| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2009 04:13:40 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
Originally posted by dknourek:
I like my little room here, the floor and walls are nice and soft and got this cool jacket that gives you a great big hug, and the people are so very nice, even the guy above me that likes to play with and occasionally burn his woodie... |
You and Art got rooms? I am sleeping in an old VW van with three flat tires (I am sure there would be four flat tires if it had four tires) out in the parking lot. It wouldn't be so bad if the roof didn't leak and if those dang kids would go away. |
i stayed there once! f'ing Reno. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 04:54:27 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by muckpond:
oh, ursula. you just want me to come be your yellowstone housepet.
...and i would! |
I need a pet :)
(for bear bait, that is) |
*jumps up and down* pick me! pick me! |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:22:23 PM · #153 |
What's all this code? SC, DPC?
I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Is there anybody out there? |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:22:25 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Simms:
Although a couple of the staff could pull their weight a bit more, some of them just seem to come here as they have nowhere else to go and seem completely bored with hotel life in general. |
I was removed from the SC when I didn't do anything for awhile so they must be doing something somewhere. Or something. |
Time to start another crusade -
P u t  MK BACK! Seriously.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2009 06:20:17 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Time to start another crusade -
P u t MK BACK! Seriously. |
Eek...thanks but no thanks. :) I've already been put back once and I think that was plenty. I definitely fall into the category that Simms is complaining about - I've completely lost interest in edit this, don't edit that, major elements, the spirit of self portraits not taken by one's self, dust bunnies, lens boogies and the whole mess. I've done more photography in my two year hiatus than I did in the five years previous...and I'm lovin' it. :) |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 06:22:09 PM · #156 |
This isn't just about the future of DPC. The future of the entire Internet and possibly civilisation as we know it is at stake.
Stupid spammers. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 09:08:09 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
May 2009 - newly registered users: 683
June 2009 (thru the time of this post) - newly registered users: 367
If DPC is broken, there sure are a lot of newbies out there interested in a bad product. ??? |
i'd like to think that the site is a bar, where,
we keep coming back not because bartender L serves killer cocktails, but because of the regular customers who visits. sure, the drinks are good conversation pieces, but the real attraction is still the regulars (and the occasional new member). the bar would die without its regulars |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 09:26:19 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
May 2009 - newly registered users: 683
June 2009 (thru the time of this post) - newly registered users: 367
If DPC is broken, there sure are a lot of newbies out there interested in a bad product. ??? |
i'd like to think that the site is a bar, where,
we keep coming back not because bartender L serves killer cocktails, but because of the regular customers who visits. sure, the drinks are good conversation pieces, but the real attraction is still the regulars (and the occasional new member). the bar would die without its regulars |
I agree, because, sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name, and they're always glad you came. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 12:47:11 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by karmat:
Simms, just to make sure I'm understanding you -- entering challenges here indicates your level of passion for (and knowledge of) photography? |
Not at all - taking photos and sharing them on this site would reflect your passion for the craft, especially if you are one of the rulemakers on a site such as this.
Look, I know a lot of you guys are a lot better arguing than me and you all love to get your teeth stuck into a debate. But I am sure you understand what I am saying. |
Actually, no I obviously don't understand what you are saying, because when I asked if I was understanding you, you said, "not at all." :(
Taking photos and sharing them on this site would reflect a passion for taking photos and sharing them with this site. I took over 500 pictures in May (it was a slow month), but only put a handful on dpc. Why? They weren't relevant to anything that was going on at the time, and they did have a purpose elsewhere (but perhaps not online).
I'm not trying to argue with you, I am genuinely interested in understanding how entering pictures on dpc equates passion for the craft. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:42:30 AM · #160 |
I can be like the weird guy who tries to pick up bar queens... What would the DPC equivalent be for that? Actually if I go to the bar, all I do is sit and chill out and have a beer or two. I dont engage in much conversation with people because they honestly arent all that interested in me. I guess the same goes here. I am just a fly on the wall, I can be content with that.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:48:07 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by mgarsteck:
I can be like the weird guy who tries to pick up bar queens... What would the DPC equivalent be for that? Actually if I go to the bar, all I do is sit and chill out and have a beer or two. I dont engage in much conversation with people because they honestly arent all that interested in me. I guess the same goes here. I am just a fly on the wall, I can be content with that. |
Well lucky for us, Leroy has left the building!!!
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:49:35 AM · #162 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by karmat:
Simms, just to make sure I'm understanding you -- entering challenges here indicates your level of passion for (and knowledge of) photography? |
Not at all - taking photos and sharing them on this site would reflect your passion for the craft, especially if you are one of the rulemakers on a site such as this.
Look, I know a lot of you guys are a lot better arguing than me and you all love to get your teeth stuck into a debate. But I am sure you understand what I am saying. |
Actually, no I obviously don't understand what you are saying, because when I asked if I was understanding you, you said, "not at all." :(
Taking photos and sharing them on this site would reflect a passion for taking photos and sharing them with this site. I took over 500 pictures in May (it was a slow month), but only put a handful on dpc. Why? They weren't relevant to anything that was going on at the time, and they did have a purpose elsewhere (but perhaps not online).
I'm not trying to argue with you, I am genuinely interested in understanding how entering pictures on dpc equates passion for the craft. |
I think  Simms is talking about perceived passion, or how it appears to the general population of the site. You two are discussing different concepts. Apparent vs actual. If you had a roommate that swore he was a photographer and said he lived and breathed everything photography but you never saw a camera in his hand, would you believe him? Furthermore, I think the reference to challenges specifically is valid. The central part of the site is the challenges. The top left of the page describes the site thusly "a digital photography contest." If SC is no longer passionate about challenges, where does that leave them? I agree that there are many facets to the site and it is obviously not just the challenges, but since being an arbiter for challenges and that which goes along with them is a central job of the SC, it is worth consideration. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 08:51:26 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
but since being an arbiter for challenges and that which goes along with them is a central job of the SC, it is worth consideration. |
but how are we "arbiters for challenges??!" we don't choose the challenges (most come from the Challenge Suggestions forum), we don't schedule them (langdon does), we don't remove images that 'do not meet the challenge' (not our place to say), and we don't choose the winners (you do.) all we do is monitor the forums, answer questions, debate rules violations, and try to consolidate public opinion for discussion with langdon.
that's my point in this whole thread -- i don't get how you guys think we're stifling your creativity. a lot of the stuff we do is mind-numbing, but we do it because we want to see the community thrive.
now, are the rules outdated? possibly to some extent, although they have evolved to include some broad changes (you used to not be able to spot edit at ALL in basic, HDR is allowed in advanced, etc.) can they grow more? sure! why don't you start a thread that discusses the specific changes you'd like to see, and we can debate them publicly.
personally, i'm all for rules changes as long as they benefit the site as a whole. conversely, however, a site with 80,000 users can't just turn on a dime.
Message edited by author 2009-06-19 08:52:31. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 09:13:41 AM · #164 |
You are arbiters in that you decide what is and is not acceptable in the challenges in regard to the rules. Perhaps administers/facilitator/supervisor would have been a better word choice. There is very little control/direction given to the challenges but you are the exclusive source of what guidance does exist regarding eligibility. The legal eligibility of an entry is central to any competition.
I also want to point out that I didn't intend to say you stifle our creativity, but just that considering apparent participation in a major role you play for the site is a fair connection to make. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 09:44:14 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
You are arbiters in that you decide what is and is not acceptable in the challenges in regard to the rules. |
this is a fair statement.
it's safe to say that probably 90% of the images we review are a slam-dunk decision one way or the other. the other 10% of the images are debated but in the end a majority decision rules.
which leads me to my next point:
the rules are the way they are because they have evolved so much over time. many rules are written broadly so that they don't have to change with every new plugin or camera ability. when an internal debate about a photograph erupts, it's often a chance for us to review the rules and ensure that whatever decision we make is clear. we've implemented some transparency so that DQ'd images now appear with challenge results with a reason for disqualification made prominent.
as some have already mentioned, in this thread and others, sometimes our debates take a while (and sometimes, honestly, they take too long). i fail to see how adding more voices to the mix is going to solve that issue.
so, spatula, what change are you really seeking to implement? more SC? different SC? different rules? or are you just dissatisfied with the number of challenge entries we've made?
if it's the latter, can you please point to a decision (or decisions) that we have made that you disagree with and feel would have been different had more of us submitted to a challenge? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 10:12:52 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Someone humor me...other than my current Motion Panning entry what don't you like about the site? I've read the tread, and I get the sense that a few feel the site is stagnant. I would like to hear some ideas other than just new SC. Although I must admit, I'm bothered by the clutter of ancient news on the home page as that itself suggests a lack of interest in the general maintenance of the site. |
Took a look at the front page recently? "Ancient news" is gone...maintenance on the way today. :-) |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 10:29:46 AM · #167 |
| SS, you make some interesting points. It could be noted though, in that a lot of contests, those involved in the contest are not allowed to enter or participate. In fact, that has been suggested here as well -- SC shouldn't enter challenges. Some feel that by having a puppy in the fight, so to speak, we cannot be objective and unbiased. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 11:19:20 AM · #168 |
| come to think of it, i'm sorely disappointed that NFL referees don't suit up more often. :P |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 11:21:31 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
as some have already mentioned, in this thread and others, sometimes our debates take a while (and sometimes, honestly, they take too long). i fail to see how adding more voices to the mix is going to solve that issue. |
Because right now it's taking you two or three weeks to attain a quorum to vote on a picture. It is also apparent that in any single DQ there may be a different group of SC ruling on it (and possibly leading to different interpretations of the rules). If the site is all about challenges and SC's only role in the challenges is validations and DQ's, then I'd hope y'all would make it a priority.
Please don't read the above with a tone of attack. I don't mean it that way, but to many of us who have been here over the years it is obvious that things no longer work the way they used to. We have three options. 1) Live with it. 2) Get more help. 3) Get different help. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 12:41:10 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
come to think of it, i'm sorely disappointed that NFL referees don't suit up more often. :P |
LOL!!! (Good one.) |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:12:31 PM · #171 |
| In defense of the SC, when I started in 2005 we had 2 challenges a week. Now we have 3-4 challenges a week. I believe we actually have fewer SC at the moment than we did in 2005. It's no wonder validations are taking longer but it also begs the question of why we wouldn't want more help to do the increased workload? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:30:45 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Because right now it's taking you two or three weeks to attain a quorum to vote on a picture. It is also apparent that in any single DQ there may be a different group of SC ruling on it (and possibly leading to different interpretations of the rules). If the site is all about challenges and SC's only role in the challenges is validations and DQ's, then I'd hope y'all would make it a priority.
|
again, valid points. allow me to rebut slightly.
we don't have trouble attaining a quorum vote. everyone actually tends to vote within the first 48 hours of a submission. the issue is that discussions drag on as members of the group argue back and forth. we've acknowledged this as a potential problem and have suggested ways to minimize it.
i have a question, though: your suggestion is that because there are different groups of SC voting on different images now, having more SC would allow us all to vote on the same images? wha? i don't see how waiting on 15 votes instead of 7 would make the process faster? especially if there are 8 more opinions one way or the other? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:37:54 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i have a question, though: your suggestion is that because there are different groups of SC voting on different images now, having more SC would allow us all to vote on the same images? wha? i don't see how waiting on 15 votes instead of 7 would make the process faster? especially if there are 8 more opinions one way or the other? |
Have a portion of SC who's sole purpose is to validate pictures. You can have one or two more than needed to account for schedules, but that way you have a) a group of people where it's a priority and b) the same people voting on every shot. So while there would be more SC there would be fewer dealing with validations. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:41:21 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by steefmcbeef:
i like how the hotel analogy has evolved. |
Me too. Errr... I'm feeling a bit lonely here. You know in a hotel there's usually the friendly, helpful, bell hop, concierge, what-have-you, that can errrr, kinda help you find some companionship during your stay. Would I contact the SC about this here? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:42:36 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by steefmcbeef:
i like how the hotel analogy has evolved. |
Me too. Errr... I'm feeling a bit lonely here. You know in a hotel there's usually the friendly, helpful, bell hop, concierge, what-have-you, that can errrr, kinda help you find some companionship during your stay. Would I contact the SC about this here? |
(psssst. karma's the pimp.) |
|
