DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Do challenge descriptions even matter?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 166, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/26/2012 02:08:18 PM · #26
Wasn't there that sea shore and sun set shot in euphemism or other saying challenging that had nothing to do with the challenge that ribboned?
 10/26/2012 02:09:53 PM · #27
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
But it is wiser to find solution to a problem, or at least suggest one rather (albeit how poor it might be) than making a bunch of noise complaining about results.
Read the description prior to voting.
Glad I could be of service.
 10/26/2012 02:10:27 PM · #28
Yes, challenge descriptions matter. Just some matter more than others. Generally folks here grant a fair degree of leeway IF the entry is creative / appealing enough. And it is easy enough to misread a description, or take it to mean something other than other voters' understanding.
 10/26/2012 02:10:50 PM · #29
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Frankly I don't read the descriptions when voting (just when entering).
Found one person who contributes to the problem.

Hopefully you put a modicum of effort when voting for other things other than just showing up.


So its OK to force people to study the rules, but not to stretch their imaginations to look into the photogs intentions and/or give the photog the benefit of the dnmc doubt?
 10/26/2012 02:11:36 PM · #30
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Wasn't there that sea shore and sun set shot in euphemism or other saying challenging that had nothing to do with the challenge that ribboned?
The euphemism challenge was fantastic. Something like 40% of the entries weren't even euphemisms.

Message edited by author 2012-10-26 14:12:48.
 10/26/2012 02:12:06 PM · #31
So lets break it down.
Take Corys shot.
Was it unique, creative, well photographed, did it meet the challenge description,
does it hold your interest, etc, etc.
It met virtually all of the requirements according to how I judge a picture anyway.
Everyone knows that it wasn't a mask it was a BOECHIAN HEAD DRESS.DUHHHH....\

Thanks Cory for letting us use you image for discussion.
 10/26/2012 02:15:33 PM · #32
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by yanko:
Didn't a flying chair win a ribbon in the Pet Rock challenge? I forget who did that one but it only made sense if voters read the challenge description.

ETA: it was vawendy's entry.



Which is of course another problem we see...people don't read challenge descriptions before judging something as DNMC:

"Take a photo of a rock (or any other inanimate object) as if it were a pet."

(not picking on your post...just a general point)


Yup -- I think the premise of the discussion is wrong. I see many more entries being hit by people who are ignoring/not reading the description than top 10 winners ignoring the description. I remember very few winners not fitting the challenge, imo. Some may not fit it as well as others, but it's rare that one doesn't fit at all.

However, I had at least 3 comments saying that my pet rock entry didn't fit the challenge (a couple were changed during the course of the challenge). And those were the wonderful people who bothered to leave a comment and explain their vote. I appreciate it greatly. But you know that there are many others that are thinking the same thing, but not bothering to comment. I ended up much higher in that challenge than I ever expected -- so it's not a complaint -- just an observation.

If you see things in the top ten that don't fit the challenge, there's a couple of reasons it could be happening:

1. You just don't get the connection, but others do.
2. People don't automatically give a 1 for a DMNC. I don't. I'll take a couple of points off if I don't get it, but it seems a valid attempt. I'll vote much lower if it's an obvious knock to the challenge.

Message edited by author 2012-10-26 14:17:19.
 10/26/2012 02:15:57 PM · #33
Originally posted by Cory:
I really don't think I should have ribboned, since I did really stretch the limits of "no mask" to a somewhat obscene level. Still, I am very appreciative of all of the great comments and kind votes, I just wonder why we as voters don't hold the community to higher standards sometimes.

Also the "secret" aspect, since you put your own name in the title :-) Of course, a huge number of people recognized ME, but I honestly didn't think that was gonna happen. I covered my face, I covered my beard, I thought hair was just hair, but....
 10/26/2012 02:18:05 PM · #34
Originally posted by nam:
Bet there are more times that an image is hurt by not adhering to the description or title than vice versa.

Here's a slightly different example. My Pet Rock image received a number of "this is not a rock" comments during voting. I pm'ed the commenters in order to nicely point out that the description said specifically "or other object" and all but one of the comments were changed (I assume the votes were, too, if they had been lowered for that reason). But other voters probably voted only on the title and did not comment. In the case of that challenge, I had read the description but some voters had not.

And btw, my entry in that challenge received exactly the same number of 1's as 10's; the same number of 2's as 9's; the same number of 3's as 8's. Which just tells me that it pretty much all comes out in the wash :)


I'm sorry but is this legal?
 10/26/2012 02:18:59 PM · #35
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
I really don't think I should have ribboned, since I did really stretch the limits of "no mask" to a somewhat obscene level. Still, I am very appreciative of all of the great comments and kind votes, I just wonder why we as voters don't hold the community to higher standards sometimes.

Also the "secret" aspect, since you put your own name in the title :-)


I missed that part!

Automatic 1.

Recalculate the results!!
 10/26/2012 02:23:28 PM · #36
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. You just don't get the connection, but others do.
2. People don't automatically give a 1 for a DMNC. I don't. I'll take a couple of points off if I don't get it, but it seems a valid attempt. I'll vote much lower if it's an obvious knock to the challenge.

I'm very astute and intelligent. I know when the connection is tenuous at best or non-existent at all. I'm the person who knew your entry based on a fork, and you wondered how I figured it out. There's very little that gets by these eyes.

So if people only knock a point or two off for DNMCs, then my question still stands, what's the point of having a description? As long as I can tangentially meet it at best, and still make it look shinny, all is good? That's what I'm gathering.
 10/26/2012 02:25:53 PM · #37
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... I thought hair was just hair, but....

You'd think so ...
10/26/2012 02:30:31 PM · #38
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. You just don't get the connection, but others do.
2. People don't automatically give a 1 for a DMNC. I don't. I'll take a couple of points off if I don't get it, but it seems a valid attempt. I'll vote much lower if it's an obvious knock to the challenge.

I'm very astute and intelligent. I know when the connection is tenuous at best or non-existent at all. I'm the person who knew your entry based on a fork, and you wondered how I figured it out. There's very little that gets by these eyes.

So if people only knock a point or two off for DNMCs, then my question still stands, what's the point of having a description? As long as I can tangentially meet it at best, and still make it look shinny, all is good? That's what I'm gathering.


I guess I still think the premise is flawed. If you don't wish to discuss examples in the thread, PM me -- I'd be interested to see your examples. I only remember a handful of times over 2.5 years where I was disappointed because something won that blatantly disregarded the challenge. I'd be curious to see which ones (and how many) about which you're thinking.
 10/26/2012 02:37:39 PM · #39
If the voting scale added one option DNMC, and
if an entry received a minimum of 3 DNMC votes
it would be DQd

would you go for that?
How many comps would get DQd for that reason, do you think?
 10/26/2012 02:41:49 PM · #40
I think many voters - especially non-entry voters (including me) don't read the description and just go by the title. I did that when I voted on the Pet Rock challenge and when I saw the first entry that was not a rock, I low-voted it. Then I saw a couple more and went back and read the description and then changed my vote accordingly. Also, MANY voters (entry or not) do not participate in these forums, so these discussions probably won't be of much affect either way, IMO.

On the Secret Portrait challenge, I did read the description, but let it slide on all but the most blatant violations because there were so many that ignored it. Frankly, though, I think the title should NEVER be contradicted by the description and/or we should do away with the descriptions and just let the title stand on it's own (except for yellow flag / special rules situations).
 10/26/2012 02:42:24 PM · #41
Originally posted by pixelpig:
If the voting scale added one option DNMC, and
if an entry received a minimum of 3 DNMC votes
it would be DQd

would you go for that?
How many comps would get DQd for that reason, do you think?

Make it a minimum of 10 and I'd go for it.
 10/26/2012 03:04:36 PM · #42
Or, think about this--what if the challenge description did not show on the voting page? What if the description was used only to inspire the photogs' creative energy?
 10/26/2012 03:07:37 PM · #43
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Or, think about this--what if the challenge description did not show on the voting page? What if the description was used only to inspire the photogs' creative energy?
So ...... everything is a free study?
 10/26/2012 03:16:44 PM · #44
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
If the voting scale added one option DNMC, and
if an entry received a minimum of 3 DNMC votes
it would be DQd

would you go for that?
How many comps would get DQd for that reason, do you think?

Make it a minimum of 10 and I'd go for it.


Make it 10%, and they still have to vote.

I like that idea.
 10/26/2012 03:17:47 PM · #45
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Or, think about this--what if the challenge description did not show on the voting page? What if the description was used only to inspire the photogs' creative energy?
So ...... everything is a free study?


Heh. Gotta admit, that sounds pretty much exactly like a free-study. No, we need the voters to actually be MORE harsh, not less.
 10/26/2012 03:22:12 PM · #46
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
If the voting scale added one option DNMC, and
if an entry received a minimum of 3 DNMC votes
it would be DQd

would you go for that?
How many comps would get DQd for that reason, do you think?

Make it a minimum of 10 and I'd go for it.


Make it 10%, and they still have to vote.

I like that idea.


Naw -- from the way it sounds in the forums, over half of the "distractions" entries would be DQd. :)

And probably all of the non-rock pet rock entries would be DQd.

All of posthumous's shots would be DQd

etc.


10/26/2012 03:23:47 PM · #47
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I think many voters - especially non-entry voters (including me) don't read the description and just go by the title. I did that when I voted on the Pet Rock challenge and when I saw the first entry that was not a rock, I low-voted it. Then I saw a couple more and went back and read the description and then changed my vote accordingly. Also, MANY voters (entry or not) do not participate in these forums, so these discussions probably won't be of much affect either way, IMO.


Hahaha, that's what I was counting on. There have been a couple of challenges where I thought I had read the description and obviously hadn't, and when photos kept popping up that made me go "huh???", I went back to the challenge description.

Pet rock worried me, because there were so few of us bucking the title!
 10/26/2012 03:41:59 PM · #48
Originally posted by Venser:
So if people only knock a point or two off for DNMCs, then my question still stands, what's the point of having a description? As long as I can tangentially meet it at best, and still make it look shinny, all is good? That's what I'm gathering.

The effect is there in the DPC collective opinion. If most people agree that is is DNMC and knock off a couple of points, then even a great photo that fails to meet the topic will suffer for it. One person knocking off a couple of point won't make much difference but when everyone does it...
 10/26/2012 03:50:43 PM · #49
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Or, think about this--what if the challenge description did not show on the voting page? What if the description was used only to inspire the photogs' creative energy?

So ...... everything is a free study?


Heh. Gotta admit, that sounds pretty much exactly like a free-study. No, we need the voters to actually be MORE harsh, not less.


So, if the penalty for not following the challenge description would be DQ, with the objective of harsh voting, then the challenge descriptions would have to be very precise. Like...Photograph one rock as though it were a live pet animal, & clearly the subject of your photo. The rock shall be a real rock, no less than 1 lb in weight, no more than 5 lbs. Your rock may not be part of a group of rocks, it may not be attached to a larger rock...

And no more of those bleeding-heart liberal Free Study challenges! "D
 10/26/2012 03:52:26 PM · #50
Originally posted by vawendy:
All of posthumous's shots would be DQd

etc.


well, that would help my voting average.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:32:47 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/02/2025 12:32:47 PM EDT.