| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2006 07:07:30 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Sounds nice.
The only "negative" thing that comes to mind is that it would discourage people from entering challenges for reasons other than getting a high score, and it would only increase the tendency of submitting photos that are just "good scorers". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but, at least for me, sometimes I like to enter an image just because I really like it and I'm proud of it. And, since we're all so number driven, I'd be less inclined to do so when I know my score isn't going to be all that good on an image.
Does that make sense? |
Makes no sense at all; if you don't enter ALL that month's challenges, you're not eligible. You'll get MORE entries this way, not fewer.
And to answer the other question earlier, this would be for members, just amother perk to encourage supporting the site. Historically, as far as I can see, virtually all the "extras" have been members-only challenges.
I see just now mel already stated my intentions faithfully.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 07:58:16 PM · #27 |
| This would certainly identify the hard core, card carrying, members! Perhaps there should be a "Rogue's Gallery" posted monthly to recognize the fine work done by people otherwise consigned to oblivion. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:29:59 PM · #28 |
| I see it as an incentive for more participation and seems a bit of a promotional idea for the site, in that it is possible it would increase entries, but not as a ribbon catgory as it relates to photography. Really a "slippy" or a "bear" might be a more appropriate recognition for perfect attendance. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:34:58 PM · #29 |
Sounds interesting Bear. I vote for a "golden bear" award or a start - not a ribbon. Not that it'll effect me much as I doubt I would ever have scores high enough to really be in the running here. Sounds fun though
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:36:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Sounds nice.
The only "negative" thing that comes to mind is that it would discourage people from entering challenges for reasons other than getting a high score, and it would only increase the tendency of submitting photos that are just "good scorers". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but, at least for me, sometimes I like to enter an image just because I really like it and I'm proud of it. And, since we're all so number driven, I'd be less inclined to do so when I know my score isn't going to be all that good on an image.
Does that make sense? |
WHAT?? That makes absolutely NO sense to me. OF COURSE all the challenges are already number driven. If you don't care about winning a ribbon in the challege itself WHY would you care about this additional recognition?? Just sounds like another typical "people will get discouraged" craziness. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:41:36 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ursula:
Sounds nice.
The only "negative" thing that comes to mind is that it would discourage people from entering challenges for reasons other than getting a high score, and it would only increase the tendency of submitting photos that are just "good scorers". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but, at least for me, sometimes I like to enter an image just because I really like it and I'm proud of it. And, since we're all so number driven, I'd be less inclined to do so when I know my score isn't going to be all that good on an image.
Does that make sense? |
WHAT?? That makes absolutely NO sense to me. OF COURSE all the challenges are already number driven. If you don't care about winning a ribbon in the challege itself WHY would you care about this additional recognition?? Just sounds like another typical "people will get discouraged" craziness. |
Well, thank you for putting it so nicely.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:51:59 PM · #32 |
It sounds good, but Its hard to understand why we would give an award for being consistant. In my mind that just seems strange.
I am not 100 percent opposed, but it just seems rather odd. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:59:02 PM · #33 |
I like the idea, but would the winner's icon be a  type golden bear , or a type golden bear? Grrrrrah,Go Bears! |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 09:30:56 PM · #34 |
I think ursula has a valid point. It should be considered.
Another thing that worries me a bit is that some people will enter shots that they know are not going to be that well received for the sole purpose of maintaining their eligibility for the monthly participation prize. Someone who earns a very high score early in the month is going to try to put something into every challenge for the remainder of the month, and some of those shots may be of a quality that normally would not get entered. Many users will start each month by entering every challenge, including the ones they would normally pass up, in hopes of hitting a homer later in the month. We will be voting on some less-than-best-effort shots, maybe lots of them. We may be watering down the overall quality of our challenge entries to a level that, after a few months time, we find undesirable.
I'm in favor of rewarding those who enter all, or most, of the challenges for their higher level of participation. They are an asset to the community. I would also like to see some recognition for the users who vote on all, or a very high percentage, of the challenge entries. But we should recognize that the current proposal introduces a whole new type of competition here at dpc. There certainly would be a desire to keep ongoing stats but can they be integrated with our historical database? How much of an additional burden on the website's resources will be involved in the tracking and record keeping for these monthies?
This may be the type of change that brings unforseen side effects, and is nearly impossible to undo once set in motion. Let's give it a thorough think-thru as we all jump on the bandwagon. If there is a good way to do it, getting it right the first time will save a lot of anxiety.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 09:53:39 PM · #35 |
I'm not that big a fan of this idea the way it has been described. An offshoot to that that I would be in favor of is giving out honorable mention awards in each challenge to photos deemed "most creative", "most emotive", etc. That way you'd provide more incentive to participate while still awarding good photographs and not a "collective effort".
For example, having a style that isn't exactly ribbon friendly but could be considered highly creative or something that showed a real effort could get rewarded. Shouldn't be that hard to implement. Just have how many checkboxes you want awards for and allow voters to select one photo for each check box. Just my .05 cents.
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 21:58:50. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:23:20 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Another thing that worries me a bit is that some people will enter shots that they know are not going to be that well received for the sole purpose of maintaining their eligibility for the monthly participation prize. Someone who earns a very high score early in the month is going to try to put something into every challenge for the remainder of the month, and some of those shots may be of a quality that normally would not get entered. Many users will start each month by entering every challenge, including the ones they would normally pass up, in hopes of hitting a homer later in the month. We will be voting on some less-than-best-effort shots, maybe lots of them. We may be watering down the overall quality of our challenge entries to a level that, after a few months time, we find undesirable. |
I think you can make as valid an argument the other way, though; I think we'd see a rise in overall quality, personally...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:29:14 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
It sounds good, but Its hard to understand why we would give an award for being consistant. In my mind that just seems strange.
I am not 100 percent opposed, but it just seems rather odd. |
Because the number of awards given in terms of percentage of entries made has decreased dramatically as the number of entries climbs and the number of ribbons remains relatively static (though we did add 3 more ribbons per week when we went to dual exclusive open challenges).
Right now we reward whoever does the best in a given challenge, and that's it. This just adds another category of accomplishment and reward, without increasing the burden on the system/shooters/voters by adding more challenges, and without in any way denaturing the historical stats by adding more ribbons in a given challenge. I don't see any downside to it, and I'm a little surprised anyone would. There's a lot to be said for recognizing consistehnt, across-the-boards performance over an extended period of time.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:34:17 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Another thing that worries me a bit is that some people will enter shots that they know are not going to be that well received for the sole purpose of maintaining their eligibility for the monthly participation prize. Someone who earns a very high score early in the month is going to try to put something into every challenge for the remainder of the month, and some of those shots may be of a quality that normally would not get entered. Many users will start each month by entering every challenge, including the ones they would normally pass up, in hopes of hitting a homer later in the month. We will be voting on some less-than-best-effort shots, maybe lots of them. We may be watering down the overall quality of our challenge entries to a level that, after a few months time, we find undesirable. |
I think you can make as valid an argument the other way, though; I think we'd see a rise in overall quality, personally...
R. |
I agree. I can't believe how hard it is to get a simple, fun, idea across without it being picked apart.
FWIW, I think it's a great idea Robert. Hopefully, those that have the power to implement this have seen this and will give it due consideration.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:48:21 PM · #39 |
Incidentally, in case anyone is thinking I am pushing this because I'm likely to be a beneficiary of these "medals", please check my profile, expand my challenge results list, and look at the wild variations in my scores. I'm a VERY unlikely candidate for one of these awards. I just think it's a good idea that's easily implemented.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:49:36 PM · #40 |
Perhanps in addition to the proposal made by Bear, we might also consider devising some type of recognition for those people who maintain the highest level of voting percentage and comments made.
I have no problems at all with recognizing the efforts made by the photographers on this site, but we might want to consider trying something that would move people to vote and comment more.
Just a thought
Ray |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:52:30 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhanps in addition to the proposal made by Bear, we might also consider devising some type of recognition for those people who maintain the highest level of voting percentage and comments made.
I have no problems at all with recognizing the efforts made by the photographers on this site, but we might want to consider trying something that would move people to vote and comment more.
Just a thought
Ray |
I agree with you 100%, at least on the voting part. The commenting part is a little more problematical, because it could generate wave after wave of "nice shot" comments that really don't bring much to the community table.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:58:28 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Incidentally, in case anyone is thinking I am pushing this because I'm likely to be a beneficiary of these "medals", please check my profile, expand my challenge results list, and look at the wild variations in my scores. I'm a VERY unlikely candidate for one of these awards. I just think it's a good idea that's easily implemented.
R. |
I dont believe anyone thinks you have some motive beyond what you laid out. I am pretty iffy on the idea, but that never came to my mind. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:59:48 PM · #43 |
You are absolutely correct in that perspective Robert...the thought came to me immediately after I pressed the "Post" button, as I recalled a voting based challenge we had not all that long ago.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/11/2006 01:51:27 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhanps in addition to the proposal made by Bear, we might also consider devising some type of recognition for those people who maintain the highest level of voting percentage and comments made.
I have no problems at all with recognizing the efforts made by the photographers on this site, but we might want to consider trying something that would move people to vote and comment more.
Just a thought
Ray |
I agree with you 100%, at least on the voting part. The commenting part is a little more problematical, because it could generate wave after wave of "nice shot" comments that really don't bring much to the community table.
Robt. |
The commenting part is easily taken care of by replacing the 'comment helpful' checkbox with a small voting scale. I would suggest 1-5; 1-harmful, 2-unhelpful, 3-neutral(auto-default when the photog visits the image), 4-helpful, 5-made my day. Then focusing only on the top percentage.
David
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 03:14:56 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhanps in addition to the proposal made by Bear, we might also consider devising some type of recognition for those people who maintain the highest level of voting percentage and comments made.
I have no problems at all with recognizing the efforts made by the photographers on this site, but we might want to consider trying something that would move people to vote and comment more.
Just a thought
Ray |
I agree with you 100%, at least on the voting part. The commenting part is a little more problematical, because it could generate wave after wave of "nice shot" comments that really don't bring much to the community table.
Robt. |
The commenting part is easily taken care of by replacing the 'comment helpful' checkbox with a small voting scale. I would suggest 1-5; 1-harmful, 2-unhelpful, 3-neutral(auto-default when the photog visits the image), 4-helpful, 5-made my day. Then focusing only on the top percentage.
David |
I like the comment suggestion but I'd probably just go with harmful, helpful and made my day. I really don't see why there should be a need for the "unhelpful", which will only upset people who tried to offer some advice. |
|
|
|
03/11/2006 03:21:04 AM · #46 |
Leaving it to only three choices indicates that if a comment isn't helpful, it's harmful which isn't really true. Adding only harmful and made my day to the choices to me isn't value added. A rating of 1 - 3 would be fine if 1 - not helpful, 2 - neutral, 3 - helpful.
As indicated in the original suggestion, neutral could be the default that could be used to show acknowledgement of the comment.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 03:27:44 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Leaving it to only three choices indicates that if a comment isn't helpful, it's harmful which isn't really true. Adding only harmful and made my day to the choices to me isn't value added. A rating of 1 - 3 would be fine if 1 - not helpful, 2 - neutral, 3 - helpful.
As indicated in the original suggestion, neutral could be the default that could be used to show acknowledgement of the comment. |
Ok I missed the neutral option. I still really don't see the point of having an unhelpful option however. What good will it serve? It'll just discourage people from leaving comments, IMO. The voter getting that surely isn't going to learn anything from it so I don't see why it's needed especially if you have the neutral option, which would at least be the polite way of saying your comments weren't helpful.
Message edited by author 2006-03-11 03:30:21. |
|
|
|
03/11/2006 03:48:25 AM · #48 |
3 options is fine. I wasn't sure it would differentiate between close averages without using a lot of digits -- but, I suppose there are not nearly as many comments as their are votes.
Perhaps I'm in the minority on this, but I like getting feedback on my comments. Being able to put into words what I like or don't like about an image is a greate learning tool, but it is also something that has to be learned. I have never been the greatest at getting my thoughts into words. If I am not helpful, I want to know about it.
But just for the sake of comparison. If there are only two options (neutral and helpful) there is no significant difference from the existing system. If there are three, the middle will be treated as the neutral position -- regardless of how it is labeled.
A voting system we currently have for images is based on a 'don't like' to 'like' system, and yet those scoring below average are not discouraged. Sure, there are probably some that are, but most take the scores for what they are -- an incentive to do better.
David
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 12:07:11 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Another thing that worries me a bit is that some people will enter shots that they know are not going to be that well received for the sole purpose of maintaining their eligibility for the monthly participation prize. Someone who earns a very high score early in the month is going to try to put something into every challenge for the remainder of the month, and some of those shots may be of a quality that normally would not get entered. Many users will start each month by entering every challenge, including the ones they would normally pass up, in hopes of hitting a homer later in the month. We will be voting on some less-than-best-effort shots, maybe lots of them. We may be watering down the overall quality of our challenge entries to a level that, after a few months time, we find undesirable. |
I think you can make as valid an argument the other way, though; I think we'd see a rise in overall quality, personally...
R. |
Please make that argument. Go ahead and convince me.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 01:29:56 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Another thing that worries me a bit is that some people will enter shots that they know are not going to be that well received for the sole purpose of maintaining their eligibility for the monthly participation prize. Someone who earns a very high score early in the month is going to try to put something into every challenge for the remainder of the month, and some of those shots may be of a quality that normally would not get entered. Many users will start each month by entering every challenge, including the ones they would normally pass up, in hopes of hitting a homer later in the month. We will be voting on some less-than-best-effort shots, maybe lots of them. We may be watering down the overall quality of our challenge entries to a level that, after a few months time, we find undesirable. |
I think you can make as valid an argument the other way, though; I think we'd see a rise in overall quality, personally...
R. |
Please make that argument. Go ahead and convince me. |
Okay, I'll try. Using myself as an example.
I like being "in the game" and I enter nearly every challenge I can. My quality-level, or at least my scores, is all over the map; sometimes I enter shots for fun that I KNOW the voters will not respond well to, usually because of their oblique approach to the challenge topic.
Since this proposed "medal" would go to those who have the highest average over the 4 challenges in a month, this would mitigate against entering "sacrificial" images, which would score poorly and drop the average out of medal contention, and would encourage more thoughtful, carefully-constructed images that actually have a chance at a decent score.
Robt.
|
|
type golden bear , or a
type golden bear? Grrrrrah,Go Bears!
