| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2007 02:51:16 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Still no Girls Kissing Girls challenge. |
Yeah! 'sup with that? ;-) |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 02:53:08 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Still no Girls Kissing Girls challenge. |
Yeah! 'sup with that? ;-) |
*sigh*
That makes me sad :-(
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 02:54:27 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Does my posts stat change if you hide/delete one? I'm genuinely asking a question there.
Does the comments made stat change if SC deletes a comment? Are deleted comments deleted or hidden, now? |
I don't know either. I do know that setting permissions to exercise various site functions is going to be a lot harder for some thousands of members than for a specified group of twenty or so. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 02:54:49 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do believe that there is currently a case before the Courts in California, and should the Courts rule in favour of the plaintiff, then I fear that mind sound the death knell for threads.
Ray |
uh really? you have a link to that story? |
Unfortunately I am currently at work and a great deal of the sites I would normally access from home are blocked out here.
I did a very quick search and found this bit of information Liability for libel on the Internet. You mind find it(slightly) useful.
I will endeavour to locate that court decision once I return home, but that will not be till 2300 hrs tonight.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 02:56:35 PM · #155 |
| SC doesn't delete comments. They are hidden, or we can edit. We can see them when hidden. You can't. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 02:57:33 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by karmat:
We can see them when hidden. You can't. |
Works for me. Out of sight, out of mind :-)
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 02:57:50 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by silverscreen:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Steve (wavelength) made a comment earlier about not including said delete button on challenge entries. I'm in full support of that. Challenge entries are entered to be judged and comments should reflect why an imaged scored. The status quo works there.
|
What about comments made after the challenge ends? Should you be able to delete those?
I fail to see the logic here I'm afraid... |
I do believe this part of the comment addresses your concern:
"not including said delete button on challenge entries
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 14:59:22. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 03:01:33 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Ahh, here we are again.
14 people for.
23 people against.
9 people insulted in the discussion.
Still no Girls Kissing Girls challenge. |
ROFLMAO!!! Hey. Those numbers don't look quite right...sure you counted correctly? :P |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 03:44:07 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm sure your suggestion will receive its due consideration, as do all things posted to the Web Site Suggestions Forum Section ... |
Just want to point out what might be a bit of a stumbling block... please SC don't read this as criticism, just observation.
Often (not always), the results of SC/owners discussion are not made public, unless a suggestion is added to the site. Such could be seen by the public as being swept under the rug of features that are not implemented.
It's just my humble opinion that more often than not transparency is the key to a happier public.
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 15:49:58.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 03:49:48 PM · #160 |
| fair point, leroy, but not every suggestion is going to result in a transparent process. We just don't have the resources for that. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:09:51 PM · #161 |
| Isn't having the ability to delete comments a contradiction to the desire for transparancy? |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:12:00 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Isn't having the ability to delete comments a contradiction to the desire for transparancy? |
No. Don't be ridiculous. Unless, SC are going around leaving rude comments (which I highly doubt is happening), the two are exclusive.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:24:15 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Isn't having the ability to delete comments a contradiction to the desire for transparancy? |
No. Don't be ridiculous. Unless, SC are going around leaving rude comments (which I highly doubt is happening), the two are exclusive. |
I think the point was an attempt to illustrate an apparent philosophical contradiction between your desire for "more transparency" in some discussions, but wanting the exclusive ability to hide parts of others.
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 16:25:10. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:29:27 PM · #164 |
It's ridiculous.
The similarities between SC discussing site feature requests and some jackass leaving rude comments on a portfolio image (in space I paid for) are nil.
In general, public officials are expected to be public and private citizens are expected to have privacy.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:32:30 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
In general, public officials are expected to be public and private citizens are expected to have privacy. |
Yet it's amazing how often the opposite situation prevails, even (especially?) in real life ... :-( |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:33:13 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
In general, public officials are expected to be public and private citizens are expected to have privacy. |
Exactly. So let's just say, for example, that during our discussion of this feature an analysis of Comment Removal Requests and the reasons for them are debated.
Would you agree that it would not be a good thing to have your name bandied about as an offender? |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:44:20 PM · #167 |
I said results of such debate weren't discussed publicly. If the debate were to suspend/ban me, naming me might be prudent. Otherwise libel concerns and common decency doesn't make me fear too much as far as SC is concerned.
But, John Smith, has no concern if the site is decently run or if it is sued for libel.
Do we not expect Congress to tell us what they are voting on and what the outcome is? Do we not expect them to let us know if a law fails?
Do we expect the same of Joe Public? Do we expect Joe to go on national television to tell us John said he was a retard?
Anyway, it's still a ridiculous discussion.
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 16:48:55.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:50:25 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I said results of such debate weren't discussed publicly. If the debate were to suspend/ban me, naming me might be prudent. Otherwise libel concerns and common decency doesn't make me fear too much as far as SC is concerned.
But, Joe Smith, has no concern if the site is decently run or if it is sued for libel.
Do we not expect Congress to tell us what they are voting on and what the outcome is? Do we not expect them to let us know if a law fails?
Do we expect the same of Joe?
Anyway, it's still a ridiculous discussion. |
It's the common decency piece that makes it difficult to be transparent. One of the things under consideration in any site suggestion discussion is the source, and the underlying reasons for it.
You might reconsider your wish for transparency. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 05:00:16 PM · #169 |
What part of "results" is being missed? My observation was that SC doesn't make public the results of thier debate, appearing to be ignoring the problem.
A simple statement such as: after considerable research including blah blah blah, we found that this feature is unnecessary would suffice. Now, it appears that unless a feature is implemented that it is just ignored.
-----
I do realize that it is very likely that I'm being discussed right now. I'm relatively sure a suspension has been/being considered. It's still ridiculous to compare SC transparency to a delete button.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 05:06:29 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do believe that there is currently a case before the Courts in California, and should the Courts rule in favour of the plaintiff, then I fear that mind sound the death knell for threads.
Ray |
uh really? you have a link to that story? |
Unfortunately I am currently at work and a great deal of the sites I would normally access from home are blocked out here.
I did a very quick search and found this bit of information Liability for libel on the Internet. You mind find it(slightly) useful.
I will endeavour to locate that court decision once I return home, but that will not be till 2300 hrs tonight.
Ray |
I don't really want to get into this debate, but the link you provide here is really scary. Like, really scary. Why? Because it says online providers might be liable, or are in "untenable position"? No, because it's so outdated as to be simply and completely wrong. I hope no one finds it useful.
Following some of the U.S. cases the author sites, the U.S. Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act, and while some of that was chucked out by the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment Grounds, Section 230, referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provisions, provides immunity from liability for content for online service providers (such as "bulletin boards") where content is provided by others, and that section is still valid.
I'm not sure what lawsuit you're talking about in California, but the California Supreme Court has given a very, very wide reading to the Federal provision (check out the cases summarized here to get a better picture of what the law really looks like out there). I doubt that online service providers (such as DPC) really have anything to worry about.
Back to our regularly scheduled "girls kissing" challenge . . .
Rob |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 05:25:35 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What part of "results" is being missed? My observation was that SC doesn't make public the results of thier debate, appearing to be ignoring the problem.
A simple statement such as: after considerable research including blah blah blah, we found that this feature is unnecessary would suffice. Now, it appears that unless a feature is implemented that it is just ignored.
|
Well, after consideration, including the opinions posted in this thread, the option to allow users to delete comments on their own images is not going to be implemented at this time. There are mechanisms in place to deal with the issues raised here, and the negative aspects of this feature far outweigh the positive.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 05:34:10 PM · #172 |
Not to take anything away from the discussion, but I just happened across an interesting idea that may be of some use... :)
StupidFilter |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 05:34:58 PM · #173 |
As predicted 4 pages ago...
Originally posted by wavelength:
This is all very arbitrary anyways, this feature will probably never be added. |
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 05:39:08 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What part of "results" is being missed? My observation was that SC doesn't make public the results of thier debate, appearing to be ignoring the problem.
A simple statement such as: after considerable research including blah blah blah, we found that this feature is unnecessary would suffice. Now, it appears that unless a feature is implemented that it is just ignored.
|
Well, after consideration, including the opinions posted in this thread, the option to allow users to delete comments on their own images is not going to be implemented at this time. There are mechanisms in place to deal with the issues raised here, and the negative aspects of this feature far outweigh the positive. |
As far as I can tell, there is only one negative aspect, and that is the deletion of genuine critical commentary by disingenuous members. You'll never stop people from being disingenuous regardless. I wish we had this feature. I think it's a legitimate request implemented at most other photo portfolio sites. In my personal opinion, the impact of not having this feature far outweighs any dishonest representation that others wish to make for themselves (something they'll do in myriad other ways, undoubtedly). |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 05:46:47 PM · #175 |
Louis,
Unfortunately for you, and others that support this idea, after consideration, the SC decided that the shortterm benefit was there for a few, but in the long term, for the greater membership, it would not be beneficial.
You (Leroy) wanted transparency. We heard your suggestion. We read arguments for and against. We talked about it. We decided, "No."
You can discuss it till you are blue in the face (or would that be fingers), but at this point in time, for this website, and for the immediate future, it is not a feature that will be implemented. |
|
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: 07/18/2025 03:57:36 AM EDT.
