| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2006 05:23:48 PM · #26 |
So we probably miss out on an April fool's challenge too ..
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 05:24:18 PM · #27 |
Qualifying "Masters" on average score is, IMO, a very bad idea. It rewards those who never take risks, who only enter selecteed challenges, who only enter when they honestly believe they have a ribbon-winning shot. It exscludes those of us who have highly-developed skills but a willingness to try anything, to enter obscure lateral takes on challenges, in short, to have fun. Combining average score with ribbons-won is better, but of course ribbons are getting harder and harder to capture as the numbers of entries go up, so basically you've grandfathered in a whole bunch of "lifers" and set the bar higher for the newcomers.
I can't think of an accpetable alternative offhand, though. Except to say that IMO anyone with a ribbon in the last year or so deserves to be in. How about something like that? An invitational for all ribbon-winners of the past 12 months? Keeps the old-timers on their toes :-)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 17:25:20.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 06:33:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Qualifying "Masters" on average score is, IMO, a very bad idea. It rewards those who never take risks, who only enter selecteed challenges, who only enter when they honestly believe they have a ribbon-winning shot. It exscludes those of us who have highly-developed skills but a willingness to try anything, to enter obscure lateral takes on challenges, in short, to have fun. Combining average score with ribbons-won is better, but of course ribbons are getting harder and harder to capture as the numbers of entries go up, so basically you've grandfathered in a whole bunch of "lifers" and set the bar higher for the newcomers.
I can't think of an accpetable alternative offhand, though. Except to say that IMO anyone with a ribbon in the last year or so deserves to be in. How about something like that? An invitational for all ribbon-winners of the past 12 months? Keeps the old-timers on their toes :-)
Robt. |
Huh? Everything you said about the average score being a bad deal could be applied to the "ribbon requirement". |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 07:13:03 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Qualifying "Masters" on average score is, IMO, a very bad idea. It rewards those who never take risks, who only enter selecteed challenges, who only enter when they honestly believe they have a ribbon-winning shot. It exscludes those of us who have highly-developed skills but a willingness to try anything, to enter obscure lateral takes on challenges, in short, to have fun. Combining average score with ribbons-won is better, but of course ribbons are getting harder and harder to capture as the numbers of entries go up, so basically you've grandfathered in a whole bunch of "lifers" and set the bar higher for the newcomers.
I can't think of an accpetable alternative offhand, though. Except to say that IMO anyone with a ribbon in the last year or so deserves to be in. How about something like that? An invitational for all ribbon-winners of the past 12 months? Keeps the old-timers on their toes :-)
Robt. |
Doggonit, there just has to be a way to do this. We are missing a good bet here by penalizing 'out-of-the-box' creativity because the average voter 'doesn't get it' or doesn't want to get it. In every challenge I see excellent entries with low scores because DPC seems to have inadverdantly cultivated a climate of narrow mindedness. My present membership expires next month and I am seriously considering not renewing. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 07:19:51 PM · #30 |
| Maybe I'm just plain stupid, but could someone explain to me what the point of a "master's" challenge is? |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 08:23:06 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Qualifying "Masters" on average score is, IMO, a very bad idea. It rewards those who never take risks, who only enter selecteed challenges, who only enter when they honestly believe they have a ribbon-winning shot. It exscludes those of us who have highly-developed skills but a willingness to try anything, to enter obscure lateral takes on challenges, in short, to have fun. Combining average score with ribbons-won is better, but of course ribbons are getting harder and harder to capture as the numbers of entries go up, so basically you've grandfathered in a whole bunch of "lifers" and set the bar higher for the newcomers.
I can't think of an accpetable alternative offhand, though. Except to say that IMO anyone with a ribbon in the last year or so deserves to be in. How about something like that? An invitational for all ribbon-winners of the past 12 months? Keeps the old-timers on their toes :-)
Robt. |
Doggonit, there just has to be a way to do this. We are missing a good bet here by penalizing 'out-of-the-box' creativity because the average voter 'doesn't get it' or doesn't want to get it. In every challenge I see excellent entries with low scores because DPC seems to have inadverdantly cultivated a climate of narrow mindedness. My present membership expires next month and I am seriously considering not renewing. |
If you look at the former Masters/Invitational challenges, you'll see that there wasn't a lot of "out-of-the-box" creativity there either. The winners certainly weren't anything more than your typical DPC fare, that's for sure. (With the exception of the "Impressionism" challenge).
Nor would it be any different in any other ones we might have. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 04:12:46 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
What "negativity" L? |
Read all about it! :P
***
Basically, the negativity stems from the exclusiveness of these challenges. But from the responses you have already received and the discussion in this thread, it was never understood why this was (and is) a bad idea. What makes it a bad idea is the focus of the criteria -- that is, it's focus on what has already happened. Let me restate that very clearly -- as long as the criteria for selecting entrants is based on events that have already occurred, the entrants may as well be hand-picked from the organizer's email contacts. And that is true no matter what criteria is used.
It doesn't have to be that way. There is a very simple way to accomplish the goals of recognizing those that do well while not gaining ribbons and rewarding those who consistently out-perform the rabble. Change the Master's Challenge into a Master's Tournament. That is, state the criteria, state a starting date, state an ending date and anyone that satisfies the criteria at the end of the stated time period is in. The key is the criteria must apply only to what is done during the time period.
A very simple implementation (and the simpler the better) would be all those placing in the top X% of any member's challenge ending during the time period are eligible to enter that time period's master's challenge. The exact percentage and the time period would have to be worked out to not be too large a percentage or too long a time, and yet not too small either. I think 10% - 15% would work well, with the time period being either a month or a quarter. At the end of the year the top Y% of all the master's challenges for the year compete in a challenge that can truly be said to pit the best of the best for the year against each other. I should also note that I don't see this yearly tournament beginning or ending with the calender year -- there is just too much going on at the end/beginning of the year for this to culminate then.
I should note that the average score is subject to drastic fluctuations from challenge to challenge and is not a good way to compare performance from one challenge to the next. Any comparison that is to be made between challenges is best done on percentile placement -- not score.
The advantages of this include, but are certainly not limited to:
-- First and foremost it builds upon and reinforces the backbone of the site, the weekly challenges. It is not an extra tacked onto the site, but a feature that fits cleanly as the next step in growth. The Weekly challenges, with their unpredictability provide a bit a randomness that pushes, pulls or otherwise entices members to challenge themselves. The randomness is great for what it does, break boxes -- but in order to grow, at some point that chaos must be harnessed and tamed enough for a foundation to be built. This provides that bit of stability -- while not given outright, it is available for those who prove they are able to tame the chaos of the challenges.
-- Participation in the weekly challenges is greatly encouraged. If a member wants to be a part of the tournament, they must earn their place in it -- and keep earning it in order to stay there.
-- New members are not at a disadvantage to those who have done well in the past. Each challenge in the tournament is made up of those who have earned their place in it within the tournament time frame -- there is not grandfathering into the tournament.
***
Unfortunately, unless the climate of the SC has changed dramatically in the last year and a half, their steadfast refusal to allow any form of predictability into the challenges will doom this to oblivion. Although as I stated about, some form of stability and predictability is mandatory for the growth of both the site and its members.
Here's hoping the climate has changed! :)
David
/edit: bad formatting
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 04:17:39.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 02:04:11 AM · #33 |
| I think if we are having an "invitational" challenge we should do it like a chain letter. D+L can invite the first photographer whose work they would like to see in the challenge. That photographer will invite another photographer, etc... until we get 100. |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 02:07:17 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by JPR:
I think if we are having an "invitational" challenge we should do it like a chain letter. D+L can invite the first photographer whose work they would like to see in the challenge. That photographer will invite another photographer, etc... until we get 100. |
anonymously ;-) what a great idea! |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:33:06 PM · #35 |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:35:05 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Maybe I'm just plain stupid, but could someone explain to me what the point of a "master's" challenge is? |
Please defend "the great idea." |
|
|
|
03/23/2006 06:15:53 PM · #37 |
| my great idea was the invitational challenge where people are invited by other people. it has nothing to do with the masters or being a master. just a bit of the old fun. |
|
|
|
03/23/2006 06:22:25 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Maybe I'm just plain stupid, but could someone explain to me what the point of a "master's" challenge is? |
to me its just something fun, it was great voting on it and inspiring. If you look at the last one you can see the point. (thats what i think anyway)
Message edited by author 2006-03-23 18:25:14.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:01:50 PM · #39 |
Interesting poll.
I'm tipping there will be 64 votes for the 2+ ribbons option ;)
bazz.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 23:02:03. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:03:37 PM · #40 |
OK, if we have an invitational study, please, please, please have it after Easter. :)
I did have as my 2005 goal "second ribbon so I could punch my ticket to a master's free study"...
I'm just yammering here. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:05:06 PM · #41 |
I think that this is not a good idea (forcing myself not to use a stronger word :) ). I can see some usefulness in a master-free challenge (i.e. where ribbon holders can not participate) so that beginners would feel less intimidated and have a greater chance of winning a ribbon, but what's the point of a challenge for the masters? If you are a master, then you should feel confident competing any challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 23:07:14. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:12:48 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
but what's the point of a challenge for the masters? If you are a master, then you should feel confident competing any challenge. |
If you look at the level and variety of work that was submitted to the original masters challenge you'll be astounded.
A lot can be learnt just by studying these shots and the creative approaches that were taken to get them.
Personally speaking I'd like to see one go oahead even if it was 5+ ribbons to qualify.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:13:35 PM · #43 |
The gods are watching us. The polls will decide what the polls decide.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:18:51 PM · #44 |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:25:27 PM · #45 |
My feeling on this subject is simple. These invitationals do perk up the participants to step it up higher with their creativity and skills.
It only helps the site because it presents an array of images that are superior in numbers.
Yes, there are those members who will be left out but that is the price of the ticket and if they are here to learn why not indulge the best talent to display their fire.
Look, somebody will always balk because they feel that they should not be penalized for their under performance. They feel that DPC is not really a showcase. I do. I feel DPC is the best showcase and the archives could use the exciting images that emerge in such numbers.
The last time the complaint was for a challenge of non ribbon winners. Imagine, the site gave in to this sort of handicap. I am sorry, but loud as the complaining sounded I would have never yielded. This added to the overall let it die situation.
I think that even non ribbon members should encourage the events if their intent is to learn. Besides there are enough events that non winners can enter to gain their spurs. Keep in mind that many non ribbon winners are indeed good photographers who are merely waiting their time and if they remain active and alert they too will score.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 23:27:07. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:27:09 PM · #46 |
I think it can do a number of good things:
a) Provide motivation to ribbon. When I first signed up I went through the old challenges and saw the Master's Free Study. I was in awe. I wanted in. Would I ever ribbon? I do know that the idea of being able to take part played at least a small part in my motivation.
b) Bringing your A-game. When you know that you are competing against the best of the best, you tend to try harder. This can encourage extra effort and the result is stuff we wouldn't otherwise see.
c) Inspiration and guidance. As long as the masters don't mind writing in their comment section instead of NA, others can learn what went into the shot and allow them to try to duplicate it. Often emulation is the first step into developing talent of your own.
I would love to see a Master's Free study even if I did not qualify to participate. Sure we don't want to fractionate our members, but there are so many challenges available to everybody already I don't think people would mind if another was running at the same time even if they could not take part.
My 0.02 |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:27:28 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
A lot can be learnt just by studying these shots and the creative approaches that were taken to get them. |
A lot can be learnt from studying masters' work in any challenge. If you make a regular Free Study challenge, you'll have both masters with ribbons and masters without ribbons to learn from.
The only point I can see in having a ribbon-holders-only challenge is elitism, which is a thing I loathe.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 23:31:29. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:29:33 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
The only point I can see in having a ribbon-holders-only challenge is elitism, which is a thing I loathe. |
Or something to aspire to.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:31:21 PM · #49 |
Goodness me, what is wrong with a masters challenge that is called the Masters? What has gone so badly wrong that we cannot recognise them?
The world has gone potty dumbing-down success and pretending that there are no winners or losers. It doesn't matter what spin you put on it, individuals know differently. There are times when we feel like winners and times we feel like losers. Political correct spin can never change that - so lets get on with it and recognise reality. Every person is unique and is better at one single thing than any other person on the planet - mostly to our personal loss, we fail to recognise that.
There are winners here at DPC, they are the masters of their craft. They have earned their accolades and we can learn so much from them. I for one would love to celebrate their success and bask in their best work.
For those who feel uncomfortable with others success - get over it. Analyse the success and go after it for yourself if you want to. But most of all, celebrate the success in others as you would have them celebrate your own successes.
Brett
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 23:32:54. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:34:18 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
The only point I can see in having a ribbon-holders-only challenge is elitism, which is a thing I loathe. |
Fair enough but having a set level for qualifying/eligibility is done everywhere.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Olympics Games, or Soccer World Cup, or Grand Slam Tennis events, etc, etc etc.
cheers,
bazz.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 23:37:04. |
|
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: 08/03/2025 06:46:59 PM EDT.
