|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2005 12:23:28 PM · #1 |
It's beginning to drive me crazy when people create huge "debate" threads that explore the the perceived "discrepancies" between the challenge TITLE and the challenge DESCRIPTION.
The "title" is NOT the challenge, people! The title is a placeholder, a short reference to the actual challenge, which is detailed in the challenge description.
Example: Challenge Title: "Red"... Challenge Description: "Take a picture where red is the dominant color." Result: a thread complaining that "red" has other meanings than color. One person will want to photograph communism, another will want to use a homonym ("read" for "red"), and so forth and so on. If the title were the challenge, that might be valid enough; but the challenge is in the description, and the description clearly requires a particular interpretation of "red".
We see this currently in the "Personification" challenge (see this thread) where there are some people actually objecting to the fact that the challenge specifies an "inanimate object" where "personification" technically can encompass the attributing of human characteristics to animals as well.
So what? That's not the challenge! The challenge is very specific. "Inanimate" is there in plain text for all to read.
Challenge TITLES can never be definitive, because they are limited to so few words. If people are gonna keep complaining about this, the best solution would be to "title" challenges like "Challenge 252" and then follow it with the description. And even then I suppose some folks would photograph the NUMBER 252 and say "It meets the challenge!"
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:27:09 PM · #2 |
Well said Robert, and I like the challenge numbering idea. ;^)
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:46:49 PM · #3 |
Couldn't have said it better myself Robert.
Now we just need the admins to make your post a sticky at the top of the list of posts on the home page. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:23:21 PM · #4 |
This was inanimate when I took the photo ...
Coming from someone dedicated to stretching the boundaries of the challenge, I'm somewhat puzzled by this thread ... may I'll re-read it after three more cups of coffee and see if it makes more sense : ) |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:42:54 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Coming from someone dedicated to stretching the boundaries of the challenge, I'm somewhat puzzled by this thread ... may I'll re-read it after three more cups of coffee and see if it makes more sense : ) |
I'm all for creatively stretching "the boundaries of the challenge", this is true. But this thread is dedicated to the proposition that the "Challenge" lies in the description, NOT the title. The title is a placeholder, not the challenge in itself. My idea of creativity is to look at the challenge DESCRIPTION and find an outside-the-box approach to that. The challenge TITLE is irrelevant, the title is always broader than the description, which lays out the more specific rules of the challenge.
If I wanted to get us all together to play a dominoes tournament, say, I might put up a thread saying "Come play dominoes at my house next Friday!" "Dominoes with the Bear" might be the title. Now y'all come over, and I have a printed handout saying "Rules: we're playing double-sixes, 5's up, with spinner, to 250 points."
You might complain that YOUR idea of dominoes is no spinner, no 5's, and this would be valid enough; that's another form of the game. Someone else might say he wanted to use double-nines bones, someone else might prefer 100-point games, and so forth. But to play at all, we need to somehow "define" the concept "dominoes" so we are all playing the same game. Anyone who showed up hoping to discuss U.S. Policy in the near east in the 1970's (the "domino effect") would be flat out of luck.
So it is with challenge titles; they just "mark" the territory without defining it. The real challenge is established as a subset of the broader, "implied" challenge of the title, in the challenge description, and that's the rules we are playing by, not the more general title.
Within those rules, sure: go crazy, be as creative as you like. But a shot of a dachshund wearing a birthday outfit, however well it might fit the general concept "personification", does NOT meet the specific challenge, "personification of inanimate object".
A stuffed dachshund would technically meet the challenge, sure :-) The rules don't preclude "formerly animate" objects. A fossil of a trilobite that looks like it's laughing hysterically would do fine, I'm sure...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 13:44:25.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 01:09:56 PM  |
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: 08/29/2025 01:09:56 PM EDT.
|
