| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2002 11:19:19 AM · #51 |
in addition, make voting in a challenge you submitted to mandatory (x% votes, or something like that). exclude photo from final results if the voting hasn't been completed. people are more likely to vote in the challenge they've submitted to, anyway, so this shouldn't be too hard to do (imho).
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
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
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:44:35 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by gr8photos:
in addition, make voting in a challenge you submitted to mandatory (x% votes, or something like that). exclude photo from final results if the voting hasn't been completed. people are more likely to vote in the challenge they've submitted to, anyway, so this shouldn't be too hard to do (imho).
I'm against that because that effectively excludes someone from competing for two weeks if they go out of town for one week. The credit system makes them fulfill the voting requirement in advance.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 04:15:17 PM · #53 |
Personally, I don't like the idea dividing the photographers into groups based on their skill. I consider myslef a novice but if I would be given the choice I would enter the challenge of the professionals because I think I can learn more when competing with them. I think it will turn out that nobody wants to be in the novice group and everybody in the pro group.
But I like the idea from Dogman, to split the submissions randomly into two groups and let each subgroup vote each other and then let everybody vote on the top xx photos.
Maybe having three stages with initially 4 groups would refine this to the better. When there are for example 200 submissions this would work like this:
1st stage: Monday to Wednesday you can vote on one of the 4 groups, so only 50 photos. Because the seven days of the week can't be divided by three I think having the extra day on the first stage is the best, because there are more photos and on Mondays everybody is busy viewing the results and brainstorming about the new challenge ;-)
2nd stage: Thursday and Friday the the top 50% photos from the first stage are now randomly divided into two groups. I like a percentage more than a fixed number, because in a larger group of submissions thare are also potentially more "good" photos. The program should take care that the photos from the first stage are not presented to the same people. So again 50 photos for each group.
3rd stage: Saturday and Sunday. The top 50% photos of each group are taken and presented to the other group. Another 25 photos for each group.
So overall each person votes on 125 out of 200 photos (62.5%).
Well... when I think again, it could be a bit too complicated. Personally I don't mind voting on 200 or more photos. The comments are what really takes time.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2002 03:16:50 PM · #54 |
| I did not even submit a photo this past week and I'm trying to vote on all the photos submitted but there are FAR TOO MANY! It's starting to become a drag. |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 04:03:35 PM · #55 |
You guys sure are 'thinkers'. I think it's pretty good the way it is. Just leave comments on 25% and be done with it. Just divide it up between a few days and it isn't so overwhelming.
T |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 04:54:42 PM · #56 |
| Why can't the challenge be limited to a certain #(lets say 200) and start on a different day of the week (lets say Wednesday). That way the weekend photographers couldn't say they didn't have enough time to get it in. It would be more challenging - less time to ponder the possibilities and set up the perfect shot. Besides it sounds much more simple than all of those suggestions. If you wait too long you don't get a photo in that week(you snooze you loose). |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 04:58:49 PM · #57 |
| I think that with the current number of submissions growing as it has, the length of the challenge should be considered as well. If we continue to have 200+ submissions, I think a two week format may suit everyone better :) |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:04:01 PM · #58 |
Not a bad idea, John. I bet the quality would be even better, too. Less rushed photos.
T |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:04:13 PM · #59 |
I would hate for it to go to 2 weeks. I know that I just started, but the suspense kills me waiting for 1 week, and I look forward to the next challenge. I guess that will change after the newness wears off. But for now 2 weeks sounds like an eternity.
Don''t kid yourself -People would still wait till the last minute!
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/23/2002 5:05:16 PM. |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:06:32 PM · #60 |
don't kid yourself, terry. the newness doesn't wear off. the addiction just gets stronger. :)
i'm all for two week challenges ... if they overlap and i still get to take shots for a new challenge each week!
|
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:08:12 PM · #61 |
It doesn't change after the newness wears off -- it gets worse!
I for one don't like the thought of going to two weeks, but it may be the only practical way. Guess i'll deal, if I have to . |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:09:18 PM · #62 |
No -don't tell me that, I've been glued to this computer for several days now. I guess I'll just quit my job now and get a real comfy chair.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:09:37 PM · #63 |
| A possible alternative to the two week challenge would be to have two 2-week challenges that are staggered by one week. The challenge duration is two weeks long but a new challenge pops up every Monday... |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:14:42 PM · #64 |
i'm wondering how much that would alleviate the complaints here. i suspect everyone will be voting on the challenges the first week they come up and then in the second week they'll be voting on the next challenge. so, just as many photos to comment on, but you have to wait an extra week to get the results - argh!
but then, we won't know for sure until we try ...
|
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:17:52 PM · #65 |
| One of the other ideas that has come up is to run two concurrent week long challenges... You could only participate in one of them... this would reduce the number of submissions that you have to vote on and give you a choice of subjects to work towards... |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:32:07 PM · #66 |
| IF we really enjoyed pain and torture, could you enter both, if you agreed to vote on both, or would it be choose one and live with it? Like I have time to do TWO challenges, but I'm so durn wishy-washy, I probably wouldn't be able to decide. |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 05:38:52 PM · #67 |
| What about two different diwisions(like in sport)Set limit to 150 pictures and set diw1 with 75 pictures and diw2 with other 75. Then the best pictures in diw1 will win. But maby the last 35 goes down to diw2 and the highest 35 in 2 goes up.But i have not thought about it wery much but someone can maby use the basic in this message and build up a good why to set it up in the future. I´m new here but i´ve been voting for awile but have just sendet my first picture in and have no clue how it is going to do, I say if i do not get over the middle in the first 5 challanges i´m out of it and will just vote. So if people can do that it is also a way to limit the number(just say to your self at home this isn´t a good pic and leave it for a week) So i have this two things on my mind and leave it to you. |
|
|
|
07/23/2002 11:59:59 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by karmat:
IF we really enjoyed pain and torture, could you enter both, if you agreed to vote on both, or would it be choose one and live with it? Like I have time to do TWO challenges, but I'm so durn wishy-washy, I probably wouldn't be able to decide.
I was personally advocating this in conjunction with a credit system. If you vote on 95% or comment on 25% of the photos in a challenge, you earn a credit. You spend a credit to enter a challenge. If you have two credits, you can enter both challenges.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:35:03 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Just a thought here...
What if all the photos in a challenge could be downloaded as a zip file, then folks could look them over off line, decide what their votes will be, then they can vote from the thumbnail page or another page designed for quick online voting of photos already seen offline.
In fact if someone here is a decent java-type guru, perhaps they could write a small app that will allow off-line voting / commenting, then the votes could be uploaded to the site.
I understand that this would not be easy and that it could not happen overnight, but if the site continues to grow at the current rate, it may become worth the effort.
Again, this is just a thought...
this idea is not bad, I can help you guys on this...
I think we can do it this way...
1. Put all of the week's Challenge in a compressed file, in it is the regular voting page.
2. Changes that will be done will be on the rating page. 1 2 3 ... 10
These are hyperlinks to a script on the server. After the script updated the database, it loads the next entry... instead it can load a thank u message (text)... and should load the next entry from the local downloaded copy.
I think this is not very hard for drew & staff... I can offer help also if there's a need.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 03:08:52 AM · #70 |
| Just a reminder that since the JPEGs are already compresed, you will gain downloading convenience but not much size reduction by zipping the photos into an archive. The original download may take quite a while at 33k or 56k. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 03:46:24 AM · #71 |
Quite a while is an understatement. Using the 'low-balled' numbers of 200 for the submission size, and 100k as an average file size, it works out to about 20 megs. And as GeneralE points out, zipping would not improve things that much.
So we'd be talking multiple zip files taking hours to download.
Still, this could become the only way for 56k (and lower) users to vote without waiting. The wait would just be in securing the files.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 06:30:33 AM · #72 |
I've missed 30 minutes of voting time (on a 56K modem) in reading this thread, but it has evolved into a topic that I wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth. One rule that we we should keep in mind is KISS (Keep It Simple S...). Having said that, I think the two challenges per week is the best option. To enter both challenges, you would have had to comply with the voting requirement for both challenges the week before. This will allow the folks with little else to do to shoot and comment to their heart's content. It will allow some other folks with less time to devote, and a dial-up connection to choose a topic of interest and maybe not having to vote on so many submissions. Personally, although I have voted on all submissions to this point, I don't like the hard voting requirement. Let's here more comments on the two challenge idea!
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 07:16:05 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Quite a while is an understatement. Using the 'low-balled' numbers of 200 for the submission size, and 100k as an average file size, it works out to about 20 megs. And as GeneralE points out, zipping would not improve things that much.
So we'd be talking multiple zip files taking hours to download.
Still, this could become the only way for 56k (and lower) users to vote without waiting. The wait would just be in securing the files.
Maybe we can use a wavelet compression instead of JPEG
check this site:
//www.luratech.com
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 10:30:12 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by quarx:
Maybe we can use a wavelet compression instead of JPEG
check this site:
//www.luratech.com
well we could just use jpeg2000. That would give you wavelet support,
but it isn''t going to make a huge difference, the files aren''t going
to get much smaller than perhaps 100k and still have enough info in
them to be ''good enough'' quality. The extremes are 50% smaller to about
10% smaller, depending on the quality. I''d guess using wavelet transforms,
on average we''d get about 30% smaller files.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/24/2002 10:32:52 AM. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 10:59:45 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
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. :)
Dre
I agree with downsizing the images. That might be the easiest compromise here.
I don't think dividing the site into skill levels would work ... Who'd decide which group one belongs to?
Having more than one challenge at a time ... hmmm ... First I thought that was a pretty good idea ... but it seems that many people are eager to vote on or at least view all submissions so dividing the submissions might not solve much.
And as for the "two week a challenge idea" ... true, it giving people more time to vote but it also gives more time to submit ... which is not necessarily a bad thing ... but the one week time limit is what makes this truely a CHALLENGE. |
|
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: 08/21/2025 11:38:49 PM EDT.
