| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2008 04:23:36 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...then make a 180 degree turn to say the win is well deserved. |
That was the "respect" to 217 voters. Well deserved in DPC, doesn't mean could deserve same outside somewhere else, and if it does, I totally respect that too. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:26:43 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...then make a 180 degree turn to say the win is well deserved. |
That was the "respect" to 217 voters. Well deserved in DPC, doesn't mean could deserve same outside somewhere else, and if it does, I totally respect that too. |
Swing ....... and a miss (the point that is). |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:37:47 PM · #78 |
I think no one would want to have a challenge with selected judges...
I will start one my own ;) Hope to see you there one day :) |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:41:36 PM · #79 |
| This is the most confusing subject on this site....I don't think that's what the photo "DESERVES?" The whole idea is to put your photo out there for votes and comments. The score it receives from the voters IS what it deserves. There is no conspiracy against anyone or their photo. Even trolls might affect your score but not the standings....You have a right to your comments and opinions. But everyone has a right to their reaction too. What happens when the panel of judges selects differently than you? Are they unqualified. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:45:41 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
....Even trolls might affect your score but not the standings.... |
Trolls? what trolls. You mean "Not so clever DPC voters"? |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:49:10 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Anyone thinks my idea here is good or bad... for the judged challenge? |
Many people have told you they think it's a bad idea.
I didn't express an opinion, but did suggest you do it yourself and see whether people join you, which will tell you much more than simply asking people what they think.
Still waiting to hear you address my suggestion.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:49:50 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Trolls? what trolls. You mean "Not so clever DPC voters"? |
Or the "unenlightened" ;) I mean those imaginary low voting creatures who haunt the site. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:52:11 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Trolls? what trolls. You mean "Not so clever DPC voters"? |
Or the "unenlightened" ;) I mean those imaginary low voting creatures who haunt the site. |
Hehehe... you just watch what you are saying here. Because those trolls belong to DPC community ;) |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 05:07:22 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by neophyte:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Trolls? what trolls. You mean "Not so clever DPC voters"? |
Or the "unenlightened" ;) I mean those imaginary low voting creatures who haunt the site. |
Hehehe... you just watch what you are saying here. Because those trolls belong to DPC community ;) |
I wish they didn't, much better they go and sit under a bridge. Perhaps they could wait for the goats to cross it! This isn't a site for the moronic, it is supposed to be for those who have constructive things to say, to evaluate the shots and vote accordingly. If the 'Trolls' want to play silly buggers, they can go elsewhere to get their infantile kicks!! |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 05:38:58 PM · #85 |
| And all this time I was under the empression that this was a site for learning. Conversation is good, being argumentative is another story. I have never seen or heard of a arguement that was a good conversation. It's all pretty simple in my book 300 people vote you the winner, your the winner period end of story. The Sc does a great job by the way as do the majority of voters, commentor's & Critique's. Time to get over it & move on. :) |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 10:23:13 PM · #86 |
A question to all you professionals;
Who buys your work more, other professionals or the average Joe?
If, as I suspect, the answer is the average Joe, then why would we not want to gather the opinions of those same Joes while learning technique and developing our style?
|
|
|
|
03/03/2008 11:56:22 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
A question to all you professionals;
Who buys your work more, other professionals or the average Joe?
If, as I suspect, the answer is the average Joe, then why would we not want to gather the opinions of those same Joes while learning technique and developing our style? |
I definitely see your point but I'll also offer that we, the DPC voters, are FAR more "picky" than the average Joe. :-) |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 12:13:39 AM · #88 |
OOps, time for another Average Joe contest...Actually, I'd like to say a word in defense of  FocusPoint's comment on the winning and fantastic Visla_Lab. He's entirely within his rights to say what he said, and though I sometimes do not enjoy such abrupt judgments on my entries, it would be too bad to discourage the expression of honest opinion. In this case, however, the adviso in the contest description was to "be creative." |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 12:36:19 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
A question to all you professionals;
Who buys your work more, other professionals or the average Joe?
If, as I suspect, the answer is the average Joe, then why would we not want to gather the opinions of those same Joes while learning technique and developing our style? |
I definitely see your point but I'll also offer that we, the DPC voters, are FAR more "picky" than the average Joe. :-) |
Even better then! We get the whole range of opinions from pro to Joe, from mentor to consumer. I much prefer that to the opinions of a handful. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:07:17 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Anyone thinks my idea here is good or bad... for the judged challenge? |
I don't think it's good, or bad. I have no interest in a judged challenge. I'd always be wondering how the usual group of voters at DPC would have scored my shot. I've embraced the voting process at DPC totally. The voters are NEVER wrong. Embrace it FP. Join the collective. You CAN be assimilated. After looking at your portfolio I can't really understand why you'd want anyone other than DPC voters to score your work. With a little more experience you'll be one of the elite group here who score blues on a regular basis. Sit back. Relax. Enjoy. Use all this literary energy commenting on the next challenge. hehehehe
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:15:44 AM · #91 |
| Not a 'bad' idea, but not a good one. The members/registered users of this site are the judges. If you don't like them, go somewhere else. No need to change what isn't broken. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:22:36 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
...If you don't like them, go somewhere else. |
Thanks for the advice... I will conceder it but I don't have anything against the current rules or challenges. I was asking if we can have a few, maybe even once a year... I just want to see the results, that's all :) I am not going nutz about it, I still enter challenges ;) |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:24:17 AM · #93 |
I'd rather be judged by the whole group. I'm not interested in hand picked judges. As for the ribbon winner, I think it was a creative pet portrait. Not many people can get their dog to hold three balls in it's mouth and sit still for a photo. Geez, most people can't get their own kids to sit still. The red ribbon IMO wasn't creative but it was a pet portrait and the shot was awesome so it deserved a high score definitely. Although I didnt vote, I thought these two wouldve been ribbon winners as well.
 |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:40:03 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
|
One and only shocker to me. Creativity? No, really? I think this dog is the coolest dog on earth right now. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:56:32 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Anyone thinks my idea here is good or bad... for the judged challenge? |
Good and bad.
Good
You get the insight of a few people on your picture. For one shot, of one moment in time, you would get a review telling you the good, the bad, and the ugly. You could then take this info and improve on a subsequent shot.
It is possible, but not guaranteed, that said judges would pick different winners. Of course, this is only good for the ones who would now win, not those who wouldn't.
Bad
Only a limited number of people could have this privilege. Limited either by number of juried contests, or limited by number of entries. How would we decide who could enter? Low scorers who "need" it; top scorers who "deserve" it?
Who are the "judges?" and why? Scalvert and Achoo have a list of ribbons as long as your arm. Do they get to judge? Posthumous obviously knows photography, and stuff, but is not consistently on the front page. Can he be a judge? Who decides, and what criteria should we use? Outside professionals? Will they do it for free? Will they need to be paid? If so, who will pay them? Entry fee? So only those who can afford it can enter (back to first "bad" point.)
Judging, as you propose it, would be very time consuming which ties back into the first two above. Also, I suspect most juried competitions don't get a lot of feedback, but rather are judged by four or five people looking quickly through the entries.
It goes against the whole spirit of the site The site was originally created to allow friends to help eachother become better photographers. Why have a peer-reviewed based web-site, if you aren't going to do peer-reviews?
Personally, I suppose my biggest "against" argument is who are the judges? If site members, who and why? If professionals, who and why?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:20:03 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Personally, I suppose my biggest "against" argument is who are the judges? If site members, who and why? |
I suggested this because we do have club judges in our photography club... local place. And when those people introduced, we hear the experiences they have...and they judge for a long time. I am not saying we should find pros to do judging, I don't know, there must be some respected people, who has judging experiences in the past in DPC. Also, large competitions outside the DPC done quarterly or yearly and they also have very well known photographer judges.
We can't make everyone happy, that's for sure. Even with judged contests, I had questions, and I asked those questions to judges. Here, if I get 2, I can't ask why. Do I have to worry about one vote, well, sometimes I wonder... We just go "ok that's a troll" but is it really all trolls?
So, I do understand everyone's view, but cases made, start with arguments like this one. Sometimes work, sometimes don't :)
Message edited by author 2008-03-04 11:22:01. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:56:15 AM · #97 |
Personally, I don't shoot for mass appeal so I don't focus on what the masses think of my work. In fact, if my stuff had mass appeal it would probably mean that I followed the rules that are understood by the base of voters which I have no interest in doing. I know the rules (I think?) but I don't want to always follow them and that's not understood by many. So for me to enter any Challenge to win would be silly.
When it comes to photography, some voters are very well educated but a lot of them aren't so things will skew on that balance. They might know a few basic things and that's what they look for and judge on. It's not enough to get to get a respectable result. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. That's fine for some but it really stinks for me.
A juried Challenge would be a welcome breath of fresh air and we might find a move away from the the usual images found on the front page. Some respected panel of judges who spend time looking at the images for more than 5 seconds and don't base their ideas solely on the "so-called rules" would be awesome and truly educational.
I think the\is site screams for that kind of diversity and it's lack is why many of the more artistic members seem to fall off and kill their accounts.
Message edited by author 2008-03-04 12:05:35. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 12:06:39 PM · #98 |
Every judge, whether it be the voter population we see today or a select panel of judges, has their bias. If only a certain panel of judges were used then their bias would be applied to every challenge, skewing the results. By having a large body of voters tends to balance everyone's bias.
If you don't like the setup, there are plenty of other sites with different voting strategies that may be more to your liking.
Having said that, we have had master's challenges where only the masters can enter. How about a master's challenge that is open for everyone to enter but only the masters can vote. Master defined using the same criteria as before. It's not a panel of 5 judges but it is a more select group than the general dpc population.
ETA: It would be interesting to see your reaction when your score is actually lower from a panel of judges than it is from the general population. Change the judges?
ETA2: As has already been suggested, set up your own thread with the competition criteria that you want and run with it. What is stopping you?
Message edited by author 2008-03-04 12:11:10. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 12:13:57 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Personally, I don't shoot for mass appeal so I don't focus on what the masses think of my work. In fact, if my stuff had mass appeal it would probably mean that I followed the rules that are understood by the base of voters which I have no interest in doing. I know the rules (I think?) but I don't want to always follow them and that's not understood by many. So for me to enter any Challenge to win would be silly.
When it comes to photography, some voters are very well educated but a lot of them aren't so things will skew on that balance. They might know a few basic things and that's what they look for and judge on. It's not enough to get to get a respectable result. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. That's fine for some but it really stinks for me.
A juried Challenge would be a welcome breath of fresh air and we might find a move away from the the usual images found on the front page. Some respected panel of judges who spend time looking at the images and don't base their ideas solely on the so-called rules would be awesome and truly educational.
I think the\is site screams for that kind of diversity and it's lack is why many of the more artistic members seem to fall off and kill their accounts. |
This, basically, is my feeling as well. I have NO problem with things-as-they-are, voting the way it is. That's the name of our game and I enjoy playing it. But I think it would be very interesting to have occasional, extra juried challenges. I am sure there are amongst us at least a few members with real-life experience jurying competitions; I'm one of them.
And I'm not sure, if we draw our juries from the membership, that real life experience is necessary anyway. In any case, I'd be happy to volunteer as a juror if people wanted me on a panel, and I'm sure we have any number of respected, talented members who would feel the same way. Heck, why don't some of us get together and create our own "jury" for a regular challenge?
Oh, wait, that's already happening :-) Check out the "Posthumous Awards" thread to see a variety of members giving out their own awards to images that have merit in their eyes. And then there's the "Oobie Awards" as well, for Out Of the Box entries worthy of note. The Posthumous ribbons, and others on those thread, are givemn by individuals. The Oobies are voted on by Team Suck juries. I'm equally as proud of my Oobie, my Yappie, and my Posthumous Blue as I am of my handful of "real" DPC ribbons.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 12:16:22 PM · #100 |
| FP, why not start your own monthly/quarterly/yearly thread for a juried free study. You could call it the FocusPoint Freestudy or something and you can administer the thread and the voting process. Allow 50-100 pics or how ever many you feel is the right number and hand pick some judges who would be willing to take the time to go through, vote, comment and add critique. I'm sure there would be no shortage of people here that would be willing to take the time for this project. I feel it could become a nice feature thread on the site, just a thought. Trevor~ |
|
