| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2004 04:01:07 PM · #1 |
I wonder. Do people that vote low on a shot that they think is fake go back and revote once the picture has been validated?
|
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:06:51 PM · #2 |
| Some do. Most don't. If you shoot something that people might suspect is fake, your best bet is to request an admin note as soon as the voting starts to "minimize the damage." |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:07:07 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by markmyshots:
I wonder. Do people that vote low on a shot that they think is fake go back and revote once the picture has been validated? |
You're supposed to vote with the score that it deserves and ask for a DQ. If it's validated then the score stays. If it's Dq'd then the score no longer is valid. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:08:57 PM · #4 |
| Ideally, people should be voting as if the picture is validated, even if they request a dq. There was another thread today discussing this topic. Think it was about dq's. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:10:46 PM · #5 |
| That's what you're supposed to do, but some people don't read the rules (challenge descriptions, camera manuals, etc.). I've witnessed an otherwise good score get hammered when a single voter leaves a suspicious comment. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:11:07 PM · #6 |
yeah, thats what i do too....
I think my picture might be getting hammered because of it looking fake. I submitted the picture for the admins, but it wasn't soon enough to show that it was validated....damn!......
next time, i'll know. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:12:44 PM · #7 |
What helps me avoid having to revote is stating my concern in the comment. I say something like "Not sure you followed the rules, but..." and go on the comment on the photo itself. Then I get the DQ emotion out on the table and I can vote for the image, rather than whether I think they cheated or not.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:14:49 PM · #8 |
| Bear in mind that if your shot looks fake (as in overprocessed), it will tend to get hammered anyway regardless of whether you used legal methods to get the final result. Anything that looks like digital art (with few exceptions) will be severely beaten by the purists as "not photography." |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:19:30 PM · #9 |
hey airatic, i went to your portfolio and was looking at your picture of "auto: the cost of luxury". everyone in the comments said that they didnt understand the photo and im one of them....you never responded..
What the heck is it? smoke or something? |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:22:13 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by markmyshots:
I wonder. Do people that vote low on a shot that they think is fake go back and revote once the picture has been validated? |
Judging by my votes - probably... and it's just not cricket. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:22:53 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by markmyshots:
hey airatic, i went to your portfolio and was looking at your picture of "auto: the cost of luxury". everyone in the comments said that they didnt understand the photo and im one of them....you never responded..
What the heck is it? smoke or something? |
from a quick glance, it looks like light bouncing off the hood of a car onto a wall.. ina garage of some sort.. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:31:45 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's what you're supposed to do, but some people don't read the rules (challenge descriptions, camera manuals, etc.). I've witnessed an otherwise good score get hammered when a single voter leaves a suspicious comment. |
That would have no effect, since no one but the photographer can read the comments until the voting is over. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 04:32:29 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bear in mind that if your shot looks fake (as in overprocessed), it will tend to get hammered anyway regardless of whether you used legal methods to get the final result. Anything that looks like digital art (with few exceptions) will be severely beaten by the purists as "not photography." |
Well, often I would vote an overprocessed shot low, not because it looks like digital art but because it's in bad taste. Unless the processing is done in good taste, of course, any picture in good taste gets a high score from me. But then, good or bad taste is highly subjective :-)) |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 05:23:17 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by markmyshots:
hey airatic, i went to your portfolio and was looking at your picture of "auto: the cost of luxury". everyone in the comments said that they didnt understand the photo and im one of them....you never responded..
What the heck is it? smoke or something? |
I actually don't see your comment there, which would be why I never responded before. I send a PM to the commenters, and I think I covered most of them. I have PMed an explanation to you and posted it with the photo as well.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2004 06:10:26 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That would have no effect, since no one but the photographer can read the comments until the voting is over. |
Huh? I never said other people could read the comments. If I'm beating on the update button (as usual), and the number of votes and comments both go up by one, I can reasonably assume that the vote and comment are from the same person. If that commenter says that he suspects the shot was PS'd and the otherwise good score drops drastically, then it certainly DOES have an effect! |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 08:56:04 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That would have no effect, since no one but the photographer can read the comments until the voting is over. |
Huh? I never said other people could read the comments. If I'm beating on the update button (as usual), and the number of votes and comments both go up by one, I can reasonably assume that the vote and comment are from the same person. If that commenter says that he suspects the shot was PS'd and the otherwise good score drops drastically, then it certainly DOES have an effect! |
I read this statement
Originally posted by scalvert:
... I've witnessed an otherwise good score get hammered when a single voter leaves a suspicious comment. |
to mean that after the comment is left, other voters coming along would see it and vote lower. I didn't consider the maximum lowering effect of a single vote to be "hammering" :)
I see what you mean by it now.
Message edited by author 2004-07-14 20:56:46. |
|
|
|
07/14/2004 11:58:52 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's what you're supposed to do, but some people don't read the rules (challenge descriptions, camera manuals, etc.). I've witnessed an otherwise good score get hammered when a single voter leaves a suspicious comment. |
Or maybe another voter(s) came back to your shot and changed an earlier vote at about the same time; unless you are at the very beginning of voting one person is not going to have the enough effect to "hammer" your score. |
|
|
|
07/15/2004 12:38:30 AM · #18 |
OK, so maybe "hammer" was too harsh. You can start to get a general idea of your final score after the first 30-50 votes, but an individual vote can still have a impact at that stage. Since you apparently can't request an admin note until after the voting starts, those early voters form their own conclusions about validity, and the voting patterns are VERY noticeable. It's obvious that not everyone is voting with the assumption that the shot is legal.
Message edited by author 2004-07-15 00:39:09. |
|
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: 09/07/2025 06:40:45 PM EDT.
