Rules Change Suggestion - DPChallenge Forums

10/04/2006 09:05:00 AM · #1

While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly.

I am proposing a change in the following rule from the above to:

While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly. Voters should should take entries on good faith.

I'd like to see this added. Because I feel that DNMC is getting out of hand. It's becoming more presumptive. With voter's assuming that entries do not meet a challenge simply because there is a possibility of such. This is to me no different than voting low because you believe an entry broke the rules, as opposed to DQ'ing. When in fact, it is quite possible that the entry did not break rules but used a creative method to accomplish the result.

I am further bothered because their is a trend on the part of some that if they decide the validity of the entry to the challenge is questionable they choose to award the entry a "1". Now, it might in fact be accurate. (ie: I recently received a "1" on an entry because I did not realize that technically my entry contained neither beer nor a soft drink). But there are many times where the entry is pre-judged then scored a "1". And the pre-judgment based on an assumption is wrong.

There is a growing tendency of not taking photographer's entries on good faith. And to me, I find that extremely disturbing. It's essentially the assumptian that the entrant is a liar or intentionally making violation. In truth, if one were to hunt for reasons to DNMC one could DNMC a great number of entries.

Many photos [in Unrelatedness] have backgrounds which are provided by an object. So in such case, a great many entries could be declared as DNMC. And all rewarded with a "1".

A lot of people put great effort in their participation on this site. Most of us are entering the challenges in good faith. It begins to lose the fun when you feel that a number of people are hunting for any way to discount the validity of your entry and your effort.

There is a great variety in voting methods for sure. But I believe ALL voting methods should be respectful and judicious.

- Saj

Message edited by scalvert - Removed reference to current challenge entry.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/04/2006 09:11:32 AM · #2

Case in point...

...this entry had a few people presume that I merely took a photograph and colorized it purple. Their votes & comments reflected that presumption.

Here is an original, and I believe it demonstrates that the photo was inherently "purple" and that minimal processing was done.

However, the presumption upon the part of some voters was that I was a fraud, a liar, in my submission. Why are we so presumptious in our assumptions so as to allow us to vote an image lower?

???

We presume fraud instead of taking at face value what is provided. This is extremely disrespectful.

I have no gripe if you hate the photo for the photo's sake. Think it's out-of-focus, or that I used to shallow a DOF. Not like the tone, composition, subject, etc. Fine. You can vote me a "2"...even a "1" if you hate it. But please...don't assume I'm a liar and especially don't presume me to be a liar and vote me a "1".

Message edited by author 2006-10-04 09:18:40.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

10/04/2006 09:12:50 AM · #3

Originally posted by theSaj:

A lot of people put great effort in their participation on this site. Most of us are entering the challenges in good faith. It begins to lose the fun when you feel that a number of people are hunting for any way to discount the validity of your entry and your effort.

There is a great variety in voting methods for sure. But I believe ALL voting methods should be respectful and judicious.

Well put.

As far as your original post, you may want to remove the references to current challenges since they may be identified based on what you said.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/04/2006 09:22:00 AM · #4

Actually, write now I am strongly debating removing two of my entries. As both can be found to technically not meet the challenges. Doing so will result in a week suspension on my part.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/04/2006 09:26:13 AM · #5

If you think the entries meet the challenge and withdraw, then you are letting "them" win ...

Message edited by author 2006-10-04 09:26:23.

Tlemetry

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

Olympus 50mm f/2.0 Macro ED Zuiko Digital

10/04/2006 09:31:52 AM · #6

I chose not to use a good image because it looked 'colorized' myself. Even though I used a red LED light to colorize before I shot it. I figured voters would assume I manip'd it. Though I don't think colorizing in raw processing is illegal, is it?

mist

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/04/2006 09:32:25 AM · #7

You could change the wording, but I'd be surprised if it made much difference.

People who currently vote 1 in a challenge because they believe that it DNMC, completely ignoring other factors, would, I think, continue to do so even if the rule was worded differently.

To illustrate my point, if I see a photo that I think doesn't meet a challenge, then I'd vote as normal based on the contents of the photo and then maybe deduct a point or two from my overall vote. If someone else in their normal course would consider DNMC grounds to give a 1, then they would still do so. You can't just say "be fair", because, as far as they are concerned, they are being fair.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/04/2006 09:35:11 AM · #8

Originally posted by theSaj:

Actually, write now I am strongly debating removing two of my entries.

Sorry Jason, but once you request the first self-DQ, you'd no longer be eligible to request the second since you'd have a DQ in your last 25 entries. In most cases, you're better off just leaving them in.

I sympathize with your post, though. My current ribbon winner had four votes of 1 (two more were scrubbed at rollover). Now, I look at that and think, "What could possibly be worth a 1 in a decently lit and sharply focused photo of a model holding an umbrella amid obvious raindrops in a Rain challenge?" I suppose some people just decided that it wasn't NATURAL rain (though there was no such requirement) and so voted DNMC. What annoys me is that it IS possible (though difficult) to do something like this with real rain in Basic, but people who assume that it's fake simply lack the imagination to believe it's possible. That said, it's their right to vote as they see fit.

On the other hand, maybe these people just voted low because they suffered a traumatic childhood experience with an umbrella... like being doused with ice-cold water for the sake of a silly photo. ;-)

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/04/2006 09:39:23 AM · #9

While you a and I havn't agreed on alot of things in the past Saj I will agree with you in that the DNMC does seem to be getting out of hand lately. It seems that every week I think about not submitting to the regular challenges anymore but GeneralE's logic sets in. I will not let them win. One of my favortie subjects is not liked by many voters but I will keep using them (flowers) if for no other reason than me liking them.

My purple entry was a flower with a bee. It got a decent score but of course I like everyone else that enters thought it would be higher. I saw many people complaining about all the flowers and I am sure that lead to lower votes. But I caved to the DNMC pressure in this one. i should have cropped closer. this is a full frame shot and if i had cropped closer the bee would have looked incredible but it would have had less purple and this influnenced me into not cropping.

anyway as far as your shot. I gave it a low score(not a 1). I thought you may have used a purple filter but that wasn't the big factor in my score. I didn't think the color purple fit the subject. to me it seemed the color was forced. also the focus seemed a bit soft to me.

Message edited by author 2006-10-04 09:42:24.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/04/2006 09:43:36 AM · #10

There was another entry in the purple challenge that I voted up pretty high and it ended up way down the list of results with a number of 1s, 2s and 3s.

It boggles my mind as to how anyone could have voted the shot down like that, but I think that some folk just have massively harsh voting rules, and that's the way that it will always be.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/04/2006 09:50:01 AM · #11

Originally posted by theSaj:

...this entry had a few people presume that I merely took a photograph and colorized it purple. Their votes & comments reflected that presumption.

While you may not have colorized the snake, I can certainly imagine people reasonably thinking that you did. I mean, you could use funky lighting or gel filters to make a banana purple, but the common perception is that bananas are yellow (yes I know there are red and green ones, too). Thus, if I enter a purple banana I would certainly expect a bunch (pun always intended) of DNMC votes. I'm betting that few people have ever seen a purple snake.

Message edited by author 2006-10-04 09:52:59.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/04/2006 09:51:32 AM · #12

Just stick it out bro...dont let it get to you. Learn from it for the future.

10/04/2006 09:52:58 AM · #13

Originally posted by scalvert:

On the other hand, maybe these people just voted low because they suffered a traumatic childhood experience with an umbrella... like being doused with ice-cold water for the sake of a silly photo. ;-)

(((((((((((((((((Scalvert)))))))))))))))))))

Thank you!!!

It just seems lately, that this is seeming to become more and more common. That disturbs me. Especially, as most people here really are trying. And frankly, I am here to learn as are most people. And having our photos written off does not help our photography one bit.

Regards to my purple entry. I was actually quite pleased with the score. It did better than I really hoped. So I am not like "aww...poor score...I deserve better". But more so, scored for the right reasons. And to respected as a participant as acting on good faith. And to see others the same.

We should not have to fear entering photos for these reasons.

"I have a dream...that one day...all entries will be judged in good faith on the photographic merits and not on the presumption be they true or false."

littlegett

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/04/2006 09:57:04 AM · #14

you think most these voters read the rules? They just here to look at pictures and click a number.

There is no real ryme or reason. It is starting to seem more and more random the type of images that ribbon.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/04/2006 10:02:35 AM · #15

To keep from agonizing over the scores too much, I apply a "corrective factor," just like they do in physics or baseball. Professional pitchers rarely bat, and so the general rule is to add 100 points to their batting average to see what they'd do if they were an everyday player -- a pitcher hitting .188 is pretty good ...

Since we know that the voters are narrow-minded, unimaginative, hyper-critical trolls, I just add 1 to 1.25 to my score to figure out what my entry "really deserves." : )

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/04/2006 10:06:46 AM · #16

** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/04/2006 10:14:04 AM · #17

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I just add 1 to 1.25 to my score to figure out what my entry "really deserves." : )

Yay... I "really" deserved an 8.3! ;-D

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/04/2006 10:19:19 AM · #18

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I just add 1 to 1.25 to my score to figure out what my entry "really deserves." : )

I think all of us "low-ballers" do this... ROFLMAO!

quiet_observation

Canon EOS-7D

10/04/2006 10:20:50 AM · #19

Throw out the 1, 2,and 3 votes and recalculate - this usually makes me feel better.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/04/2006 10:40:25 AM · #20

Actually, isn't there a formula for standard deviation (remembering back to my chemistry/statistics days).

As I recall the formula basically weeds out extremes that greatly deviate often giving a better reflection of the results by removing erroneous data.

Anyone recal the formula?

It'd be interesting to apply to results.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

10/04/2006 10:47:45 AM · #21

Originally posted by theSaj:

Don't forget that it works on both sides and you'll lose the high extreme scores also.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/04/2006 10:52:46 AM · #22

A good explanation of what a "standard deviation" is: Standard Deviation.

R.