| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2013 12:14:43 PM · #76 |
2010 investigation
here is an interesting read. Query whether there is a stifling effect the investigations have had on non-cheaters who give 1's or 10's to the same type photos all the time.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2013 01:17:44 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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! |
Now. Let's be fair - I DO have a damned hard time conceiving of giving a 1 to a blue ribbon... Why? Because clearly there was so much merit that it did manage to gain a blue. Now, that ALONE says that rating it a 1 is questionable at best.
Tell me, what standard would allow a person to see something which was clearly good enough to win, and yet still think it deserved a 1?
Now, that doesn't mean I can't see how a blue ribbon winner will commonly get 3's and 4's - but to judge it as a 1, which would indicate the lowest possible appeal on all aspects, seems to be a little bit strange to me.
I don't think people should have the right to all of the opinions they wish to have - but they're voting a challenge that was based on a set of fairly clear expectations - it is not unreasonable to expect the voters to adhere to the same expectations.
Otherwise, I mean, really - how would you feel if your math teacher only marked answers that contained a 3 as being correct, no matter what the correct answer was? It's not terribly different is it?
Message edited by author 2013-08-31 13:18:55. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 01:19:37 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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! |
bingo bingo |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 01:53:37 PM · #79 |
| I agree with Cory. I really don't see giving a blue ribbon a 1, and not because I'm a conformist, but because I hardly EVER give a 1. I don't understand giving a 1 to something that clearly had at least SOME skill and SOME effort. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 02:13:45 PM · #80 |
| I can't say I have never given a 1. But I doubt I have. Very few images are completely beyond redemption. If I find it disgusting, I would give it more than a 1, because it evoked some response at th emotional level. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 02:14:50 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I agree with Cory. I really don't see giving a blue ribbon a 1, and not because I'm a conformist, but because I hardly EVER give a 1. I don't understand giving a 1 to something that clearly had at least SOME skill and SOME effort. |
There are many reaons, mostly having to do with a person's individual, emotional reaction to the subject. For example, many people are deeply offended by pictures depicting guns (or other violence/mayhem), religious (or sacriligous) symbols, political symbols, nudity, or merely something which reminds them of some personal (possibly tragic) event. Voting a 1 on any single image without public justification is always the right of the voter.
What is prohibited is a pattern of giving low votes (especially ones) to all of the images which generally score highly with the intent of improving one's own placement (or that of a friend) in the challenge. Reverse voting becomes obvious when someone's voting pattern varies in direct correspondence with whether or not the voter has an entry in that particular challenge. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 02:15:24 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I agree with Cory. I really don't see giving a blue ribbon a 1, and not because I'm a conformist, but because I hardly EVER give a 1. I don't understand giving a 1 to something that clearly had at least SOME skill and SOME effort. |
That's just it -- I can see giving a blue a 2 or a 3 because you find it cliche, uninteresting, pandering, whatever. But what do you do with the photos that are worse? You may love the funky, out-of-the-box, stretch the point photos, but there are still the photos that fall into neither category. The snapshots with no time, effort or skill involved. I guess that's why I have a hard time with the 1s on the blues. They really are the bottom of the barrel with no lower to go? Then what does Uncle Bob's family photo with the pasted on camera smiles get? I don't quite see how they're equivalent.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2013 02:32:08 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Cory:
How would you feel if your math teacher only marked answers that contained a 3 as being correct, no matter what the correct answer was? It's not terribly different is it? |
It's actually VERY different. On the one hand it's a matter of verifiable fact, on the other it's aesthetic preferences. It's rare that a blue-ribboning DPC image would even get a second look from from the esteemed jurors of a cutting-edge "art photography" exhibition in the real world. So the 1's don't surprise me. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:03:38 PM · #84 |
Do you change the radio when a number one hit from Justin Bieber comes on? Do you fail to understand how some people could eat at anywhere other than McDonald's even though its the number one restaurant in the world?
Just because an image has Quality doesn't mean in should win an art contest. You think we ought to punish those who attempt to send a message to a admittedly crafty work, devoid of art? |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:14:37 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Do you change the radio when a number one hit from Justin Bieber comes on? Do you fail to understand how some people could eat at anywhere other than McDonald's even though its the number one restaurant in the world?
Just because an image has Quality doesn't mean in should win an art contest. You think we ought to punish those who attempt to send a message to a admittedly crafty work, devoid of art? |
I agree with you. (Or I think I do... Not quite sure what you mean by that last part)...
Now, while I detest Bieber and McDonalds, I would honestly still rate Bieber a solid 6, and McDonalds a 5..
They're both awful, but nowhere NEAR as bad as it can get.
Message edited by author 2013-08-31 15:16:04. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:19:20 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
How would you feel if your math teacher only marked answers that contained a 3 as being correct, no matter what the correct answer was? It's not terribly different is it? |
It's actually VERY different. On the one hand it's a matter of verifiable fact, on the other it's aesthetic preferences. It's rare that a blue-ribboning DPC image would even get a second look from from the esteemed jurors of a cutting-edge "art photography" exhibition in the real world. So the 1's don't surprise me. |
But, again, are they really, truly DESERVING of that 1?
I say, most often, no. Of course, it's your right to do as you please, but I have no problem with SC slapping folks who consistently punish those who've done their best to meet the challenge in a manner that produces an attractive, emotive, or engaging image - and it's rare to find a photo this isn't at least one of those.
If you're here to punish conformists, really, I mean, damn - get a life or something.
If you're here to love art, then that's awesome - I just disapprove of those who fall into the trap of broadly and harshly punishing everyone else while they are doing so.
Remember, I enter 'those' sorts of entries on occasion - and I love doing so, they're awesome. Hell, even  daisydavid complemented my last one, which was a very nice surprise indeed. I LOVE those folks who want to give this sort of work a strong voice, and drop those beautiful 10's on it. No objection to that behavior at all.
..
Again, it's just a matter of recognizing that loving something doesn't require you to hate everything else. Or, at least, that's this guy's opinion on the matter. Yours may well differ.
Message edited by author 2013-08-31 15:22:33. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:20:45 PM · #87 |
I very rarely cast 1's in challenges. And I do that when I see images completely far from the spirit of the challenges and only when they have evident technical flaws.
But I remember how I gave a 1 to a red or blue ribbon (I don't remember exactly) for repeating a clichè, already done by the author, for the third time. And it was a high scoring challenge.
In any case, it is perfectly possible to cast a 1 in a challenge, but it seems like this is not what the investigation of the SC was about. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:29:52 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Do you change the radio when a number one hit from Justin Bieber comes on? |
Fair point, but not every pattern can be reasonably attributed to a difference of taste. Hypothetically, what would you make of the president of the Justin Bieber fan club consistently giving a 1 to anything remotely like Bieber (and high votes to Austrian yodeling and moose calls) when her own similar Bieber tribute song is competing in a "Sing Like Bieber" contest, yet an 8+ to every single competitor across the board when she's not in the contest?
Message edited by author 2013-08-31 15:36:17. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:35:27 PM · #89 |
| This thread gets a 1 for bringing up Bieber. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:45:02 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
This thread gets a 1 for bringing up Bieber. |
Is that the modern version of Godwin's Law? ;-) |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:50:08 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bohemka:
This thread gets a 1 for bringing up Bieber. |
Is that the modern version of Godwin's Law? ;-) |
Well, admittedly, the parallels could be much weaker.. (*cough* annefrank *cough*) |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 03:50:50 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Do you change the radio when a number one hit from Justin Bieber comes on? |
Fair point, but not every pattern can be reasonably attributed to a difference of taste. Hypothetically, what would you make of the president of the Justin Bieber fan club consistently giving a 1 to anything remotely like Bieber (and high votes to Austrian yodeling and moose calls) when her own similar Bieber tribute song is competing in a "Sing Like Bieber" contest, yet an 8+ to every single competitor across the board when she's not in the contest? |
What happened to all the endless discussions about "total autonomy in voting" and "don't tell me how to vote?"
I mean, I believe that the existence of a pattern is not evidence of anything. I like blurry black and white shots, and almost always rate them higher than glossy front runners. Is it a pattern, perhaps. Is it illegal? I don't know whose shots they are, and I sure as hell have no aspirations to make my shot go up.
I just hope SC is focusing on the high ribbon count crowd, not the lowly conscientious objectors.
Not much is more unseemly than a blue ribbon winner crying about a single 1 vote-(unless is was from another front runner? is that the point?)
Mentioning Bieber is the new Rick-rolling. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 04:01:06 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I mean, I believe that the existence of a pattern is not evidence of anything. I like blurry black and white shots, and almost always rate them higher than glossy front runners. Is it a pattern, perhaps. Is it illegal? I don't know whose shots they are, and I sure as hell have no aspirations to make my shot go up. |
An exerpt for reference:
Originally posted by DPC Voting Rules:
You May Not
â€Â¢ vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system.
â€Â¢ offer or cast biased votes for any other user.
â€Â¢ attempt to alter the point totals for any entry in any way. |
Voting blurry B&&W images high consistently is not a problem, but if you suddenly gave them all ones in a challenge where you happen to have an entry it might be. If you vote some style or quality of photo one way when you yourself have an entry in the challenge and differently when you don't I think you'd be guilty of violating at least two of the three rules cited above. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 04:03:01 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I like blurry black and white shots, and almost always rate them higher than glossy front runners. Is it a pattern, perhaps. Is it illegal? |
Your prerogative, of course, but what if that consistent history suddenly changed to voting all blurry B&W shots a 1 ONLY in challenges where you entered a blurry B&W shot yourself? What if you voted ALL the entries a 1-3 in challenges you entered and 8-10 in challenges you didn't? If someone votes down all the B&W photos in a B&W challenge and gives high scores to the color shots, it might be a matter of divergent tastes or some eccentric rebellion against conventional norms. However, it's hard to buy that argument if the same person also entered a B&W photo in the challenge.
Message edited by author 2013-08-31 16:13:41. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 04:51:10 PM · #95 |
When do we get to throw rotten eggs at the culprits and take photos of the event ?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2013 06:17:14 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by jagar:
When do we get to throw rotten eggs at the culprits and take photos of the event ? |
I prefer the tar and feather method... |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 07:05:46 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by jagar:
When do we get to throw rotten eggs at the culprits and take photos of the event ? |
I prefer the tar and feather method... |
Perhaps as expert challenges seem in demand lately, drawing and quartering.... |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 07:17:20 PM · #98 |
IMNSHO the person responsible should be banned for life, stripped of their ribbons, and votes scrubbed from every challenge they ever voted in.
Should they return, they fully deserve the lynching they face. |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 07:50:51 PM · #99 |
You know, the hyperbole being expressed in this thread is exactly the reason we don't publicly announce violations ... maybe people like to vent, but what would be the reaction were the SC (or our hired henchmen) to actually carry out some of the suggestions made here? After the first couple of mentions of lynching/tar-and-feathering/drawing and quartering (do you even realize what that is beyond the cliché?) it just doesn't seem either funny or productive.
If I were a newbie coming across this "Administrative Announcement" and read some of these posts I'd be fleeing for someplace with a higher degree of tolerance, like North Korea ... :-( |
|
|
|
08/31/2013 07:51:34 PM · #100 |
From my statistical favorite list.
 jmritz 7.8507 221 votes
jagar 6.8947 114 votes
Apparently blurry gets a point better in my black and white book. Jagar apparently needs to step it up a notch! ;)
I've given 1s to some Blues. Good riddance to the folks who are cheating. |
|
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 04:20:16 PM EDT.
