|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2009 05:24:34 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by neophyte:
Another thread that wants to try and tell us how we should vote... all this does is discourage people from voting...or skew the votes.... |
How does it do tell you HOW to vote? How does a reminder that you are about to hand out a really low score to a shot, tell people HOW to vote? And, if it "skews the vote" because people may have to explain WHY they are handing out a really low vote, then perhaps, people are not as convinced in their decisions on scores as they would like to believe??? Just a thought. |
Why should anyone have to explain their vote if they don't want to. And it's only the low scores people seem to want explained.... There aren't many threads complaining that people are giving them tens or nines without comments.. I vote whether or not I like a photo and respect every vote whether I agree with it or not. (and I disagree alot) but everyone likes different things and has a right to express thier pleasure or displeasure with thier vote.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2009 05:25:04 PM · #152 |
It seems to me that people would love more feedback, I'm the same.
Perhaps people are reluctant to comment on what they perceive as low scoring entries because they would rather avoid the possibility of the photographer contacting them, possible confrontation, etc.
Perhaps we could have the option of making an 'anonymous comment' about an entry, (a tick box option). I think people would be more likely to leave feedback about why they gave low scores that way.
Apologies if this idea has already been raised. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 05:28:24 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yospiff:
After some recent discussions on the subject, I have realized many of the extremely low votes are not telling me my image sucks, but rather that it does speak to the viewer or meet some other criteria that I will not understand or appreciate. |
Bingo! If more people would understand this, these threads might die out.
R. |
Yeah, BINGO in this statement but, from a differing perspective. One can simply assume that your image may not suck and simply doesn't meet criteria that the voters want to see but, the question will still be "why" and "what about it doesn't interest people?", won't it? How does one learn then? Everyone talks about "learning" from these challenges and comments but, how does one learn then if one can only "assume" that it's not the quality of your image...but, rather it simply doesn't "interest" people? What about the new member who comes in here with a horribly focused shot, over-exposed, under-exposed, terrible angle etc. and keeps scoring in the 1 to 3 ranges with their shots? Should they continue to assume that it's not their photography...it's just that they haven't photographed something that interests the voters and goes on to try differing subjects with the same poor quality? :)
And, I disagree that the idea should be dropped. Obviously, the reason this topic keeps showing up in threads is because it IS of concern to many people in here. If it weren't of concern, no one would bother taking about it, would they? :)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2009 05:31:45 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by GIS_boy:
It seems to me that people would love more feedback, I'm the same.
Perhaps people are reluctant to comment on what they perceive as low scoring entries because they would rather avoid the possibility of the photographer contacting them, possible confrontation, etc.
Perhaps we could have the option of making an 'anonymous comment' about an entry, (a tick box option). I think people would be more likely to leave feedback about why they gave low scores that way.
Apologies if this idea has already been raised. |
Everyone can comment anonymously already. It's part of your preferences in your profile. But, it isn't looked upon as very nice. Members who vote in that manner are often referred to as "Bagheads" (that's because there's a bag headed avatar that shows up beside your comment LOL). While it allows anonyimity during voting, the moment voting is over, the commenter's id is there. :) |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 05:43:30 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yospiff:
After some recent discussions on the subject, I have realized many of the extremely low votes are not telling me my image sucks, but rather that it does speak to the viewer or meet some other criteria that I will not understand or appreciate. |
Bingo! If more people would understand this, these threads might die out.
R. |
Double Bingo! It won't have escaped your notice, Bear, that with a couple of recent honorable exceptions (I'm thinking of  yospiff and NikonJeb), the 'please explain' folks never change their position in these threads anyway? (Not that those two gents were really 'please explainers'; just seekers of the truth) It seems to make no difference how carefully the concept of intellectual freedom is explained ΓΆ€“ by you, usually ΓΆ€“ the relentlessly obtuse remain just that. |
So the fact that you, personally, see or find no reasons for "explainations" means that anyone with thinking outside of that set of your particular criteria are to be considered "relentlessy obtuse"?
It might suggest the same of those who see others' opinions outside of their own as tunnel visioned to one's own perspective, without allowance for others to have a differing of opinion. That would also suggest a tremendous obtuseness within that particular individual.
And, lest "The Calvary" come blaring in to the defense of such a stance, I would suggest that they would also risk appearing obtuse in doing so. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 05:51:17 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
the question will still be "why" and "what about it doesn't interest people?", won't it? How does one learn then? Everyone talks about "learning" from these challenges and comments but, how does one learn then if one can only "assume" that it's not the quality of your image...but, rather it simply doesn't "interest" people? What about the new member who comes in here with a horribly focused shot, over-exposed, under-exposed, terrible angle etc. and keeps scoring in the 1 to 3 ranges with their shots? Should they continue to assume that it's not their photography...it's just that they haven't photographed something that interests the voters and goes on to try differing subjects with the same poor quality? :) |
A valid flipside to the argument. I feel very much on the fence here. I agree with  Photointerest on the desire and need for the feedback, but I also understand how some other folks such as Ubique do not see a reason to spend time on entries that don't catch their interest. I guess it depends on one's personal philosophy and why they are here participating on this site.
Myself, I think I'm just a glutton for punishment.
Message edited by author 2009-02-16 17:52:59. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 06:01:05 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by GIS_boy:
It seems to me that people would love more feedback, I'm the same.
Perhaps people are reluctant to comment on what they perceive as low scoring entries because they would rather avoid the possibility of the photographer contacting them, possible confrontation, etc.
Perhaps we could have the option of making an 'anonymous comment' about an entry, (a tick box option). I think people would be more likely to leave feedback about why they gave low scores that way.
Apologies if this idea has already been raised. |
Everyone can comment anonymously already. It's part of your preferences in your profile. |
I was meaning permanently, not just for the period of the challenge. I know it's not ideal to have permanent 'baghead' comments but I would prefer a baghead comment as apposed to no comment at all.
Message edited by author 2009-02-16 18:01:38. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 06:11:09 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
It might suggest the same of those who see others' opinions outside of their own as tunnel visioned to one's own perspective, without allowance for others to have a differing of opinion. |
Of course you can have your own opinion ... it's just that I don't care what it is. I have explained how I vote only because you asked.
One of the many profound differences apparent between us is that I have no interest in compelling you to vote in any particular way, nor would I presume to ask you to justify how you vote. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 06:17:05 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yospiff:
After some recent discussions on the subject, I have realized many of the extremely low votes are not telling me my image sucks, but rather that it does speak to the viewer or meet some other criteria that I will not understand or appreciate. |
Bingo! If more people would understand this, these threads might die out.
R. |
Double Bingo! It won't have escaped your notice, Bear, that with a couple of recent honorable exceptions (I'm thinking of yospiff and NikonJeb), the 'please explain' folks never change their position in these threads anyway? (Not that those two gents were really 'please explainers'; just seekers of the truth) It seems to make no difference how carefully the concept of intellectual freedom is explained ΓΆ€“ by you, usually ΓΆ€“ the relentlessly obtuse remain just that. |
So the fact that you, personally, see or find no reasons for "explainations" means that anyone with thinking outside of that set of your particular criteria are to be considered "relentlessy obtuse"?
It might suggest the same of those who see others' opinions outside of their own as tunnel visioned to one's own perspective, without allowance for others to have a differing of opinion. That would also suggest a tremendous obtuseness within that particular individual.
And, lest "The Calvary" come blaring in to the defense of such a stance, I would suggest that they would also risk appearing obtuse in doing so. |
Personally, after having read a good dozen or more of your notes in your Photographer's Comments, I have to say I find it ironic that you, of all people, would be championing a call to get people to explain their low votes in the interest of learning from them. You make it quite clear, in many of your write-ups, that you feel your work is above reproach or suggestion. So to then go and be this mighty champion of explaining your vote, to me, is amazingly 'obtuse' as you like to call it. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 06:18:59 PM · #160 |
| I guess that's the point that some are trying to make. We're not trying to get you to justify--that means we think you're wrong. If you are wrong, then we don't care about your vote because it's faulty. However, some people feel that an alternate opinion could be worthwhile and explain something that the photographer just didn't see or never thought about--that's worth knowing. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 06:29:01 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I guess that's the point that some are trying to make. We're not trying to get you to justify--that means we think you're wrong. If you are wrong, then we don't care about your vote because it's faulty. However, some people feel that an alternate opinion could be worthwhile and explain something that the photographer just didn't see or never thought about--that's worth knowing. |
It's definitely worth knowing, for some.
The main point that is being missed here, is that MANDATORY commenting can never work. For many reasons. Not the least of which are:
1) Not everyone wants to hear it.
2) People would just leave bogus comments to get around it, and policing it would be an utter nightmare and waste of valuable SC time and resource.
3) Forcing someone to do something is the surest way of making sure they never do it.
It's a noble concept, but it's a flawed and wasteful concept that, in the end, simply wouldn't work or give the intended results.
As has been mentioned before, if you truly, truly care about why an image that you submitted didn't do well, start a post-challenge result thread about it and ask for critique and feedback. If you do this, and you receive it, be sure to accept it gratefully and heartfeltfully (I just made that word up). I bet diamonds to dollars that if you do this, and take the suggestions and critiques with a grain of salt and an eye to applying them when you can, you'll slowly become a better DPC performer. If that, indeed, is your goal.
If your goal is not to compete on DPC, but rather to try and get your personal vision of artwork accepted here, then you're best off never entering a single challenge, and instead work within the side challenges and other areas of the forums.
If your goal is to simply be patted on the back and told how awesome you are, then Pete help us all ;D |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 07:42:32 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yospiff:
After some recent discussions on the subject, I have realized many of the extremely low votes are not telling me my image sucks, but rather that it does speak to the viewer or meet some other criteria that I will not understand or appreciate. |
Bingo! If more people would understand this, these threads might die out.
R. |
Double Bingo! It won't have escaped your notice, Bear, that with a couple of recent honorable exceptions (I'm thinking of yospiff and NikonJeb), the 'please explain' folks never change their position in these threads anyway? (Not that those two gents were really 'please explainers'; just seekers of the truth) It seems to make no difference how carefully the concept of intellectual freedom is explained ΓΆ€“ by you, usually ΓΆ€“ the relentlessly obtuse remain just that. |
So the fact that you, personally, see or find no reasons for "explainations" means that anyone with thinking outside of that set of your particular criteria are to be considered "relentlessy obtuse"?
It might suggest the same of those who see others' opinions outside of their own as tunnel visioned to one's own perspective, without allowance for others to have a differing of opinion. That would also suggest a tremendous obtuseness within that particular individual.
And, lest "The Calvary" come blaring in to the defense of such a stance, I would suggest that they would also risk appearing obtuse in doing so. |
Personally, after having read a good dozen or more of your notes in your Photographer's Comments, I have to say I find it ironic that you, of all people, would be championing a call to get people to explain their low votes in the interest of learning from them. You make it quite clear, in many of your write-ups, that you feel your work is above reproach or suggestion. So to then go and be this mighty champion of explaining your vote, to me, is amazingly 'obtuse' as you like to call it. |
I see that one of the Ubique's Calvary Members has arrived. ;-P
Having read a good several dozen of your own comments and an entire thread, devoted to them, I have to say that I find it all too typical that you, of all people would be championing the lack of need in explaining your votes since most of your comments tend to consist solely of creative writings.
As for me, thinking of my work as "beyond reproach", you are the only one who thinks that. I certainly don't! As for wanting comments as to why the 1 to 3 votes, had you read my prior posts in this thread, you'll see that my MAIN reasoning behind is, as I've said, because it makes people dig a little deeper into their thinking before hap-hazardly, handing out the 1 to 3 scores. They are literal slaps in the face to the photographer who has taken time to take a shot and enter it whether it fits yours or anyone else's criteria and especially for those who value a shot a maximum value of that 1 to 3 vote on a regular/habitual basis.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2009 08:15:11 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
They are literal slaps in the face to the photographer who has taken time to take a shot and enter it whether it fits yours or anyone else's criteria and especially for those who value a shot a maximum value of that 1 to 3 vote on a regular/habitual basis. |
They aren't literal slaps in the face. The Internet hasn't matured to the point to support such. They are allegorical slaps in the face and, as such, make the point quite well without the need for additional explanation.
DOWN WITH VERBOSITY
UP WITH SNARKINESS
Violinist123 - Snarkiness you can believe in! |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 08:19:19 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yospiff:
After some recent discussions on the subject, I have realized many of the extremely low votes are not telling me my image sucks, but rather that it does speak to the viewer or meet some other criteria that I will not understand or appreciate. |
Bingo! If more people would understand this, these threads might die out.
R. |
Double Bingo! It won't have escaped your notice, Bear, that with a couple of recent honorable exceptions (I'm thinking of yospiff and NikonJeb), the 'please explain' folks never change their position in these threads anyway? (Not that those two gents were really 'please explainers'; just seekers of the truth) It seems to make no difference how carefully the concept of intellectual freedom is explained ΓΆ€“ by you, usually ΓΆ€“ the relentlessly obtuse remain just that. |
So the fact that you, personally, see or find no reasons for "explainations" means that anyone with thinking outside of that set of your particular criteria are to be considered "relentlessy obtuse"?
It might suggest the same of those who see others' opinions outside of their own as tunnel visioned to one's own perspective, without allowance for others to have a differing of opinion. That would also suggest a tremendous obtuseness within that particular individual.
And, lest "The Calvary" come blaring in to the defense of such a stance, I would suggest that they would also risk appearing obtuse in doing so. |
Personally, after having read a good dozen or more of your notes in your Photographer's Comments, I have to say I find it ironic that you, of all people, would be championing a call to get people to explain their low votes in the interest of learning from them. You make it quite clear, in many of your write-ups, that you feel your work is above reproach or suggestion. So to then go and be this mighty champion of explaining your vote, to me, is amazingly 'obtuse' as you like to call it. |
I see that one of the Ubique's Calvary Members has arrived. ;-P
Having read a good several dozen of your own comments and an entire thread, devoted to them, I have to say that I find it all too typical that you, of all people would be championing the lack of need in explaining your votes since most of your comments tend to consist solely of creative writings.
As for me, thinking of my work as "beyond reproach", you are the only one who thinks that. I certainly don't! As for wanting comments as to why the 1 to 3 votes, had you read my prior posts in this thread, you'll see that my MAIN reasoning behind is, as I've said, because it makes people dig a little deeper into their thinking before hap-hazardly, handing out the 1 to 3 scores. They are literal slaps in the face to the photographer who has taken time to take a shot and enter it whether it fits yours or anyone else's criteria and especially for those who value a shot a maximum value of that 1 to 3 vote on a regular/habitual basis. |
Literal slaps in the face? Perhaps to those that don't have the ability to understand that their work isn't above the entire voting scale, no matter what it is. It can be painful and frustrating, but we move on.
Well, most of us do. Some of us refuse to and stick to threads like this because the thought of 1 - 3 votes remains, to them, an unthinkable insult. Also, I don't think that requiring comments makes people think anything or dig any deeper than "crap, this is annoying. ":P" there's my mandatory comment for you."
You simply don't seem to understand that low votes are a part of voting, and not getting comments on them is a part of life, and that the challenges are a game to be played, and as long as people continue to get called out privately and publicly for having the gumption to admit to voting shots low, this will never change (And people won't stop being upset that they get low votes, ever).
I stand by my statement though, regarding your photographer's comments. The evidence is right there, (unless you've gone in and changed them), and the prevailing attitude in them is that no matter what, your photographs have been injured by the voters and many of the commenters and that everything you've done is completely on purpose (and is all the better for it) and woe to the commenter that has suggested otherwise, and then I'm supposed to take you seriously when you want people to be more open about their commenting? Heh.
Message edited by author 2009-02-16 20:20:56. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 09:27:51 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You simply don't seem to understand that low votes are a part of voting, and not getting comments on them is a part of life, and that the challenges are a game to be played, and as long as people continue to get called out privately and publicly for having the gumption to admit to voting shots low, this will never change (And people won't stop being upset that they get low votes, ever). |
Well put. (and alot less harsh than I could've worded it.)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2009 09:30:43 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
some people feel that an alternate opinion could be worthwhile and explain something that the photographer just didn't see or never thought about--that's worth knowing. |
Another "bingo" here. Very well put, Wendy. It's not going to convince anybody to do more commenting though.
Message edited by author 2009-02-16 21:34:12. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 09:50:22 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yospiff:
After some recent discussions on the subject, I have realized many of the extremely low votes are not telling me my image sucks, but rather that it does speak to the viewer or meet some other criteria that I will not understand or appreciate. |
Bingo! If more people would understand this, these threads might die out.
R. |
Double Bingo! It won't have escaped your notice, Bear, that with a couple of recent honorable exceptions (I'm thinking of yospiff and NikonJeb), the 'please explain' folks never change their position in these threads anyway? (Not that those two gents were really 'please explainers'; just seekers of the truth) It seems to make no difference how carefully the concept of intellectual freedom is explained ΓΆ€“ by you, usually ΓΆ€“ the relentlessly obtuse remain just that. |
So the fact that you, personally, see or find no reasons for "explainations" means that anyone with thinking outside of that set of your particular criteria are to be considered "relentlessy obtuse"?
It might suggest the same of those who see others' opinions outside of their own as tunnel visioned to one's own perspective, without allowance for others to have a differing of opinion. That would also suggest a tremendous obtuseness within that particular individual.
And, lest "The Calvary" come blaring in to the defense of such a stance, I would suggest that they would also risk appearing obtuse in doing so. |
Personally, after having read a good dozen or more of your notes in your Photographer's Comments, I have to say I find it ironic that you, of all people, would be championing a call to get people to explain their low votes in the interest of learning from them. You make it quite clear, in many of your write-ups, that you feel your work is above reproach or suggestion. So to then go and be this mighty champion of explaining your vote, to me, is amazingly 'obtuse' as you like to call it. |
I see that one of the Ubique's Calvary Members has arrived. ;-P
Having read a good several dozen of your own comments and an entire thread, devoted to them, I have to say that I find it all too typical that you, of all people would be championing the lack of need in explaining your votes since most of your comments tend to consist solely of creative writings.
As for me, thinking of my work as "beyond reproach", you are the only one who thinks that. I certainly don't! As for wanting comments as to why the 1 to 3 votes, had you read my prior posts in this thread, you'll see that my MAIN reasoning behind is, as I've said, because it makes people dig a little deeper into their thinking before hap-hazardly, handing out the 1 to 3 scores. They are literal slaps in the face to the photographer who has taken time to take a shot and enter it whether it fits yours or anyone else's criteria and especially for those who value a shot a maximum value of that 1 to 3 vote on a regular/habitual basis. |
Literal slaps in the face? Perhaps to those that don't have the ability to understand that their work isn't above the entire voting scale, no matter what it is. It can be painful and frustrating, but we move on.
Well, most of us do. Some of us refuse to and stick to threads like this because the thought of 1 - 3 votes remains, to them, an unthinkable insult. Also, I don't think that requiring comments makes people think anything or dig any deeper than "crap, this is annoying. ":P" there's my mandatory comment for you."
You simply don't seem to understand that low votes are a part of voting, and not getting comments on them is a part of life, and that the challenges are a game to be played, and as long as people continue to get called out privately and publicly for having the gumption to admit to voting shots low, this will never change (And people won't stop being upset that they get low votes, ever).
I stand by my statement though, regarding your photographer's comments. The evidence is right there, (unless you've gone in and changed them), and the prevailing attitude in them is that no matter what, your photographs have been injured by the voters and many of the commenters and that everything you've done is completely on purpose (and is all the better for it) and woe to the commenter that has suggested otherwise, and then I'm supposed to take you seriously when you want people to be more open about their commenting? Heh. |
Ed, you can sling around all of the dirt that you want at me, my work, my thoughts, my opinions, dig through my portfolio and pull out bits and pieces, heck dig through my comments to photographers' shots while you're at it. The fact remains that there are obviously other people in here who have opinions on this issue that are contrary to yours. I think it is THAT fact that you are having trouble with rather than the idea of commenting. I do not agree with you on this point so, go ahead and keep slinging the mud at me for having a different opinion on it than you do.
There are people in here who obviously have the same concerns and opinion as I do on it. Shall all of them be called nuts too? I don't see you tearing anyone else's portfolio apart to make a point. So, perhaps, this is just a personal dislike for me? Don't look now, but I think that it's showing! ;P |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 09:57:43 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Originally posted by vawendy:
some people feel that an alternate opinion could be worthwhile and explain something that the photographer just didn't see or never thought about--that's worth knowing. |
Another "bingo" here. Very well put, Wendy. It's not going to convince anybody to do more commenting though. |
I'm in complete agreement with that, actually. What I'm NOT in agreement with is the idea that requiring comments on low votes will somehow lead to an influx of perceptive and useful low-vote comments. I feel that if someone has something useful to say and the desire to say it, then it will "out" on its own.
Regarding my somewhat tongue-in-cheek remarks earlier, it's not that I don't *appreciate* whatever comments come in, and it's true that you never know when one of them will be really an eye-opener, but still it's been my general experience that comments from people who have hammered on my images (and admitted to it) haven't usually told me anything especially useful. I mean I *accept* the fact that a lot of what I shoot has a limited curb appeal, as it were, and that lots of people just aren't gonna relate to it. Hell, I *embrace* that fact.
So my remark re: being more interested in comments from the people who scored me middle-of-the-scale is actually pretty accurate, because these are the folks that to some extent are disposed to more-or-less *like* my image, or at least not to *hate* it, and their comments on what kept the image from scoring higher in their eyes are very often revealing to me.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-02-16 21:57:57.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2009 10:10:35 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yospiff:
Originally posted by vawendy:
some people feel that an alternate opinion could be worthwhile and explain something that the photographer just didn't see or never thought about--that's worth knowing. |
Another "bingo" here. Very well put, Wendy. It's not going to convince anybody to do more commenting though. |
I'm in complete agreement with that, actually. What I'm NOT in agreement with is the idea that requiring comments on low votes will somehow lead to an influx of perceptive and useful low-vote comments. I feel that if someone has something useful to say and the desire to say it, then it will "out" on its own.
Regarding my somewhat tongue-in-cheek remarks earlier, it's not that I don't *appreciate* whatever comments come in, and it's true that you never know when one of them will be really an eye-opener, but still it's been my general experience that comments from people who have hammered on my images (and admitted to it) haven't usually told me anything especially useful. I mean I *accept* the fact that a lot of what I shoot has a limited curb appeal, as it were, and that lots of people just aren't gonna relate to it. Hell, I *embrace* that fact.
So my remark re: being more interested in comments from the people who scored me middle-of-the-scale is actually pretty accurate, because these are the folks that to some extent are disposed to more-or-less *like* my image, or at least not to *hate* it, and their comments on what kept the image from scoring higher in their eyes are very often revealing to me.
R. |
You have a point there in the mid-range vote comments being the more meaningful. Actually, it's a very good point. Those who have voted extremely low are less likely to give anything meaningful because they've *hated* the shot, while those who voted it mid-range have some respect or *like* for the image and therefore, are more likely to have some interesting comments that may be more informative. Fortunately, they tend to be the ones who do comment more often than the low scorers. The high scorers tend to comment more too but, they are generally simply more of a complimentary comment such as "great shot" or "fabulous" than aimed at critiquing the shot in any way.
In many senses, it kind of stands to reason that the 1 to 3 score voters would tend to either dislike or *hate* or disregard the shot so greatly that they'd not want to bother commenting on it, the mid-range score voters tend to give reasons for the mid-range more readily and the high score voters tend to more or less, *compliment* in their comments as it's less likely to critique something that one finds near or at the *great* level.
Good point! |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 10:17:59 PM · #170 |
| Interestingly enough, instead of convincing me to comment more, this thread has me questioning whether I should be commenting at all on photos unless they are positive comments. It seems that most people don't care for comments that are criticism, whether constructive or not. That sounds sarcastic--and I don't mean it to be. I don't have much experience on this, since I've only had 2 comments that were unsolicited criticisms. (I've only been on for 2 weeks). If most people are looking at my comments, checking out my profile and seeing that my average is only 5.5, and finding me not worthy, should I bother leaving comments? |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 10:20:41 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Literal slaps in the face? Perhaps to those that don't have the ability to understand that their work isn't above the entire voting scale, no matter what it is. It can be painful and frustrating, but we move on.
Well, most of us do. Some of us refuse to and stick to threads like this because the thought of 1 - 3 votes remains, to them, an unthinkable insult. Also, I don't think that requiring comments makes people think anything or dig any deeper than "crap, this is annoying. ":P" there's my mandatory comment for you."
You simply don't seem to understand that low votes are a part of voting, and not getting comments on them is a part of life, and that the challenges are a game to be played, and as long as people continue to get called out privately and publicly for having the gumption to admit to voting shots low, this will never change (And people won't stop being upset that they get low votes, ever).
I stand by my statement though, regarding your photographer's comments. The evidence is right there, (unless you've gone in and changed them), and the prevailing attitude in them is that no matter what, your photographs have been injured by the voters and many of the commenters and that everything you've done is completely on purpose (and is all the better for it) and woe to the commenter that has suggested otherwise, and then I'm supposed to take you seriously when you want people to be more open about their commenting? Heh. |
Ed, you can sling around all of the dirt that you want at me, my work, my thoughts, my opinions, dig through my portfolio and pull out bits and pieces, heck dig through my comments to photographers' shots while you're at it. The fact remains that there are obviously other people in here who have opinions on this issue that are contrary to yours. I think it is THAT fact that you are having trouble with rather than the idea of commenting. I do not agree with you on this point so, go ahead and keep slinging the mud at me for having a different opinion on it than you do.
There are people in here who obviously have the same concerns and opinion as I do on it. Shall all of them be called nuts too? I don't see you tearing anyone else's portfolio apart to make a point. So, perhaps, this is just a personal dislike for me? Don't look now, but I think that it's showing! ;P |
I don't actually have an opinion of you as a person one way or another. I'm simply pointing out some things that I found to run contrary to your statements, that you yourself have said. I've also never called you 'nuts', or anything else for that matter. Nor have I 'torn apart' your portfolio. I've mentioned that you've said things in your photographer's comments that run contrary to your views here. Nobody else has written the same sorts of things that you have that do this.
Take what I have to say as personally as you want to, but the only agenda I have here is to try and show that mandatory commenting is a lose/lose situation, and I felt obligated to point out what I thought were inconsistencies in your stances.
Whether I'm right or wrong, that's for others to decide, and at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter either way.
I'm also not against more commenting. I would LOVE more commenting. I would get behind all kinds of ideas to boost commenting, but mandatory commenting on lower votes simply is not one of them. It is the wrong way to go. It masks the real problem, and causes more than it would be attempting to fix.
If we really want to boost commenting we first have to recognize why people aren't commenting, and I can tell you right now, that it's not because we're not MAKING people comment.
So for all of us, we need to open our brains a bit and start identifying the real problems and perhaps finding real, solid, positive ways of getting people to feel good about leaving more comments.
EDIT: I thought I'd point out that one of the oldest tricks in the book is the ol' "You don't like me because I have a strong opinion!" gambit, and I'm not going to bite on it ;)
Message edited by author 2009-02-16 22:25:58. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 10:27:37 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Interestingly enough, instead of convincing me to comment more, this thread has me questioning whether I should be commenting at all on photos unless they are positive comments. It seems that most people don't care for comments that are criticism, whether constructive or not. That sounds sarcastic--and I don't mean it to be. I don't have much experience on this, since I've only had 2 comments that were unsolicited criticisms. (I've only been on for 2 weeks). If most people are looking at my comments, checking out my profile and seeing that my average is only 5.5, and finding me not worthy, should I bother leaving comments? |
Please, please, don't think that! I loooove critical comments. Praise makes me feel good, but does nothing towards improving my photography, nor yours.
I think what you're seeing here is the vocal minority. Most people (I choose to believe) like getting comments, and are able to sort out for themselves what's worthwhile to them and what's not.
I'm a strong believer in the idea that criticizing others work is an excellent way, perhaps the best way, to learn to criticize one's own. And if I were a good enough photographer that your comments would not be useful to me (which I'm not), I should also be confident enough in my own work to not get personally offended by them, and to recognize their importance to your learning. |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 10:34:29 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Literal slaps in the face? Perhaps to those that don't have the ability to understand that their work isn't above the entire voting scale, no matter what it is. It can be painful and frustrating, but we move on.
Well, most of us do. Some of us refuse to and stick to threads like this because the thought of 1 - 3 votes remains, to them, an unthinkable insult. Also, I don't think that requiring comments makes people think anything or dig any deeper than "crap, this is annoying. ":P" there's my mandatory comment for you."
You simply don't seem to understand that low votes are a part of voting, and not getting comments on them is a part of life, and that the challenges are a game to be played, and as long as people continue to get called out privately and publicly for having the gumption to admit to voting shots low, this will never change (And people won't stop being upset that they get low votes, ever).
I stand by my statement though, regarding your photographer's comments. The evidence is right there, (unless you've gone in and changed them), and the prevailing attitude in them is that no matter what, your photographs have been injured by the voters and many of the commenters and that everything you've done is completely on purpose (and is all the better for it) and woe to the commenter that has suggested otherwise, and then I'm supposed to take you seriously when you want people to be more open about their commenting? Heh. |
Ed, you can sling around all of the dirt that you want at me, my work, my thoughts, my opinions, dig through my portfolio and pull out bits and pieces, heck dig through my comments to photographers' shots while you're at it. The fact remains that there are obviously other people in here who have opinions on this issue that are contrary to yours. I think it is THAT fact that you are having trouble with rather than the idea of commenting. I do not agree with you on this point so, go ahead and keep slinging the mud at me for having a different opinion on it than you do.
There are people in here who obviously have the same concerns and opinion as I do on it. Shall all of them be called nuts too? I don't see you tearing anyone else's portfolio apart to make a point. So, perhaps, this is just a personal dislike for me? Don't look now, but I think that it's showing! ;P |
I don't actually have an opinion of you as a person one way or another. I'm simply pointing out some things that I found to run contrary to your statements, that you yourself have said. I've also never called you 'nuts', or anything else for that matter. Nor have I 'torn apart' your portfolio. I've mentioned that you've said things in your photographer's comments that run contrary to your views here. Nobody else has written the same sorts of things that you have that do this.
Take what I have to say as personally as you want to, but the only agenda I have here is to try and show that mandatory commenting is a lose/lose situation, and I felt obligated to point out what I thought were inconsistencies in your stances.
Whether I'm right or wrong, that's for others to decide, and at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter either way.
I'm also not against more commenting. I would LOVE more commenting. I would get behind all kinds of ideas to boost commenting, but mandatory commenting on lower votes simply is not one of them. It is the wrong way to go. It masks the real problem, and causes more than it would be attempting to fix.
If we really want to boost commenting we first have to recognize why people aren't commenting, and I can tell you right now, that it's not because we're not MAKING people comment.
So for all of us, we need to open our brains a bit and start identifying the real problems and perhaps finding real, solid, positive ways of getting people to feel good about leaving more comments. |
Ed, if I had wanted to, I could have said the same about your own photographer's notes. I didn't think it was necessary because I don't feel the need to dig in that manner to find something to make a point on this topic.
My original point behind the pop-up box for the 1 to 3 votes was that it made the voter THINK more about giving out 1 to 3 votes before giving them. Not that I was advocating making comments mandatory, but simply that it gives the voter a moment's pause to re-think the fact that they are about to hand out an extremely low vote before they do it. As I said earlier on, when I first started here, that pop-up box was in effect. It made me stop and think about the photo a second time before I handed out the score. It didn't MAKE me have to comment. It wasn't mandatory but, what it did do, was to make me stop and think about what score I was handing out and quickly re-evaluate it in my mind. If I still felt it deserved that low a vote....it got it, whether I had a comment for it or not but, I did try to explain the why if I could. It also tended to create a bit of resistance for those who felt the need to go through each challenge, easily and freely handing out the 1 to 3 votes quickly and easily and without much thought. In all reality, take a look at some of the 1 to 3 votes that have been handed out on some of your shots. Do you really think that your photos were worthy of that low a score from anyone? I can say that they didn't. That was my point.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2009 10:36:03 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
[quote=PhotoInterest] [quote=K10DGuy]
EDIT: I thought I'd point out that one of the oldest tricks in the book is the ol' "You don't like me because I have a strong opinion!" gambit, and I'm not going to bite on it ;) |
Oh for Pete's sake, Ed...take a chill pill, will ya?! ;-) |
|
|
|
02/16/2009 10:37:54 PM · #175 |
I'd say that last comment applies to everybody, or this thread will be changing its location.
If you have something to say on the subject feel free to post, if you only have things to say about each other you can unplug your keyboard ...
Message edited by author 2009-02-16 22:38:09. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:27:01 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:27:01 PM EDT.
|
