| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2004 08:55:09 AM · #1 |
| If a voter looks at a submission for a certain number of seconds, should we be making our images load quicker (submitting smaller images), so they will take longer viewing the image? |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 09:01:48 AM · #2 |
Wouldn't mean squat for people with DSL or Cable. 150Kb pops up fast with high speed. I'm not sure what effect it would have for people on dial-up
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 09:07:14 AM · #3 |
many people like the larger photos because if its a good one and its clear, you can see more detail in the photo. Usually as long as it looks good, the larger photo looks better.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 09:36:48 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Zap228:
many people like the larger photos because if its a good one and its clear, you can see more detail in the photo. Usually as long as it looks good, the larger photo looks better. |
But the question is, for the 3-second speed voters, do they really discern the quality? |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 09:46:35 AM · #5 |
The three second speed voters will find a way to remain three second speed voters regardless of anything we do technically.
It's just the way of the world. :)
Clara
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 09:57:22 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by blemt:
The three second speed voters will find a way to remain three second speed voters regardless of anything we do technically. |
Well, there is always the possibility of imposing a 15-second delay before the voting scale even becomes "active"... =] 
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 09:59:06 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Well, there is always the possibility of imposing a 15-second delay before the voting scale even becomes "active"... =] |
If Clara's right, they'll just have 5 windows open. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 10:23:07 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
If Clara's right, they'll just have 5 windows open. ;-) |
That's how I vote on dial-up...
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 11:18:41 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by blemt:
The three second speed voters will find a way to remain three second speed voters regardless of anything we do technically. |
Well, there is always the possibility of imposing a 15-second delay before the voting scale even becomes "active"... =] |
That way I could read a book while waiting! :P
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 11:56:09 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
But the question is, for the 3-second speed voters, do they really discern the quality? |
Yes, I do.
However, some images are so good that you have to sit there and admire them for the fine art that they are. Other images may require more scrutiny too but they are the exception, not the rule.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 12:00:22 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Well, there is always the possibility of imposing a 15-second delay before the voting scale even becomes "active"... =] |
Excellent idea if you want to reduce or stop DPC voting.
Single file it would take 6 hours and 40 minutes to vote on a challenge with 400 entries, and that is not counting any time delay between image displays. Under those conditions most people would vote far less frequently.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 12:22:16 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Under those conditions most people would vote far less frequently. |
But at least the votes you received would be from people who looked at your picture, considered it, thought about it, etc. for 15 seconds instead of 2 (if you're lucky). Would you rather have 250 "rapid fire, first-impression-only, how-many-more-til-I'm-done, drive-by votes", or 100 "considerate, looked at the whole image and studied it for a few seconds before deciding on a ranking votes"?
Message edited by author 2004-06-14 12:24:16. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 12:25:22 PM · #13 |
| I'd rather people looked at my image because they wanted to, not because they were forced to. This isn't Clockwork Orange. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 12:53:04 PM · #14 |
First impression of a photo, within the first few seconds, is generally sufficient to form an opinion of the picture's impact.
Very striking photos will hold attention longer, while the more prosaic and mundane do not. Our voters will seek the highest common denominator and unerringly select the best photos.
The voter's taste and judgement is what we strive to please with our efforts, otherwise a challenge is pointless. It is up to the photogs to either accept or reject that premise, but most of us take it seriously and try to learn from the results.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 02:32:03 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Under those conditions most people would vote far less frequently. |
But at least the votes you received would be from people who looked at your picture, considered it, thought about it, etc. for 15 seconds instead of 2 (if you're lucky). Would you rather have 250 "rapid fire, first-impression-only, how-many-more-til-I'm-done, drive-by votes", or 100 "considerate, looked at the whole image and studied it for a few seconds before deciding on a ranking votes"? |
I can look at, consider, think about and rate the majority of images in under 3 seconds and I am no different than anyone else.
For example, I always reserve my highest three scores for what I feel are the three best images. In the deep DOF challenge just completed all three of my top three choices finished in the top 10 and two of them were ribbon winners. This is better than average for me, but not unusual.
To force voters to look longer would be a HUGE mistake and destroy the voting process completely. It is the single most important feedback participants get and is the soul basis for determining "winners and losers".
Like everyone else I would vote less or not at all if forced to look longer.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 02:34:49 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
First impression of a photo, within the first few seconds, is generally sufficient to form an opinion of the picture's impact.
Very striking photos will hold attention longer, while the more prosaic and mundane do not. |
Well said. I agree 100%. I can't do that with my own shots 99% of the time, but I agree wholeheartedly! ;o)
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 02:42:32 PM · #17 |
If you have to look, and at times look very hard, to find a reason to like an image ... why bother? The image is obviously lacking in some way.
David
/edit: having said that, I thought I should also mention that I spend a considerable amount of time looking at the images; not to find something to like or not, but to find what I would have done differently to make an image I find more aesthetic. The speed voters are only hurting themselves; their votes are probably fairly accurate as I rarely change my initial opionion of on image after looking at it a while.
Message edited by author 2004-06-14 14:45:22.
|
|
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: 09/23/2025 11:02:28 PM EDT.
