| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2013 09:32:56 PM · #51 |
Why do so many people seem to know what's going on, and I have no idea?
I recently gave a 1 to a blue ribbon, am I next? |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 09:42:47 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Why do so many people seem to know what's going on, and I have no idea?
I recently gave a 1 to a blue ribbon, am I next? |
As far as I know, the only non-SC who knows anything is myself, and that's only because I found a few crumbs they forgot to sweep up.
I can't imagine you'd be suspected. The SC has, no doubt, learned from previous mistakes. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:11:44 PM · #53 |
 well there's this guy..... ho hum |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:26:11 PM · #54 |
I wonder what the deal is with this account.
 MacDonald
This person commented on my top scoring image and when I clicked on the name, it said the account was cancelled.
Message edited by author 2013-08-30 22:31:07. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:32:27 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Cory:
For those who are curious - it was this user.
|
Yep. I've been suspicious of that shady character since the day I arrived here. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:34:07 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
I wonder what the deal is with this account.
MacDonald
This person commented on my top scoring image and when I clicked on the name, it said the account was cancelled. |
All I know is that he's old and he has a farm. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:35:51 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by bmartuch:
I wonder what the deal is with this account.
MacDonald
This person commented on my top scoring image and when I clicked on the name, it said the account was cancelled. |
All I know is that he's old and he has a farm. |
Are we assuming the person is a male? |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:38:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Are we assuming the person is a male? |
Says "Matthew" on the profile :-) |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:39:30 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Are we assuming the person is a male? |
Says "Matthew" on the profile :-) |
In today's world, with so many genders to choose from, making any guess is hazardous at best. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 10:57:32 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Are we assuming the person is a male? |
Says "Matthew" on the profile :-) |
The person who commented on Bob's picture was Maggie, who cancelled her account a while ago. Someone must have picked up the name after that. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 11:09:57 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Are we assuming the person is a male? |
Says "Matthew" on the profile :-) |
The person who commented on Bob's picture was Maggie, who cancelled her account a while ago. Someone must have picked up the name after that. |
The thing is Kelli, This image shows Maggie commented on my photo in December 2012. MacDonald shows that the name was changed in June of 2011.
Message edited by author 2013-08-30 23:10:37. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 11:19:38 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Are we assuming the person is a male? |
Says "Matthew" on the profile :-) |
The person who commented on Bob's picture was Maggie, who cancelled her account a while ago. Someone must have picked up the name after that. |
The thing is Kelli, This image shows Maggie commented on my photo in December 2012. MacDonald shows that the name was changed in June of 2011. |
You'd have to ask the SC how that happened. But, I do know Maggie closed her account quite a while ago. She also closed her FB account. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 11:23:30 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
You'd have to ask the SC how that happened. But, I do know Maggie closed her account quite a while ago. She also closed her FB account. |
Nothing happened. That was a different MacDonald (no underscore), and she asked to have her account closed. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 11:35:27 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by MikeO:
A public flogging is the minimum punishment for the offender (s).
This is petty, childish, selfish and about as low as the balls on a dachshund you can get
Kudos to the SC ! |
I resent this in that I love dachshunds. Could you please pick on a breed that actually has lower balls like the Basset Hound! :-)
eta: I guess I am in the clear for now. I didn't lose any placements in challenges.
Message edited by author 2013-08-30 23:36:37. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 02:02:08 AM · #65 |
 Wake up Maggie I think I got something to say to you...  |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 04:01:55 AM · #66 |
As Leonard Chen mentioned;
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 05:22:51 AM · #67 |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 07:00:45 AM · #68 |
At the start of a challenge recently on here, I noticed some strange users I had never seen before and they all looked like ghost accounts, I had received a few low votes at the start of the challenge! I alerted another person to that matter as well.
I nearly told SC about it, and then I noticed the next day one of the accounts had been cancelled, anyway just happy something is being done about that, I always wondered why some really bad photos had nearly always one 10 vote! |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 10:16:10 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Neat:
... I always wondered why some really bad photos had nearly always one 10 vote! |
Define "really bad photos".
Is this really bad? Eight votes @ 1.
Or is this really good? Nine votes @ 10.
There used to be, might still be, a small group of photography admirers here that applaud the unusual or the mundane snippets of life captured in a photograph, and hold the super crisp, sleek stock photo type imagery in disdain as sell-outs and lifeless. Could these members of DPC be considered "reverse voters" if they vote higher on the photography they enjoy and applaud, and lower on the images they'd consider lifeless?
I thought art was subjective?
Ghost accounts? Well, that's another thing - very unscrupulous. Burn their villages!!!! |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 10:25:05 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Neat:
... I always wondered why some really bad photos had nearly always one 10 vote! |
Define "really bad photos".
Is this really bad? Eight votes @ 1.
Or is this really good? Nine votes @ 10.
There used to be, might still be, a small group of photography admirers here that applaud the unusual or the mundane snippets of life captured in a photograph, and hold the super crisp, sleek stock photo type imagery in disdain as sell-outs and lifeless. Could these members of DPC be considered "reverse voters" if they vote higher on the photography they enjoy and applaud, and lower on the images they'd consider lifeless?
I thought art was subjective?
Ghost accounts? Well, that's another thing - very unscrupulous. Burn their villages!!!! |
Haha funny you should mention that, I was one of his 10's, blur done well is worth high in my books! Some blur is not done well though!
|
|
|
|
08/31/2013 10:29:50 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Neat:
... I always wondered why some really bad photos had nearly always one 10 vote! |
Define "really bad photos".
Is this really bad? Eight votes @ 1.
Or is this really good? Nine votes @ 10.
|
Well said, Barry, thank you.
So far as art being subjective as it relates to reverse voting, my guess is that it was pretty clear what the person(s) were doing and who they were targeting or they would not have been called out. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 10:33:45 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Neat:
... I always wondered why some really bad photos had nearly always one 10 vote! |
Define "really bad photos".
Is this really bad? Eight votes @ 1.
Or is this really good? Nine votes @ 10.
There used to be, might still be, a small group of photography admirers here that applaud the unusual or the mundane snippets of life captured in a photograph, and hold the super crisp, sleek stock photo type imagery in disdain as sell-outs and lifeless. Could these members of DPC be considered "reverse voters" if they vote higher on the photography they enjoy and applaud, and lower on the images they'd consider lifeless?
|
I have faith that the SC figured out how to deal with this last time around.
It's pretty easy to suss this out in a variety of ways, the simplest that comes to mind is to examine the voting pattern in a 'counter culture' challenge, like the cutout challenge, if they're still voting low on the highest scoring images, there's VERY likely a problem.
Besides, and I don't mean to really attack anyone here - but what's the use of voting disruptively like that - essentially, if you ALWAYS vote images which are grainy, black and white, and blurry as being high, and everything else significantly lower, while totally ignoring the challenge description, that's no better than people who give all cat images a 1, or always kill nudes, or drop 1's on every landscape, etc.
Taste is one thing, but even those with the strongest sense of taste are still judging challenges that have guidelines, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to respectfully ask everyone to take those guidelines into account while voting, and reward those who achieved their vision while directly speaking to the challenge.
Am I wrong for that? Do you honestly wish to argue that it's right and proper to ignore everything but one's own sense of aesthetics and not reward, but actually punish, those who have delivered an image that is extremely well done?
As others have said - very few images really deserve a 1. I give them out, but DAMN if you don't have to really earn it. I don't at all object to admiring the counter culture, give em all 10's I say - but I do object to punishing those who followed the description and spirit of the challenge.
Message edited by author 2013-08-31 10:35:32. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 11:10:36 AM · #73 |
I don't have faith in the SC. They're not gods. But I'm not overly concerned about this banning, either. I do get a little perturbed about people who don't actually know what happened, who start off by saying it was clearly trolling behavior, but then start describing nonconformist behavior instead of trolling behavior.
It's not strong leadership that bothers me. I've been in such groups and I've banned people myself. It's people who are too quick to hand over their prerogatives to leaders. They scare me. The other thing that bothers me are those people who crave consensus. They're easy to spot. They can't imagine a one on a blue ribbon. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 11:39:39 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I don't have faith in the SC. They're not gods. But I'm not overly concerned about this banning, either. I do get a little perturbed about people who don't actually know what happened, who start off by saying it was clearly trolling behavior, but then start describing nonconformist behavior instead of trolling behavior.
It's not strong leadership that bothers me. I've been in such groups and I've banned people myself. It's people who are too quick to hand over their prerogatives to leaders. They scare me. The other thing that bothers me are those people who crave consensus. They're easy to spot. They can't imagine a one on a blue ribbon. |
Bingo! |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 12:07:15 PM · #75 |
| Wow...A girl takes a few months off and misses all the fun and drama....Dang |
|
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: 08/04/2025 12:48:52 PM EDT.
Wake up Maggie I think I got something to say to you... 
