| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2004 03:48:03 PM · #51 |
How about a “Voting Council” we already have a site council and critique club. The Voting Council would comprise of 50 volunteers that DPC accepts. DPC looks at there past voting record and their ability a having a eye for photography and their ability to judge all kinds of photography and they must be a member.
Then the voting system will be weighted 50% voting council and 50% voters. Here is an example of how it would work.
Voting Council views a photograph and votes an average of 5.2500
Voters view the same photograph and vote an average of 7.500
5.2500 Voting Council
7.5000 Voters
----------------------
6.3750 would be the photographs average.
Example 2:
6.5000 Voting Council
4.1000 Voters
----------------------
5.3000 would be the photographs average.
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 15:49:45. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 03:56:17 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by boomer:
Anyone have any idea -- even a wild guess -- as to how many times this subject has been brought up on this site? It seems like it comes up at least once a month, maybe more!
Geesh! |
Once per challenge. |
and I don't understand what is the problem if someone votes me with 1s or 2s ? I can't please everyone and I don't intend to. The only reason I am here for is to learn and hopefully present a photograph that pleases the 'majority' |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 03:57:26 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Originally posted by richterrell:
[quote=lenkphotos]The real question is whether to judge an image based on a set of standards we can agree on (I believe such standards exist), or whether to express our personal taste for the image itself....
I would definitely be interested in the standards you mention... |
For some reason, I've rarely seen a watercolor I like. The same applies to most abstract paintings (oil or water). On a scale of 1 to 10, I doubt I'd give a watercolor any more than a 3 - based purely on how the image pleases me - my own warped taste. I wouldn't hang one on my wall.
I have a good friend who does a fantastic job with watercolor. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's a consistent 8 or 9. It's obvious to me that he's talented, has a good command of the art and the craft, and that he knows how to apply that talent. I admire his work. I just don't like it...
I think we can separate our judgement of creativity and execution from our own personal tastes. |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Originally posted by richterrell:
[quote=lenkphotos]The real question is whether to judge an image based on a set of standards we can agree on (I believe such standards exist), or whether to express our personal taste for the image itself....
I would definitely be interested in the standards you mention... |
For some reason, I've rarely seen a watercolor I like. The same applies to most abstract paintings (oil or water). On a scale of 1 to 10, I doubt I'd give a watercolor any more than a 3 - based purely on how the image pleases me - my own warped taste. I wouldn't hang one on my wall.
I have a good friend who does a fantastic job with watercolor. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's a consistent 8 or 9. It's obvious to me that he's talented, has a good command of the art and the craft, and that he knows how to apply that talent. I admire his work. I just don't like it...
I think we can separate our judgment of creativity and execution from our own personal tastes. |
I support Len's (lenkphotos) view.
What we mostly have here, at DPC, is a popularity contest, which does little more than reflecting the 'likes' and 'dislikes' of a majority. Votes, comments, much forum activity is made of this.
Artistically, there is no effective device, mechanism or means which reflects an effort to make 'the best photography' popular. There is no shared 'standard' or rudimentary 'premise' even, as Len has pointed out, from which to proceed toward a more 'critical' treatment of the more and less meritorious images collected, sorted and displayed here. As a result, we have no separation of 'the best' from a great mass of images which overweights the only scale we have.
Len asks, if those 'standards' exist; if we ask the majority -perhaps not. The majority, as I have heard say in the forums over and over again, insists on a subjective evaluation of everything and anything. It is the easiest stance toward difficulty, and, as such, easily popular. Personally, I also do not believe that a single measure exists which can be justly and equally applied to vastly different pieces without having any facts outside of those derived from the picture itself.
It is, IMO, necessary to draw information from work that has preceded it, from the wealth of great photography outside of this website, from the archives of all kinds of visual media, from live contemporary art, from photo-jounalism, from sculpture, literature, from the street, but -above all- from life.
This is not a job I would want or could, sensibly, attempt. It cannot be assigned, since no one, alone, has the stuff it takes to perform it. It is, instead, a culture that must evolve. It can, however, only evolve, if there is a more or less collective realization that there are, indeed, works which deserve more attention than other works. There has to be a realization that there are, indeed, 'model' photographs fit for 'study' and 'delight' that are a few notches above those suitable for mere 'consumption'.
If we can agree on such a premise, at least tentatively, then we would have need and a purpose, a little room for a direction into which to plant a seed. I, for one, am convinced, that for so much we have, here and elsewhere, which is loudly robust, there is also a frailty, which is preciously critical to our humble existence not only as photographers but also as human beings.
There are, already, a number of collections (of favourite photographs) which illustrate the very nature and range of the kind of work that would benefit from such care, as much as it, IMO, would benefit any man or woman with an interest.
I have no practical suggestions that could provide a distinct beginning in this directions. I do have, however, some degree of compassion for the kind of magic I have had the privilege to enjoy here.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:08:24 PM · #54 |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:10:43 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by terje:
Setup two divisions: Division A and Division B
Each challenge, the 50% with highest score in Division B are upgraded to division A, and the lowest 50% in Division A are degraded to division B. Then have the two divisions vote on each other division.
...
That would solve the problem AND create a more exciting form of challenge, it will not only be about winning ribbons, but also staying the longest in Division A. |
Except that people in "Division A" (with stronger photos) always have to vote on "Division B" (weaker photos). One of the benefits of voting on all of the entries in a challenge is that you get to see the good images too!
Since this thread is all over the place (and one of the things being discussed is how to reduce the number of pictures that need to be voted on), instead of splitting up the voting pool or having two challenges each week, how about something like this (when the number of challenge entries gets above a certain number?):
After the first 3.5 days of voting (i.e, until 12 noon ET on Thursday for Member Challenges) if you have an entry in the challenge and haven't voted on a minimum of 25% of the entries, your picture is automatically removed from the challenge (thus at a minimum, everyone who has entered votes, ensuring a minimum amount of participation in stage 1). Also at the end of those 3.5 days, the lowest-scoring 33% of the photos are removed from the voting pool. Now the second stage of voting begins, which continues "normally"; you can adjust votes made in stage 1, etc. Those who want to wait to vote until stage 2 are now left with a collection of (supposedly) better photos to rate, thus encouraging more voter/comment participation from non-entrants.
Results are calculated, and the photos that "didn't make the cut" are simply listed in a random order without a score after the ranked images (so comments received during stage 1 are still visible). This "saves face" for someone who might otherwise have come in ranked near the bottom, and also alleviates purposefully trying for the "brown ribbon".
(To account for those going on vacation right when voting starts, there could be 2 "get out of voting" tokens per year for each user.)
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 16:12:16. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:13:35 PM · #56 |
It's a good thing we have this discussion once every three weeks or so.
M
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:17:27 PM · #57 |
As I said before.. make the toggle switch, no point making such a complicated system of two contests when you can simply not show the score to anyone voting, and those who can see their scores can no longer vote.
This won't solve the vote 1's on everything, but it will solve the I'm not doing so hot right now, let me change stuff.
Gives you a slight bit of impartiality in not knowing how you are doing while you are voting... |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:25:09 PM · #58 |
First of all I don't think there is any significant problem to the current voting process but if it is determined that a fix is in order I have a somewhat unusual suggestion. How about for each challenge a small percentage (say 10%) of users are selected to vote on a particular challenge. They would be notified via email at the start of each challenge. I think these select few voters would be inclined to be more serious with their votes and since their selection would be random and discreet no other voter would know that they have been selected. This would also cut down on the current burden of feeling like you need to vote on all of the photos. In addition to my proposed voting process everyone else could still be free to leave comments on as many photos as they wish. It's just that if you aren't part of the voting committee for that week then you aren't able to leave a vote with your comment. I admit that I have become a terrible voter but I would take the role seriously if I was amoung a select few for a challenge. Any thoughts on this?
T
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 16:28:35.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:27:23 PM · #59 |
Oh yeah. Who cares if this discussion comes up a lot? It just shows that people are interested in it. You don't have to take part in a discussion only to say that it is a tired discussion. :)
T
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:36:13 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Oh yeah. Who cares if this discussion comes up a lot? It just shows that people are interested in it. You don't have to take part in a discussion only to say that it is a tired discussion. :)
T |
I can appreciate the idea of the 10%, but do we need to bother with complicating the issue? We all have a vote, majority vote fairly, so if this is not good enough, why not just say the SC do the voting while we all just sit back and wait for our ribbons!
Or! The CC do the voting, and once again we wait for that elusive ribbon?
Or, we leave things as they are and have the same debate every month. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 04:53:43 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Oh yeah. Who cares if this discussion comes up a lot? It just shows that people are interested in it. You don't have to take part in a discussion only to say that it is a tired discussion. :)
T |
True, but it would be nice if people who start these threads would bother to look at some of the older threads on the same topic so that they could get some insight into the previous discussions and not just re-state the same old, tired ideas over and over, but maybe try to come up with a new and novel idea. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 05:06:14 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by timj351:
Oh yeah. Who cares if this discussion comes up a lot? It just shows that people are interested in it. You don't have to take part in a discussion only to say that it is a tired discussion. :)
T |
True, but it would be nice if people who start these threads would bother to look at some of the older threads on the same topic so that they could get some insight into the previous discussions and not just re-state the same old, tired ideas over and over, but maybe try to come up with a new and novel idea. |
Because this has come up once again, there are some new and novel ideas, even if those ideas weren't from the original poster.
T
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 06:31:40 PM · #63 |
I got about half way through this thread before posting as not to loose my train of thought. Having said that I think alot of valid points have been made. I like what Eddyg had to say about karma. I could see a slightly different interpritation...
I do think people judge based on their own tastes, but what other way is there? A thought crossed my mind while reading eddy's post and here it goes..
if Tom votes 100 times (doesn't have to be only one challenge, I'm talking as a whole since they do track your avg vote given) , and within those votes are 20 4s, 45 5s, and 35 6s, this tells me that Tom votes 6 on the ones he likes, and 4s on the ones he doesn't. Now I like what I've heard in the past about only two choices, like or dislike, this could correspond with that.. I don't always agree with fellow dpc'ers because frankly I like my work and they don't always like my work, doesn't mean they are any less intellegent about photography or voting, just means they didn't like what I did (heard this about 40 times in this thread sorry to repeat). So I don't think people should automatically be ignored as a voter because their 10 is a 6. just a different way of voting.. To me a 6 can be the same as a 10.
I also think people vote lower when they see something they would done differently.. I am the opposite.. I will vote based on a mix of if I liked it and if it was technically correct (by my own standards, nothing scientifically proven). and then offer my comments on what I would have done differently. I think people should leave their 'opinions' until after they vote on the merit of a photo. just cuz someone put something you wouldn't have in the photo doesn't mean you should rip them appart, or even leave a comment. Chalk it up to difference in style.
Anyway, back to reading
uhg
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 18:33:34. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 07:21:33 PM · #64 |
| If only I could give my vote to someone else on a per-challenge (or until otherwise changed) basis. We could discuss photography as an art, dpc as a means to some end, our senses & aesthetics, and whatever else enters the conversation. One big digraph for voting. Then you can watch while people lobby for votes. It'd be like one giant poli-photographic rally and we all know how much dpc attracts politics (to the amusement of some and the ire of others). |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 07:42:42 PM · #65 |
Ire resemble that remark. :\
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 08:54:52 PM · #66 |
To address the original post, I often don't comment on those images that I vote the lowest for one of two reasons:
1. The image is, in my opinion, beyond redemption. Meaning that there is pretty much nothing worth a comment.
-or-
2. I can't find a nice way to say what I feel about the photo and don't want a bunch of irate PM's from someone who I have inadvertently offended. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 09:31:25 PM · #67 |
To follow Spazmo's topic (above/below), and to endorse what he says in it:
This describes an image I would award a 1: a technically (focus, exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to the size of an image), an 'offensive' one to civilized nature or a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'.
Of all the attributes ascribed to it, I would choose to comment only on the kind I consider 'offensive', mainly because someone 'needs' to do it. Everything else would require an effort disproportionate to a foreseeable result considering the sheer amount of images more likely to, actually, benefit from a considered comment.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 09:35:19 PM · #68 |
What new idea? I don't get it.
If you make me comment on my 1's, you'll get a lot of "not a good pic"
If you make me comment on my 1's, you'll get a lot of 2's from me.
If you make me comment on my 1's, you'll get "." just so people can move on.
It's
not
going
to
happen.
What new idea? I don't see where any "voters justifying their marks" is ever going to happen. And yes, we have this conversation continuously (amongst many others). It's frustrating that the same topics come up over and over - especially to those who are and have been here daily for a year or more. It's frustrating to get a 1. It's more frustrating to get a 1 and no comment. There is, however, no really excellent solution without going to a photosig method - where your vote doesn't register unless you type a certain number of unique words or something. Then voters will give a 2.
M
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 09:37:56 PM · #69 |
Oh, P.S. I saw and like some of the ideas for keeping the voting "legit" as far as the new ideas there. My lack of seeing "new ideas" is about COMMENTING and justifying 1's only.
M
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 09:51:48 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by yeoua:
Easy idea for the score thing.
You can vote if you can't see your score.
You can't vote if you can see your score.
So start everyone in voting mode... can't see your score. There will be a toggle switch that can set you to view score mode but you cannot go back to voting after you toggle, but you can now see your score. While in voting mode you can vote and revote to your liking, just that your score is not there. And once you toggle, you see the your score but your votes are now locked in. |
This is the best idea I've seen so far.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:19:01 PM · #71 |
Did anyone see my post above about a VOTING COUNCIL?
Do any of you think this possibly could work?
I’m just throwing out ideas here. This way everybody can still vote.
VOTING COUNCIL
Originally posted by SDW65:
How about a “Voting Council” we already have a site council and critique club. The Voting Council would comprise of 50 volunteers that DPC accepts. DPC looks at there past voting record and their ability a having a eye for photography and their ability to judge all kinds of photography and they must be a member.
Then the voting system will be weighted 50% voting council and 50% voters. Here is an example of how it would work.
Voting Council views a photograph and votes an average of 5.2500
Voters view the same photograph and vote an average of 7.500
5.2500 Voting Council
7.5000 Voters
----------------------
6.3750 would be the photographs average.
Example 2:
6.5000 Voting Council
4.1000 Voters
----------------------
5.3000 would be the photographs average. |
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:32:37 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
...The Voting Council would comprise of 50 volunteers that DPC accepts. DPC looks at there past voting record and their ability a having a eye for photography and their ability to judge all kinds of photography and they must be a member.
Then the voting system will be weighted 50% voting council and 50% voters.... |
[/quote]
Who, specifically, would appoint the VC members? What qualifications would he/she/they bring to bear on their choices? What criteria should be applied to an evaluation of prospective candidates and why?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:35:55 PM · #73 |
Say you get 330 votes.
50 voters are half your score.
280 voters are half your score.
I'm not bothering to vote then unless I'm on VC.
M
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:36:16 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by SDW65:
...The Voting Council would comprise of 50 volunteers that DPC accepts. DPC looks at there past voting record and their ability a having a eye for photography and their ability to judge all kinds of photography and they must be a member.
Then the voting system will be weighted 50% voting council and 50% voters.... |
|
Who, specifically, would appoint the VC members? What qualifications would he/she/they bring to bear on their choices? What criteria should be applied to an evaluation of prospective candidates and why? [/quote]
How would this group be different from the rest of the voters? Would there be set criteria that this group would use to determine their scores?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:39:06 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
...I'm not bothering to vote then unless I'm on VC... |
Lol. Come on, be a sport. ;-)
|
|
