| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2002 12:12:56 AM · #1 |
18 out of the 25 volunteers critiqued the last test photo. I will be sending out emails to those 18 sometime tomorrow with the details of the next phase.
The next phase will be deciding how we want to go about executing these critiques and on which photos each week.
The biggest complaint we have so far is that 10 per week is too many. With 18 participants, we will not be able to critique all the photos in a challenge.
My current thought is that we each do 5 photos. The photos will be randomly assigned from the top photos in the challenge. With 18 people doing 5 critiques, we can handle 90 photos per week.
The other issue at hand is the members challenge that is coming up. With this challenge, there will be a lot more photos each week spread across two challenges... we need to determine how to deal with that...
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 05:48:23 AM · #2 |
Maybe would could just do it for members when the time comes?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 05:55:59 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Maybe would could just do it for members when the time comes?
CC is a volunteer thing in my opinion and I am not going to critique photo's of members because they paid to be a 'member'.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 10:57:50 AM · #4 |
John,
What was the result of the recent poll? Did almost everbody express an interest in having a critique done?
If not, we could reduce the number to only those who want one.
Jim
* This message has been edited by the author on 12/1/2002 12:26:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 11:18:25 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My current thought is that we each do 5 photos. The photos will be randomly assigned from the top photos in the challenge. With 18 people doing 5 critiques, we can handle 90 photos per week.
The other issue at hand is the members challenge that is coming up. With this challenge, there will be a lot more photos each week spread across two challenges... we need to determine how to deal with that...
Two thoughts on the above:
1. The folks who seem to ask for the most help are those who finish in the middle of the pack. Why don't we start in the middle, and work our way to the top and bottom. We could also weight the distribution so we do 3 above middle for every 2 below.
2. I think we should start with only one of the challenges. I would guess a lot of folks will enter both challenges (open and members only). Again, we could alternate weeks, or do 2 opens to one member, or such. I am more inclined at this point to stick with the open challenges only for a while.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:20:15 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jimmsp:
Jim,
What was the result of the recent poll? Did almost everbody express an interest in having a critique done?
If not, we could reduce the number to only those who want one.
Jim
The results were 89% for and 11% against...
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:20:48 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My current thought is that we each do 5 photos. The photos will be randomly assigned from the top photos in the challenge. With 18 people doing 5 critiques, we can handle 90 photos per week.
If anything, I think you should start at the bottom of the list (of those who requested a critique). I thought the idea was to help people learn and improve, not the opportunity to grant "official" kudos to the winners.
Or assign them randomly. But please don't start with the highest-scoring photos. It will make the exercise seem "elitist" even if it isn't, and will provide further discouragement to lower-scoring members, who already get the fewest (constructive) comments from the general membership, and who need the detailed help the most. |
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:37:57 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jimmsp:
[i]John,
What was the result of the recent poll? Did almost everbody express an interest in having a critique done?
If not, we could reduce the number to only those who want one.
Jim
The results were 89% for and 11% against...
[/i]
Well, our estimate of 90% was pretty much right on. If we eliminate 20-25 photos each week, it will make the job a little easier.
I'll bet that if we ask the same question each week, we would get less than 75% saying yes. That would get us 150 plus photos, and less than 10 each to do - within reach.
Then the problem becomes how to get them divided up when they are random. Hmm.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:46:33 PM · #9 |
Phase III of the Critique Club will be commenting on photos from the Photojournalism Challenge. I’m sending this memo out to all 25 volunteers, even though several did not participate in the Phase II critique. If you do not want to participate further, please let me know and I will remove you from the list at your request. If you are unable to participate in Phase III, please let me knowâ€Â¦.
In phase three, I have assigned four photos to each volunteer. The numbers beside your name indicate which photos you should critique this week. The number represents the finishing order on the results page for the Photojournalism challenge.
Azrifel – 1,26,51,76
BigSmiles – 2,27,52,77
Inspzil – 3,28,53,78
KarenBryan – 4,29,54,79
Jimmsp – 5,30,55,80
Myquil – 6,31,56,81
Jimmythefish – 7,32,57,82
Gracious – 8,33,58,83
Muckpond – 9,34,59,84
Kavey – 10,35,60,85
Zadore – 11,36,61,86
Andrewm – 12,37,62,87
Lionelm – 13,38,63,88
Gordon – 14,39,64,89
Sulamk – 15,40,65,90
Amitchell – 16,41,66,91
Natasha – 17,42,67,92
Emorgan49 – 18,43,68,93
Patella – 19,44,69,94
Justine – 20,45,70,95
Konador – 21,46,71,96
Jmsetzler – 22,47,72,97
Karmat – 23,48,73,98
Shutterfly – 24,49,74,99
Stephan – 25,50,75,100
If we critique all of these photos, that will cover about 2/3 of this challenge. There are 148 photos. After you finish these, let me know how you feel about the number of critiques. Should we do more? Should we do less?
John Setzler
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:47:43 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]My current thought is that we each do 5 photos. The photos will be randomly assigned from the top photos in the challenge. With 18 people doing 5 critiques, we can handle 90 photos per week.
If anything, I think you should start at the bottom of the list (of those who requested a critique). I thought the idea was to help people learn and improve, not the opportunity to grant "official" kudos to the winners.
Or assign them randomly. But please don't start with the highest-scoring photos. It will make the exercise seem "elitist" even if it isn't, and will provide further discouragement to lower-scoring members, who already get the fewest (constructive) comments from the general membership, and who need the detailed help the most.[/i]
General, I don't disagree with what you are saying... I'm more worried right now about having enough people to participate and make this successful. After we determine how many photos we can critique every week, we will come up with a better game plan on which photos will get critiqued...
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:47:56 PM · #11 |
What happens if it is our own ?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:50:23 PM · #12 |
I believe that I have an idea for deciding which photos get critiqued that could work temporarily until we have a mechanism in place for that...
I think that in phase 4, I will assign all the challenge photos to the members of the club. If the photo does not have any information in the 'description' block, the photo will be skipped.
I believe that if the photographer is serious about the photo, there will be information in the description block with some details and insight into the photo...
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 12:51:03 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
What happens if it is our own ?
you can skip it...
I had an idea of having everyone critique one of their own photos... what do you think about that?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 01:15:24 PM · #14 |
A self-critique is an excellent idea, although I myself somewhat try to use the comment field for that purpose already. It would be harder/fairer if someone else selects the photo from the profile page.
If you're only going to write four of these I'm willing to cover for anyone who can't do it right now if you want me to... |
|
|
|
12/01/2002 01:21:21 PM · #15 |
| I had another idea, based on my old days as a member of the Chart Review Committee at the Free Clinic where I worked. Each CC member can have another member to whom they'd email their critique before posting, to make sure there's nothing inaccurate or obnoxious. I think it will make both the writer and recipient of the comment more "relaxed" to know a "neutral" party has reviewed it. I don't think it will take long to review and respond to four comments each. |
|
|
|
12/01/2002 01:32:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I believe that I have an idea for deciding which photos get critiqued that could work temporarily until we have a mechanism in place for that...
I think that in phase 4, I will assign all the challenge photos to the members of the club. If the photo does not have any information in the 'description' block, the photo will be skipped.
I believe that if the photographer is serious about the photo, there will be information in the description block with some details and insight into the photo...
I like this approach. I would also like to see something in the description box like " I would like a critique. I was attempting to ..."
Then there is no doubt that they are serious. If not, I would just move to the next one in my series and add an unassigned one (adding #105 in the current challenge).
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 02:21:49 PM · #17 |
John, Thank you for all you've been putting into this project. I know it's taking up a chunk of your time, and we all know time is precious.
GeneralE I agree with you on this: "If anything, I think you should start at the bottom of the list (of those who requested a critique). I thought the idea was to help people learn and improve, not the opportunity to grant "official" kudos to the winners. Or assign them randomly. But please don't start with the highest-scoring photos. It will make the exercise seem "elitist" even if it isn't, and will provide further discouragement to lower-scoring members, who already get the fewest (constructive) comments from the general membership, and who need the detailed help the most.[/i]"
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 02:23:22 PM · #18 |
In the perfect world.........
When a photographer submits a photo to a challenge, there would be a check box where he/she could ask for the in depth critique at the end of the challenge. This would create the list of photos to be critiqued. The only requirement for the photographer would be to check this box AND add some detailed information to the 'description' field in the submission page.
Once the challenge is over, the critique club members could go to a page and 'ask' for a photo to critique. The system would assign that person a photo from the list (probably assign the photos in the order they were received into the challenge - a first in / first out queue). When the critique club member gets the photo, that photo would not be assigned to anyone else.
With this method, the critique club members could choose to critique as many or few as desired. The 'critique club' page would show the total number of photos where critiques have been requested and how many are still waiting for critique.
This would be a decent method, but it would not guarantee that every request for critique would be fulfilled.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 03:01:38 PM · #19 |
Only problem with a FIFO system is that someone who picks up a camera first thing Monday morning & takes a snapshot gets a critique, while someone who spends all week trying to get a shot just right, doesn't.
Otherwise, a great idea.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 03:58:43 PM · #20 |
Perhaps instead of first in/ first to be allocated for critique we could randomise the order in which photos are allocated?
I still think that given a checkbox to ask for detailed critique on submitting the photo will result in most images being registered for the Crit Club to deal with - for that reason I am in favour of entrants requesting (via some other means) an in depth critique should they still want one after the challenge results have been announced.
Kavey
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 04:08:12 PM · #21 |
I support the idea of a check box request... if we get them all done, fine... if not, we tried :)
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 04:27:50 PM · #22 |
If it's one of your own (and you're not keen to self critique), act fast, email another member on the list and ask them to swap one of their assigned numbers with you.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2002 09:36:58 PM · #23 |
My only suggestion would be to start with the picture that placed 20 or 25 because the top scoring pictures already get more feedback, simply because they are easier to comment on for the majority of the voters. Or, based on the number of entries, do it on the 100 pictures that are in the middle (provided there are 25 members critiquing, and we have 4 pics apiece, obviously vary if needed). This way, those that are the middle of the pack, which seem to get the least amount of feedback, get some extra attention.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2002 01:53:43 AM · #24 |
|
|
|
12/02/2002 03:24:26 AM · #25 |
"I believe that if the photographer is serious about the photo, there will be information in the description block with some details and insight into the photo..."
Are you serious? I only put anything in that field about half the time. Does that mean I'm not serious? I'm often lucky just to get a shot uploaded in time so I'm not worried about filling in comments. I also like to go back and leave a comment after the challenge because you then have something to respond to. I'm not always sure what people want to know until I start getting comments.
I am not participating in this at the moment, because I am on modem and am a wuss. However, I don't think that you should start at the bottom of the pile. There seem to be a lot of photos submitted that are just a joke and not seriously wanting feedback. If you don't take any time or put any thought into a photo, that doesn't mean you need a critique - you just need to get a different hobby. |
|
