| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2004 02:55:26 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by jadin:
...
Take a look at the threads where the offer was made, I'd say a significant number of voters commented much more than they would've normally. I agree with annasense that it severly taints that data. |
Well, I don't have access to raw numbers to do my own computations - but how many hundreds of challenges have there been? And how many have had free print offers? Of the thousands of members and general users, how many actually did comment on all of them? I still say statistically insignificant.
All that I am saying is that a ratio of voters/submissions and comments/submissions can give some kind of baseline for objectively judging "success" at DPC. By monitoring trends of different kinds of challenges, one might be able to determine if some challenges were more or less popular than others. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:56:14 PM · #152 |
| One thing to keep in mind: There was a challenge in the forums to voters to leave comments on each entry in the Masters challenge. Many people decided to take that challenge and run with it. That challenge would thereby skew your results if all you rely on is # of comments. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:59:58 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I just wanna know why people who win 2-3 ribbons need to be rewarded further? Why not reward the people who vote a lot? or the people who comment a lot? |
Instead of making it a "why don't we do this instead?" perhaps we could find a way to reward those people as well?
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:01:50 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by joebok:
Well, I don't have access to raw numbers to do my own computations - but how many hundreds of challenges have there been? And how many have had free print offers? Of the thousands of members and general users, how many actually did comment on all of them? I still say statistically insignificant. |
- Plenty.
- Very few.
- Lots. For a few reasons, 1) the offer 2) the very small number of actual submissions 3) the quality of the photos. Lots of people took up the offer because of 2 and 3.
You could still use the data, but you'd have to do so with a grain of salt. Since it was indeed tainted, even if a "statistically insignificant" amount.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:08:20 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by joebok:
Well, I don't have access to raw numbers to do my own computations - but how many hundreds of challenges have there been? And how many have had free print offers? Of the thousands of members and general users, how many actually did comment on all of them? I still say statistically insignificant. |
- Plenty.
- Very few.
- Lots. For a few reasons, 1) the offer 2) the very small number of actual submissions 3) the quality of the photos. Lots of people took up the offer because of 2 and 3.
You could still use the data, but you'd have to do so with a grain of salt. Since it was indeed tainted, even if a "statistically insignificant" amount. |
Well, turns out all the data is on the challenge history page. Do you happen to know what any of the challenges were that have had the reward for comments? |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:09:38 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No one here is denied anything.
|
As mk has pointed out, nshapiro was denied entry to a challenge for which he suggested the topic. Even if you won't acknowledge the other aspects brought forward you cannot argue that. Can we please raise the discussion above the "nothing is taken away from you" level. And stop with the name calling, please. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:12:05 PM · #157 |
at some point you have to consider what is the point of the masters challenge.
First, lets assume for the sake of discussion that anyone who has ribbons is at least reasonably competent with a camera and is likely to be able to take an above average scoring image, on dpc. I think this is self-evident, but lets just put it out there as an assumption. This doesn't mean there aren't plenty of less populist photographers who haven't got 3 ribbons, that aren't equally competent. I think I used enough negations in that sentence to even confuse myself, but assume charitably that I mean it in a good way.
So what's the point of the masters challenge ?
Is it to concentrate the pool of 'above average' images in a given challenge to make voting more interesting, educational and inspirational ?
Is it to reward 'masters' winners by making them feel more important ?
Is it to encourage those who argueably contribute the most popular images to contribute more of them, or at least stay around ?
Does it help the site more to keep the more successful photographers engaged, or does it help the site more to encourage other groups, like those who vote a lot, or comment a lot ?
After all, at least for the ribbon winners, there is some essentially tangible evaluation of 'quality' Voting a lot or commenting a lot are just things you can do, without any attention paid to if they are meaningful votes or comments.
Who do these challenges help ? I'd tend to think that the masters challenges have more value to those not allowed to enter, than to those who get to enter, if they choose to take that value from it.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:12:41 PM · #158 |
I'm bored with all this!
If you like the idea, good...vote and comment.
If you don't like the idea...don't vote or comment on photos.
Going back into my hole now. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:12:47 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No one here is denied anything.
|
And stop with the name calling, please. |
Maybe, when people stop whining......
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:18:04 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No one here is denied anything.
|
As mk has pointed out, nshapiro was denied entry to a challenge for which he suggested the topic. Even if you won't acknowledge the other aspects brought forward you cannot argue that. Can we please raise the discussion above the "nothing is taken away from you" level. And stop with the name calling, please. |
But nshapiro was not denied from entering challenges which would have allowed him to win the ribbons which would have allowed him to enter the Masters challenge. Was he or any other member singled out and told he could not enter ANY challenges?
I'll stop with the "nothing is taken away from you" argument when it is wrong, which it isn't. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:19:42 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Who do these challenges help ? I'd tend to think that the masters challenges have more value to those not allowed to enter, than to those who get to enter, if they choose to take that value from it. |
All previous discussion aside, could you clarify this comment?
I think I wholeheartedly disagree with what you're suggesting but I want to make sure I understand it first!
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:21:21 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
... nshapiro was denied entry to a challenge for which he suggested the topic. Even if you won't acknowledge the other aspects brought forward you cannot argue that. |
I agree that was poor planning. Maybe we can repeat the subject rather soon, the the "masters" will have already used up their best ideas ... |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:25:49 PM · #163 |
I'll weigh in on this one....
There's lots of talk about what has been taken away, but the way I see it something has been added--and it's not necessarily good.
Before, when people would whine about votes people would say, "Hey, it's just a virtual ribbon! What are you getting all worked up about. Just do your best and enjoy." But now the ribbons have value. And that value goes beyond the pretty pictures on your profile page--a ribbon has true value, if you win (earn?) 3 of them you get something more.
I think Gordon asks the best questions, what is the reason for creating Master's challenges? Until we know what the goal is, we have no way to debate whether the actions are appropriate. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:26:32 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Instead of making it a "why don't we do this instead?" perhaps we could find a way to reward those people as well? |
Please see my suggestion in this thread: Special Veterans Reprise Challenge
It was discussed and several modifications were added but it seems to have died while the Masters are getting their second reward. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:30:33 PM · #165 |
| This just means more time for "Stock" photos |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:36:17 PM · #166 |
Yes, indeed faidoi!
See below for details...
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 15:36:33.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:38:03 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coolhar:
... nshapiro was denied entry to a challenge for which he suggested the topic. Even if you won't acknowledge the other aspects brought forward you cannot argue that. |
I agree that was poor planning. Maybe we can repeat the subject rather soon, the the "masters" will have already used up their best ideas ... |
Why not have a masters challenge run concurrently with a non-masters challenge with the same topic?
Keeps everyone happy non-masters don't miss out on a challenge and masters get to compete with peers of similiar ability.
I feel this would also give non-masters a reason to be more competetive and strive to show what they can do compared to the masters, this should produce some very interesting results.
Just a thought, otherwise I don't really care of how many challenges there is for whoever I just enter when I can. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:38:42 PM · #168 |
I agree, KaDi, the Master's challenge gives further value to the ribbons...I think it might be better received if the challenge was quarterly or semi-annually and if they were free studies...
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:47:43 PM · #169 |
Wow... the only thing that really surprises me is that so many people actually feel that those who get the ribbons are the best photographers participating! There are so many great photographs that never get ribbons and photographers whose work never gets praised. I hope that they all know that their work is valuable whether it wins ribbons here or not. Winning is not the most important benchmark for excellence and it definitely doesn't have much to do with having a unique vision (which I prize more than popularity in anyone's work). The value of art isn't in the number of people who buy it or, in this case, vote for it. I always hope there are more people who realize that than there actually ever are. It is one of the reasons, though, why art has such a low priority in the West, I think. It's all about winning and losing instead of seeing, sharing one's vision, growing and changing, achieving one's own individual goals within a skillset, variety of experience and style, etcetera. I love the idea of the challenges but the competition aspect just causes all kinds of unnecessary pettiness to erupt.
On the other hand, I am glad for those who do win to have the experience of being popular! As a social being, that is means something to me. But, as an artist, it means absolutely nothing to me.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:51:02 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
at some point you have to consider what is the point of the masters challenge. |
To my memory, at the time of the first Masters we were told that it was to reward the Masters for their contributions to the site, and to keep them around. Here's a quote from a post at the time:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think it would also add immensely to this challenge that it be required of all "masters" who have submitted an entry that they be required to give some kind of in depth written critique along with their votes (their actual scores) on all pictures they vote on. Then there would be A LOT to learn from this challenge for all of the DPC community. This could be invaluable for all to learn from, imo. |
And my response, also at the time:
"A very good idea. Take it a little further. Probably too late for the current Masters' but if there are more in the future the entrants should be required to give a full disclosure about there shot. Of course the usual f stop, ISO, shutter speed but also the lens used if a DSLR, location, the editing steps, the editing program(s) used, and some about what they were thinking when they shot, how they came up with the idea, and how did they tailor the vision toward doing well in the challenge. If we are having this challenge for the rest of us to learn from the "Masters" let's get them to share as much of their knowledge as possible. A SC member should check each upload to make sure it had everything before it went into voting stage. Sorry for the extra work SC but it won't be that many you would have to inspect. Nothing is quite as frustrating as finding an interesting shot when voting and wanting to know about it but then when you come back to it after voting to find that the Photographer's Comments section is as bare as Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard."
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'd tend to think that the masters challenges have more value to those not allowed to enter, than to those who get to enter, if they choose to take that value from it. |
This is probably true, to some extent at least, but at what cost in hard feelings, etc.? Is it worth it?
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 15:52:28. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 03:58:16 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I agree, KaDi, the Master's challenge gives further value to the ribbons...I think it might be better received if the challenge was quarterly or semi-annually and if they were free studies... |
What if all free studies became master challenges?
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 04:00:32 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I agree, KaDi, the Master's challenge gives further value to the ribbons...I think it might be better received if the challenge was quarterly or semi-annually and if they were free studies... |
What if all free studies became master challenges? |
Now that would cause an uproar! ...but I'd be okay with it. This is my first free study (October) and I'm not liking the results!
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 04:16:23 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by coolhar:
cloud has raised a legitmate question. We've heard from ClubJuggle. But I'd like to see cloud's question addressed by some others of the people who were involved in making the decision. |
I also felt that the Masters Challenge was a success. I based this on the fact that there was decent participation in the challenge, that over 1,000 more comments were given than are usually given and that, in my opinion, there was a large number of high quality entries which, frankly, were fun to look at.
To be honest, I didn't feel like many of the complaints against the first round of the Masters challenge were all that strong. Not that there wasn't a lot of complaining, just that I didn't feel the reasoning was very valid. No one was being denied anything that they signed up for.
There have been a few reasons presented in this thread that I feel could hold more weight. Specifically, I am sypmathetic to the fact that nshapiro suggested this topic and is now unable to participate. Also, some of coolhar's complaints have the potential to be true (I am interested in whether or not it does dilute the votes and comments received in other challenges), although some of them are still untrue (it does not "take away" a chance for you to compete against the Masters if that chance was never present in the first place.)
That being said, I'm in favor of having this sort of challenge less frequently...perhaps once a quarter as someone suggested earlier in the thread.
I am also interested in what sort of criteria other people feel we should judge the succcess/failure of this challenge by. I posed the question earlier but no one answered it. I am specifically interested in criteria that help determine what would be best site-wide and not necessarily criteria that bases the decision on what each individual feels they are absolutely entitled to. |
Thank you for responding mk.
It takes away a chance for me to compete against the Masters if, having an alternative, they don't enter the regular challenges. At least a few will follow this path.
Any others involved in the decision making want to speak up? |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 04:31:33 PM · #174 |
The "Master's Challenges" are interesting enough as a deviation from the norm that I see more value in them than not. That some people with unquestionable talent are excluded is just inevitable. There has to be some sort of qualifier for the challenge or it would not be what it is. C'est la vie.
Besides the interesting images produced, these challenges spawn threads like this that are hugely entertaining to read. This one makes the Presidential debate rants look lightweight.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 04:42:05 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
It takes away a chance for me to compete against the Masters if, having an alternative, they don't enter the regular challenges. At least a few will follow this path. |
Before the first Masters' Challenge I had entered a grand total of 5 challenges in 10 months. What that challenge did was get me interested in submitting again. I wonder how many others were in a similar position?
Just another path for you to consider ... one which means that you are now competing against more Masters than you were before.
Oh, and is there any chance of handing nshapiro a VIP guest pass for this one?
|
|
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: 08/05/2025 09:20:51 AM EDT.
