| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2002 06:37:31 PM · #26 |
| I think that's a neat idea... |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 06:59:43 PM · #27 |
| I like it....sounds like it could work |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 08:00:54 PM · #28 |
| Sounds like a neat idea, although it might require allot of administration to accomplish |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 08:24:51 PM · #29 |
Please donât FLAME me for this suggestion.
I have been following this topic through two maybe more threads and I do not recall reading any suggestion of extending the time a challenge is open for voting. Maybe this would be totally unacceptable but here it is for discussion anyway.
If two weeks were allowed for voting on a challenge that would give even the people with the slowest dialup connections an ample amount of time to vote on all photos in a challenge. The downside is that there would only be 26 challenges a year instead of 52.
Arrgh! I donât believe I just said that. How could I possibly wait two weeks for the results on my entry :-/
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/20/2002 8:25:24 PM. |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 09:24:09 PM · #30 |
Well I don't know what Drew would have to do to make it work. Seems like he is already collecting the raw data, he would just have to assign values. The main kink I see is the very new who don't have a voting history. My preference is to keep it simple and let them choose the group they think they belong to. hmmmmm.
The two week voting span is interesting. I'd suggest overlapping contests but I really didn't like that idea inpractice over on EBlink. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 12:26:48 AM · #31 |
| two week challenges are not a bad idea... that would definitely give the voters time to vote and comment... |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 12:38:57 AM · #32 |
| I have got to quit waiting until sunday to take my picture!!.... good luck to all those who are more proactive than me. :0 |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 12:40:58 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder if reducing the max file size from 150k to 125k would make much of a difference?
YIKES! you would think that 25k wouldnt matter, but it does... |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 12:57:21 AM · #34 |
| In most cases, I end up at between 100 and 125k anyway... the slider on photoshop doesn't allow me to 'fine tune' the file sizes... I also don't think that you could really tell a difference on the computer screen between the quality of one slider bump either... |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 03:53:37 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by daysez:
[i]
I have been following this topic through two maybe more threads and I do not recall reading any suggestion of extending the time a challenge is open for voting. Maybe this would be totally unacceptable but here it is for discussion anyway.
If two weeks were allowed for voting on a challenge that would give even the people with the slowest dialup connections an ample amount of time to vote on all photos in a challenge. The downside is that there would only be 26 challenges a year instead of 52.
I like this Idea, But we could also over-lap the challenges by 1 week. We could still have a challenge every week. This would give us 2 weeks to vote - and 2 weeks to submit to the next challenge. I would probably submit to fewer challenges, but the quality of ?my? submissions would certainly improve, having 2 weeks to shoot the picture.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2002 08:37:52 AM · #36 |
In the current situation thereâs a variety of photographers with all kind of skills in the same challenge. âNewbiesâ and âmastersâ vote/comment on each otherâs pictures and ânewbiesâ have the change to beat the âmastersâ. For me thatâs a basic concept that makes this site so addictive. Imho, making a subdivision based on skills will destroy that concept.
To preserve the concept of the site, my suggestion is to hold on to one challenge a week and keep all submissions still visible/votable for everyone, butâ¦. everyone HAS to vote on a certain number of photos that are randomly selected. The random selection should be different for every voter. Votes to other photos in the challenge CAN be given at free will, but only AFTER the voting on the random selection is completed.
As a matter of fact, itâs not much different then it is now, because the photos on the votingpage are already shown in a different random order for everyone. The only difference is that everyone will be forced to vote on a selection first, before being able to vote on the photoâs they like (or dislike) the most. I think this way every photo will get a fair amount of votes by different skilled voters and photographers, while it might still result in a statisticly acceptable average vote (Iâm not a mathematician, so I donât know if thatâs right though).
The number of âforcedâ photos one has to vote on may be different for voters and photographers. Let's say 50 for voters and 100 for photographers.
To encourage giving comments, the number of "forced" votes can be lowered during the voting, depending on how much comments are given. For example for every comment that is given on a âforcedâ photo, the number of forced votes is lowered by 5. The more comments one gives, the sooner one is allowed to vote on photos outside the random selection.. Maybe this is an alternative for the 95% votes / 25% comments rule for photographers who want to submit a photo too :)
|
|
|
|
07/21/2002 09:59:02 AM · #37 |
| I would note that I am BAD with photoshop before dsaying this but... I already feel that I loose so much of what my pictures originally looked like when I downsize. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 10:07:26 AM · #38 |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 10:28:29 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
In most cases, I end up at between 100 and 125k anyway... the slider on photoshop doesn't allow me to 'fine tune' the file sizes... I also don't think that you could really tell a difference on the computer screen between the quality of one slider bump either...
FYI: In Photoshop 7, File Menu, Save for Web -- the resulting dialog box does allow you to fine tune the JPG compression. Click on the actual Quality bar to open a slider. You can adjust this slider in increments of 1%, until you get the output file size required (monitor file size in the lower left, as you tweak this setting).
I almost never use the 'Maximum, High, Medium, Low' preset values for JPG compression, as they don't give you the ability to fine-tune the compression for your image file.
Hope this is useful (I think it works in previous versions of Photoshop, only have Photoshop 7 installed now)... |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 11:03:00 AM · #40 |
remie: great idea
agamem: ironically, my camera's noisy pictures actually look BETTER once downsized : )
RONIN: I never WANT to wait til Sunday, it just works out that way :P
2 week challenge overlapping by one week: this would also be a good and acceptable thing, I think.
I'm thinking more and more that the number of required pics to vote on (95 at this point), is too high. I don't think we need that degree of participation to get an accurate statistical representation, and it's spreading people a little too thin.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2002 01:51:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
remie: great idea
agamem: ironically, my camera''s noisy pictures actually look BETTER once downsized : )
RONIN: I never WANT to wait til Sunday, it just works out that way :P
2 week challenge overlapping by one week: this would also be a good and acceptable thing, I think.
I''m thinking more and more that the number of required pics to vote on (95 at this point), is too high. I don''t think we need that degree of participation to get an accurate statistical representation, and it''s spreading people a little too thin.
Remie makes valid points and I think very good points about keeping the challenge a single challenge.
He has made an outstanding suggestion with the requirement of voting on random selections. If it were possible to randomly present each voter 50% of the images available for a challenge and the voter was required to vote on all of these images before any votes counted or before they could submit to the next challenge... Could we do this while ensuring all images get fair exposure in the required voting? The logic behind such a request may be quite an arduous programming task for Drew and the gang to accomplish though...
This voting requirement would help those pressed for time or those that have a slow internet connection meet the challenge requirements for voting. Allowing the option for each memeber to vote on their ''non required'' images will let the site members that wish to vote on all images do so.
Comments are another tough issue though ... I don''t have a solution but I do believe we have situations where some feel they must comment reqardless (many times decreasing the value of their comments) , others comment when they truly have something to say (which is a wonderful learning tool), and others give comments because they find them amusing to give (not very useful at all).
I would prefer to drop comment requirements. Most DPC members that take time to make a comment do so hoping their investment of time and energy will help a fellow photo enthusist become better at what they love. By not requiring comments each photographer will not have to wade through their comments trying to decide which were given to help or which were given because the commentator was trying to meet a requirement.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/21/2002 1:52:53 PM. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 02:51:49 PM · #42 |
Fortunately, competition is NOT a democracy. When thinking about the changing rules ask yourself this....."If I were just signing up on this site, would the rules (voting requirements) hinder my desire to participate?" If the answer is "Yes," Don't join! If the answer is "NO," We'll see you here next week.
The bigger this competition gets, the better.....more people, more submissions, more photographers that know tons more than I do. It seems this could only mean getting better at what I love doing.
I too, use a 56k dial-up connection. I just break the voting into 3 to 4 sessions and things work out pretty good. I like the two window idea and will probably try it out this week. Thanks to whomever suggested it. (I read that it didn't work for someone, are there some settings that need to be set up in IE or do you just use "open in new window command?")
|
|
|
|
07/21/2002 04:57:35 PM · #43 |
I don't know if this is possible but:
1/ Everybody is randomly designated a number,Either No1 or No2.
2/ The submissions get split into 2 subsections. No1's vote on one section. No2's vote one the other.
3/ On Saturday, the top 20 photos from each section are submitted for a final vote open to everybody.
The winner is decided from these 40 photos.
Obviously as the site grows the amount of subsections grows, thereby limiting the amount of votes each person as to complete.
The numbers above are there as a guideline. they could be reduced if necessary.
Thats my idea. any comments? |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 05:17:20 PM · #44 |
Very interesting ideas everyone''s posting here -- keep the feedback coming. Remember this, though... The one thing I''ve learned with this site is that everyone will never be happy. As an addenum to that, those who don''t like the idea generally won''t speak up until after it''s implemented ;) hehehehe
Quick comments on some things I''ve read --
Breaking the site into skill levels. I think this has been brought up several times, but I remember shortredneck saying it the best. I''ll paraphrase as I remember. Those who aren''t good at photography are here to be better at photography, and they want to compete with people better than them.
Easier voting for 56k users. We''re working on it ;)
150k to 125k. I think it''s a great idea... I wouldn''t mind going down to 100k. You''ve got to have an awfully busy image to notice artifacts at 100k. But... We''ll wait on this until we allow different submission sizes.
Remie''s required-voting idea. It''s good, but I don''t see what problem it necessarily fixes. Right now, you only have to vote on 20% for your votes to be counted. The 95% voting requirement is just to submit and can be circumvented by commenting on 20%.
Keep the ideas coming. :)
Drew
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/21/2002 5:17:05 PM. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 05:25:32 PM · #45 |
| You da man, Drew. Keep up the good work. (and we'll keep talking about how we would do it. *grin*) |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 10:51:11 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Remie''s required-voting idea. It''s good, but I don''t see what problem it necessarily fixes. Right now, you only have to vote on 20% for your votes to be counted. The 95% voting requirement is just to submit and can be circumvented by commenting on 20%.
Keep the ideas coming. :)
Dre
So if I vote and comment on 44 (218 x .20 rounded up) images I''ll be able to submit next week. This possibly sucks real bad. When I vote on an image does the next image pop up randomly or is the next image that pops up the same for everyone? If so, then those photos at the top of that order will get more votes then those at the bottom.
My idea would be to have a number of groups equal to the number of submissions divided by 100(this number can be changed). So if there are 219 submissions we would have 3 groups of about 70 pics each. All photographers would be forced to vote on only that group and once they voted on a percentage of those (say 95%) they may be allowed to vote on another group. The non-photographers could also be distributed into groups, evenly, as they show up to vote.
At the end of the week we could either mix in all the pictures to one group and then rank accordingly. We can alos leave it as multiple groups with seperate ranksings. Then for fun, If we leave it as seperate group rankings we can then have voting the following week (concurrent with the normal voting) where the top 3 photos of each group are voted on by everyone to determine the true top 3.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/22/2002 11:04:59 AM. |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:02:02 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Remie''s required-voting idea. It''s good, but I don''t see what problem it necessarily fixes. Right now, you only have to vote on 20% for your votes to be counted. The 95% voting requirement is just to submit and can be circumvented by commenting on 20%.
I believe you mean 25%.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:03:22 AM · #48 |
I would think IF (seems like a bad idea to me) we split the people voting up, so they vote on different groups of photographers some measure of the average vote within groups would be useful. In other words group A has 100 voters with an average of 5.2 and group B has an average of 5. Something in which they are somewhat close together as groups if possible.
Also, it would be nice if some of the long time users who are known for giving good feedback are broken up between the groups. Though I of course think that people should be able to comment on all photos they are more likely to comment within their group.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:04:19 AM · #49 |
i believe images are shown in random order so that everyone views them in a different order and overall, all should receive about the same number of votes.
Originally posted by chariot:
So if I vote and comment on 44 (218 x .20 rounded up) images I'll be able to submit next week. This possibly sucks real bad. When I vote on an image does the next image pop up randomly or is the next image that pops up the same for everyone? If so, then those photos at the top of that order will get more votes then those at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:13:10 AM · #50 |
Here's a proposal I came up with that I think might solve a couple problems:
1. Go to two challenges per week. Don't explicitly limit skill levels, but try to make make one a relatively broad topic and one more challenging.
2. Implement submission credits where you earn a credit by voting on 95% or commenting on 25% of the entries in a challenge (so you can earn 2 credits per week). If possible, calculate the credits retroactively, and to be fair start everyone off with no less than 2 credits per person. Users spend one credit per entry (2 per week if you enter both challenges).
Hopefully this would solve the following problems:
1. Fewer entries per challenge.
2. Dialup users have a reasonable chance to complete voting on at least one challenge, if not both.
3. Users who feel they can not be competitive on a particular topic are not forced to skip a week.
4. Voting is more interesting as we don't have to look at hundreds of pictures all on the same topic (the numbers are only going to go up, folks).
5. Experienced photographers can refine their skills in highly challenging areas without excluding newer photographers.
The main problem I see is that users may be inclined to vote only on the challenge with the smaller number of entries if they're not going to vote on both.
Thoughts?
-Terry
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 04:15:50 PM EDT.
