| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/11/2006 02:15:26 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
Not convinced. You are atypical here. You want to be in the game more than the average dpc'er, and hardly ever pass up a challenge. Most of us can't maintain your pace, and therefore skip a few every now and then.
Only four? So your idea is to limit it to member challenges?
I still think this format would generate more "to maintain eligibility" entries than it would eliminate "sacrificials", likely many more. Haven't several of the posters to this thread said that it would increase the number of entries? Each of us has our own limit of how many quality entries we can produce in a month. Assuming that we are entering at, or near, that limit currently any increase in number of entires comes from the "maintain eligibility" category.
Would you entertain a modification to rank the competitors by the average of their best three scores of the month? or best five if open challenges were included? This would allow us to skip a challenge, or to throw out a lower score. Maybe include a requirement that the scores that count include at least one from each type of challenge.
Another possibility would be to expand the time frame from a month to a calendar quarter, and rank the competitors by the average of their best eight, nine, or ten of their scores; making that twice as many if open challenges were included.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 02:27:39 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
Not convinced. You are atypical here. You want to be in the game more than the average dpc'er, and hardly ever pass up a challenge. Most of us can't maintain your pace, and therefore skip a few every now and then.
|
I'm in! ;^)
FWIW...I think Robert has thought this out quite well and I agree with his position on this. It's a wonderful idea!
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 04:39:21 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
Not convinced. You are atypical here. You want to be in the game more than the average dpc'er, and hardly ever pass up a challenge. Most of us can't maintain your pace, and therefore skip a few every now and then. ... |
I do believe that is the idea -- to increase the desire to be in the game. As it stands, each challenge stands on it's own, with little connection with other challenges. There are the repeat challenges and a few complementary challenges, but for the most part it is one entry and done situation. Bear's suggestion provides a much needed continuity between the challenges -- it connects a months challenges into a bigger game. This idea isn't for everyone, but for those who wish to play in the bigger game.
David
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 06:22:02 PM · #54 |
Coolhar:
Yes, definitely limit it to member's challenges. This is the way the site has always worked, since I have been here; the "extras" are benefits for supporting the site.
If you want to exapnd it to include non-paying members, do it in parallel. One set of medals for best performance in open challenges, another for member's challenges, I'd say.
David.C:
Yes, that's my goal; increase the desire to be "in the game". We have many extraordinary multiple-ribbon-winners who only enter when they have challenges that "suit them" and they believe they have a chance at a prize. Not knocking them, but that's a different game. Then we have the larger mass who are not "specialists", who are willing to take a stab at tings even when they don't expect to hit the top ranks. These are the backbone of the site. I'd love to encourage them to give their best to every challenge.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 07:45:49 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What about having a regular, monthly ribbon for those who entered all of the regular, member's challenges that month (excluding speed challenges and other special challenges), awarding "Monthly Master" ribbons to the top 3 average scores across these 4 or 5 challenges that began in the given month? |
It is a good idea!
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 08:07:24 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yes, that's my goal; increase the desire to be "in the game". We have many extraordinary multiple-ribbon-winners who only enter when they have challenges that "suit them" and they believe they have a chance at a prize. Not knocking them, but that's a different game. Then we have the larger mass who are not "specialists", who are willing to take a stab at tings even when they don't expect to hit the top ranks. These are the backbone of the site. I'd love to encourage them to give their best to every challenge.
Robt. |
But not doing your best isn't required under your plan, only get an entry in. We already give out three ribbons per challenge. I don't see how adding a fourth one into the mix (or whatever it gets called) will make much of a difference. Except produce what coolhar has been saying (i.e. more average photos). Actually, I would also add more photos from the same shoot getting shoe horned into different challenges fueling the DNMC war even more. I think it's a good idea but I'm not sure it's going to do what you say.
Message edited by author 2006-03-11 20:10:38. |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 01:27:24 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Coolhar:
Yes, definitely limit it to member's challenges. This is the way the site has always worked, since I have been here; the "extras" are benefits for supporting the site. |
I guess I wasn't very clear. My intent was not to open the monthlies to registered users, but rather to let member's entires into open challenges be counted. Are you, as the author of the current proposal, opposed to scores earned in both member and open challenges being combined for the monthly score? I think allowing some from each category would let people have just a bit more room to roam in trying to find the challenges where they will be able to produce high quality images while still staying eligible for the monthly rankings.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
David.C:
Yes, that's my goal; increase the desire to be "in the game". We have many extraordinary multiple-ribbon-winners who only enter when they have challenges that "suit them" and they believe they have a chance at a prize. Not knocking them, but that's a different game. Then we have the larger mass who are not "specialists", who are willing to take a stab at tings even when they don't expect to hit the top ranks. These are the backbone of the site. I'd love to encourage them to give their best to every challenge.
Robt. |
Attempts to increase participation are a little confusing to me at this point. Didn't we just go thru a rather major change when we moved to two open challenges per week? And wasn't that in response to the many complaints about there being too much participation? I didn't necessarily agree with it but it seemed that the consensus was that the challenges were attracting so many entries that it was becoming difficult to vote on all of them.
Robert, what about my idea of allowing something less than the maximum number of available challenges to be counted in the monthly scoring?
I think it is legitimate to be concerned about rewarding simple quantity instead of quality. This proposal may draw some of our less prolific photographers into entering more often but I don't think you can deny that it will come at the expense of an overall decrease in the quality of their displayed works taken as a whole, both on an individual and collective basis.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 07:33:40 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think it is legitimate to be concerned about rewarding simple quantity instead of quality. |
I don't understand this. I don't understand this point of view at all.
What has been proposed is another, complementary set of awards, not to replace the ribbons but to stand alongside them. The awards are not designed to "reward quantity", that's ridiculous. They are designed to reward consistent performance, and to encourage people to step outside their comfort zones and try different things.
I propose them for the "members' challenges" simply because, as I understand it, this is how the site works; the non-paying community gets the basic package, the "enhancements" are reserved for (and arguably, paid for by) the paying membership. If D&L wanted to do this for the open challenges, I certainly have no problem with that.
We have a large core-group of members who participate regularly, week-in and week-out, and are frequently finishing in the top-10 or top-20, and they are receiving nothing by way of recognition for this. Such recognition as we do give to long-term results is to praise those who win ribbon after ribbon. This is great, they deserve their praise, no question about it.
But here we have a proposal for something different; "Who can post the best combined average in the members' challenges for the month of April? Let's give out three medals for that, why don't we?" Why some people see this as a threat I cannot imagine.
I'd be in favot of awarding more ribbons too, if it came to that; I think awarding the same number (3) of ribbons to a 600+ entry challenge as to a 110-entry challenge is ridiculous. But any such suggestion gets shot down because it somehow invalidates or waters down the value of our historical stats. I don't agree with that at all; I think they are ALREADY distorted by ribbons that were won in the early days by images that would be lucky to make the top-50 now, but this doesn't bother me, that's the nature of growth.
What bothers me is that EVERY TIME someone suggests a perfectly reasonable plan to accomodate growth and spread the joy around, hordes of conservative nay-sayers pop up to shoot it down. The multiple-open-challenges proposal was sniped at from all sides, but to D&L's credit they went ahead and did it, and it appears to be completely accepted now.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-12 19:34:43.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 07:47:23 PM · #59 |
| I agree with your objective, Robt. The art is developed by trying new techniques and approaches. I am not sure that an award for consistancy will achieve that objective, but it seems to be worthy of consideration. |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 08:23:17 PM · #60 |
| Robert, I must say that your proposal is extremely well thought out and very imaginative. I do believe as you do that there are a large group of very talented members who repetedly place very well yet are rarely recognized for their talents in any tangible way. It takes an enormous amount of talent and imagination to consistantly score highly and I think your idea will go a long way in motivating members to be the very best they can. Of course you'll encounter resistance, but I believe that you've really come up with a perfect way to encourage regular entrants to not be discouraged... :) |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 09:08:50 PM · #61 |
Gosh, I'm confused. LOL
Why not just have a challenge for NON previous ribbon winners. If you have ever gotten a ribbon, you can't enter.
I'm sure this is too simple a concept to go over well, but think about it. Once you win one in that contest, you cannot compete in it again. You could limit the contest to members only as to avoid mass entries.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 09:12:24 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by CalliopeKel:
Gosh, I'm confused. LOL
Why not just have a challenge for NON previous ribbon winners. If you have ever gotten a ribbon, you can't enter.
I'm sure this is too simple a concept to go over well, but think about it. Once you win one in that contest, you cannot compete in it again. You could limit the contest to members only as to avoid mass entries. |
No, no, noooo! All us left-brained hyper analytical types would find that approach far too simple. We need COMPLEXITY!! |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 09:26:35 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by CalliopeKel:
Gosh, I'm confused. LOL
Why not just have a challenge for NON previous ribbon winners. If you have ever gotten a ribbon, you can't enter. |
It's not about a single challenge. What Robert has proposed is an average of your cumulative challenges (Member only) for each month. Whoever has the highest avg for the month gets some recognition. Pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 09:41:34 PM · #64 |
Well you could run the non-ribbon challenge twice a month or something. Doesn't have to be a one time deal. Maybe you could come up with other color ribbons. Like Green, Pink and Orange. LOL
J/K I'm just playing around here. Don't take me too seriously.
Do let me know what is decided though. |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 09:44:54 PM · #65 |
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? |
It does make sense. sigh |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 11:04:33 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by crayon:
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? |
It does make sense. sigh |
That's actually kind of interesting; we have one group, Coolhar comes to mind in that group, who say that this proposal will encourage submission of less-than-stellar images. Then there's this statement, that it will discourage the submission of "interesting-but-doomed-to-low-scores" images. Can it work both ways at once, you think?
I don't think it will do either; I think people will keep right on doing what they always do, except maybe do it more often, and at the end of each month a few people will have some nice, shiny medals.
I've said it before; I'm amazed at the number of ways people can find to discourage a simple, innovative proposal. I know nobody means any harm by this, they are just speaking their minds, but sheesh...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 09:37:11 AM · #67 |
Robert, I'm begining to think that you are not opening your mind to other people's thoughts while trying to get them to accept your proposal as a closed motion with no amendaments tolerated. Some other people just don't see exactly the same situation as you do. I, for one, don't see this greart mass of people who submit to every, or almost every, member challenge but get no recognition. You have chosen to ignore at least two forms of recognition that I can name, there may be more. First, you say that these people score in the top 10 or top 20. Isn't that at least a minor form of recognition in and of itself, to score that high? And don't we get a star on our profile next to a challenge entry's title when it has reached top ten level? And isn't there a listing of top five finishes just below the ribbons for those who have acheived that level of finish? And secondly, what about carrying a high Avg Vote Received, isn't that a form of recognition for doing well over a span of several, or many, challenges?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I propose them for the "members' challenges" simply because, as I understand it, this is how the site works; the non-paying community gets the basic package, the "enhancements" are reserved for (and arguably, paid for by) the paying membership. If D&L wanted to do this for the open challenges, I certainly have no problem with that. |
Sometimes I wonder if you even read what I have written before you answer. I didn't say we should include registered users in your proposed monthly competition. I just asked if you would consider including scores from open challenges earned by members along with the scores they earn in the member challenges.
The other two ideas I had were to make it longer (a calendar quarter) and to let people have one or more throw-outs. As I said before, not everyone sees the proposal, or the need it is intended to fulfill, exactly the same way as you do, so they make suggestions, and ask you to entertain their ideas as well as your own. Pardon me if I misunderstood but I thought it was an idea that you put forward for discussion and possible refinement. If it was supposed to be a finished product, and you think the proposal can't be improved, then so be it.
Neither you, nor those people speaking in support of the proposal, need to belittle others just because their ideas don't coincide with yours.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 09:57:10 AM · #68 |
I'm sure site council will come up with something to address this issue if they find it important enough to pursue. Just look what they did by splitting the open challenges. That was sheer genius!
I certainly don't want to come off sounding like a whiner because I haven't attained a ribbon yet. Truthfully my work hasn't been worthy enough thus far but I do intend to turn all that around! :)
I don't want special concessions/challenges created just to cater to my lack of expertise. I do not do landscapes or studio type photography, and that is what alot of the ribbon winners are producing. I have limited models and exposure to cool looking landscape. I just try to have fun and be as creative as I can be with what I have. Hopefully when a real model, or lovely landscape comes along I will know what do do with it/them.
I must admit that having a high average over a month or whatever will yeild the same 10-20 members at the top. I don't see how it couldn't.
Who knows though, I'm not that analytical. ; ^ p
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:16:27 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Neither you, nor those people speaking in support of the proposal, need to belittle others just because their ideas don't coincide with yours. |
I'm not aware that I'm belittling anyone. And it's not my "job" to "make amendments" in my proposal; that job belongs to SC and D&L should they elect to go forward with this. I'm simply advocating an idea I came up with. Others are doing fine at proposing tweaks and changes to the idea. Whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant.
The most belittling statement I've heard directed at any individual in this thread is this one:
"Robert, I'm begining to think that you are not opening your mind to other people's thoughts while trying to get them to accept your proposal as a closed motion with no amendaments tolerated."
And this one:
"Sometimes I wonder if you even read what I have written before you answer."
In case you're interested, one way to state the second and make it less offensive would be:
"Perhaps I didn't make myself clear; I didn't propose xxxx, but rather yyyy..."
Re-reading your post on the topic I see that I apparently DID misread what you were suggesting, but I don't think it's necessary to put me down like that for doing so. I don't think this abrasiveness is called for. Your prose was not that clear...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:55:31 PM · #70 |
I am in favor of any proposal that offers recognition for excellence so long as the criteria are explicit and constant.
While DPC is a good venue and a place to learn it does tend to be a popularity contest more than a photography contest. Not the popularity of the photographer, but the popularity of the photo's subject and style, to voters that have inherent likes or dislikes that obscure their objectivity. While all judgements of art are subjective, a winning image should at least meet some objective criteria. To that end, I suggest a panel of independent jurists to render an opinion after each advanced challenge so that the voters at large can gauge their selections against those of a panel of recognized excellence. This, of course, presumes the voters at large wish to improve their skills. Mine could certainly use some improvement!
As an example of a gross error on the part of the voters, please look at this entry (my own):
It is an abyssmal photograph yet scored in the top ten of that challenge! Why? The subject and the title appealed to the voters despite the poor quality of the image. We need to take an objective step back and examine our voting patterns!
Comments? Anyone?
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 14:02:36. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:28:17 PM · #71 |
Gimme a break Bear.
Check my phraseiology again. I was trying to come up with some constructive suggestions. I was trying to be inoffensive. I have personally endured much harsher "abrasiveness" in the forums, many times; and when I have complained to SC I am told to basically shut up and take it like a man.
You don't have to discuss your proposal if you don't want to but don't fault me just because I'm not buying into it lock, stock, and barrell. I never said it was an unworthy idea, or that I didn't want to see it adopted.
As stated earlier, not all of us see things exactly the same way. Sometimes we have to make compromises in order to get things accomplished.
If the proposal is going to be that straight and simple - just the best average of four (or five) member challenge scores - maybe it could be done off-site, at least in the beginning. Something similar to the 2005 Ribbon standings that southern_exposure did with his DPCstats (see this thread: DPCstats). Just a suggestion, and, ...
as always, just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:43:08 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
... While DPC is a good venue and a place to learn it does tend to be a popularity contest more than a photography contest. Not the popularity of the photographer, but the popularity of the photo's subject and style, to voters that have inherent likes or dislikes that obscure their objectivity. |
Very good description of how dpc voting works. Wish I had written that.
Originally posted by ElGordo:
... This, of course, presumes the voters at large wish to improve their skills. Mine could certainly use some improvement!
|
Mine too.
Training the voters to improve their skills and discard their bad habits would be a daunting task.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 03:06:01 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
|
Mark me down as someone who enters like that as well - I've entered plenty of shots that I didn't expect to do well, because I liked them, because they piqued my curiosity, or because I wanted to share. I've seldom been disappointed in their apathetic welcome. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 03:07:09 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
... While DPC is a good venue and a place to learn it does tend to be a popularity contest more than a photography contest. Not the popularity of the photographer, but the popularity of the photo's subject and style, to voters that have inherent likes or dislikes that obscure their objectivity. |
Very good description of how dpc voting works. Wish I had written that.
|
It's a good description of how any photography contest works as well. Even if you have a jurored show, it's still a popularity contest. Art & voting is always going to come down to popularity for whoever gets to pick the winner. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 03:10:03 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Training the voters to improve their skills and discard their bad habits would be a daunting task. |
I agree. But if a recognized group consistently provided a judgment foil for the voters to compare against there may be a slow dawning of comprehension among those willing to improve their skills. For some, nothing would help, they would remain steeped in their narrow preconceptions. I know my selections are much affected by how I perceive the subject of a photograph and that is a difficult prejudice to overcome. But I am trying!! |
|
