| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2003 03:06:37 PM · #26 |
@ Zeuszen, what are you chipping your teeth at? I'm not making sense of this thread. What is it you are really trying to say? (in 100 words or less :-p )
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:11:53 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by mk:
Modest degrees of clarity might best be added using language that us dumb folks can comprehend. |
If you can say it better, you should. |
From the FAQ at //www.plainenglish.co.uk
What's wrong with gobbledygook?
We can't put it better than a nurse who wrote to us about a baffling memo. She said that 'receiving information in this form makes us feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated and angry, and it causes a divide between us and the writer.'
I guess it all depends if you would prefer to be heard, or understood. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:15:04 PM · #28 |
A. The photo title needs to be a common phrase.
B. The photo should be adequately represented by its title.
As far as I'm concerned, if A or B is not true, the photo gets a 1 for a score - didn't meet the challenge. If they're both true, the photo gets judged on its merits, not on how cute or clever the saying is.
However, if one photo is an entertaining and/or imaginative depiction of its phrase, and of equal technical quality to a standard or predictable representation, I guess I would rate it a little higher. And I would expect the same treatment.
Note - I said a LITTLE HIGHER for more imagination, not slashing points because it's a standard representation.
If we agree that there should be a real premium on imagination, then we should allow all kinds of digital editing. On, wait, that's a different thread.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:24:04 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
this is the age-old 'if people only got what i was trying to say/do, it would rock their universe' rant
No, it is not. It is, instead, a caution motivated by a desire to add a modest degree of clarity to a process, precisely to avoid the kind of scenario you paint. |
Of course it is. :) You're being just as prejudiced when you assume that someone failed to spend the required time analysing a picture to come to grips with an arcane title, that they are just too quick with their assesment, as you accuse them of being in making that assesment. I suspect in most, if not all, cases you simply assume that the voter made a snap judgement, when in fact they may have spent some time, even made extra effort, to try to understand the title, but the clues just weren't sufficient.
Maybe. It's all ambiguous and prone to assumption when the picture and voters in question are annonymous. |
I have no interest in pursuing the attributes you ascribe me, nor do see any purpose in fostering any ambiguity. There is both an integrity of process and my self-imposed obligations, which prevent me from satisfying your appetite. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:25:17 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
@ Zeuszen, what are you chipping your teeth at? I'm not making sense of this thread. What is it you are really trying to say? (in 100 words or less :-p ) |
Read the original post. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:26:13 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by mk:
Modest degrees of clarity might best be added using language that us dumb folks can comprehend. |
If you can say it better, you should. |
From the FAQ at //www.plainenglish.co.uk
What's wrong with gobbledygook?
We can't put it better than a nurse who wrote to us about a baffling memo. She said that 'receiving information in this form makes us feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated and angry, and it causes a divide between us and the writer.'
I guess it all depends if you would prefer to be heard, or understood. |
And on what you make of it. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:28:14 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by wkmen:
A. The photo title needs to be a common phrase.
B. The photo should be adequately represented by its title.
As far as I'm concerned, if A or B is not true, the photo gets a 1 for a score - didn't meet the challenge. If they're both true, the photo gets judged on its merits, not on how cute or clever the saying is.
However, if one photo is an entertaining and/or imaginative depiction of its phrase, and of equal technical quality to a standard or predictable representation, I guess I would rate it a little higher. And I would expect the same treatment.
Note - I said a LITTLE HIGHER for more imagination, not slashing points because it's a standard representation.
If we agree that there should be a real premium on imagination, then we should allow all kinds of digital editing. On, wait, that's a different thread. |
Yes, it is a different challenge, too. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:29:04 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:31:07 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It's not about winning or a market, nor about forcing anyone or anything. It's a mere point, which you may choose to either weigh or discard. |
Hrm, maybe I didnt understand the point then. I have to admit that it becomes difficult to break it down into bite-sized understandable chunks sometimes. I thought the drift was that you wanted to be able to have additional written details to explain to the viewer what your photograph was about because either your title wasnt enough of an explanation or your photograph wasnt (or both). A lot of people dont pay attention to the title, unless the challenge details tell them as in the case of book titles. But if you dont care if people dont see the connection then what are you asking for them to do?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 03:57:50 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It's not about winning or a market, nor about forcing anyone or anything. It's a mere point, which you may choose to either weigh or discard. |
Hrm, maybe I didnt understand the point then. I have to admit that it becomes difficult to break it down into bite-sized understandable chunks sometimes. I thought the drift was that you wanted to be able to have additional written details to explain to the viewer what your photograph was about because either your title wasnt enough of an explanation or your photograph wasnt (or both). A lot of people dont pay attention to the title, unless the challenge details tell them as in the case of book titles. But if you dont care if people dont see the connection then what are you asking for them to do? |
What can happen, mood, is you take a pitcher of some exotica, by most people's standards, say, an initiation rite of some missed tribe in the Amazon evoking a 'Katu' (not a real word or name, by the way). You entitle your pitcher 'Katu'.
Of course, you can title the picture 'Initiation Rite of the X Tribe Amazon Evoking A Bird'. I would think you agree that 'Katu' would be the better title, even if it awards the DPCers, temporarily, with no more than two syllables of poetry or a charm, perhaps. As a courtesy to the viewer, you supply a little information in the text box beneath the image, so he/she may learn what a Katu is, where the picture comes from, what, really, it is a picture of, which is visible to them when practical.
Given this, would you consider someone leaving a comment like 'Too ambiguous, title too' (or something similar) as apt or good practice? |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 04:08:39 PM · #36 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 04:25:49 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Eschew obfuscation. |
It ain't easy. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 04:43:52 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Eschew obfuscation. |
It ain't easy. |
I know ... that's why I printed a banner of it in 12" letters to hang in the medical clinic where I used to work. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 04:48:40 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
What can happen, mood, is you take a pitcher of some exotica, by most people's standards, say, an initiation rite of some missed tribe in the Amazon evoking a 'Katu' (not a real word or name, by the way). You entitle your pitcher 'Katu'.
Of course, you can title the picture 'Initiation Rite of the X Tribe Amazon Evoking A Bird'. I would think you agree that 'Katu' would be the better title, even if it awards the DPCers, temporarily, with no more than two syllables of poetry or a charm, perhaps. As a courtesy to the viewer, you supply a little information in the text box beneath the image, so he/she may learn what a Katu is, where the picture comes from, what, really, it is a picture of, which is visible to them when practical.
Given this, would you consider someone leaving a comment like 'Too ambiguous, title too' (or something similar) as apt or good practice? |
I think there would be enough clues in the image to at least hint at what it is trying to capture. Title or not you can not really argue with the intent in the example you mentioned. If I were to see that image and not understand the title then I would assume there was some relevancy instead of assuming my ignorance of initiation rituals of missing tribes and consider it off topic. I dont really think detail boxes beneath images are going to stop the ignorant voter. I find some people purposefully look at the submissions with the intent of finding flaws rather than to appreciate them for what they are.
That said, my original post still stands. There will be those who enjoy the image for what it is. Either through the obvious depiction or their own personal interpretation. There will be some who do not look any deeper than if the challenge requirement is met. If someone leaves me a comment such as 'too ambigious, title too' then I shall assume either the photograph is (esp if other people say similar things), or s/he didnt have a clue. It is neither apt or good practice.
Not everyone will 'get it', the voters are far too different for that to happen. So you either give the voters what they want or else be delighted with the small few that appreciate the photograph without needing to be spoon-fed the intent or context.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:00:07 PM · #40 |
Fog Index
The Fog Index is a proven method of analyzing written material to see how easy it is to read and understand. The "ideal" Fog Index level is 7 or 8. A level above 12 indicates the writing sample is too hard for most people to read.
Just for fun, I ran your original post Zues, thru the Fog Index calculation. If I didnt make any mistakes, it worked out to a Fox Index level of 12.36. ( too hard for most to read )
Just goofin though, so please dont take it personally. :)
Fog Index Calc Info
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:03:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
Fog Index
The Fog Index is a proven method of analyzing written material to see how easy it is to read and understand. The "ideal" Fog Index level is 7 or 8. A level above 12 indicates the writing sample is too hard for most people to read.
Just for fun, I ran your original post Zues, thru the Fog Index calculation. If I didnt make any mistakes, it worked out to a Fox Index level of 12.36. ( too hard for most to read )
Just goofin though, so please dont take it personally. :)
Fog Index Calc Info |
Flesch Reading Ease 50.9
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12.0
That is, roughly 50% of the population have no clue what was said, and it is estimated that a reader would have to have completed 12th grade to comprehend the contents. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:17:31 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
What can happen, mood, is you take a pitcher of some exotica, by most people's standards, say, an initiation rite of some missed tribe in the Amazon evoking a 'Katu' (not a real word or name, by the way). You entitle your pitcher 'Katu'.
Of course, you can title the picture 'Initiation Rite of the X Tribe Amazon Evoking A Bird'. I would think you agree that 'Katu' would be the better title, even if it awards the DPCers, temporarily, with no more than two syllables of poetry or a charm, perhaps. As a courtesy to the viewer, you supply a little information in the text box beneath the image, so he/she may learn what a Katu is, where the picture comes from, what, really, it is a picture of, which is visible to them when practical.
Given this, would you consider someone leaving a comment like 'Too ambiguous, title too' (or something similar) as apt or good practice? |
I think there would be enough clues in the image to at least hint at what it is trying to capture. Title or not you can not really argue with the intent in the example you mentioned. If I were to see that image and not understand the title then I would assume there was some relevancy instead of assuming my ignorance of initiation rituals of missing tribes and consider it off topic. I dont really think detail boxes beneath images are going to stop the ignorant voter. I find some people purposefully look at the submissions with the intent of finding flaws rather than to appreciate them for what they are.
That said, my original post still stands. There will be those who enjoy the image for what it is. Either through the obvious depiction or their own personal interpretation. There will be some who do not look any deeper than if the challenge requirement is met. If someone leaves me a comment such as 'too ambigious, title too' then I shall assume either the photograph is (esp if other people say similar things), or s/he didnt have a clue. It is neither apt or good practice.
Not everyone will 'get it', the voters are far too different for that to happen. So you either give the voters what they want or else be delighted with the small few that appreciate the photograph without needing to be spoon-fed the intent or context. |
Well said, mood.
I occasionally delight in spoon-feeding though. I mean, it could be taken as an attribute of care, if not for the voters then for the matter. (?) |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:19:01 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scab-lab:
Fog Index
The Fog Index is a proven method of analyzing written material to see how easy it is to read and understand. The "ideal" Fog Index level is 7 or 8. A level above 12 indicates the writing sample is too hard for most people to read.
Just for fun, I ran your original post Zues, thru the Fog Index calculation. If I didnt make any mistakes, it worked out to a Fox Index level of 12.36. ( too hard for most to read )
Just goofin though, so please dont take it personally. :)
Fog Index Calc Info |
Flesch Reading Ease 50.9
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12.0
That is, roughly 50% of the population have no clue what was said, and it is estimated that a reader would have to have completed 12th grade to comprehend the contents. |
Oh my.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:19:02 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by wkmen:
A. The photo title needs to be a common phrase.
B. The photo should be adequately represented by its title.
As far as I'm concerned, if A or B is not true, the photo gets a 1 for a score - didn't meet the challenge. |
But point A there is invalid when you consider the audience. Not an issue for me, I am from an almost civilised English speaking country.
What about some poor bugger from Molvania where:
"Putting the potato behind the donkey"
"An ego as big as a carp"
and the rather over used phrase
"The bride had piles the size of an over fertilised artichoke"
All of those for Molvanians would be "common phrases". What right does anyone else have to say "I've not heard of that phrase here in America/England/Lithuania, so I'll give it a 1.
I am sure if some Molvanian gave your photo a 1 as they had never heard what you would consider a common phrase, then you'd feel they were being unjust.
P.S. I am mid reading The Jetlag Travel Guide to Molvania - "A land untouched by modern dentistry". Absolutely hillarious, I could not reccommend it higher. Further details available if required.
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 17:20:40.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:32:37 PM · #45 |
it is estimated that a reader would have to have completed 12th grade to comprehend the contents.
Do you mean I have to get that 12th grade education to understand zeuszen? |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:35:05 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Well said, mood.
I occasionally delight in spoon-feeding though. I mean, it could be taken as an attribute of care, if not for the voters then for the matter. (?) |
The problem with spoon-feeding is they can still spit it back out at you. So what do you do? Add a little honey to make them digest it better or end up with it all over your face?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:07:28 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by wkmen:
A. The photo title needs to be a common phrase.
B. The photo should be adequately represented by its title.
As far as I'm concerned, if A or B is not true, the photo gets a 1 for a score - didn't meet the challenge. |
But point A there is invalid when you consider the audience. Not an issue for me, I am from an almost civilised English speaking country.
What about some poor bugger from Molvania where:
"Putting the potato behind the donkey"
"An ego as big as a carp"
and the rather over used phrase
"The bride had piles the size of an over fertilised artichoke"
All of those for Molvanians would be "common phrases". What right does anyone else have to say "I've not heard of that phrase here in America/England/Lithuania, so I'll give it a 1.
I am sure if some Molvanian gave your photo a 1 as they had never heard what you would consider a common phrase, then you'd feel they were being unjust.
P.S. I am mid reading The Jetlag Travel Guide to Molvania - "A land untouched by modern dentistry". Absolutely hillarious, I could not reccommend it higher. Further details available if required. |
Lol, nat, and a vivid illustration at less than 12.3, thank god. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:09:20 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
it is estimated that a reader would have to have completed 12th grade to comprehend the contents.
Do you mean I have to get that 12th grade education to understand zeuszen? |
Your overqualified, Ritz. I have yet to match your edge. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:19:20 PM · #49 |
| zeuszen, with me you'll only need a 3rd grade education to understand. Then again I get easily confused and forget what I ment to.........:) |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:28:14 PM · #50 |
It's ok for those of you that had a school!
Here we used to just sit around a dead cow for 4 hours every 8th day and they termed that our education.
Things have improved here though since I was a kid. The cow is now plastic and doesn't smell quite as badly.
|
|
