| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2007 11:29:04 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Letting off a little steam here but tell me that some thought goes into this and that those that click the link don't get information after the fact. |
I don't think you have a thing to worry about. I've submitted a couple of DQ requests in the past and both of them were ignored. I noted this and suspected that someone with more experience than me looked at the images in question and figured I was clueless. (probably right) So I don't even bother anymore. If I see one I suspect violates the rules I just vote on it like it was the real thing. Just like the TOS directs.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:29:08 PM · #27 |
eric, i'll see if i can find it. alot of that stuff is "automated."
do you still have your request email?
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:30:59 PM · #28 |
That's what I was saying. So many people feel hurt by the wording of the DQ request because it really isn't real "friendly". And yes I agree most true DQ are simple mistakes in basic processing and not knowing the rules. There have been a few who have tried to pull a fast one like you said, but most, I feel are honest mistakes. It would be easier to swallow the DQ request if it was a little more customized letting the photog know that someone has questioned their use of text, burn, dodge or whatever the illegal infraction that they are being accused of. No matter how it is explained, the bottom line is a DQ request is an accusation of cheating by someone that the rules either unknowingly or on purpose.Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Oh come-on. A request for DQ validation is exactly that, an accusation by someone that they think you cheated. So the accused is flagged but the accuser stays hidden. The part that is correct is when validated it clears the air but the fact that a person is accused by a unknown person for unknown reasons can be upsetting. If someone feels strong enough to accuse they should take it upon themself to announce who they are and why. I hope the SC's monitor who and how many DQ requests individuals send in. This has nothing to do with having "thick skin" this should be fun, get rid of the cheaters who are really cheatin and lets get bnack to having fun.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The mere fact that you were asked to provide a validation in no way should be misconstrued as a lack of discretion on anyone's part. The SC conducts the review and then advises you accordingly... period.
Ray |
|
It's easy to forget, or make a mistake, and perform non-legal editing in Basic Editing. So, no, it doesn't mean you "cheated". Sometimes people realize they made a mistake and self-report the error, sometimes other people catch it for them. In addition, there's always the possibility someone simply doesn't understand the rules. For example, we see entries with added text in them quite often. I think it's pretty hard to claim that these people were trying to pull a fast one: they simply didn't understand the rules. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:31:00 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Thank you ....very well said...I don't think accusers should remain anonymous. |
Can you imagine the degree of vitriol in the forums as the "accused" confront the "accusers" -- no thank you!
We operate more like the "We Tip" lines police have ... we do not conduct a trial, so there's no need for anyone to confront anyone else.
Either your photo followed the rules or it didn't -- the when, how, why, or by whom it was "reported" is completely irrelevant to that issue.
If your photo is legal, then you either executed a brilliant and creative technique, or the other person's "an idiot" for not recognizing an obvious one. Either way, though pity may be appropriate, confrontation is not ... |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:31:43 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by ericsuth:
the notification it really is threatening, using language that you are in a sense guilty before proven innocent...rather stressful. |
Now THAT is something that I am familiar with here on this website.
I have found that when requested to provide the original file that it is requested in a manner consistent with something like a doctor telling you that he is going to take one of your kidneys but doesn't even hint as to why. I submitted the file numbered very similiar to my entry when I got my only ribbon, and then I was 'notified' that I needed to provide my original file. I reiterated that I had complied with their original request, only to get pretty much the same insensitive, generic request for my original. It took several attempts to clarify what the problem was before I was able to determine that I had sent the wrong file. It seemed to me that I was guilty and that "they" knew what the problem was but weren't about to slack off on the stance that I was guilty and that I had to figure out how to prove that I was in the clear. Oh yeah, and there was a time limit on proving that I deserved this ribbon.
So, yeah, I'll back off from my original response. It can be fairly intimidating when dealing with "them" from DPChallenge. |
Again, you are more than welcome, encouraged, and invited to rewrite the proof for original. :) You can post it here, or send it in a ticket. |
Provide me the request as it was worded when I was requested to submit my original for the 'second time', and also provide me with DPChallenge's response when I informed them that I had already done so. I'll gladly assist you in rewording both of DPChallenge's correspondences into something that is less intimidating and less "witch hunt" like and a little more helpful.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:33:11 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Letting off a little steam here but tell me that some thought goes into this and that those that click the link don't get information after the fact. |
I don't think you have a thing to worry about. I've submitted a couple of DQ requests in the past and both of them were ignored. I noted this and suspected that someone with more experience than me looked at the images in question and figured I was clueless. (probably right) So I don't even bother anymore. If I see one I suspect violates the rules I just vote on it like it was the real thing. Just like the TOS directs. |
They probably weren't ignored, it's either we were able to "explain" what you questioned because we had photog's notes or correspondance with the photog, etc. IF you suspect something, go ahead and request validation. It doesn't take but a second, and it really doesn't hurt anything.
We don't have time to investigate each and every entry during and after challenges (nor do we want to), and a lot of times you, the users, catch something we simply do no see. |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:33:18 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
So my advice is to let it go. No one here is out to get you. In the end, it might even help your score a little. |
I'm good, it has been "let go" :) thanks
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:34:05 PM · #33 |
I'll admit to being one of the people who makes a fairly large number of DQ requests. I vote on every challenge, and having been around the site for almost 5 years, I am fairly good at spotting things that are "suspicious."
I'd say that only maybe a third of the shots I request actually get DQ'd, though. Sometimes people make an edit that looks suspicious but was achieved legally... sometimes it's something *I* think should be illegal but the other SC members pounce on me, hold me down and tickle my feet until I relent. And other times I'm right :)
I also think it's not a bad thing to make a request just as a bit of a "spot check" anyhow. Sometimes a little spot checking isn't a bad thing at all, in terms of maintaining site integrity.
If you edited a shot properly, just take it as a compliment that you're being asked to prove it. And if you're on a slow connection, send 'er in before you head off to dinner or bed :) |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:35:03 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by ericsuth:
the notification it really is threatening, using language that you are in a sense guilty before proven innocent...rather stressful. |
Now THAT is something that I am familiar with here on this website.
I have found that when requested to provide the original file that it is requested in a manner consistent with something like a doctor telling you that he is going to take one of your kidneys but doesn't even hint as to why. I submitted the file numbered very similiar to my entry when I got my only ribbon, and then I was 'notified' that I needed to provide my original file. I reiterated that I had complied with their original request, only to get pretty much the same insensitive, generic request for my original. It took several attempts to clarify what the problem was before I was able to determine that I had sent the wrong file. It seemed to me that I was guilty and that "they" knew what the problem was but weren't about to slack off on the stance that I was guilty and that I had to figure out how to prove that I was in the clear. Oh yeah, and there was a time limit on proving that I deserved this ribbon.
So, yeah, I'll back off from my original response. It can be fairly intimidating when dealing with "them" from DPChallenge. |
Again, you are more than welcome, encouraged, and invited to rewrite the proof for original. :) You can post it here, or send it in a ticket. |
Provide me the request as it was worded when I was requested to submit my original for the 'second time', and also provide me with DPChallenge's response when I informed them that I had already done so. I'll gladly assist you in rewording both of DPChallenge's correspondences into something that is less intimidating and less "witch hunt" like and a little more helpful. |
needle. haystack.
which challenge? which picture? |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:37:29 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Many times, when I request validation (which doesn't happen often these days unless it's so obvious as to be a no-brainer), it's because I don't know how the effect could have been achieved legally. |
I prefer to wait until the challenge is over so that I can read the photographer's comments. I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt rather than assume that they are guilty of wrongdoing or that I simply didn't understand how what they did is possible.
Besides, they can always be DQ'd after voting is over. But waiting until you can read their comments gives them the chance to explain how we can be perplexed by their creativity and imagination. Just because we can't understand doesn't mean that we should make them go out of their way to show us before we get a chance to see what their comments are.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:38:21 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
If someone feels strong enough to accuse they should take it upon themself to announce who they are and why. |
I suspect that SC would appreciate if such a person would wait til after the voting to reveal themselves to DPC members. Doing otherwise might violate the TOS. Personally I think revealing your DQ request is stupid. It will do nothing but cause hate and discontent in the forums. You don't expect us to tell you how we vote? Do you? You certainly aren't entitled to know about our DQ requests.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:38:46 PM · #37 |
| I do not feel that if you don't know how someone got the effect or how they managed to process a photo in a way that you can figure out is grounds for DQ validation. Heck, even in basic converting from RAW and then using adjustment layers, the processing is very far away from basic. If ya can't figure it out and it's not an obvious rules violation why not wait until the end, and send a personal and friendly e-mail to photog to congratulate and ask how it was done. Cheatin is cheatin but most times a friendly discussion will be a far better way to build friendship and imporve your own photography. Then DPC will grow faster and be the internet photog site that is a place to be instead of a place to be from. Let's be friends ;) |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:39:16 PM · #38 |
Here's the email:
Originally posted by DPChallenge:
Subject: DPChallenge Proof Request ('Advertisement')
Your image in the Advertisement challenge, "SEPTA: It's Better Than Driving!" needs to be validated.
Please visit the following URL within 48 hours for details on how to submit your original, unedited photograph:
//www.dpchallenge.com/proof_request.php?IMAGE_ID=1435
Remember to list the details of any post-shot editing that you performed. Note that failing to provide the camera original in a timely manner will result in your submission being disqualified. If for some reason you cannot supply your original right away, please go to the following URL to inform the Site Council:
//www.dpchallenge.com/help_contact.php
Please do not reply to this email.
Thanks,
DPChallenge. |
Criteria I would propose for suggested edits are:
- The message must be clearly understandable, bearing in mind that English is not the first language of many users.
- It should be plainly obvious from the email what the recipient needs to do to resolve the issue.
- Consequences of ignoring the email must be clear. Non-response is probably the most common reason for DQ.
Speaking personally, I don't see where this email is threatening at all, except in the consequences for ignoring it, which probably need to be. Even there, it clearly explains to the user how to contact us if they need to delay.
That said, we're always open to improvement, so feel free to suggest away.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:40:26 PM · #39 |
Okay, I'm feeling the need for sleep. If the answers you want from me have not been forthcoming by tomorrow, I'll work on it somemore.
Gotta sleep. OR you'll have a grouchy SC member tomorrow when I'm voting on dq requests. AHahahahhahahah. just kidding.
edit -- thanks terry.
and yakatme, if I'm not mistaken, when we have to request the original a second time it says something like,
"Please submit the original, AS IT CAME FROM THE CAMERA."
Correct? I'm think it may have been more verbose than that, but I can't remember.
Message edited by author 2007-05-21 23:42:41. |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:47:42 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I'll admit to being one of the people who makes a fairly large number of DQ requests. I vote on every challenge, and having been around the site for almost 5 years, I am fairly good at spotting things that are "suspicious."
I'd say that only maybe a third of the shots I request actually get DQ'd, though. Sometimes people make an edit that looks suspicious but was achieved legally... sometimes it's something *I* think should be illegal but the other SC members pounce on me, hold me down and tickle my feet until I relent. And other times I'm right :)
I also think it's not a bad thing to make a request just as a bit of a "spot check" anyhow. Sometimes a little spot checking isn't a bad thing at all, in terms of maintaining site integrity.
If you edited a shot properly, just take it as a compliment that you're being asked to prove it. And if you're on a slow connection, send 'er in before you head off to dinner or bed :) |
While I respect you and GeneralE, in this case you might want to rethink these policies...
Although we're just working for virtual ribbons and trying to develop ourselves here. Accusing someone of cheating (intentional or not) is pretty serious and serious endeavors like this should be transparent to all. As an example, if I had submitted a shot and went on vacation and you, Alanfreed just sort of casually requested my shot for Rules Violation verification ...especially as SC member it most assuredly would be followed up on, and the request (really a demand) for the original would be followed up on. If I wasn't able to 'defend' myself the suto-guilty verdict would stand and my work goes by the wayside and if I'm lucky only a weak apology would be proffered. If it potential infraction is so serious to warrant a potential auto-DQ, then I think it should be serious enough to warrant the accusers name to be known.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:47:56 PM · #41 |
But we do know how you vote:
.
Challenges Entered: 15
Votes Cast: 12,207
Avg Vote Cast: 5.6816
Votes Received: 3,296
Avg Vote Received: 5.8771
Comments:
Made: 612
Helpful: 527
Received: 224
Helpful: 220
Forums:
Posts: 803
Threads Created: 33
Profile Views: 1,763
Total Image Views: 4,996
Total Images Viewed: 1,583
What harm would it be to have another category that shows how many DQ validation requests you ask for. We can see how many comments you made and are found to be helpful and how many you accepted as being helpful (220 out of 220 is real good and honorable of you). I just feel that if you feel you want to question others then a certain amount of accountability should be present. I also fully agree that identifying specific DQ requests and who made what request would cause a real fist fight here. Back stabbing is part of many here, a pat on the back goes a lot further ;)
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
If someone feels strong enough to accuse they should take it upon themself to announce who they are and why. |
I suspect that SC would appreciate if such a person would wait til after the voting to reveal themselves to DPC members. Doing otherwise might violate the TOS. Personally I think revealing your DQ request is stupid. It will do nothing but cause hate and discontent in the forums. You don't expect us to tell you how we vote? Do you? You certainly aren't entitled to know about our DQ requests. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:50:16 PM · #42 |
This is the second time today someone has been up in arms about a validation request. What the heck is the big deal? I've gotten the request several times, I don't recall anything 'threatening' about it at all. Yeah, it's a 'form letter' type thing, short and to the point, I don't think, with the frequency they are required, that it needs to be a sweet, sugar coated, pretty please type of thing. I think we all should have a basic understanding of how the site works.
If there were not checks in place, those that did have the desire to cheat would be running rampant. As pointed out, if you get a request, it doesn't mean you're being accused of being a 'cheater'. It means that your entry needs to be validated. There could of been a mistake in editing (happens a lot), a misunderstanding of the rules, or maybe even cheating. Look at almost any challenge, there are usually a number of DQ's at the end. Most of them are probably honest mistakes. But obviously there is a need for validations, unless one just doesn't care about fair play.
A lot of people view a validation request as a compliment, your skill has so impressed people that they are baffled as to how it was done. I've heard some people say before that they actually sometimes request a validation on a shot to help out the photographer. They see something that, although they figure is alright, they believe that to some, especially those with less experience may not understand, and figure the validation stamp will help stop low votes.
The top 5 spots always go through validation. They normally don't complain :-) , unless unfortunately, they dq :-(
The frequency with which I see dq's, I sometimes wonder, if all entries had to go through it, just how many might fail?
Eric, it's unfortunate that you feel this way, but I honestly don't think it's a big deal. Here's a quote for you- "I honestly think you ought to calm down; take a stress pill and think things over. -HAL" |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 11:55:50 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by karmat:
needle. haystack.
which challenge? which picture? |
Please tell me that they are generic and that when you need an original submitted for validation that you simply send a preapproved request. If what I received was composed on the fly, then somebody is cold hearted.
Anyway, as I mentioned, it was for my only ribbon...the yellow in the Wildlife III challenge. If these requests aren't prewritten, then maybe I can refresh somebody's memory with the details...
1) I won the yellow ribbon.
2) I received a request for my original.
3) I submitted what I thought was my original because it was extremely similiar. I think that I was in continous shooting mode and what I submitted was taken about 1/3 of a second before or after.
4) I received what I recall was a duplication of the first request for my original. This request did not acknowledge that I had sent anything in even though I had.
5) I stated that I had already sent in my original and asked if it had been received.
6) The answer that I had been given was simply that my original had not been received. There was no mention that anything at all was received, or more to the point, IT WAS NOT EVEN OFFERED THAT A FILE WAS RECEIVED BUT THAT IT WAS THE WRONG FILE!!!!!!! - - - - - ARE YOU STARTING TO UNDERSTAND NOW?????
Please excuse me. I'm getting a little upset now that I am recalling the events as they happened and the cold manner in which I was helped, or rather, not helped in resolving this matter.
7) Finally, I received another reply stating the number of the file that had been received.
8) I compared that with the number of the file for my entry and finally determined that it was the shot taken 1/3 of a second before!
Somebody on DPChallenge's end figured this out before I did but kept sending the cold, unhelpful, generic type messages. So if you don't know what messages that you guys send, then you must make them up "on the fly" which tells me that it wasn't just the system responding to me. Somebody put some thought into their correspondence with me, knew before I did what the problem was, and refrained from enlightening me.
All the while reminding me of the deadline to comply before I lost my first ribbon.
Does this make it crystal clear - - - or perhaps, ring a bell?
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:11:22.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:02:24 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Accusing someone of cheating (intentional or not) is pretty serious and serious endeavors like this should be transparent to all. |
Eric, methinks you're taking this a little too seriously. Validation requests are NOT accusations! Sometimes we're pretty sure from the photographer's notes that the shot is legal, but we request the original anyway so we can add an Admin Note if others are questioning a clever technique. What purpose would naming the person making the request serve other than to harass him or her? If your shot is legal (and most are), then you have nothing to worry about. If not, then the only person you need to worry about is yourself.
It's clearly in the rules that you must be able to provide an original within 48 hours. If that's not possible, then you should submit the file (as a ticket) before you go away or contact us so we can work something out. It's for the good of the community that we can't just make these requests optional and people send in a file whenever they feel like it. Given that Karmat is on dialup and has downloaded more originals for validation than you'll EVER have to submit, you won't get much sympathy for a slow connection. ;-) |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:03:51 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
As an example, if I had submitted a shot and went on vacation and you, Alanfreed just sort of casually requested my shot for Rules Violation verification ...especially as SC member it most assuredly would be followed up on, and the request (really a demand) for the original would be followed up on. If I wasn't able to 'defend' myself the suto-guilty verdict would stand and my work goes by the wayside and if I'm lucky only a weak apology would be proffered. If it potential infraction is so serious to warrant a potential auto-DQ, then I think it should be serious enough to warrant the accusers name to be known. |
This is precisely why we provide a means to upload an original in advance. If you will be going on vacation, you can upload your original image, and it will be held aside. If your entry comes up for review, we would then review the original and make a decision at that time.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:05:19 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- Consequences of ignoring the email must be clear. Non-response is probably the most common reason for DQ.
Speaking personally, I don't see where this email is threatening at all, except in the consequences for ignoring it, which probably need to be. Even there, it clearly explains to the user how to contact us if they need to delay.
~Terry |
This is the problem...
Non-response is probably the most common reason for DQ...
now I'm curious to know:
-how many reply after the DQ and the picture later validated?
-how many had a valid picture but never replied for one reason or another?
-how many were actually legitimate DQs?
the way it currently stands, an anonymous person can potentially decrease the competition and directly acheive DQs against them by clicking one little link. There is absolutely no repercussions and as Allanfreed also noted some think that it's a good idea to sort of 'spot-check' or actually possibly 'spot-DQ'
I do wonder how many legitimate images have been DQ'd by this system.
and Taterbug...that is a great quote...I don't think HAL could've had a jackNcoke though like myself ;)
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:06:51 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Accusing someone of cheating (intentional or not) is pretty serious and serious endeavors like this should be transparent to all. |
Here, I believe, is the source of the misunderstanding.
A validation request is NOT an accusation of cheating.
All it means is that we do not have enough information to make a determination one way or the other, and we need the original to decide.
Nothing more, nothing less.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:09:06 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
8) I compared that with the number of the file for my entry and finally determined that it was the shot taken 1/3 of a second before! |
Which means it was not the "original straight from the camera" from which you derived your entry as required from the rules -- if you'd sent the correct file in when first requested, none of those "cold, unfeeling" follow-up requests would have been necessary. |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:09:26 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
The answer that I had been given was simply that my original had not been received. There was no mention that anything at all was received, or more to the point, IT WAS NOT EVEN OFFERED THAT A FILE WAS RECEIVED BUT THAT IT WAS THE WRONG FILE!!!!!!! |
Second requests almost always include a note about why we're re-requesting. It was probably just an oversight if yours didn't. Sorry about that! It's possible that one of the newer SC was helping out and forgot to tell you why we still needed an original. Your experience was the exception, not the rule... the flip side of NOT having cold, automated messages is that we're only human.
P.S.- If you're actively working to resolve an issue, we're not just going to cut you off at the end of 48 hours with a DQ. We're a little more reasonable than that! :-/
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:18:49. |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:12:05 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by karmat:
needle. haystack.
which challenge? which picture? |
Please tell me that they are generic and that when you need an original submitted for validation that you simply send a preapproved request. If what I received was composed on the fly, then somebody is cold hearted.
Anyway, as I mentioned, it was for my only ribbon...the yellow in the Wildlife III challenge. If these requests aren't prewritten, then maybe I can refresh somebody's memory with the details...
1) I won the yellow ribbon.
2) I received a request for my original.
3) I submitted what I thought was my original because it was extremely similiar. I think that I was in continous shooting mode and what I submitted was taken about 1/3 of a second before or after.
4) I received what I recall was a duplication of the first request for my original. This request did not acknowledge that I had sent anything in.
5) I stated that I had already sent in my original and asked if it had been received.
6) The answer that I had been given was simply that my original had not been received. There was no mention that anything at all was received, or more to the point, IT WAS NOT EVEN OFFERED THAT A FILE WAS RECEIVED BUT THAT IT WAS THE WRONG FILE!!!!!!! - - - - - ARE YOU STARTING TO UNDERSTAND NOW?????
Please excuse me. I'm getting a little upset now that I am recalling the events as they happened and the cold manner in which I was helped, or rather, not helped in resolving this matter.
7) Finally, I received another reply stating the number of the file that had been received.
8) I compared that with the number of the file for my entry and finally determined that it was the shot taken 1/3 of a second before!
Somebody on DPChallenge's end figured this out before I did but kept sending the cold, unhelpful, generic type messages. So if you don't know what messages that you guys send, then you must make them up "on the fly" which tells me that it wasn't just the system responding to me. Somebody put some thought into their correspondence with me, knew before I did what the problem was, and refrained from enlightening me.
All the while reminding me of the deadline to comply before I lost my first ribbon.
Does this make it crystal clear - - - or perhaps, ring a bell? |
I think your crystal is a bit less than clear. What actually happened...
1. You received an automated request for proof, as do all top 5 placements in every challenge.
2. You uploaded the wrong file.
3. You received another request for original, with a note that said "Please upload the original THAT MATCHES YOUR ENTRY and not another shot from the same shoot."
4. You inquired whether or not we had received your original.
5. We responded no.
6. You replied that you had confirmation on your front page.
7. We responded "There is in fact a proof file there, however it is a different frame (4671 is the frame we have). Please verify the correct frame and upload it; we've re-requested."
8. You uploaded the correct file and it was validated.
So, aside from your initial message, every message you received was custom-tailored to your situation. Twice you were told that the file you uploaded was another image. Feel free to elaborate on ways we can further enlighten you. |
|
