| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/10/2007 12:53:32 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So I'm supposed to know that when I'm making comments? If comments can just vanish why waste time making them at all. |
I do believe the gist of the argument here is that comments that are by their very nature abrasive, offensive and of no redeemable value could be removed... which seems a far cry from the scenario you are suggesting.
Ray |
already covered by the SC. I've had a few occasions to request comments/posts/threads being deleted (some of which were my own) and if the above reasons were given, the SC generally obliges.
Putting this power in the hands of the users cries out for abuse. |
SC does not always oblige, however, and even their judgement may be incorrect sometimes, believe it or not. Also, I assure you that SC don't want to be acting as "comment police". An individual is the best judge as to what constitutes abusive commentary. I'm frankly surprised at lobbying for less control over your account. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 01:03:02 AM · #27 |
Ya'll really wouldn't like my other idea. A commenter rating scale with stats and penalties.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 01:03:36 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Putting this power in the hands of the users cries out for abuse. |
Unless I'm wrong, aren't the members of the SC council human as well?
;)
Mike |
Please read closer. I am not claiming that the SC are above the imperfections of humanity, but I am talking about the USERS who are much more likely to abuse such an arrangement. Why? It's called 'vested interest'.
Originally posted by Louis:
An individual is the best judge as to what constitutes abusive commentary. I'm frankly surprised at lobbying for less control over your account. |
Such a statement would suggest that moronic comments on your photographs here have some bearing on the value of your account or perhaps the value of your 25 bucks a year.
If they are genuinely purposeless comments, then ask for them to be removed. If they aren't removed, then perhaps you are being either oversensitive or are missing something.
Genuinely abusive commenting is fairly rare. And like I said before, it usually speaks for itself. As you yourself say, individuals are best at judging what is genuinely abusive or not. But if you have an emotional attachment to the image, you are more likely to have a bias that leans towards any negative comment being labeled as abusive which is absolutely not the case.
There are MANY examples of thought-out comments that are negative in nature that have been labeled here as 'abusive' which the majority of viewers can quite clearly see are not, but that a few which have an emotional attachment either to the image or the photographer somehow misinterpret.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 01:10:54 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
If they are genuinely purposeless comments, then ask for them to be removed. If they aren't removed, then perhaps you are being either oversensitive or are missing something. |
Unfortunately, not every incident can be so neatly oversimplified. I accept that you don't want members to have this level of control over their accounts, but you can't possibly know the nuance of every negative comment, and therefore, you aren't fit to judge other members in terms of the relevance of worthless commentary they receive, the level of abuse those comments contain contain, or the fairness of any judgement by SC that you aren't privy to.
Originally posted by eschelar:
There are MANY examples of thought-out comments that are negative in nature that have been labeled here as 'abusive' which the majority of viewers can quite clearly see are not... |
Many instances? Labelled how? I don't believe we have that ability, either. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 01:16:13 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Honest comments are great, even the negative ones, but some are worded better than others.
For example, I don't think it is necessary to tell someone their image is a waste of server space. I think it is more useful to just stick to the aspects that are negative (real or perceived). |
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 01:29:40 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
just that we could remove our own not delete anyones |
You can edit any comment you yourself have written -- some people reduce their's to a single period or space character if they no longer want people to read what they first wrote.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by eschelar:
There are MANY examples of thought-out comments that are negative in nature that have been labeled here as 'abusive' which the majority of viewers can quite clearly see are not... |
Many instances? Labelled how? I don't believe we have that ability, either. |
You can respond to a comment on your photo by quoting it, just like you do here in the forums. Whether that response could be reasonably characterized as a "label" would depend on both its content and phrasing. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 02:38:08 AM · #32 |
my use of the term 'labeling' refers to the written (usually) response from the person receiving a comment either in comments, photographer's notes on the picture, forum threads, private DPL threads and PMs.
The use of these various means of communication on DPC for 'labeling' comments as abusive/negative that are actually merely negative, partly negative and often quite constructive, is quite common here.
Originally posted by louis:
Unfortunately, not every incident can be so neatly oversimplified. I accept that you don't want members to have this level of control over their accounts, but you can't possibly know the nuance of every negative comment, and therefore, you aren't fit to judge other members in terms of the relevance of worthless commentary they receive, the level of abuse those comments contain contain, or the fairness of any judgement by SC that you aren't privy to. |
hence all the more reason to leave such disputed images intact for others to make their own judgements.
I think it's a worthy question to ask what the motive for such a suggestion is.
Do you want the ability to remove comments because they have hurt your feelings or do you want the ability to remove comments because they have hurt your reputation?
I can see that on a website like Model Mayhem, it is possible that reputation could be affected and that would be a big deal for those models. Model Mayhem is primarily purposed for furthering modeling careers. I can't see that really applying here. This site is a photo contest with a little prints site on the side.
Message edited by author 2007-10-10 02:44:01. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 06:12:00 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So I'm supposed to know that when I'm making comments? If comments can just vanish why waste time making them at all. |
I do believe the gist of the argument here is that comments that are by their very nature abrasive, offensive and of no redeemable value could be removed... which seems a far cry from the scenario you are suggesting.
Ray |
I hear you Ray, but if the decision to delete is left up to individual users do you honestly believe the choice to delete would only be applied to the type of comments you suggest?
Pesonally I think it would be used on a pretty large scale and would have a big impact on the "feel" of this place. JMO of course. :) |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 07:31:44 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So I'm supposed to know that when I'm making comments? If comments can just vanish why waste time making them at all. |
I do believe the gist of the argument here is that comments that are by their very nature abrasive, offensive and of no redeemable value could be removed... which seems a far cry from the scenario you are suggesting.
Ray |
already covered by the SC. I've had a few occasions to request comments/posts/threads being deleted (some of which were my own) and if the above reasons were given, the SC generally obliges.
Putting this power in the hands of the users cries out for abuse. |
I fear you are sadly mistaken with your views in this regard.
The SC will indeed intervene if the comment is directed at the individual on a personal basis, but I doubt they would intervene if say the comments made denigraded the model for the photo, or if they were simply inane.
Perhaps the SC could shed some light in this regard, but I for one would rather see a user have the ability to deal with issues of this ilk in an expeditious manner.
What you seemingly omit to consider and is of paramount importance in this instance is the comments made by Louis in his initial posting,and the parameters he defined.
We must not also overlook the fact that the OP was the recipient of some truly harsh comments in a very recent thread and that the verbal exchanges resulted in the locking of the said thread. Had the OP had the opportunity to remove these comments, I remain confident that the rather nasty exchange would not have occured.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-10-10 07:39:01. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 09:14:56 AM · #35 |
Based on the number of report posts we get on image comments, and the fact that a huge percentage of them are simply less than glowing comments, I am against this idea.
The best course of action is to report a post that you think is violating the TOS. Then, be patient while we take care of it (if it is indeed a violation). Sometimes this involves contacting the commenter and giving him/her a chance to clarify, or to clear up a misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 09:18:08 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Had the OP had the opportunity to remove these comments, I remain confident that the rather nasty exchange would not have occured.
Ray |
Had the OP not responded to the comment there would have been no exchange, and the comment would have indeed been hidden. Instead, it escalated and has carried into other areas of the site.
IMO (as a user), the comments were rude and unwarranted, but that does not necessitate a response so that a verbal war gets started. Yes, there will be users that get under your skin. If you can be patient, and they are truly out of line, they will be dealt with. When you retaliate with as language as bad as theirs, both parties will be dealt with. :{ |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 09:47:10 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I fear you are sadly mistaken with your views in this regard.
The SC will indeed intervene if the comment is directed at the individual on a personal basis, but I doubt they would intervene if say the comments made denigraded the model for the photo, or if they were simply inane.
Perhaps the SC could shed some light in this regard, but I for one would rather see a user have the ability to deal with issues of this ilk in an expeditious manner.
What you seemingly omit to consider and is of paramount importance in this instance is the comments made by Louis in his initial posting,and the parameters he defined.
We must not also overlook the fact that the OP was the recipient of some truly harsh comments in a very recent thread and that the verbal exchanges resulted in the locking of the said thread. Had the OP had the opportunity to remove these comments, I remain confident that the rather nasty exchange would not have occured.
Ray |
I'm sorry that I missed whatever it was that Louis was talking about. I checked back 40 received comments and saw nothing. No mention was made of anything specific in his linked thread.
Regardless. what karmat says sums it up well.
There's a big difference between a personal attack and a harsh comment about a photo.
I was reviewing my comments a little while ago to make sure I cleaned up some loose ends with comments that I wanted to return and I noticed a very old comment where I both denigraded the 'model' and spoke harshly about the pic. Neither was a personal attack, but I'm sure that someone might feel offended by receiving it. He may even have reported it.
My commenting styles and standards have changed a LOT in the 2 years+ since I made the comment, but I left it as is. The photographer chose not to mark it as helpful.
This is what happens when you put your images in a public forum for review by the uhhh... public. Some people don't share your POV and will tell you. I can assume that the person who took the photo understood that. I'd say the same thing if he were putting the pic up in a gallery.
On the other hand, if it is unwarranted, or a personal attack, that's when SC steps in.
I wouldn't want my comments to be removed just because I disagree. That's not how things work.
Again, this harks back to the motive of such a suggestion. Are you worried about your feelings or are you worried about your reputation?
The SC is neither intended to be nor called to be anyone's babysitter. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 10:53:09 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I wouldn't want my comments to be removed just because I disagree. That's not how things work. |
... nor am I advocating such a process. I do believe that I made mention of the fact that certain parameters would have to be met.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Again, this harks back to the motive of such a suggestion. Are you worried about your feelings or are you worried about your reputation? |
I can assure you that there truly is not much anyone could say to me in this venue that would hurt my feelings. I normally tend to consider the source whenever acerbic comments are directed my way, and in most instances attribute personal attacks to one's inabilities to effectively compete in verbal jousting.
As it relates to reputation, what reputation (if any) I may have in DPC has absolutely no bearing on my life as a whole, hence I harbour no fears in this regard.
Originally posted by eschelar:
The SC is neither intended to be nor called to be anyone's babysitter. |
...Exactly, and that is the very reason why some have made this proposal, to effectively remove the need for the SC to assume a "Babysitting" service.
There truly are instances where the comments made are so egregious that the removal of same ought to be left to the offended party, with a post removal review conducted by the SC after the fact. This manner of proceeding would offer some protection to the parties involved and most certainly would not detract from the current practices.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:03:03 AM · #39 |
I wonder who holds the record for the greatest number of comments not marked as helpful ?
Someone out there has that dubious distinction . . |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:04:55 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I think it's a worthy question to ask what the motive for such a suggestion is. |
There are two answers to this. One is my viewpoint, and that is that DPC should give members the maximum amount of control over their photographs that they possibly can. Doing so would incidentally bring DPC in line with other websites that offer online portfolios. (Hopefully I can avert the argument here that DPC isn't an online portfolio site by saying that I don't participate in challenges, and only use the forums and my portfolio, and I'm not the only member to do so.)
The second answer is that there are more types of comments than, "Your model is ugly," "Don't give up your day job," and "Your father smells of elderberries." Perhaps you're able to imagine that there may be more at stake than hurt feelings, pouting, and other adolescent behaviour. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:39:24 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by eschelar:
I wouldn't want my comments to be removed just because I disagree. That's not how things work. |
... nor am I advocating such a process. I do believe that I made mention of the fact that certain parameters would have to be met. |
So then parameters would need to be defined - by who? Wouldn't the definitions be subjective, just like interpretation of the rules and administration of challenge image DQ's? Those certainly take up a lot of room in the forums with rather constant debate...add "my comment was deleted?!" threads to the mix. :P
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by eschelar:
The SC is neither intended to be nor called to be anyone's babysitter. |
...Exactly, and that is the very reason why some have made this proposal, to effectively remove the need for the SC to assume a "Babysitting" service.
... with a post removal review conducted by the SC after the fact.
|
This means that SC is still involved with the process, probably even more so - and still acting in a "babysitting" role with a different hat? |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:43:33 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... DPC should give members the maximum amount of control over their photographs that they possibly can. ... |
The easier solution IMO would be to give the photographers the option to just opt-out of receiving comments on a photo all together. If they toggle the selection (checkbox) then the comment textbox would not be available at all. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:44:41 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... DPC should give members the maximum amount of control over their photographs that they possibly can. ... |
The easier solution IMO would be to give the photographers the option to just opt-out of receiving comments on a photo all together. If they toggle the selection (checkbox) then the comment textbox would not be available at all. |
That's one solution, but it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my view. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:59:55 AM · #44 |
Right now, insulting comments are fairly rare. Therefore the job of mopping these up is relatively small. The SC does have a certain role of 'Babysitting' because people are always going to choose to act a certain way.
On the other hand, who is to say that forcing comments to 'reappear' when the deletion authority has been abused by the comment receiver is going to be a smaller job? This is wildly counterproductive.
#1 - comments themselves are far too rare
#2 - make the process too complicated and comments will become more rare.
#3 - start making comments disappear at the whim of the photographer and you have the further issue of policing the irresponsible comment removers. What a lot of extra headache.
Imagine this scenario too, you post one comment, then due to a bit of conversation back and forth, then the original photographer decides to get upset about your comments. Now they can go back and start deleting some of your comments and destroy any credibility or context that you might have had.
This has happened to me and my credibility was salvageable BECAUSE I had comments that were left intact, unedited by SC or by myself when under accusation of going back and changing things to make myself look better. If some of those comments had been edited or removed by the photographer, I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. As it was, I presented a very narrow viewpoint which was not widely agreed with and because I had left things as they were, viewers were free to make their own decision - many of which disagreed with my take on things. In such a case, the original photographer was also able to feel better based on support for her view in the forums. Something that would not have happened quite so easily had the comments disappeared then re-appeared with confusing 'date stamped paper trails'.
A long time ago, I suggested an idea where people could indicate their tolerance level for negativity in comments.
As such, a picture could have a little text entry just above the comment field that would show either:
This photographer welcomes all comments, both negative and positive.
OR
This photographer would prefer comments of a more reserved nature.
or something to that effect.
Again, as far as the retarded comments are concerned, they are usually their own filter both for the photographer and for those reading the comments afterwards. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:04:44 PM · #45 |
I agree with the counterproductive aspect of it, which is why wholesale comment deleting with no "oversight" is the way to go. Responsible and mature photographers will not delete on-target criticism, or even off-topic bull. If they do, the community may very well have them out.
Insulting or libellous comments being rare does not negate the need for an owner to have full editorial control over his property in my view.
The scenario you describe is familiar to me, and also does not negate this need. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:12:23 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Insulting or libellous comments being rare does not negate the need for an owner to have full editorial control over his property in my view.
|
How is having full editorial control over your property work in a universe where an image may have thousands of views? People are entitled to voice whatevery they want about it when viewing the pics with their friends. Are you somehow hoping to have full editorial control over that too?
Insulting and libelous comments are two very different things.
"he's ugly" is an insult or an opinion. this is not likely to either pick up SC control OR sway a judge in a libel case.
A genuinely libelous comment is a violation of the website's TOS. It's highly unlikely that such a thing would be tolerated. I've not seen anything genuinely libelous hanging around for long...
I don't believe that anything in the website's TOS gives you a right to full editorial control over other people's comments on your images. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:30:07 PM · #47 |
I just want one to delete my OWN stupid comments.
To see examples of what I consider stupid, review my comments and see the comments that are "..."
Gawd, what was I thinking? How could I ever make a comment of "..." or even just "."
Man, those are the comments that make me wonder if I really deserve a shot at commenting at all :|
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:31:11 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Insulting and libelous comments are two very different things.
"he's ugly" is an insult or an opinion. this is not likely to either pick up SC control OR sway a judge in a libel case. |
Actually, Rule #14 might just fall into play in such a scenario... but then again that is just a personal interpretation.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:43:51 PM · #49 |
The other option is, if we will not be given full editorial control over our images, to delete the image and re-upload it. The sad thing about that is then all comments are lost.
I have to side with Louis on this one. It seems only right to have complete control of our own portfolio.
I understand that can't be with challenge entries but we should have editorial choice over our own work.
Message edited by author 2007-10-10 12:52:50. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 02:14:11 PM · #50 |
I honestly thought this was going to be a rant about not getting comments and that the comment section might as well be deleted.
Thank the heavens that its not.
|
|
