| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2008 10:13:44 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
With all due respect, your statement could easily turned around and pointed back your way - surely you've heard the rationale against it? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:18:17 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
With all due respect, your statement could easily turned around and pointed back your way - surely you've heard the rationale against it? |
Sure have. Check the first post in this thread. It's mine. I've understood the rationale since August 20, 2007. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:29:25 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
emphasis added.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... there are others who feel the same way, and therefore there exists an issue that is worth talking about. ... |
Actually, it looks like you're in the extreme minority on this.
Pulled from a related thread ==> A Poll
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by karmat:
From the posts in this thread
2
1
1
1
1/7
4
2 (with limits)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1/6
1/3/5
3
Now, I want everyone to ask yourself a question, and answer it honestly. IF the totally unscientific/informal poll was showing a 2 everywhere there was a 1, would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
I don't understand the numbers you've written here. I think the informal poll won't work, because not everyone is going to see it. It seems to me more people respond to official polls than informal ones. |
|
If you want to follow the strict "majority rules" thing, we'd still have segregation. |
:-) Okay... So a poll is suggested and run (informally), the majority say they want one thing - but you're saying what; that the majority should be dismissed and site rules changed anyway for the extreme minority? A poll, if run "formally" on this topic should be dismissed as well? |
If it the majority would force people to live with offensive statements about them next to their likeness, then yes, it should be dismissed. Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:32:49 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
With all due respect, your statement could easily turned around and pointed back your way - surely you've heard the rationale against it? |
Sure have. Check the first post in this thread. It's mine. I've understood the rationale since August 20, 2007. |
Sigh...Ok, I've read it also. So now it's back to square one? Oh, yeah...forgot about all of that "vocality". Guess you missed it too? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:33:15 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
This is first and foremost a site for photo competitions. It is not primarily a way of showing off or advertising your work, or keeping your web galleries, though of course it can be used in that way.
The onus, if any, should be on the photographer to make sure that the model is comfortable with having his or her image put up on a site which allows for free and frank criticism.
Again, most problems could easily be solved by a polite message to the commenter saying that the model is sensitive, and there is already a system in place for dealing with blatant abuse.
While those equating the proposals with censorship are misusing the term, there is no question that the ability to delete comments would not only change a fundamental part of the site's learning mechanic, but would also make people even less likely to spend time on a carefully considered critique. And please remember that these critiques are of use to others; not just to the creator of the image. |
Try to see things in a different way. Most of the people here are polite and avoid leaving hard criticism knowing that it's hard to the owner of the work to live with that comment forever glued at the photo. If the photographer could have editorial control over comments, people could be more open mind leaving comments cause they know if the photographer doesn't like it he will have the power to delete it.
The learning mechanism that you refer has nothing to do with comments, but with tutorials, forum discussions and descriptions on photos made by the owner (usually winners). Comments only gives you feed back about what you have done and how the people are reacting to your work.
I do believe that the photographer should be protected with the right to control everything about(and around his work) and I do believe that a system with a delete comment button would encourage people to speak more openly. Of course the Report Post Button should stay there too for abuses and bad behavior. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:34:20 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right. |
Likewise, if the minority complain loud enough it validates forcing a change on the majority that don't want it? Sorry - that logic seems a bit twisted to me. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:37:32 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right. |
Likewise, if the minority complain loud enough it validates forcing a change on the majority that don't want it? Sorry - that logic seems a bit twisted to me. |
If it's to protect the minority, then it does validate change.
By your logic, women would still be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen and there would still be slaves on the plantations. Good luck justifying that. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:43:28 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right. |
Likewise, if the minority complain loud enough it validates forcing a change on the majority that don't want it? Sorry - that logic seems a bit twisted to me. |
If it's to protect the minority, then it does validate change.
By your logic, women would still be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen and there would still be slaves on the plantations. Good luck justifying that. |
LOL!
Edit...slinging mud in response to mud just gets everyone dirty.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 22:49:28. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:47:35 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I know I am jumping in a bit late on this conversation, but I am curious if the following "compromise" has been suggested.
Currently we have a single box - This comment was helpful - which functions as listing for the commenter. What if we expand that listing to a scorecard and rate the value of the comment on a scale, much as we do for scoring images. Implementing a "Rate This Comment" system, say a 5-0 scale, along with a field on the the Preferences page to "Hide Comments rated 0 from image page" may solve the issue. Personally, I would like to know the value of my comments other than it just being "helpful".
Just a thought...
Flame on! |
I think people here are more interested in fighting each other than finding a solution. I like your solution and is probably the best one out there so far. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 12:03:54 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
The needs (opinions) of the many outweigh the needs (opinions) of the few or the one... |
I truly cannot subscribe to this line of thinking, as it effectively removes any possibility for dissenting views.
If indeed this had been enshrined in the American mindset, I remain confident that the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses..." would never have seen the light of day.
Some of the most brilliant thinkers in history were at one time considered dissidents who dared to challenge the collective mindset, and we should be glad they did as they allowed society to grow and prosper.
Just another man's view.
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 12:25:44 AM · #361 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
The needs (opinions) of the many outweigh the needs (opinions) of the few or the one... |
I truly cannot subscribe to this line of thinking, as it effectively removes any possibility for dissenting views. |
Not only that, he ripped off that quote from Star Trek II. Hardly the stuff to live your life by. :-P |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 12:34:57 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
The needs (opinions) of the many outweigh the needs (opinions) of the few or the one... |
I truly cannot subscribe to this line of thinking, as it effectively removes any possibility for dissenting views. |
Not only that, he ripped off that quote from Star Trek II. Hardly the stuff to live your life by. :-P |
i'll have you know that's exactly how i live my life..like a character from star trek. it makes the time pass by faster while i'm stuck on this planet with you earthlings
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 00:35:21. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 12:45:26 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Weird.
How about that comment that was used as an example from LanceW? Has it been reported yet? Does the owner even care enough to report it?
. |
EDIT ...
None of your damn business why |
Well you were the one who brought it up as an example to show that the system is broken. If your example does not show that the system was even used, you need another example or your argument falls flat.
You brought the example to the public forum, making it the business of anyone and everyone who reads this public forum. If you don't feel it's also our business as to why that person is not interested in using the system, then kindly retract the 'damn' example and admit that you have not one good example of the problem which you claim exists... or at least bring to light an example that carries some weight in the discussion. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 12:56:10 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Louis, you don't have rights over people's commentary on your photos. You never have. |
Precisely. I believe that's what this whole thing is about. |
You don't have that right until you own the site - OR - are the author of the comments. To change that is to assert that your rights are above the rights of others. This site is at least TRYING to maintain a balance between your rights and the rights of others, allowing them their freedom to speak unless it is abusive. If it is abusive, then it is acted upon.
If it's not abusive, but you are still taking offense, then you either need to open your thinking a little or remove your pictures from the public site.
Surely you give at least a little thought to this before you go pasting these sensitive models' pics on the internet? I assume you have obtained permission from the model before posting? And if they are a model, one would hope that they would have given this some thought before giving permission... ?
If they were to get a big modeling contract - let's say the cover of Playboy or Home and Gardens or whatever, give permission, then find out that one or two individuals had something less than pleasant to say about it, only to call up the magazine and demand a retraction of the magazine, what do you think will be the result?
What about actors that play in movies that get bad reviews? Do they demand that the newspapers retract their statements about the 'wooden lead actor' or the 'vacuous and insincere supporting actress'? Hardly. Why not? Because they gave permission to be used in the film.
What about the owner of the movie? Sony or New Line Cinema or whatever... Do they demand a retraction of all negative commentary about their film and the talent within?
Hardly. Those comments are the property of the person who wrote the commentary - not the persons who own the movie.
You don't own the comments on your picture for precisely the same reason. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 01:05:03 AM · #365 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Louis, you don't have rights over people's commentary on your photos. You never have. |
Precisely. I believe that's what this whole thing is about. |
You don't have that right until you own the site - OR - are the author of the comments. To change that is to assert that your rights are above the rights of others. This site is at least TRYING to maintain a balance between your rights and the rights of others, allowing them their freedom to speak unless it is abusive. If it is abusive, then it is acted upon.
If it's not abusive, but you are still taking offense, then you either need to open your thinking a little or remove your pictures from the public site.
Surely you give at least a little thought to this before you go pasting these sensitive models' pics on the internet? I assume you have obtained permission from the model before posting? And if they are a model, one would hope that they would have given this some thought before giving permission... ?
If they were to get a big modeling contract - let's say the cover of Playboy or Home and Gardens or whatever, give permission, then find out that one or two individuals had something less than pleasant to say about it, only to call up the magazine and demand a retraction of the magazine, what do you think will be the result?
What about actors that play in movies that get bad reviews? Do they demand that the newspapers retract their statements about the 'wooden lead actor' or the 'vacuous and insincere supporting actress'? Hardly. Why not? Because they gave permission to be used in the film.
What about the owner of the movie? Sony or New Line Cinema or whatever... Do they demand a retraction of all negative commentary about their film and the talent within?
Hardly. Those comments are the property of the person who wrote the commentary - not the persons who own the movie.
You don't own the comments on your picture for precisely the same reason. |
Good post and it makes lot of sense. This is the reason I am for complete yes and no system. That means if I say yes, then I have to put up with the system as it is now. If I say no, that means I am saying that I wish to show you the picture but I do not wish to have any comments on it. Good or bad nothing. And I really believe for portfolio images we could do this. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 01:17:03 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm not certain I'm entirely comfortable with you interpreting my views in your own words and responding to that, instead of direct quotes. So I'm not going to respond. |
Ok, so I didn't include the second quote and maybe I should have added some bold, but I don't think I have changed the meaning all that much. I merely wanted to substitute a few of your pronouns for nouns so we can see more clearly what you were saying. Here's a better look.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Louis:
The issue is one of control of one's own property. Sometimes the SC do not agree that a particular comment is damaging, after a photographer brings it up via the ticket system. I know from personal experience. In my view, they are not qualified to make such distinctions, and do so at their potential peril; turning control over to the actual owners of the material in question absolves them and this website of any liability arising from their inability to make accurate determinations 100% of the time. |
Point 1: The SC as a committee who first attempt to take into consideration the intent of the commenter are not qualified to determine if the comment is damaging or not. - Quote: "they are not qualified to make such distinctions"
Originally posted by Louis:
You aren't the one to decide whether or not I'm protecting my property, however; only I can decide that. And by definition, this is simply not censorship. I believe that's using a loaded word to intentionally misconstrue the owner's intent. But I'll accept your definition for these purposes. I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
Point 2: The receiver of the comment is in the best position to determine if a comment is damaging or not. - Quotes: "SC do not agree that a particular comment is damaging, after a photographer brings it up via the ticket system." You aren't the one to decide whether or not I'm protecting my property, however; only I can decide that" "I want to be able to police what people say about my photos"
|
See better now?
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 01:22:16 AM · #367 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Good post and it makes lot of sense. This is the reason I am for complete yes and no system. That means if I say yes, then I have to put up with the system as it is now. If I say no, that means I am saying that I wish to show you the picture but I do not wish to have any comments on it. Good or bad nothing. And I really believe for portfolio images we could do this. |
Thanks. I wouldn't say that is a bad idea either. I put forward an idea a long time ago that would give photographers the ability to say what kind of comments they could tolerate. This would be something that could be viewed before a comment was placed by tom, dick or harry. This would cut down on flames and bad blood and comments that weren't presented especially tactfully via a PREVENTATIVE measure.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure IMHO.
I wonder if I should go find it and link it up... |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:37:26 AM · #368 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I put forward an idea a long time ago that would give photographers the ability to say what kind of comments they could tolerate.
I wonder if I should go find it and link it up... |
But everyone wants complete and brutal honesty; until they actually get it.
Edit: Though I do agree that the ability to disallow all comments on non-challenge images would be a good idea. As long as that was something that was done BEFORE anyone wrote a comment. There would still be no question of arbitrary deletion.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 08:39:35. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:42:23 AM · #369 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right. |
Likewise, if the minority complain loud enough it validates forcing a change on the majority that don't want it? Sorry - that logic seems a bit twisted to me. |
If it's to protect the minority, then it does validate change.
By your logic, women would still be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen and there would still be slaves on the plantations. Good luck justifying that. |
LOL!
Edit...slinging mud in response to mud just gets everyone dirty. |
Just citing some examples why "majority rules" is poor justification for trampling the rights of the few, which is what you suggest.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:46:13 AM · #370 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
The needs (opinions) of the many outweigh the needs (opinions) of the few or the one... |
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:57:35 AM · #371 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it.
or if you guys are just talking politics in general and not discussing ideas for change to do with this website, then carry on. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:10:05 AM · #372 |
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it.
or if you guys are just talking politics in general and not discussing ideas for change to do with this website, then carry on. |
Protecting the minority is a good idea anytime.
While the issues on this site are much smaller scale, the reasoning is the same. Also, I used examples from American History because it's more familiar to me, I'm sure there are examples from civilized countries elsewhere on the globe.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 09:12:32. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:11:09 AM · #373 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It's fine if you want to communicate with him and support him. Great. Do it. Not a problem with that. |
I'm glad that you feel I should be able to exercise my civil rights as an American citizen. It just struck me while reading your post, that were it not for SC posts in these various "comment/editing" threads, they might have petered out by now. (Not pointing at you directly Karmat)
I know, I know, if y'all didn't comment it would be a quiet conspiracy. :) But still, if SC is worried about "forum storms" maybe a little restraint would be helpful. Just a thought. I don't think D&L are going to allow comment deletion by the user so this horse is getting a bit ripe. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:13:59 AM · #374 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it.
or if you guys are just talking politics in general and not discussing ideas for change to do with this website, then carry on. |
Protecting the minority is a good idea anytime.
While the issues on this site are much smaller scale, the reasoning is the same. |
i think that this site is dependent on 'paying' members to be able to maintain it. so what would you do if you owned it? appease the majority or the minority? and remember... no one's civil rights and freedoms are on the line here. it's a 'business' decision.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 09:14:28. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:24:47 AM · #375 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
Do you really believe in the majorities? Have you ever notice that the majorities are always obsolete?
Soon they are sentenced to follow the minority ideas ;) |
I thought all the minority rulers were gone.... well except.... Darn Castro just stepped down. Well, England still has the Queen, but who does she rule? I guess there are still a few Monarchs and dictators left around the world. China is ruled by a minority. But...... they are quiet scared now of their new majority!
Minority ideas aren't always helpful. I was a member of another photo-contest site that listened attentively to a minority of its members and constantly changed almost any aspect of the site that was questioned. The changes made it difficult to enjoy using the site so I departed. That minority was the few users who participated in the forums.
Perhaps a warning for us................ |
|
