| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2008 12:40:39 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Incidentally, I've never quite understood this mentality Gordon is describing; by that standard, I should be less pleased with any ribbon I receive in an open challenge where the "big guns" all opted for the other challenge? |
Personally, yes, probably. Though I've never understood the 'everyone's a winner/ getting points for trying' type of tiered competition or testing. I've always thought if your best wasn't good enough, you have to try harder or find something you are good enough at. |
I hear what you're saying and I understand it, I really do. But just for the sake of argument, in the real world these sorts of tiered competitions are the norm, not the exception. Take the game of bridge, for example: they have organized competition governed by national (and international) ruling bodies, and they tiered divisions. You garner "master points" by competing, beginning at the local level, and there are cut-off points for the divisions. Or the game of golf, which has handicaps based on actual scores received in competition, and divides its amateur tournaments into "flights" comprised of players with similar handicaps. As you get better at the game, you advance through the flights until you (hopefully) reach the top tier.
I think this is the sort of thing people are talking about, and I'm not surprised they do, because real-world experience teaches them that this is the norm. The argument can be made that if we divided DPC competitions into "novice", "amateur" and "open" levels, we would see an increase in new members as they realize they have a level they can compete at where they won't feel humiliated.
I really do think it's worth considering as a next step in the evolution of the site.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 12:47:54 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I hear what you're saying and I understand it, I really do. But just for the sake of argument, in the real world these sorts of tiered competitions are the norm, not the exception. |
Though typically in those cases, most of the reasons are due to physical limitations. Everyone can't turn up to play at Augusta for the masters - the course can't handle it. You can however enter the British Open and play against the best in the world, my father made it through to the third round one year and he isn't a professional. In the sport of triathlon, anyone can compete against the best in the world - because the fields are typically small enough to get onto the course. In marathon running, the same thing happens - you can toe the line with the world record holders and go head to head if you are fast enough. Tennis - the same thing, you just have to play through the qualification rounds. World series of poker - just turn up and pay your entry fee - if you are good enough you can end up at the top table.
There's plenty of examples of both types of competition - enforced leagues or everyone plays against the best.
I suggested having tiered levels a long time ago, I think it is a reasonable idea if someone wants to compete at a lower level, to allow them to do so. Just don't put the winners on the front page and award ribbons for those contests. Have a ladder system where you can only move up and can't drop down to the lower levels and it seems reasonable. The last times it was brought up there was a fairly strong backlash against the idea though - ghettoisation of lower level photos that never get voted/ commented on being the biggest problem I think.
Would you (in the global site participant sense of 'you') vote on a challenge where you know the images aren't going to be particularly good (by self selection of the entrants) when there are other challenges where the quality is likely to be much higher ?
There's only so much time anyone is going to spend voting/ commenting - how do you get people to vote on the lower level/ less interesting photo contests ? Enforced voting ? Only get to enter if you vote ?
Some hardy souls will step up and offer to vote/comment, but that isn't going to happen time and time again (witness the critique club).
So how do you avoid the least capable entrants getting the least feedaback on their images, if they aren't in the mix with all the others getting voted on ?
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 12:55:15. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 12:55:41 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I hear what you're saying and I understand it, I really do. But just for the sake of argument, in the real world these sorts of tiered competitions are the norm, not the exception. |
Though typically in those cases, most of the reasons are due to physical limitations. Everyone can't turn up to play at Augusta for the masters - the course can't handle it. You can however enter the British Open and play against the best in the world, my father made it through to the third round one year and he isn't a professional. In the sport of triathlon, anyone can compete against the best in the world - because the fields are typically small enough to get onto the course. In marathon running, the same thing happens - you can toe the line with the world record holders and go head to head if you are fast enough. Tennis - the same thing, you just have to play through the qualification rounds. World series of poker - just turn up and pay your entry fee - if you are good enough you can end up at the top table.
There's plenty of examples of both types of competition - enforced leagues or everyone plays against the best. |
It is true that there are plenty of examples of completely open competition, where if you have the money/time/will you can compete against the best head-to-head. Yachting would be another sport that allows this. But even so, golf is not the best example to use. Take your British Open example: in order to enter a qualifying tournament, you have to have a handicap below a certain number. In marathons, you have to be a seeded runner to get a starting slot in the first group, and without such a slot you don't have a chance. In all these competitions, while it's true that you can *theoretically* tee it up against champions head-to-head, there's a vast underlying substructure of tiered competitions for the "masses", those who realize they will never be able to play the game head-to-head against the "best".
The argument here is, that's what's lacking at DPC. We can easily institute a system where anyone who wants to can compete against our "best", but what do we LOSE by setting up some sort of tiered system where those who choose to, can compete head-to-head at their own level as well?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 12:57:24 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The argument here is, that's what's lacking at DPC. We can easily institute a system where anyone who wants to can compete against our "best", but what do we LOSE by setting up some sort of tiered system where those who choose to, can compete head-to-head at their own level as well?
|
Go back and read the amended version of what you replied to. What you lose is votes, comments, eyeballs on the images in the lower tiers.
The golf case is true - handicaps are used to filter out everyone from entering (because of physical size issues for the courses and time)
In the running case, seeding is only true for larger races - again a physical limitation we don't have to deal with here. In smaller races, you can toe the line without any qualification at all - I've regularly started right beside Olympic quality runners. I usually don't see them for very long though!
If we have too many entries in the contests for people to vote on them all, then divisions make sense. If anyone looks and votes on the lower divisions. That seems to be the bigger problem. Particularly if you buy in to the notion that you want the better photographers commenting to provide help and teaching to those who are less accomplished.
Though in general I don't really buy in to the idea that comments or votes are particularly instructive or conducive for learning. It certainly isn't a productive or efficient way to learn photography.
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 13:01:39. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:00:59 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I suggested having tiered levels a long time ago, I think it is a reasonable idea if someone wants to compete at a lower level, to allow them to do so. Just don't put the winners on the front page and award ribbons for those contests. Have a ladder system where you can only move up and can't drop down to the lower levels and it seems reasonable. The last times it was brought up there was a fairly strong backlash against the idea though - ghettoisation of lower level photos that never get voted/ commented on being the biggest problem I think.
Would you (in the global site participant sense of 'you') vote on a challenge where you know the images aren't going to be particularly good (by self selection of the entrants) when there are other challenges where the quality is likely to be much higher ?
There's only so much time anyone is going to spend voting/ commenting - how do you get people to vote on the lower level/ less interesting photo contests ? Enforced voting ? Only get to enter if you vote ?
Some hardy souls will step up and offer to vote/comment, but that isn't going to happen time and time again (witness the critique club).
So how do you avoid the least capable entrants getting the least feedaback on their images, if they aren't in the mix with all the others getting voted on ? |
Then that's something we agree on, because I have beat this drum a few times myself. As for the "few voters" scenario, I'd like to think that if there's a large enough pool of "amateurs" to make those challenges fly, they'll also take the time to vote on them just to make sure they stay viable.
Besides, perhaps the most workable idea we've seen is to keep the challenges exactly as they are but have some sort of "ranking" on all entrants, in the computer, and award "medals" (not ribbons) to the highest finishes within the tiered ranks. Since nobody would know who's in which category during voting, there shouldn't be an issue there. In other words, it's not a matter of extra, exclusive challenges for the also-rans; it's a matter of another level of recognition being doled out to those who are improving but not quite up at the top level yet.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:04:36 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Then that's something we agree on, because I have beat this drum a few times myself. As for the "few voters" scenario, I'd like to think that if there's a large enough pool of "amateurs" to make those challenges fly, they'll also take the time to vote on them just to make sure they stay viable. |
Doesn't that have the risk of being a case of the blind leading the blind ? If the only people voting on the images produced by the inexperienced, are the inexperienced, does that help ?
Hiding the tiering within the existing challenges might make sense - much like the best young rider thing at the tour de france. You could have a best newcomer award or something for highest placement out of the first 5 entries or that kind of thing.
maybe if the DPL ever starts again (seems to be a big if) we could also run a parallel fantasy photographer league where we get to pick our dream DPL team and see how it would have stacked up.
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 13:05:39. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:18:33 PM · #132 |
Count me as one who is not in favor of separate challenges, because IMHO, competing against the best the site has to offer sharpens one's own skills. Heck, I'd like the chance to compete regularly against some of the ones who made front page when I signed up 2+ years ago,  kiwiness,  heida, etc. That said, there are still many talented photogs here and they continue to motivate me to give my best effort.
Totally cool idea to offer 'medals' for unique achievements by "non-ribboners", newbies, etc. Keeps it fresh and adds a layer of excitment for newer site members. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:21:10 PM · #133 |
| You want to be the best...You have to beat the best. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:29:17 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You want to be the best...You have to beat the best. |
Bests are not entering all the challenges. If you win a ribbon with 80 people in it, and no one has more than 4 ribbons for example... you think you beat the best? You think your ribbon as valuable as if you'd enter and win the best of 2007?
;) |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:53:45 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You want to be the best...You have to beat the best. |
Bests are not entering all the challenges. If you win a ribbon with 80 people in it, and no one has more than 4 ribbons for example... you think you beat the best? You think your ribbon as valuable as if you'd enter and win the best of 2007?
;) |
I just placed 12th in a challenge with 50 participants. An excellent placement and a decent score, but I feel just as bad about that one as I do about all the 179/435 places I've gotten. :/
There have been a lot of really good ideas tossed around here, but they're addressing symptoms instead of the actual problems. I think the biggest issue around here for new members is a lack of validation and a frame of reference.
Validation doesn't have to be a ribbon necessarily. I kinda like the idea of getting some kind of medal - but maybe based on averages, so as you bring your average up you get a tangible sense of moving forward.
A frame of reference is important too, because the longer you're here the more skewed your point of view becomes. I was reading through my early entries and I can see that my goals were a 5.0! Now I know that 5 means I totally blew it and I might as well have let my cat take the picture.
In my extreme fantasy world, I would like to see where non-DPC photography would fit in. Would your average magazine advertisement score a 5 or a 6 here. What about newspapers? 3 or 4? How about 'the classics'? I know we've had a couple challenges that were 'in the style of' where the original artist's photos were entered and did fairly poor - that's so important for newbs to know to keep the right perspective!
Someone mentioned earlier that if they knew that the ribboners weren't in a challenge, they wouldn't think it was worth even looking. Seeing things like that tells me the only reason my picture gets any views is because scalvert or Judi might be in the competition. Gives me the sense that I shouldn't be wasting people's time around here. I think it's up to the community to really foster a sense of learning, growing, and encouragement instead of being so negative if we want a site that is more encouraging and whatnot. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:57:51 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
I know we've had a couple challenges that were 'in the style of' where the original artist's photos were entered and did fairly poor - that's so important for newbs to know to keep the right perspective! |
Yes its important for new users to understand that the majority of voters know as much as they do about photography.
That's particularly important when it comes to evaluating what are the best pictures, compared to what are the
highest scoring.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 02:20:54 PM · #137 |
Comparing my answer with Mark's answer. I just want to say that I agree with him 100%. I want to compete against the best people on the site ... but I will be doing that even if invitational challenges exist. Invitational challenges shouldn't be the norm ... just added from time to time.
As far as recognition for "other achievements" within a challenge goes, I don't think "awards" of any kind should be given, but rather a text line, like an additional stat (top 3 among non-ribboning competitors, best score for non-dslr entry, lens ownage if achieved, etc.)
The more stats the better, but ribbons should be reserved for challenge winners ... including invitational challenges.
Originally posted by hopper:
We're playing a game here, no? Who the heck cares if an extra game is created now and then with special limitations on participation? Is it really going to bother anyone all that much? If non-ribbon winners want to compete against each other, who am I to say, "No, you have to let me play, too"?
This isn't the olympics
I'd love to see the Master's Challenges again, only this time with a 5 ribbon count or higher for entry. So why not do the reverse as well? |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Count me as one who is not in favor of separate challenges, because IMHO, competing against the best the site has to offer sharpens one's own skills. Heck, I'd like the chance to compete regularly against some of the ones who made front page when I signed up 2+ years ago, kiwiness, heida, etc. That said, there are still many talented photogs here and they continue to motivate me to give my best effort.
Totally cool idea to offer 'medals' for unique achievements by "non-ribboners", newbies, etc. Keeps it fresh and adds a layer of excitment for newer site members. |
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 02:33:31 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Comparing my answer with Mark's answer. I just want to say that I agree with him 100%. I want to compete against the best people on the site ... but I will be doing that even if invitational challenges exist. Invitational challenges shouldn't be the norm ... just added from time to time.
As far as recognition for "other achievements" within a challenge goes, I don't think "awards" of any kind should be given, but rather a text line, like an additional stat (top 3 among non-ribboning competitors, best score for non-dslr entry, lens ownage if achieved, etc.)
The more stats the better, but ribbons should be reserved for challenge winners ... including invitational challenges.
|
Perfect! Who can argue with that?
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:13:48 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You want to be the best...You have to beat the best. |
Bests are not entering all the challenges. If you win a ribbon with 80 people in it, and no one has more than 4 ribbons for example... you think you beat the best? You think your ribbon as valuable as if you'd enter and win the best of 2007?
;) |
Well I look at it like this Leo. When I used to compete in the shooting sports here in Arizona I was lucky enough to have the worlds best shooters here. They competed with me every week but I was in a different class. I was in A class and they were in Master Class. I would enter these matches and bump myself up in class to be able to compete with them directly. It was not about just beating them but by playing their game I could compare my performance against theirs. When I did beat them no one could take that away or make it any less than a WIN!
To answer you about the best not entering, that is not something I can control but if I look at the challenge topics I can pretty much guess who will be entering, I.E. "landscape" I look for Bear, the good Doc and Laurs and many other great photogs. So time to pony up and see if I can hang with the best. If I win it makes it all the more sweeter and no one can discount the WIN!
That's my story and I am sticking to it!
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 15:19:12. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:20:48 PM · #140 |
thegrandwazoo... By the way, I'm still looking for those sound clips from Judi's radio interviews in DPC podcast site :P I think you should put them there so we can send some people to increase the traffic :D
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 15:21:19. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:22:03 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
thegrandwazoo... By the way, I'm still looking for those sound clips from Judi's radio interviews in DPC podcast site :P I think you should put them there so we can send some people to increase the traffic :D |
I have not talked to Judi but I will I know she is kinda busy right now... :-P |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:28:24 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
thegrandwazoo... By the way, I'm still looking for those sound clips from Judi's radio interviews in DPC podcast site :P I think you should put them there so we can send some people to increase the traffic :D |
I have not talked to Judi but I will I know she is kinda busy right now... :-P |
I know :D
Well, if you can get the links, maybe you can just put there, and I make the announcement :D
you want more people go there you know :D
I sent you PM too but I don't think you got it :/ |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:33:05 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I sent you PM too but I don't think you got it :/ |
I didn't, that's weird. Try again to see if it gets through this time.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:41:32 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Dantzr:
Kari... you are right. Compete against the best and strive to improve. Good thought. But some people do not have the time, money or patience to start from zilch and dig their selves in till they can make it to the top. |
I'm having a hard time with this. You seem to be a good advocate for mediocraty. I have a job, I have a family, I have bills, I have many things that take precedence over photography. I choose not to use those excuses for my challenge submissions. This sort of passivist attitude is crippling and yes, politically correct. Am I attacking you, no, as I have no idea who you are. Am I attacking this attitude? Most definitely as it is the cancer we are experiencing in our culture. Feel good about not being that good. No need to try sport ..... the fact that you can breath means that you are trying. Damn those other people who show-off by doing well, you shouldn't compete with them because you're .... well ....special in your own right.
That attitude is nothing more than justification for one's own insecurities. Why deal with them yourself when we can plead that others deal with them for us. This just irks me. |
John...
The chance of me being able/capable of winning a ribbon is slim to none...if even that good...and I am fully aware of this as are many of the others. But I am not saying that we are not going to try. But what I am saying is that this site tends to vote on a curve where the best photographers set a standard of photography (with or without Post Processing) that makes some very good photographs seem...well...minuscule. We have all seen photographs that should have been ranked higher...they are that good, or that different or that unique, but aren't scored well because they are not in the class of the best of the site. It has been said that we should look at what is being scored higher and then adapt to meet that criteria. That in itself is like saying that if Idnic were to jump off a cliff to get a good shot, we all should. Should we all bastardize our individuality and what is seen in other places as mediocre or below scale?
My suggestion of having a "sub" level was to give some of us in the definitive learning stage a chance to compete with others who haven't perfected the photographic style or even come to understand what their cameras can do,a chance to compete and learn and to...and to me this should be the most important of the learning process...develope their own sense of what photography is to themselves. I love alot of the photographers on this site, but I don't necessarily like all of the 'changes' they have done to their shots, or even the style of the photographs. If I had to "adapt" my photography to be a clone of others in order to score higher, then I will say goodbye and go back to just showing my pictures to friends family and the occasional museum showing. (yeah...right!!!)
This site is here for the learning process to help picture-takers become photographers while they are able to see and help judge what is good and great to them. I am not sure how many people are members of this site, but I would like to know how many of them have scored above a 6.0? How many have inhabited the so-called lower end of the spectrum but still strive to do better? And of that last group, how many would like to be able to look at a list of winners and see that they are improving against people who were or are at the same level they are?
This site has the capability of being a great learning site and everyone I have ever asked a question of (well, except for a few) have been more than helpful. And the tutorials are wonderful. But I want to take pictures that reflect my idea of photography, my style...not a clone of someone else's.
Sorry again! I think we may all be going down the same road...just different lanes.
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 15:44:18.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:51:36 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Besides, perhaps the most workable idea we've seen is to keep the challenges exactly as they are but have some sort of "ranking" on all entrants, in the computer, and award "medals" (not ribbons) to the highest finishes within the tiered ranks. Since nobody would know who's in which category during voting, there shouldn't be an issue there. In other words, it's not a matter of extra, exclusive challenges for the also-rans; it's a matter of another level of recognition being doled out to those who are improving but not quite up at the top level yet.
R. |
I agree with this. That is how DPL worked. My team won the 'B' Division and it was rewarding to know we had a chance of being tops in the middle of the pack. If there had been only one division I do not think we would have worked so hard.
The thing I miss the most about DPL is the opportunity to work with photograpghers at my own (very modest) level and work on 'relative' improvement, as opposed to only comparing myself to the top 10 which feels quite illusive most of the time. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 04:08:33 PM · #146 |
It seems to me the problems we are facing and the "bored with DPC" attitude that some (myself included) come from trying to "compete" at something as subjective as art. I have never ribboned or placed in the top 10. I have a preference for realism (as in photoshop / darkroom work should be non-obvious) in most images and that is reflected in my entries. Unfortunately this makes it harder to ribbon here at DPC given the prevailing voting trends. While I am not resigned to never winning a ribbon, I do find my enthusiasm to "compete" is waning. I mostly just enter these days for the comments. Even having just one person say they gave my image a 10 or adding it as a favorite is enough to make my day and keep me happy.
I think anything DPC can do to further enhance or promote the focus on personal improvement would be of great value to the site. Handicapping and grouping photographers based on a highly subjective ranking doesn't seem like it will accomplish that.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 04:16:01 PM · #147 |
| I think if everyone used the time spent typing in these threads leaving constructive comments on pictures instead, there would be no need for any revolution ... |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 04:24:31 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think if everyone used the time spent typing in these threads leaving constructive comments on pictures instead, there would be no need for any revolution ... |
HAH.. no sir, I can't I am at work and only thing I can do is complain LOL |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 04:29:58 PM · #149 |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 04:38:42 PM · #150 |
|
