Wait till rollover to swing the axe

01/08/2008 02:50:43 PM · #1

If an image is dq'd in a challenge, how about letting it stay in voting and then dumping it at rollover during the final calculations? That way , were the DQ decision reversed the voting process would not have been interrupted.

jeger

Canon EOS-5D

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM

01/08/2008 02:56:01 PM · #2

Just to add to that thought...

and/or the person could see what vote their image would have received/what place they would have finished.

fotomann_forever

01/08/2008 03:02:20 PM · #3

Agreed.

ETA: SC could go ahead and notify the perp of the DQ, but have the DQ be transparent to the rest of the voters.

Message edited by author 2008-01-08 15:03:21.

Venom

Canon EOS R

01/08/2008 03:02:44 PM · #4

Originally posted by jeger:

...and/or the person could see what vote their image would have received/what place they would have finished.

I like that thought but it could raise some flags with the SC to revise their way of challenge results/maintenance.

How would they handle the tickets they receive, during the challenge voting period, from us voters that question the validity of an image? Just a thought although I still like your original post's idea.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

01/08/2008 03:09:57 PM · #5

Originally posted by jeger:

Just to add to that thought...

and/or the person could see what vote their image would have received/what place they would have finished.

Why?! If someone doesn't follow the rules then why should the entry make it all the way to final results if they've been disqualified? Break the rules and bye-bye challenge entry...that's the way it is (and should remain).

Additionally, what if the DQ'd image happens to be a top 5 or top 10 entry? Someone that's followed the rules and placed 4th or 11th is not given due credit and exposure.

bfox2

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/08/2008 03:11:43 PM · #6

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jeger:
Just to add to that thought...

and/or the person could see what vote their image would have received/what place they would have finished.

Why?! If someone doesn't follow the rules then why should the entry make it all the way to final results if they've been disqualified? Break the rules and bye-bye challenge entry...that's the way it is (and should remain).

Additionally, what if the DQ'd image happens to be a top 5 or top 10 entry? Someone that's followed the rules and placed 4th or 11th is not given due credit and exposure.

I think what they're suggesting is that the DQ'd image is dumped automatically at rollover - it would still show up in the DQ'd area and not affect overall placement. You'd just be able to associate a score with it.

eta: i forgot some letters :/

Message edited by author 2008-01-08 15:12:16.

01/08/2008 03:12:07 PM · #7

Originally posted by glad2badad:

What are you talking about? The image would get dumped at rollover, all placings would remain the same as if the image had been dumped 6 days earlier. The difference is that decisions could possibly be appealed. You talk about the rules as if they are always interpreted the same way, applied the same way, easy to understand, etc.

bfox2

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/08/2008 03:14:01 PM · #8

I also think this isn't a bad idea. Especially for some first-time entrants who do something silly like add text/watermark to the image. At least they can still gage their performance and get some feedback.

fotomann_forever

01/08/2008 03:20:55 PM · #9

It would actually be helpful to have a score associated with a DQ and where an image would have placed for purely educational and statistical purposes. It does add a bit of sting to the wound too.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

01/08/2008 04:17:57 PM · #10

I like the idea, but an argument could be made that people would tend to push or cross the line even more knowing they'll at least get the feedback and voter validation they are looking for. Just a devil's advocate thought.

Also, how about one of these to go with the pink stripe?

bassbone

Nikon Z8

01/08/2008 04:22:28 PM · #11

I tend to vote and comment on a lot of challenges and I would be annoyed to know that I am commenting and voting on shots that have already been shown to be outside of the rules set and are 'not legal'. The current approach of pulling DQ'd photos out of challenges as soon as they are found seems the best plan to me.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

01/08/2008 04:22:36 PM · #12

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Also, how about one of these to go with the pink stripe?

I have to ask what "the pink stripe" is referring to?

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/08/2008 04:23:12 PM · #13

Bingo bango. Why would we reward people who break the rules???

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Message edited by author 2008-01-08 16:23:47.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/08/2008 04:23:42 PM · #14

Originally posted by yospiff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Also, how about one of these to go with the pink stripe?

I have to ask what "the pink stripe" is referring to?

The pink strip on top of the challenge results page for DQ'ed images.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

01/08/2008 05:37:18 PM · #15

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by yospiff:
I have to ask what "the pink stripe" is referring to?

The pink strip on top of the challenge results page for DQ'ed images.

And the "Pink Stripe of Shame" that shows in the challenge entries list on the perp's portfolio.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

01/08/2008 05:47:08 PM · #16

I'm sympathetic to the OP's idea, and I've wished for the same on my own DQ. Especially since from what I've seen, almost every DQ is a mistake, not an active attempt to cheat.

But people only have so much time to vote and give comments, and I'd rather see them go to shots that didn't break the rules.

01/08/2008 06:09:21 PM · #17

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Bingo bango. Why would we reward people who break the rules???

On the minuscule chance the SC makes an error and wants to reverse it? On the even smaller chance that it would be desirable to allow decisions to be reconsidered?

I'm for the death penalty, but I do think it is sensible not to pronounce someone guilty, sentence them to death and then execute them right there in the court room. A period of time, even a whole 6 or 7 longggg days, gives all involved a chance to make sure the decision was correct.

I realize I'm using a silly example where real world people realize they do make mistakes and find it nice to at least set a bit of time aside for someone to convince them that they may have done so, but it could work in DPC-world too.

Just a thought.

edit: just another thought, I'm sure folks who release new rulesets with a "f*ck it, let's see if it flies and clean it up later" attitude would be more than appreciative of second chances and time for reconsideration.

Message edited by author 2008-01-08 18:11:20.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/08/2008 06:25:28 PM · #18

What if there are several images that are very simular in technique or subject matter. The DQ'ed image, which might have an advantage, since they didn't follow the rules, could get a very good score and the others get a lower score than they might have gotten had there not been the image that was DQ'ed. Sure, the DQ'ed image loses it's standing, but one or more of those other images will still have the lower score... which could be the difference of how well it does in the standings... or even getting one of the ribbons.

Mike

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

01/08/2008 10:11:26 PM · #19

Originally posted by routerguy666:

On the minuscule chance the SC makes an error and wants to reverse it? On the even smaller chance that it would be desirable to allow decisions to be reconsidered?

Sorry that you hate all of us on SC to the point that you can't get it out of your system. But no, I still strongly disagree. Have we made mistakes in the past? Undoubtedly. Have NFL referees, who are making a whole lot more than $0 for their work, made errors? I would be willing to bet they've made a lot worse calls than we have, and on a more frequent basis.

The number of shots that have been in the "shoulda been reversed" category is a very small number. The vast, vast majority of shots that are disqualified are because people added text... shot it outside the dates... edited the shot beyond what it was allowed... held multiple accounts... or other things that are clearly illegal. And most shots that have SC "on the fence" tend to be allowed on the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt.

There's no reason to allow an illegal shot to continue through the voting process. That leaves even less incentive for people to follow the rules. If you're pushing the envelope in editing, you're risking a DQ, and disqualifications are meant to be punished.

I doubt very much that if a marathon runner was spotted taking a blatant shortcut in a race, the race officials would let them finish "just to see how they would have finished." This notion seems silly to me.

Message edited by author 2008-01-08 22:12:15.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/08/2008 10:18:59 PM · #20

Originally posted by levyj413:

Yup, and they can always post the shot for feedback after the challenge.

I think votes should be reserved for valid shots that will be ranked at the end of voting.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

01/08/2008 10:22:08 PM · #21

I misread the intent of this thread earlier. I thought the DQ'd images would be displayed in the position they finished rather than being placed at the end of results. Sorry about that miscue. However, I'm still not in favor of changing the current DQ process. If DQ'd, then they should get pulled from the challenge and score result is eliminated, as it works now.

However, the following quote made me think about something. How can a score on a DQ'd image be helpful? The value of the score is tainted. If a user submits a challenge entry that uses tools outside the rules the score could be wrongfully inflated. To compare a DQ'd image score to other entries that followed the rules is an irrelevant comparison.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

It would actually be helpful to have a score associated with a DQ and where an image would have placed for purely educational and statistical purposes. It does add a bit of sting to the wound too.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/08/2008 10:36:12 PM · #22

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Sorry that you hate all of us on SC to the point that you can't get it out of your system.

What an ignorant statement.

Originally posted by alanfreed:

But no, I still strongly disagree. Have we made mistakes in the past? Undoubtedly. Have NFL referees, who are making a whole lot more than $0 for their work, made errors? I would be willing to bet they've made a lot worse calls than we have, and on a more frequent basis.

Yeah there are also numerous mechanisms for appealing those bad calls, and those calls can be reversed. Pay has nothing to do with it. My suggestion was that a small change in timing, nothing more, could introduce an opportunity for dialog and appeal. This being different from the current system of closed-door decisions, copy/paste reasons, instant removal from the challenge, no appeal, and a week of threads bitching about it afterwards.

Originally posted by alanfreed:

The number of shots that have been in the "shoulda been reversed" category is a very small number.

If you admit there are DQ decisions that should have been reversed, why are you opposed to a suggestion that would allow for the possibility of that reversal?

Originally posted by alanfreed:

There's no reason to allow an illegal shot to continue through the voting process. That leaves even less incentive for people to follow the rules. If you're pushing the envelope in editing, you're risking a DQ, and disqualifications are meant to be punished.

Incentive to follow the rules: DQ if you don't

Tell me which part of that equation changes if the DQ happens at Day 2 of the voting or Day 6 or at 11:59pm of the final day?

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

01/08/2008 10:57:02 PM · #23

And that ignorant statement was in response to this ignorant statement. And I managed to do it without the F*** word.

Originally posted by routerguy666:

just another thought, I'm sure folks who release new rulesets with a "f*ck it, let's see if it flies and clean it up later" attitude would be more than appreciative of second chances and time for reconsideration.

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Sorry that you hate all of us on SC to the point that you can't get it out of your system.

What an ignorant statement.

geoffb

01/08/2008 10:57:07 PM · #24

Originally posted by alanfreed:

I think his point was that, should the DQ be reversed, it can be re-inserted into the results in the appropriate placing. If it's taken out on day 2, but then the DQ is reversed, it can no longer be appropriately ranked because it was not voted on in the same manner as the rest of the images.

The original suggestion does no harm to the other images and causes no additional incentive to cheat. No more and no less images will be disqualified as a result of implementing this change. The only thing that would change is that a wrongful disqualification (however unlikely) could be properly rectified.

Originally posted by alanfreed:

I doubt very much that if a marathon runner was spotted taking a blatant shortcut in a race, the race officials would let them finish "just to see how they would have finished." This notion seems silly to me.

I certainly see your point here, but don't know if it applies to the suggestion. Your analogy applies to the vast majority of DQs, where the individual did break the rules and has been caught. However, what about a marathon runner who is wrongfully accused of cheating, and is immediately pulled from the race? Should it later be found that the accusation was invalid, there's nothing the runner nor the race officials can do now. Had the runner been allowed to finish the race while the officials discussed the DQ, and pulled him aside at the very end (before the medal ceremony), no one would have been affected. (Actually, in an actual race, allowing him to continue might have affected the outcome of the race. However, in these challenges, no one if affected because all results are private until rollover.)

To summarize this longwinded post, I agree with the original suggestion. There are no negative consequences, but simply the possibility of a positive consequence should a DQ need to be overturned.