| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2002 04:22:38 PM · #51 |
On a lesser scale, the top three entries each week should be compared against the original photos to make sure they are valid. This would eliminate the possiblity of a cheater actually winning.
I would think that this one would make the most sense... I'm sure no one is going to want to sift through 250+ full size images to try to look for cheats... but giving extra scrutiny to the top three seems to make good sense. |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 04:27:42 PM · #52 |
JM, I believe that the problem for which you are offering solutions is already solved. The DQ mechanism is in place. Nobody has complained about that mechanism. Submissions are regularly disqualified when someone complains about a photo and rules violations are found.
Why make any changes to accommodate the hysteria initiated by bobg's post?
sjgleah |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 04:40:03 PM · #53 |
I am fine with that mechanism. I would be ok as well to do a DQ check on the 3 winners.
Personanly I do not mind somebody removing a hot spot. I prefer to have the current rules (or the new set suggested) that to give free way to photoshop masters.
And right .. let's not give Bob more impact on the community than he deserves. |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 06:39:10 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by bobgaither:
I apologized and I am sorry. I never saw how you did your fruit picture for it was not on that thread.
Bob, thank you for your apology - I accept. Please do me a favor and remember when you're voting in the future and you see some odd, quirkly, little photo that you think may be edited, it could well be mine - and I don't cheat. And if you give it a 1 instead of following the established DQ procedure, you'll just feel bad about it later when I post the details on how I did the shot.
And if we all follow the rules, and a few people slip through the cracks and get away with an extra 1/10th of a point... who cares? That's their demon to live with, not ours. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.
Chris
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 08:58:14 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
On a lesser scale, the top three entries each week should be compared against the original photos to make sure they are valid. This would eliminate the possiblity of a cheater actually winning.
i really like that idea
i like it so much, i said it back in August in this thread ... D'oh...people failed to see the challenge...
not only did nobody agree with me, i was lectured on why it wouldn't work (not that i believed a word of it -- glad another great mind had the same thought i did :)
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 09:45:41 PM · #56 |
I do not like this, guilty until proven innocent mentality at all. If no one recommends it, than why force a check? We are not playing for money here.
Originally posted by spiderman:
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]On a lesser scale, the top three entries each week should be compared against the original photos to make sure they are valid. This would eliminate the possiblity of a cheater actually winning.
i really like that idea
i like it so much, i said it back in August in this thread ... D'oh...people failed to see the challenge...
not only did nobody agree with me, i was lectured on why it wouldn't work (not that i believed a word of it -- glad another great mind had the same thought i did :)
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:06:46 PM · #57 |
| I get frisked and strip searched three times to get on an airplane. I think I'll live if in the (extremely) unlikely event I place in the top three, someone checks that I followed all the rules... |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:11:00 PM · #58 |
Fascist! Viva la revolucion! :)
Also, some the high end cameras do not store EXIF if you shoot in certain formats, and there are EXIF editors available.
Why give the admins the extra headache to validate a picture that no one that was illegal? To satisfy bob?
Originally posted by myqyl:
I get frisked and strip searched three times to get on an airplane. I think I'll live if in the (extremely) unlikely event I place in the top three, someone checks that I followed all the rules...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/1/2002 10:10:19 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/1/2002 10:11:01 PM. |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:12:28 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
I do not like this, guilty until proven innocent mentality at all. If no one recommends it, than why force a check? We are not playing for money here.
Originally posted by spiderman:
[i]Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]On a lesser scale, the top three entries each week should be compared against the original photos to make sure they are valid. This would eliminate the possiblity of a cheater actually winning.
i really like that idea
i like it so much, i said it back in August in this thread ... D'oh...people failed to see the challenge...
not only did nobody agree with me, i was lectured on why it wouldn't work (not that i believed a word of it -- glad another great mind had the same thought i did :)
[/i]
[/i]
It would be a deterrant to cheating. It's not about being guilty. If someone wants to win a ribbon, they will know in advance that their photo will be examined in the end. Most people would not want to suffer the embarrassment...
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:16:18 PM · #60 |
I really hate this way of thinking.
After the Negative Space challenge, I was out of town for three days. Does this mean I would have been automatically DQ'd for not getting back to the admins on time? Why are we so worried about this?
If we have nothing to hide, why not let cops search our house once a month? Do Drew and Langdon really want this? Does anyone think that any of the top winners cheated-excepting the two that already were DQ'd?
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]I do not like this, guilty until proven innocent mentality at all. If no one recommends it, than why force a check? We are not playing for money here.
Originally posted by spiderman:
[i]Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]On a lesser scale, the top three entries each week should be compared against the original photos to make sure they are valid. This would eliminate the possiblity of a cheater actually winning.
i really like that idea
i like it so much, i said it back in August in this thread ... D'oh...people failed to see the challenge...
not only did nobody agree with me, i was lectured on why it wouldn't work (not that i believed a word of it -- glad another great mind had the same thought i did :)
[/i]
[/i]
It would be a deterrant to cheating. It's not about being guilty. If someone wants to win a ribbon, they will know in advance that their photo will be examined in the end. Most people would not want to suffer the embarrassment...
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:58:47 PM · #61 |
I agree with you Zeiss. Let's stay with the program. The mechanism to challenge suspected rulebreaking entries and to disqualify those that are indeed violations is in place, and it ain't broken.
sjgleah |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:22:19 AM · #62 |
The vast majority of photos that get disqualified on this site are for borders/padding, additions of text, or minor spot edits, all of which are mistakes people made because they didn't understand the rules or didn't know how to use their software to crop/resize their photos correctly. Many photos that are suspected of cheating are analysed each week and found to be valid. There really ISN'T much cheating going on at this site in the form of a deliberate attempt to get a higher score by breaking the rules. There is no reason for people to go through the photos letting suspicion and mistrust dominate their evaluation of them. If you really can't imagine how someone created a certain effect and therefore think it isn't possible without breaking the rules, use the DQ button. Many people do this. They're almost always wrong. But that's what the system is for.
Personally, I have never seen a photo here that seemed like gratuitous, outright cheating. Sometimes people cheat in obvious ways to troll the site, like when Clay photoshopped kermit on that pube photo :). But that's about it. If anyone has gotten through undetected then the effect was probably so subtle that the photo would have scored about the same without it anyway.
|
|
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: 07/20/2025 06:02:12 PM EDT.
