheath over the brain and spinal cord; it's what's inflamed when you get meningitis. Thanks for the info -- that is a cool term for it! |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:47:41 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
The critique is requested by a photographer and has value only to the photographer. |
If this were true, why would anybody ever read a review?
I frequently browse the page of photoe "Recently Commented-On" specifically to see what people have to say and to learn something from it. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:05:23 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Imagineer:
...If you have an opinion then you have the ability to offer a critique... |
I seriously question this. Everyone has opinions. Not everyone has the inclination and/or ability to subordinate an opinion to the facts of a picture. |
I would also question whether it's right to suggest that someone without sufficient 'knowledge' should not impart a critique. Someone may be very able to appreciate the artistry in a photo or painting for example, but maybe doesn't know how to articulate this ordinarily.
Some guidance on the CC section may help to structure a critique more usefully. For instance, I've started to evaluate challenge images based on:
1. Challenge relevance (was it on-brief?)
2. Image critique (the merits of the shot aside of the challenge)
3. After-challenge appeal (whether or not I'd revisit the photo and for whatever reason).
I believe that these criteria would enable most people to form a useful opinion, regardless of experience, and aid the understanding of how one's work is perceived. |
I support the idea of encouraging participants to attempt a critique. To provide some guidance would be even better. I did, however, not determine (in my post) a 'right or wrong'. I questioned your statement that having an opinion is suffient to write a critique.
|
|
