Your thought behind the 1. Post up

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

03/08/2007 10:52:41 AM · #28

there really aren't many images on this site that deserve a '1' ... I agree with TCGuru, someone trying to hurt a good photo ...

PhantomEWO

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/08/2007 11:41:19 AM · #29

I had the same question on mine, yours and many others. A free study cannot be eliminated by DNMC, there is no such thing as outsider of the box..
.
I hope the SC's are tracking the "1" voters and start to eliminate those who consistantly DNMC sane voting practises. The same goes for excessive "10's". Unfortunately there are a few photos that deserve a 1 but it has to be extremely poor taste, way out of focus or the typical black or white screen entries.
.
It is time for the SC's to stop the stupid uncalled for "1" votes. There is no argument that can hold any intelligent conversation on many of the 1's.

Alicia

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM II

03/08/2007 11:53:58 AM · #30

I feel that most one votes are used to make a statement - of whatever sort.

I also feel that the voting process on this site is highly subjective and mainly based on varying degrees of like and dislike. In that spirit, it's everyone's right to vote the whole available scale.

Is it a wonderful practice? No. Do we like getting ones? No. But even if we eliminated the one, then two would be the lowest, or three... and so forth.

On the upside, all photos are available to trolls, so everyone has the "chance" to get a one, thus leveling the playing field. There will always be votes a photo doesn't deserve - both high and low. And there's nothing we can do about it as long as there is a democratic voting process.

yann

03/08/2007 11:57:44 AM · #31

I think the people in charge here should do something about it, even if it means using their judgment to filter deserved 1s and underserved 1s.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/08/2007 12:02:06 PM · #32

It has the appearance of some random guy standing in a street in front of a skip or trash can of some sort, with a plastic oscar and an artificial left arm. (mainly due to the wide angle distortion, odd hand position and very dark/ totally black shirt I suppose) The wide angle distortion also makes it look sort tilted at an extreme angle (e.g., the building on the far left). The cars & people in the background give it a fairly candid, careless feel too.

Not saying it deserves the one vote, but I can see quite a few things that someone on a casual flick through would not see as marks of a 'high scoring, dpc-genre shot' and would maybe dismiss as just another snapshot and hit 1, particularly in the 'best of the best free study challenge'

While plenty of people have their own personal definition of what a '1' means (there's a load of them above this post) Most of those definitions are just that - personal. The voting scale says a '1' means bad. That's it.

Not terrible. Not worst photo in history. Just bad. It is a purely subjective opinion. E.g., I could perfectly reasonably vote every picture that I would personally delete as being considered 'bad' and still be well within the scale laid out for voting.

That would be a lot of 1 votes and they would all just mean 'bad' not 'I hate your mother' or 'What a terrible photographer you are, please burn your camera'

Message edited by author 2007-03-08 12:05:11.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

03/08/2007 12:07:54 PM · #33

I have a solution:

Change the voting scale to 5 through 15.

Simple!

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

03/08/2007 12:11:37 PM · #34

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

I agree with yanko. I have no problem with people giving ones but those should be for the worse photos. if you rated all evenly it should be at most 10% no way that Jeff's photo was at worse bottom 10%. it may not wow you but if is a good photo and if it wasn't published it could have been. I had people NOT give me a 1 for my blurry nipple so how can this be worse than mine. If you vote 1 you are saying that either this is a tie with the worst photo in history or a tie with the worst photo in this challenge. both of which can't objectively be said about Jeff's photo.

This voting lark, let's not forget, is all subjective, not objective. Just because I may happen to like a particular shot and dislike another does not mean that everyone else has to agree with me. Even though the majority like a particular shot, this does not preclude someone absolutely detesting it and, possibly even, what it stands for. After all, who is to say that the majority are 'right' in some incontrovertible, measurable way?

Let's not forget that, even if the technicals are spot-on, if the content or intent seriously puts someone off, then they will not like the image and are entitled to vote it low.

I've had my fair share of low scores when I feel that I've deserved better and I feel that one has to simply move on.

By the way, it wasn't me that gave the 1. I haven't voted in ages. Rather remiss of me.

benhur

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

03/08/2007 12:46:27 PM · #35

I would like to know how this is the wrong angle and why is it worth a 1?

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

03/08/2007 12:48:00 PM · #36

Originally posted by benhur:

I would like to know how this is the wrong angle and why is it worth a 1?

Same reason as the other selective desaturation shot in this thread, perhaps ? Some voters don't like those gimmicks and vote accordingly I suppose.

Greetmir

Nikon D60

03/08/2007 01:35:58 PM · #37

... and just get used to the fact that there IS no logical reason sometimes ... sheesh. MANY MANY MANY Blue Ribbon winners get a one or even a few ...

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100 VI

03/08/2007 01:49:07 PM · #38

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by eyewave:
A single 1 probably is a troll vote, technically there's nothing wrong with Jeff's or Susan's pictures.
While your at it, please tell me why this deserved 3 1s and 2 2s. I finished with my 3rd worst score ever, though I got only positive comments.

I didn't vote on it, but it's probably the selective color.

I did, a 4 because I really (really really) hate selective desaturation, but it gained 3 points for the idea.

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

03/08/2007 01:55:00 PM · #39

If I had to give a guess, assuming the 1 was a real, considered vote, then I would say maybe because the shot looks too processed.

Rob O

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/08/2007 01:58:40 PM · #40

Originally posted by klstover:

If I had to give a guess, assuming the 1 was a real, considered vote, then I would say maybe because the shot looks too processed.

Which is a bit ironic, since often the ribbon winners appear too processed (super saturated, lots of dodging/burning, etc). Not discounting your input here, just saying ...

;-)

Artifacts

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/08/2007 02:10:53 PM · #41

Originally posted by jblaylockrayner:

Just wanted to get some feedback from the person who voted 1 on this - I try and vote quite realistically when I can - When something is in focus and well exposed I can't score it any less than a 3 - So i would just like to get some feed back on how this got a 1.

Anyone else think they deserved better than a one vote should post up - Of course only if you were unlucky enough to get a 1 vote.
Cheers
Jeff

I can easily see from the voting distribution curve that a score of 1 is not outside the range of expectation for this particular image.

The problem is that you actually question it. You should not. It is a fringe vote based on fringe reasons and should not concern you whatsoever. Does that really matter? Will knowing the reason improve your photography? NO!

By normal standards, is this a good picture? Yes. Does it have meaning? Yes. Is it well done according to normal photographic evaluation? Obviously, yes!

The person who gave this a 1 did NOT do so because they are a troll or have evil intent or even have a reason that you or most voters would agree with. It is a fringe vote for fringe reasons, nothing more, and nothing less.

Does the 1 vote for this image matter? NO!

jimmyjazz78

Panasonic DMC-FZ3

03/08/2007 02:20:27 PM · #42

Originally posted by jblaylockrayner:

Wouldn't it be nice that if you voted 3 or under you HAD to give an explanation rather than it be suggested!
Happy snapping all
Jeff

I agree. If this is a place that's designed to elevate the art of photography in a collective, community setting, the end goal is to learn and improve. We all would love to "win" or get ribbons, but moreover, I'm under the (hopefully not naive) impression that we're all part of this community to share a common interest and passion, not just to compete against each other. It's been said that we learn best from our mistakes, and obviously, a "1" would imply many shortcomings. So if we already get an alert saying that it is recommended that you leave feedback for a 3 or lower, why not make it mandatory? Then we could either unlock a wealth of learning that's personalized to each person's entry (by getting the "why" for the low scores), or if it's just "trolls" putting those scores, we'll force them to think twice. They'd have to at least identify themselves, or at the worst score an anonymous 4. I totally agree with Jeff on this proposed "solution".

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100 VI

03/08/2007 02:40:59 PM · #43

I suggest you do a forum search on mandatory comments for votes of 3, 2 and 1. This has been discussed in great depth already.

03/08/2007 02:41:12 PM · #44

Originally posted by jimmyjazz78:

Originally posted by jblaylockrayner:

Wouldn't it be nice that if you voted 3 or under you HAD to give an explanation rather than it be suggested!
Happy snapping all
Jeff

I agree. If this is a place that's designed to elevate the art of photography in a collective, community setting, the end goal is to learn and improve. We all would love to "win" or get ribbons, but moreover, I'm under the (hopefully not naive) impression that we're all part of this community to share a common interest and passion, not just to compete against each other. It's been said that we learn best from our mistakes, and obviously, a "1" would imply many shortcomings. So if we already get an alert saying that it is recommended that you leave feedback for a 3 or lower, why not make it mandatory? Then we could either unlock a wealth of learning that's personalized to each person's entry (by getting the "why" for the low scores), or if it's just "trolls" putting those scores, we'll force them to think twice. They'd have to at least identify themselves, or at the worst score an anonymous 4. I totally agree with Jeff on this proposed "solution".

Because people who vote don't owe you anything. Their vote is a gift to you. A comment is a bigger gift.

Witchhunts, public calling outs etc typically follow anyone with the actual fortitude to put their name to a low score. Read any of those threads and you'll see why only very rarely do people comment on a 3 or below vote.

The proposed solution you have just has the chilling effect of making 4 the new 'crap' score. Meaningless inflation might make you feel like a better photographer, but it would still be meaningless.

jimmyjazz78

Panasonic DMC-FZ3

03/08/2007 03:04:52 PM · #45

Gordon, point well taken about the "new crap score", and the witchhunt theory. So it seems my impression was, in fact, rather "naive" about the good-naturedness of this community in some areas. Either way, I'll still hold to my ideal idea of a community of learning and encouragement, and I hope to bring a positive energy to getting better with all of you. I learn so much from every one of your shots (and even more when people do post comments).

Your first comment about not being owed anything though, though makes it sound like a hostile environment. That's the problem with online communities though, we can all read into things too much. You may be chuckling as you write, "they don't owe you anything", as another reads it as if you were angrily admonishing them. Either way, I try to give the benefit of the doubt, and I value your input here. Thanks for not calling me out on the carpet for not having read every previous thread regarding everything related to this site.

Azrifel, thanks for the suggestion. I'll read up on that when I get the chance, in the meantime, I think Gordon has made a case that's accessible enough for me to understand. Forgive me for not being up-to-date on all issues that have been previously exhausted, I was only concurring with Jeff. So I guess both Jeff and I should hit the forum back-reading a bit more before chiming in. If you get a chance, hit me up with a link or two, but I'll try a search as well.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/08/2007 03:09:15 PM · #46

I'm actually serious about the 'owing' part.

People who take the time to look at your images, vote on them and even comment on them are giving you a present.

Their attention and consideration is valuable and could equally well be spent doing something else entirely.

The threads complaining about voters, thinking comments should be made mandatory etc, could all do well to realise that nobody actually has to vote and anyone who takes the time to vote on your image is doing you a favour. Do you ever send your birthday presents back and ask for something better, or complain that you didn't get enough ? ;)

jimmyjazz78

Panasonic DMC-FZ3

03/08/2007 03:31:14 PM · #47

Gordon, I know, you're right on. I was refering to the missing element of "tone" in our delivery. What we write is always re-interpreted by the reader. More often than not, I find that forums tend to get heated just because of this, that people are tagging on their own demeaning tone to what they read in a seemingly stern reply, especially if they feel ganged up on. Every community forum I've ever joined, I have easily been made to feel an outsider by my second post, when I take extreme care not to offend anyone and to bring as much positive energy to the group experience. It's usually the "new guy new not knowing everything that came before him" syndrome. To quote Walter Sobchak from the Big Lebowski, "Shut the **** up, Donny, you're out of your element". That's what my reply about the "owing" was about more than anything. But you are right on about the birthday gift analogy.

In fact, I know there are people here that set aside an entire night each week to vote on up to 100% of submissions, and that is a wonderfully generous thing to do. Wow. That's what I'm talking about when I say I view (or want to view) this community with those people as the role models. It really is too bad that people do the opposite and devote a night to going around placing mean-spirited low votes with no explanations as well.

I would suggest that instead of making the low score commenting optional, you could make low score commenting mandatory but anonymous. I know there would be issues with this too...just random comments like "this sucks", but maybe the "real 1, 2, or 3" votes would actually begin to say "this sucks because..." (and feel safe from a witch-hunt). But I say "would" because I know that this may have been covered in a previous forum, so I want to read up before throwing out any other ideas. {Update: I read some of the back posts and this was in fact mentioned, but it is a possibility I suppose. Maybe the benefits would outweigh the side-effects.}

Message edited by author 2007-03-08 16:06:45.

skylercall

Canon EOS-7D

03/08/2007 03:37:45 PM · #48

Originally posted by Gordon:

You need to read

yanko's post from above...

Originally posted by yanko:

This is often brought up as a defense but it's a strawman argument. Nobody is claiming the entire voting scale shouldn't be used. Quite the contrary. The argument is these voters AREN'T using the entire voting scale when they vote photos like the jblaylockrayner a 1. Why because what happens when you come across an image like this in the same challenge?

Does this deserve the same score as jblaylockrayner's? Even if the voter didn't like jblaylockrayner's photo he/she has left no room for anything worse since negative voting isn't an option. So what happens? You get photos of turds scored the same as photos that get published. That's hardly using the voting scale, IMO.

Message edited by author 2007-03-08 15:39:02.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/08/2007 03:45:39 PM · #49

Well, there are obviously more than 10 photos in the world. I can't like all of them exactly the same amount. Yet, in the scale, some will have to get the same scores. Its just a case of whether you compress them at the "bad" end, therefore rewarding really good photos more, or at the "good" end, therefore devaluing the really good photos.