| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2007 09:30:08 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
3 clicks to vote? No thanks. |
It is only one additional milisecond to click the extra button.
Are you rushing through the voting so quickly that you do not have time to click a second easy to use radial button? I would hope that you take the time to evaluate the picture and it's relevancy to the challenge anyways, so I really do not think it would take any longer at all.
If you really do not want to have to take that one extra milisecond it tells me that you are not very likely to leave a comment either, not to mention that you do not put much thought into your voting, and that is the problem that causes this whole debate. Not enough people think before they hit that button. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:39:33 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Sorry if the point has been made, i havn't been through all 19 pages of this arguement, but isn't a 1 vote a DNMC?
I personally believe that the winner of the Deja Vu contest was the LEAST like the original in the whole lot.
"Description
Choose a previous ribbon-winning entry THAT ISN'T YOUR OWN and try to emulate it as closely as possible!"
Zero 1 votes Zero 2 votes One 3 vote (thats mine... its a monkey at least)
So, specifically to those of you complaining that we need a DNMC button, what did YOU rate "Thought Process", and why? |
You are correct about the Deja Vu contest winner. I did not vote on that challenge, btw. However I think you are sadly mistaken if you think that (most) people would actually take the time to look up each of the oritinal entries to compare them. If they cannot take the time to consider the actual challenge description...why would they actually do that AND take the time to look up a previous entry??? It was as much a free study as anything else. If they were going to do that challenge again they should allow the photog's comments to be shown during voting, and make them post the thumbnail link the entry they are giving tribute to.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 10:29:00 PM · #478 |
At this point the Piss Christ photograph has a better shot at being hung at the Vatican than this checkbox getting accepted by those who oppose it. Might as well just drop the subject and try a less controversal suggestion. May I suggest fluffy bunnies?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 10:31:01 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by yanko:
May I suggest fluffy bunnies? |
DNMC!!!!!!!!!
:-P |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 10:33:29 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
May I suggest fluffy bunnies? |
DNMC!!!!!!!!!
:-P |
Ok ok nude fluffy bunnies.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 10:36:31 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok ok nude fluffy Playboy bunnies. |
SURE!!! :-D |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 10:38:57 PM · #482 |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:08:57 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
3 clicks to vote? No thanks. |
It is only one additional milisecond to click the extra button.
Are you rushing through the voting so quickly that you do not have time to click a second easy to use radial button? I would hope that you take the time to evaluate the picture and it's relevancy to the challenge anyways, so I really do not think it would take any longer at all.
If you really do not want to have to take that one extra milisecond it tells me that you are not very likely to leave a comment either, not to mention that you do not put much thought into your voting, and that is the problem that causes this whole debate. Not enough people think before they hit that button. |
Yep. I fly thru the voting process - maybe 1 second per challenge entry. :P
As for comments, I'm doing ok.
Comments:
Made: 4,431
Helpful: 3,690
Received: 3,483
Helpful: 3,382
I mention 3 clicks instead of one, but it depends on how something like this would be coded (regarding the dual score suggestion someone made). Currently, once you select the vote number you are moved to the next image in the challenge. With two numbers, there are some logical conditions that need to be decided on.
1) Select vote #1
2) Select vote #2 - moved to the next image?
What happens if a voter hits vote #2 without hitting #1? Code it so button #2 isn't "clickable" until the vote #1 has been selected? That might work.
Or, add a 3rd button to select to 'Submit' your votes for that challenge entry.
Personally, I think that's too much and I like having just one vote number to select per challenge entry - and - I think any consideration for DNMC should just be factored into your vote anyway. :-) |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:46:28 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd think
Others might think
Other's will think |
Think you've done an excellent job summarizing all the arguments being offered against this proposal. |
This response is brilliant and funny as hell. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:50:02 PM · #485 |
Boy, I didn't want to participate in this discussion when it started, but it looks like I am going to have to say something.
for the naysayers:
Let's face it. In a good number of areas, you can't prove the negative unless you disprove the positive. To prove that something doesn't work, you are going to have to try it and fail. If you don't do anything about it, you will just don't do anything about it and be in the same spot. When Edison was asked about his failed experiments, he didn't say, "I failed 1000 times." Instead he opted to say he didn't succeed 1000 times.
And now those who approve of this checkbox idea. Right on! I really can't argue with that because:
1. If it is anonymous, then you are not discriminating anyone.
2. It will allow a voter to voice his opinion about a picture which he "thinks" is DNMC. Clearly, there needs to be a distinction between a great picture and a picture that does not meet a challenge (as subjective as it may sound). Voting down an image because it is DNMC is not appropriate.
3. It will give the photographer a chance to evaluate their future challenge entries.
4. Of course, this should all be an experiment and not official until proven to work. And if it doesn't work, then we can scrap the idea.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:14:53 AM · #486 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Voting down an image because it is DNMC is not appropriate. |
Oh, really?
From the Voting Rules:
â€Â¢ keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
â€Â¢ consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:23:30 AM · #487 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Voting down an image because it is DNMC is not appropriate. |
Oh, really?
From the Voting Rules:
â€Â¢ keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
â€Â¢ consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly. |
OH SNAP!! |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:53:56 AM · #488 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The pro-check box people are missing a big point.
There is a real risk that a DNMC tick box would have the opposite of the intended effect. Take the average voter, not overly-familiar with the rules. Faced with a scale of 1-10 and the option to mark an image as "MC" or "DNMC", the voter may be tempted to score the quality of the image using the scale (regardless of the challenge title) and its relevancy using the DNMC radio button.
Result: DNMC images get voted higher and challenges become increasingly divorced from challenge titles.
It is a huge mistake to think that this is only data collection - it WILL influence how voters vote. |
I mentioned pages ago that this is a possibility.
How is this necessarily a bad thing that the score on the merits of the pic is separated from its intended meaning relative to the challenge description?
That's part of what the issue ois ro me in the first place.....that BOTH criteria are measured.
Though the OP opined that the top 3 had two DNMC entries, obviously the voting body as a whole thought differently.
It wasn't a flaming kind of thing or derogatory to the nth degree, it was someone expressing their impression.
I stated earlier that the way that the voters work now, that I feel that I have to appeal to them at a more visceral than intellectual level in challenges.
My two best scores ever are a result of that thinking.
One's just really pretty and the other is title driven.
Am I upset over it? Heck, no!
If the mass attitude shifted would I go about it differently? You bet!
Some days it just is what it is.......the checkbox is really not going to be much more than an index for those who want to use it, and it looks like it's not going to happen.
I just don't think that the very fabric of DPC will crumble the way the detractors seem to be presenting it should the feature be implemented.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 01:04:46 AM · #489 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Voting down an image because it is DNMC is not appropriate. |
Oh, really?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From the Voting Rules:
â€Â¢ keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
â€Â¢ consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly. |
OOH!
There's an ugly little bit of news I've never seen before.
I *HATE* when that happens!
Though I still wouldn't mind seeing a DNMC checkbox for all the aforementioned reasons, I do have to wonder if everyone here is aware of this little tidbit.
That changes my perspective somewhat.
ETA: Wonder why none of the opponents of this idea didn't mention this, oh........18 pages ago!......LOL!!!
Message edited by author 2007-09-27 01:09:30.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 01:06:00 AM · #490 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The pro-check box people are missing a big point.
There is a real risk that a DNMC tick box would have the opposite of the intended effect. Take the average voter, not overly-familiar with the rules. Faced with a scale of 1-10 and the option to mark an image as "MC" or "DNMC", the voter may be tempted to score the quality of the image using the scale (regardless of the challenge title) and its relevancy using the DNMC radio button.
Result: DNMC images get voted higher and challenges become increasingly divorced from challenge titles.
It is a huge mistake to think that this is only data collection - it WILL influence how voters vote. |
I discussed this possibility at length in the first post in my linked thread. I discussed it again with the updated form of the idea.
I believe that this sort of confusion, possibly labelable as 'abuse' by some would require some sort of check to prevent it from having too much influence on the score. This would be mitigated by giving the photographer the power to choose whether they felt that the DNMC flavored votes were enough in quantity and importance to their image that they could choose to have their image removed from the specific definitions within the challenge and keep the non-DNMC flavored votes for a simple numeric score.
As for the 'problems' with implementation as to how it would work on the voting page, I'm sorry but I have a really hard time swallowing the idea that this would pose any sort of real difficulty. The state of the radio box (checked or non-checked) would not have to further the progress of voting. Merely entering a vote would move the page or 'skip'. This is exactly the same way that the comment field box works. If you wish to leave a comment, and skip voting, that works just fine. If you want to leave a comment, you write it first, then enter a vote to move to the next image. This isn't complicated. This is how it works right now.
Interestingly, I have not suggested that I want more people to vote DNMC, but have been "accused" of doing so in a negative way. Now another circle turns to completion where the General reveals that this is in fact part of the website's direction on how to vote.
And then we see someone post in the thread the possibility of the idea that a 1 vote is synonymous with DNMC. *sigh* It sounds like misunderstanding is a big part of the issue at hand. Adding a check box would make the procedure MORE CLEAR for those who might not be inclined to review the voting rules every time they enter voting.
The appearance of studiog, kellie and gotka at a later stage in this forum thread indicate to me that my statement that the small numbers of people posting to this thread are insignificant compared to the perception of the larger number of the voting public that has remained silent.
Incidentally, I was visiting another DPC member's house and he brought up the fact that there often seem to be pics that get ribbons or within the challenges that have nothing to do with the topic. He never votes and he never posts in the threads, but he does enjoy viewing the images every couple of months or so.
People notice. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 01:16:34 AM · #491 |
For clarification, a "radio button" exists when you have a choice of two or more options, and only one of them may be selected at a time.
A "checkbox" is an off/on option which is independent of any other choices offered.
Merely adding one of these to the voting page may not be that complex, but incorporating its entries into the database, tabulating the results, making those results show/not show according to each user's preferences, and other stuff I probably haven't thought of is a more substantial programming job.
Personally, there are other site features/enhancements I'd rather Langdon spent his time on. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 03:43:08 AM · #492 |
| thank you for the clarification on my incorrect usage of the term. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 03:52:50 AM · #493 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Merely adding one of these to the voting page may not be that complex, but incorporating its entries into the database, tabulating the results, making those results show/not show according to each user's preferences, and other stuff I probably haven't thought of is a more substantial programming job.
Personally, there are other site features/enhancements I'd rather Langdon spent his time on. |
How about when someone clicks on "cast votes for whichever challenge" they are then taken to the "voting rules" page. At the bottom of which is the "proceed" button that takes them to the images to vote on? Surely to God know one can complain about that one? Just a quick reminder of what you should be basing your votes on before you do so?
Or will that take up too much of everyone's precious time? (yes that last line was sarcasm...) |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 07:46:06 AM · #494 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Or will that take up too much of everyone's precious time? (yes that last line was sarcasm...) |
... Actually NO that would not take all that much time... certainly not as much time as has been devoted to this meaningless exercise.
I for one am very much in favour of having a process that generates statistics, but only if those statistics offer tangible evidence of an activity.
Unfortunately, all this proposal would do is demonstrate that people may not have understood the rapport between the image and the challenge... nothing more, nothing less, and that my friend is not the type of information that is worth garnering.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 08:06:35 AM · #495 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Unfortunately, all this proposal would do is demonstrate that people may not have understood the rapport between the image and the challenge... nothing more, nothing less, and that my friend is not the type of information that is worth garnering. |
Is not this information that youy could use to determine in your own mind whether or not *your* interpretation of the challenge details was expressed successfully based on the DNMC checks rendered?
It's a minor bit of data, but by separating it from the scoring merits on the image itself, I see it as helpful.
It's like the comment helpful checkbox.....I *always mark it helpful because I want any feedbacl I can get as its representative of whether or not I hit the target with my entry.
One of my biggest frustrations is that I get so few comments in challenges that I feel that my work is completely unremarkable.
My two entries that got a lot of comments were my one lock-shot that gpt me a ribbon, and the one where I took the box, beat the crap out of it, and threw it out the window.
I get way more comments in the side projects than in challenges.
If I'm really looking for feedback that's useful, I enter a side project, sumbit something to the Reaction Club, or post up on the home thread of my fellow Team Suck members.
I've checked the box for the Critique Club many times and have yet to get one image critiqued in the 14 months I've been here.
So I don't really look to the voters for too awful much feedback.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 08:55:15 AM · #496 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Unfortunately, all this proposal would do is demonstrate that people may not have understood the rapport between the image and the challenge... nothing more, nothing less, and that my friend is not the type of information that is worth garnering.
Ray |
Indeed this may be the case. But would it be fair to say that if this information is not the type of information that you would want gathered, would it then be fair to say that you would appreciate having the ability to separate such information from your regular votes - which might stand a chance of giving is more directly what we entered the image for in the first place? |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 11:40:40 AM · #497 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Voting down an image because it is DNMC is not appropriate. |
Oh, really?
From the Voting Rules:
â€Â¢ keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
â€Â¢ consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly. |
A great picture deserves good credit whether it is DNMC or not. But if it is DNMC, you should point it out with a checkbox. Why is this so hard to fathom? There are four possibilities in this situation:
1. great picture, meets challenge
2. great picture, does not meet challenge
3. poor picture, meets challenge
4. poor picture, does not meet challenge
Strictly speaking, as a programmer, you need two bits to define it (log base two of four). How you can define each of these with one bit (a radio button) ponders me.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 11:51:49 AM · #498 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Voting down an image because it is DNMC is not appropriate. |
Oh, really?
From the Voting Rules:
â€Â¢ keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
â€Â¢ consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly. |
A great picture deserves good credit whether it is DNMC or not. But if it is DNMC, you should point it out with a checkbox. Why is this so hard to fathom? There are four possibilities in this situation:
1. great picture, meets challenge
2. great picture, does not meet challenge
3. poor picture, meets challenge
4. poor picture, does not meet challenge
Strictly speaking, as a programmer, you need two bits to define it (log base two of four). How you can define each of these with one bit (a radio button) ponders me. |
We have a simple scoring system 1-10 that can be utilized by the voter as they see fit. Why is this so hard to fathom?
Message edited by author 2007-09-27 11:52:55. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 11:57:33 AM · #499 |
| I say add the darn button and get it over with, the button does not have to do anything it just gives people something to press so they feel better! :P |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:11:42 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
[quote=Gotaka] [quote=GeneralE]
We have a simple scoring system 1-10 that can be utilized by the voter as they see fit. Why is this so hard to fathom? |
because it is ineffective and inefficient. Each person has a different way of looking at DNMC as we see from this discussion and they will vote differently from a scale of 1 to 10. How is that going to standardize voting? You will not be able to distinguish between the four situation with just one bit. Like I said, to define four different situation, you need two bits.
Message edited by author 2007-09-27 12:12:14. |
|
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: 08/12/2025 05:46:00 AM EDT.
