48 Hour Rule - DPChallenge Forums

06/18/2006 02:59:14 PM · #1

"DQ if original not submitted with 48 hours."

I seldom disagree with the Site Council and their practices, and when I have, I have at least understood their reasoning. The one exception is the 48 hour rule. And I am greatly bothered by this EVERY time I see it come up. Each time I express my feelings but have seen no real change.

---

I don't believe this to be a fair rule. I understand it's purpose to prevent back-log. But I feel there are not enough before or after accomodations.

I've have seen on numerous occasions entries DQ'd in challenges weeks old. But for a entry which may have made no violation, a simple 2 day (48 hour) time period will DQ.

????

------

There are many times that I have had things come up at the last minute and not been able to get online for a couple of days. The fact that this can DQ me and potentially lead to a suspension; with no recourse. Is to me an unfair policy.

The options that the SC give to remedy this situation are, and I apologize for insult, insufficient, uncreative, unsatisfactory:

- Take original files with you for any current entries
Many times people are called away from the computer for a couple of days at short notice. Hey, sure, I could put my originals on my thumb drive. But it won't make a difference. I won't eve know that I've been DQ'd till I get back. I've mentioned the idea of text alerts for cell phones and that might help. But such hasn't been implemented. So regardless, one can fix a problem they don't know exists.)

- Submit a ticket under Help/Contact and attach the original for your entry
Okay, this is perhaps the best option. But let's look at it. If this is really to be the recourse, then let's at least put that option in the list of options. Seems like everything else under the sun is there. No equipment. Well, you can denote that. Let's at least have a "send original for entry" option.

Still, this accomplishes very little. Because the often the issue at hand is not being aware that you've received a DQ evaluation. For this to work for me and many others, it would require that such a mail is sent before a DQ review occurs. So this would require that I always send a help request with an attached original for every entry, if I wanted to be assured that the day I finally ribbon I don't get DQ'd for a failure to send proof within 48 hours.

I'd like to know how the SC feels about receiving proofs of every challenge entry? Does this seem a viable solution to them?

- If your departure is after the start of voting, request validation on your image. You can attach the proof file at that point.
This has essentially the same problem as above, with the exception that you must also wait for voting to begin.

NONE OF THESE ARE SOLUTIONS!

At best they are poor work-arounds. And I'm rather tired of this being the best that can be given. So from now on, I am going to send a "help message" with an attached original with every entry submission. And I am even going to encourage others to do so. I feel this is an issue that has been left unaddressed to long and is conducted in an unsatisfactory manner. I've expressed this view and given alternative solutions. Hopefully, this will lead DPC to change their enaction of this policy or offer better options.

There are OTHER options that are superior to the above and much more fair.

One simple option mentioned before, that would not be an end-all-be-all but would, IMHO, offer a decent option to help remedy this ongoing issue would be to add a single field to the challenge entry form. URL field to an uploaded original. Yes, this leaves the burden to the user but at least they have an option. Then, if an entry receives a DQ request and SC can simply download the original from the provided link. This places the burden of pre-posting the original on the user. (This also shifts much of the burden off the SC.)

I also think if a user does provide the original, within say a 2-4 week period and it proves not to have made a violation of the rules. That any resultant DQ should not count toward "suspension" tally.

Also, I do not believe a lack of original should DQ a photo during voting period. Let the vote continue. Then when the votes are all in, label such entries "unvalidated" instead of DQ.

There are many other ideas and potential alternatives that could help alleviate this problem. No, there may not be a perfect solution. But there should at least be some decent alternatives. Until that time, I will be sending an original for each entry I make on DPC.

Sincerely,
Jason "The Saj"

PS - Dear Site Council, I think you guys do a really swell job. But I am really tired of seeing this particular issue come up repeatedly. And I believe no fair options have been provided. This is also something I could easily see happening to me. And most likely would happen the time I earn my first ribbon. It is also something that is to me an extremely 'unfair' practice so it touches a very strong chord with me.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/18/2006 03:09:26 PM · #2

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if you placed fourth, completely following the rules and then three weeks later, found out that the third place entry did not?

What if one of your entries in a challenge didn't get any comments and another got 25 comments, only to find out that they didn't follow the rules?

Originally posted by theSaj:

One simple option mentioned before, that would not be an end-all-be-all but would, IMHO, offer a decent option to help remedy this ongoing issue would be to add a single field to the challenge entry form. URL field to an uploaded original. Yes, this leaves the burden to the user but at least they have an option. Then, if an entry receives a DQ request and SC can simply download the original from the provided link. This places the burden of pre-posting the original on the user. (This also shifts much of the burden off the SC.)

You could always do this and leave the url in the photog's comments, couldn't you?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/18/2006 03:17:29 PM · #3

Originally posted by theSaj:

...if an entry receives a DQ request and SC can simply download the original from the provided link.

You can already do that in the Photographer's Comments.

You're overreacting Jason. We don't stand by our computers with stopwatches waiting for 48 hours to elapse. We try to work with the photographers and allow a reasonable grace period if they can't get to the original right away. If you've got a good score or think your photo might be questioned, then you can always send the original via a ticket or validation request- people do this all the time. In essence, you have the entire week of voting PLUS 48 hours to do this. To send an original for every single entry is just a waste of time IMO (yours AND ours).

In the case you're getting all worked up over, it wasn't the time period that was the problem. It was the fact that the [multiple] files the phototgrapher DID submit weren't originals.

06/18/2006 03:38:54 PM · #4

Originally posted by "mk":

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if you placed fourth, completely following the rules and then three weeks later, found out that the third place entry did not?

I addressed this in that I think the entries should be remain in till voting ends then be categorized seperately as "unvalidated" for a couple of weeks.

How would you feel if your entry ribboned, and you didn't know it as you were at the hospital with a loved one and you find out a couple days later you've been DQ'd. Insult added to injury.

"You could always do this and leave the url in the photog's comments, couldn't you?"

No, because there is nothing that states the SC will review that and necessarily act on that. Perhaps if it was stated explicity in the "Challenge Submission Form" that you can provide a link to a posted original in the comments to ensure that if you are away or unable to receive email notifications the Site Council will review posted original.

That'd be a good step.

Providing an single field to enter a URL link to the original that is only seen by the SC would be even better and such is a very easy modification.

Originally posted by "Scalvert":

In the case you're getting all worked up over, it wasn't the time period that was the problem. It was the fact that the [multiple] files the phototgrapher DID submit weren't originals.

This time, and I understand that in this case there may be foul play or failure on the part of the user. And in truth, I believe the last time as well. But the fact that there is failure seems to keep us from addressing what happens when there is not failure.

Originally posted by "Scalvert":

If you've got a good score or think your photo might be questioned, then you can always send the original via a ticket or validation request- people do this all the time.

The problem is that such require me knowing those things in advance. And if I wind up away or busy. I won't be able to respond. And in truth, I really don't want to send you guys an original each time. It's just that I've found myself run out of time unexpectedly. I had an entry that I wanted to re-crop and re-upload and planned to do so but got stuck at work. Now, that's totally unrelated. But, it exemplies me running out of time unexpectedly. And that's just where I see the potential for failure.

ie: I submit a photo, some personal event happens, or perhaps my internet line goes down. Wouldn't be the first time SNET/SBC failed me. I don't even know that my photo has done well and ribboned, come back and find out I am DQ'd for failure to send original in 48 hours. I'd be extremely disheartened.

Especially when it'd be so easy to just add one field for users to put a URL. And then, you know, if I didn't post the original for the SC to download if need be. That's my bad. Not unfair. And since it is just a link, it will consume very minimal bandwidth and database storage.

*shrug*

I guess this is a tough one for me cause in my life I've fallen victim to a lot of unfairness in challenges & competitions. And it always strikes a sore nerve with me. To me, this is a situation that I think has some viable options to alleviate it that can be done with minimal effort.

- Jason

PS - With regards to the particularly case the brought this issue to the forefront of my mind again. I do believe the Site Council is probably in the right for the DQ. But the rules as they are allow for tremendous unfairness IMHO. I think in part, the SC has done a good job to minimize that potential but I think this simple change would help. And in so doing shift the burden as well.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

06/18/2006 03:44:37 PM · #5

Maybe I'm just overly afraid. But it's something I could very much see happening to me. Especially, as there have been times I haven't receive SPEED CHALLENGE alerts. Which has made me wonder "what if I got a DQ and never received the notice"

*shrug*

Guess it's just a bit of paranoia.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

06/18/2006 04:12:11 PM · #6

Jason,

Let's say you win a blue. (woohooo, go dude!!!). Then, just after rollover, your computer crashes, no internet, nothing. OMG, you haven't had a chance to send your original, and the 48 hours is ticking. . . Does that kind of address your fears.

Here is what a typical SC conversation on that image would look like.

>>>Hey, it's been almost 48 hours. Has anyone heard anything about the original.
>>>No, did he contact us that he would be gone?
>>>No, no tickets. When was he last online?
>>>(Using secret, well, till just now, SC powers) Hey, it shows that he hasn't been online since 12:09 turnover night. Wonder if everything is okay. Does anyone live near him to make sure everything is okay?
>>>Don't know. We'll give him a few more hours, just to make sure.

++++++++++++

64 hours later (still nothing from tehSaj)

>>>What's going on?
>>>I have no idea.
>>>He's online now. Let's see if we can contact him and see what's going one.

so on and so forth.

Guess what everybody, We do bend. We have worked with more than one photographer on more than one occassion many times. We often contact the photographer multiple times before a photo is dq'ed.

As far as the 48 hour rule, well, so far it has worked. And it has seemed to be fair to all involved.

Are you overreacting, probably so. But, like they say, only the paranoia survive. :)

In the last part of one of your last posts, you address the situation that caused you to start this thread. Please know, that oftentimes the cards on the table are not all the cards we have. We don't tell all and show all, usually to try and minimize any further embarrassment the dq'ed person may have, and because to do so would take up alot of forum space.

(For the record, I think most of what happened in the *original* situation Jason refers to is know, but there have been many, mnay other situations where SC is accused in public, and all we can do is sit on our hands or else be told we're unprofessional. . .Nice rock. Nice hard place)