| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2004 02:34:08 PM · #1 |
I thought maybe it would've been useful to show photo description (just the explanation) during challenge. Sometimes the title is just not enough.
I made a mistake recently voting low extraordinary picture because I had no idea what was the message. It happened twice in fact. Lucky enough I went back (it disturbed me a lot) thought it over and adjusted my score accordingly.
I can see sometimes extremly long and "overtalked" titles - probably because people want to explain the message the best they can.
This is a multicultural site, so I believe it could be helpful and not jeopardize the anonymous origin of the picture.
I thought of it when I got the comment that my photo is difficult to understand what is it about. Well... if average voting person takes 2 seconds to look at the photo - sure it is. If they could read the description, maybe they will take a closer look.
I know the photo should defend itself, but then - like in Poverty challenge - if we wont make a picture of a starving 3rd world child, the message may be lost. I think it could be also quite educative for the voters.
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 14:45:57.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:42:47 PM · #2 |
For the most part I think the photo should convey it's message on it's own. The title and description is like telling the viewer what they see rather than letting them get the feel of the image on their own.
Maybe have an option on the viewing page to hide the title and description but allow the viewer to bring it up if they want.
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 14:43:48.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:25:46 PM · #3 |
The problem with showing more than the title and photo is that the additional information can easily reveal the photog's identity. the random-ordered, anonymous voting is an important feature of DPC, IMO, since everyone gets as fair a judgement as possible.
The photo and title shold stand on their own; if they do not clearly communicate, they will quite naturally be voted lower.
If I don't understand how the photog felt the pic met the challenge, I personally only subtract at most two points from my score, and much more often one point, so that I don't severely penalize an otherwise good effor that I simply failed to understand.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:31:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by rennie:
I made a mistake recently voting low extraordinary picture because I had no idea what was the message. It happened twice in fact. Lucky enough I went back (it disturbed me a lot) thought it over and adjusted my score accordingly. |
That wasn't a mistake. At least not on your part. If you can't understand the photographer's message, especially when you give it an honest try of more than 2 seconds, that photographer has failed.
I think allowing descriptions to be seen during voting would compromise anonymity more than you suggest. Over time the form a person chooses to use could easily become, intentionally or not, a giveaway to their identity. But more threatening than that is the thought of the pandering type of remarks that could appear. Such as "If you knew how much trouble I went to get this shot...."; or "I was really down in the dumps for this challenge but shot this at the last minute. If it bombs I'm gonna quit dpc. Please help cheer me up."; or "I know this is a decent shot. Anyone who gives it a 1 is an idiot." Do you want to wade thru this kind of stuff when voting? Not to mention the added time it would take to read, and maybe even think about, what is said in the descriptions. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:40:21 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think allowing descriptions to be seen during voting would compromise anonymity more than you suggest. Over time the form a person chooses to use could easily become, intentionally or not, a giveaway to their identity. But more threatening than that is the thought of the pandering type of remarks that could appear. Such as "If you knew how much trouble I went to get this shot...."; or "I was really down in the dumps for this challenge but shot this at the last minute. If it bombs I'm gonna quit dpc. Please help cheer me up."; or "I know this is a decent shot. Anyone who gives it a 1 is an idiot." Do you want to wade thru this kind of stuff when voting? Not to mention the added time it would take to read, and maybe even think about, what is said in the descriptions. |
It didn't cross my mind that somebody could give such comment :) But we are only humans I guess, so it may be possible.
Now I'm not so sure about my idea.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:48:32 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
.
If I don't understand how the photog felt the pic met the challenge, I personally only subtract at most two points from my score, and much more often one point, so that I don't severely penalize an otherwise good effor that I simply failed to understand. |
It would be ideal if there was a greater responsibilty demonstrated when judging submitted photos. I do not completely disagree with the idea of providing additional information though I understand it would be difficult to implement and allow for the chance of revealing ones identity. The voting seems to place greater emphasis on technical mass appeal rather that the entrants desire to uniquely express vision through their submissions. Also, due to the size of this site, it a task in itself judging all of the different entries.
I'm willing to bet that the music challenge will have a fine selection of piano shots and or other instruments. Unfortunately I am coming to expect this as I suspect it is easier to generically meet the challenge that than it is to challege ourselves artistically and run the risk of being slammed through lazy voting. I would be thrilled to see some wildly different photos that would inspire me to experiment.
We should consider judging each photo with 2 scores. One for technical and the other for artistic. Each deserves its own recognition since they are each very different, yet integral, parts of the photo.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:55:16 PM · #7 |
Such comments (pandering examples given earlier) would violate the TOS against "blatant attempts to manipulate the vote," and, as the general reaction here indicates, would be far more likely to result in a reduced vote.
It is not hard to convey info about the photo without violating anonymity -- I'm pretty sure those who do so will be penalized by the voters (remember -- it's not a DQ offense nor TOS violation to merely reveal which photo is your entry).
For example, in a Basic challenge, your photo might be less likely to be "questioned" if you indicate something like "... exposure using graduated ND filter enabled both clouds and cliffs to retain detail."
I've long-proposed making it available as a pop-up, so that only those who want to see it would. Actually, I've suggested the title could be a pop-up too, or at least put under the photo, so those who want to judge the photo entirely "on its own" have a better opportunity to do so.
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 15:56:36. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 04:54:06 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Such comments (pandering examples given earlier) would violate the TOS against "blatant attempts to manipulate the vote," and, as the general reaction here indicates, would be far more likely to result in a reduced vote. |
Maybe my examples sounded a bit harsh but they are not out of the question. One was taken almost verbatim from a forum post.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is not hard to convey info about the photo without violating anonymity -- I'm pretty sure those who do so will be penalized by the voters (remember -- it's not a DQ offense nor TOS violation to merely reveal which photo is your entry). |
Maybe it should be a DQ'able offense. No, probably not. But with the constant influx on new users it needs to be stressed that anonymity is an essential element of the dpc challenge concept.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, in a Basic challenge, your photo might be less likely to be "questioned" if you indicate something like "... exposure using graduated ND filter enabled both clouds and cliffs to retain detail." |
True, it's not at all hard to convey info about a photo without revealing your identity. But even if you try to do so (some will go the other way and force SC to draw a line) some people will learn to see a pattern in descriptions just as they do now in learning the various photographers styles, and learning to recognize their models.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've long-proposed making it available as a pop-up, so that only those who want to see it would. Actually, I've suggested the title could be a pop-up too, or at least put under the photo, so those who want to judge the photo entirely "on its own" have a better opportunity to do so. |
Not all voters would be viewing the same thing(s) before casting their vote, that bothers me a bit.
At the risk of being called a purist, or worse things, I say the voting procedure isn't broke so don't fix it. Like the layout of the baseball diamond, the dpc challenge concept is, by coincidence or genius, amazingly good in it's original form. Only change I would like to see made would be to return to the old way of commenters being anonymous during voting.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 04:56:47 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
At the risk of being called a purist, or worse things, I say the voting procedure isn't broke so don't fix it. Like the layout of the baseball diamond, the dpc challenge concept is, by coincidence or genius, amazingly good in it's original form. Only change I would like to see made would be to return to the old way of commenters being anonymous during voting. |
No problem ... I'm just trying to be consistent -- I think it was the first suggestion I made after joining : ) |
|
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: 08/30/2025 10:56:00 AM EDT.
