| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2003 07:28:56 AM · #1 |
Ok ok, I,ll start this one..... :-)
Now I already had comments saying that my "number" was man-made therefore doesn't meet the challenge. I thought the challenge was to find a number that wasn't supposed to be a number whether in nature or man-made.
Could someone clarify this for the voters please???
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 07:31:37 AM · #2 |
| The description said, "Not manufactured in any way." I took that to mean "not man made," personally. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 07:34:41 AM · #3 |
That's how I interpreted it too.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 07:39:33 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
The description said, "Not manufactured in any way." I took that to mean "not man made," personally. |
I agree. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 08:11:17 AM · #5 |
I interpreted it as saying that the number represented in your photograph should be naturally occurring... to find something that looks like a number or numbers that happens naturally... not setup and not an actual number... just something that looks like a number :)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 08:30:56 AM · #6 |
ditto
Originally posted by alansfreed:
The description said, "Not manufactured in any way." I took that to mean "not man made," personally. |
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 09:02:03 AM · #7 |
Oh well... people will vote what they think. I guess a better description from the admins would eliminate confusion in the future. :-)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 09:09:58 AM · #8 |
Try to be positive not negative. How would you have improved the description to make "not manufactured in any way" more clear?
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 09:45:33 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Try to be positive not negative. How would you have improved the description to make "not manufactured in any way" more clear? |
To me it meant that it couldn't be a manufactured number. There was a whole thread on this last week and no one could get a clear opinion. I took a chance.... and I'm bombing. :-) Next challenge! I'm here to have fun! :-)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 09:52:09 AM · #10 |
I also took the challenge to be that the subject should be something that in some way looked like a number. I see lot's of submissions that are of things people just want the viewer to count but don't actually resemble a number shape (roman or Arabic). Anyone else have the same impression as me?
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 02:54:00 PM · #11 |
SITE COUNCIL REFERENCE #1 - MANUFACTURED BUT NOT INTENDED IS OKAY
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by jjbeguin:
would this qualify as 411?
|
I'd say yes, but it isnt natural. |
Why isn't that "naturally occurring"? I would say it is.. I don't think the plumber thought to make the pipes into the number 4. I took the description to mean no numbers in the readily recognized way. ... ex. on signs, doors, text.. etc. |
SITE COUNCIL REFERENCE #2 - MANUFACTURED BUT NOT INTENDED IS NOT OKAY
Originally posted by Gordon:
my comment was a direct quote from the description of the challenge. It says your subject should not be manufactured. Therefore man-made objects would seem to be not meeting the objective. It seems quite clear. It makes no mention about subjects that are supposed to be numbers in the first place or not. |
MY RESPONSE THAT WAS NOT ANSWERED
i understand what you are saying and how you are interpreting it, but the only thing that is really clear is that other intrepretations are out there (like in the other thread on this subject 'Numbers Clarification', where KarenB, another 'Site Council' said the pipes would work for 411) and no one has said yes or no - (i) must be natural (ie: organic) or (ii) may be manufactured, just not manufactured intentionally as a number. but whatever, i found my natural organically derived number and submitted it (so i'm set for either way). good luck to everyone else!
------------------------------------
Okay - so many people are getting comments that their manufactured, but not manufactured as a number but representative of a number is not within the guidelines (or even when it is natural, there was the 'hand of man' somehow, so its less 'pure'), and that because the purists searched for days seeking the stricter definition of the challenge, they will punish those that didn't (those that interpreted things differently). This bad situation clearly could have been handled better by the dpchallenge people before it got to this. It's quite frustrating. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 02:55:54 PM · #12 |
The 'site council' does not represent all the opinions that frequent dpc... Don't depend on what is said by site council about a challenge to govern how people interpret/vote on it...
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 02:58:06 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The 'site council' does not represent all the opinions that frequent dpc... Don't depend on what is said by site council about a challenge to govern how people interpret/vote on it... |
clearly good advice for the future . . . yet frustration remains :-( |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 03:01:45 PM · #14 |
Most posts by site council members are our own opinions as individual participants. When we are speaking officially we will usually make that clear either officially or by context.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 03:08:20 PM · #15 |
| I gave 2 tens in this challenge. One is most definately natural, and the other isnt "Natural, as in organic" in any way. Its about quality photography. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 03:42:38 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
The description said, "Not manufactured in any way." I took that to mean "not man made," personally. |
I didn't think of it that way... I took "not manufactured" to mean not meant to be a number. I mean what difference does it really make if the "number" is organic or metallic as long as it wasn't specifically meant to be a number? If the pic was supposed to be organic or existing only in nature it should have said that specifically. This will probably be my worst rating ever now. :( |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 04:19:11 PM · #17 |
We seem to have two threads on this same discussion. Can we continue it either in this one or that one? How confusing.
I answered the other one already.. Let's all mosey over there, shall we?
other numbers thread |
|
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 03:35:46 PM EDT.
