| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2003 06:30:41 PM · #51 |
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. Natator
Who would have known? :) |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:41:47 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
Very cool bit of insight. Ought to be posted in big, bold letters above the main forums page. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:45:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
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. |
LOL! You're a riot, man. It's always fun when you get going... |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:13:59 PM · #54 |
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? |
Ah, now this is more useful. :) Great example. In this case, I pretty much agree with you - 'Too ambiguous, title too' is pretty dismissive, and would seem to imply that maybe the commenter was not receptive to trying to make a connection where they had no personal point of reference. On the other hand, to dismiss the viewers' reaction as being indicative that they didn't invest enough time or effort in making that connection is somewhat of a presumption on your part. Maybe accurate, maybe not. Some value might be received from that comment, however, in learning that for some viewers, the essence of your work wasn't communicated. At that point you can decide whether to find a way of improving the communication, or simply determining not to bother.
The kind of situation I thought of from your original comment might have been something more along the lines of this scenario: You have knowledge of the mythical 'Katu' rite. You take a picture of some kids in the mall, and their activities remind you of that rite. You take a picture of them and title it 'Katu'. That's something that is simply not going to communicate to a viewer what you mean to portray. Its going to be confusing. And ultimately, the viewer is going to go away with an unsatisfied impression. Similar to Gordon's quote.
And that's not even getting into the challenge issues... |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:59:41 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
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? |
Ah, now this is more useful. :) Great example. In this case, I pretty much agree with you - 'Too ambiguous, title too' is pretty dismissive, and would seem to imply that maybe the commenter was not receptive to trying to make a connection where they had no personal point of reference. On the other hand, to dismiss the viewers' reaction as being indicative that they didn't invest enough time or effort in making that connection is somewhat of a presumption on your part. Maybe accurate, maybe not. Some value might be received from that comment, however, in learning that for some viewers, the essence of your work wasn't communicated. At that point you can decide whether to find a way of improving the communication, or simply determining not to bother.
The kind of situation I thought of from your original comment might have been something more along the lines of this scenario: You have knowledge of the mythical 'Katu' rite. You take a picture of some kids in the mall, and their activities remind you of that rite. You take a picture of them and title it 'Katu'. That's something that is simply not going to communicate to a viewer what you mean to portray. Its going to be confusing. And ultimately, the viewer is going to go away with an unsatisfied impression. Similar to Gordon's quote.
And that's not even getting into the challenge issues... |
Again the presumption is yours. If you read my post more carefully than you did, you'll see these words: Comments on several photos I and others have submitted here indicate that there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts they do not have.
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 22:03:51. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:05:12 PM · #56 |
some might argue your "vote-given" average would indicate that you yourself are quick to make up your mind.
then again, you may be in possession of a 'world-class level of discernment' ... ; )
Originally posted by zeuszen:
there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts the do not have.[/i] |
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:26:02 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
some might argue your "vote-given" average would indicate that you yourself are quick to make up your mind.
then again, you may be in possession of a 'world-class level of discernment' ... ; )
Originally posted by zeuszen:
there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts the do not have.[/i] |
|
Another comment drawing argument from omission. And why is it that some frequently choose to criticize the author when a subject is clearly available for debate? |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:32:13 PM · #58 |
i'm not sure what your first sentence means. that i've deduced your mind set from the available facts?
In this case, the criticism of the author derives from apparent incongruity between the 'practice' and the 'preach'.
lastly, the topic of adding explanatory text to photos visible during voting has been hotly debated in the past - with the overall consensus apparently being that 'a photo should stand on its own. ' Unfortunately this approach tends to favor the superficial treatment. Eye candy without much substance. To get true symbolic power, I think a photo requires context. One of photography's greatest strengths is as an illustrative medium complementing a textual medium.
However, the position that has always won out has been that 'some would use those notes to lobby for better votes', etc.
So that's where we are today ..
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
some might argue your "vote-given" average would indicate that you yourself are quick to make up your mind.
then again, you may be in possession of a 'world-class level of discernment' ... ; )
Originally posted by zeuszen:
there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts the do not have.[/i] |
|
Another comment drawing argument from omission. And why is it that some frequently choose to criticize the author when a subject is clearly available for debate? |
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 22:39:12.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:43:07 PM · #59 |
| I think all that zeuszen is trying to debate is â wouldnât it be nice if people took that little extra time to help them figure what the photograph means.â Before hitting the buttons. I see no reason to argue. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:55:14 PM · #60 |
the only aedequate and proper means to remedy this, would be to supply the missing piece in the text box below the image, which will only be visible to all after the challenge is over. zeuszen
lastly, the topic of adding explanatory text to photos visible during voting has been hotly debated in the past - with the overall consensus apparently being that 'a photo should stand on its own. ' Unfortunately this approach tends to favor the superficial treatment magnetic9999
I believe zeuszen ment for the explanatory text to be read after the challenge. :)
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:03:59 PM · #61 |
Well I've been in favor of having it available during the voting. As a pop-up, if necessary, so those who wish to remain ignorant may do so ...
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 23:04:17. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:20:43 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
...? |
What I mean is this, mag:
⢠I've said, that some voters are quick to make up their minds about facts they do not have.
⢠Your response was, roughly, that I do not practice what I preach, while you refer to my voting statistics.
⢠The subject of this thread is 'Titles'.
If I were you, I'd probably send you a PM or start another thread with the topic: 'Zeuszen is a Hypocrite', if you're so inclined. This way you would have the benefit of personal satisfaction, while contributing no distraction to what could be a simple debate.
⢠I am aware of debates on the subjects of titles and photos, including the mention of explanatory text. My example, however, is directed at the specifics I have already supplied and illustrated (below). It is not directed at the general premise you address. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:22:47 PM · #63 |
| Thanks, jm. (You do have the edge, see?) |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:38:38 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well I've been in favor of having it available during the voting. As a pop-up, if necessary, so those who wish to remain ignorant may do so ... |
I'm beginning to see a use for one as well, although I'm amazed at and grateful for all the options we have here already. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 10:51:36 AM · #65 |
Don't we already have an explanatory comments box that IS visible after the challenge?
What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 11:02:31 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Don't we already have an explanatory comments box that IS visible after the challenge?
What am I missing? |
My suggestion is to have it available during the voting, as an optional pop-up if we'd like to give people the choice of whether or not to read it and contaminate their thought processes (if any).
I believe that people who use the space to lobby for votes will more likely suffer a vote-lowering backlash. But I think people would appreciate knowing that (e.g.) the blue cast was intentional, or I couldn't stand farther to the left because there's a freeway there, stuff like that. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 11:03:32 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Don't we already have an explanatory comments box that IS visible after the challenge?
What am I missing? |
GeneralE: ...having it available during the voting.
Or if you referred to my mention of one... Yes, we do.
Message edited by author 2003-11-14 11:06:56. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 11:43:17 AM · #68 |
Yeah, I was referring to zz's ..
If we already have that function, then what was/is the purpose of the original post?
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Don't we already have an explanatory comments box that IS visible after the challenge?
What am I missing? |
GeneralE: ...having it available during the voting.
Or if you referred to my mention of one... Yes, we do. |
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 11:56:04 AM · #69 |
> magnetic9999
The purpose of the original post, I quote: Comments on several photos I and others have submitted here indicate that there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts the do not have. To these, I want to say: stop, change, restart. ;-
In other words: the purpose was akin to an invitation to consider a few things and/or to share thoughts about the matter addressed.
Message edited by author 2003-11-14 12:01:03. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 12:22:40 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> magnetic9999
The purpose of the original post, I quote: Comments on several photos I and others have submitted here indicate that there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts the do not have. To these, I want to say: stop, change, restart. ;-
In other words: the purpose was akin to an invitation to consider a few things and/or to share thoughts about the matter addressed. |
In other words: What were yous thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 03:43:39 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Again the presumption is yours. If you read my post more carefully than you did, you'll see these words: Comments on several photos I and others have submitted here indicate that there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts they do not have. |
ROTFL! Thanks, I needed a good laugh. :) I can't even agree with you without getting dismissed.
BTW, if someone does not have a fact, how can you fault them for drawing a faulty conclusion? Just as you draw the faulty conclusion that "a fair number of voters are somewhat quick to make up their minds", when you have no facts (that I've seen) to support that conclusion - only inferences, I guess, since you avoid specific instances.
Message edited by author 2003-11-14 15:48:06. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 04:29:23 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
ROTFL! Thanks, I needed a good laugh. :) I can't even agree with you without getting dismissed.
BTW, if someone does not have a fact, how can you fault them for drawing a faulty conclusion? |
My dad used to describe [conservatives] as someone who'd say "My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts!" |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 05:46:21 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Again the presumption is yours. If you read my post more carefully than you did, you'll see these words: Comments on several photos I and others have submitted here indicate that there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts they do not have. |
ROTFL! Thanks, I needed a good laugh. :) I can't even agree with you without getting dismissed.
BTW, if someone does not have a fact, how can you fault them for drawing a faulty conclusion? Just as you draw the faulty conclusion that "a fair number of voters are somewhat quick to make up their minds", when you have no facts (that I've seen) to support that conclusion - only inferences, I guess, since you avoid specific instances. |
a) I didn't 'fault' anyone. The term 'fault' is yours, not mine. I, instead, 'observed'.
b) Support of an evidence of facts illustrating my meaning, again, is available to those who want to see it, where I put it : in the original post. If have neglected to supply footnotes for those who want to split hairs until there is no hair left to split, I apologize and refer any further research to anyone with a sustained interest. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 05:46:29 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My dad used to describe [conservatives] as someone who'd say "My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts!" |
Cute. :) But not quite the same. I think its a given in ZZ's original statement that the viewer doesn't have the facts. It's not a question (as I see it) of ignoring facts that are presented, but of being criticized for making a judgement on facts that aren't present. In being given the right/opportunity/responsibility to judge works annonymously and with a limited context, can you be blamed if your conclusion is flawed based on the limits of that context?
And, I've got no problem with ZZ asking people to take a little more time to consider photos as they vote. Its just that assuming because someone didn't get the context of the photo means they didn't spend enough time on it is itself a conclusion based on inference, not fact. I myself can say that as I vote, I'll spend more time on a picture that I don't initially understand. Sometimes it helps, others not.
It simply seemed a little incongruous to me to be criticizing those who reach a wrong conclusion (or maybe, more specifically, they've determine that they can't reach a concusion) on the context for a photo on the premise that they were "quick to make up their mind about facts they do not have", when the presumption of "quickness" is (as far as I can tell) a fact ZZ does not have. But then, maybe there are facts that I don't have. :)
Peace... |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 06:02:54 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
a) I didn't 'fault' anyone. The term 'fault' is yours, not mine. I, instead, 'observed'. |
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. So its a good thing for voters to be "somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts they do not have". I completely missed the subtlety of your praise.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
b) Support of an evidence of facts illustrating my meaning, again, is available to those who want to see it, where I put it : in the original post. If have neglected to supply footnotes for those who want to split hairs until there is no hair left to split, I apologize and refer any further research to anyone with a sustained interest. |
I guess I'm blind. All I see are vague references. Maybe you and I understand facts in different lights. And hey, if you're bored with this, that's cool. Seems a little closed minded to me, though. I just thought maybe you'd be open to dialog on a subject you brought up. |
|
