DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Another Masters Challenge...
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 324, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/01/2004 07:22:13 PM · #201
I agree it would be really nice to have this one restricted to IN CAMERA to reduce the effect being created in post processing - not because I think the end result has more integrity if it's created that way than within Photoshop et al but because I think DPC is about learning how to stretch one's photographic abilities and sometimes it would be nice to stretch the in-camera side rather than the post-processing side, though both have their place on the site.

Phew!
 11/01/2004 07:32:44 PM · #202
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.


What is this statement based on? I haven't heard a master say they will only compete in the masters challenges?
 11/01/2004 07:37:04 PM · #203
Originally posted by langdon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Stats-wise isn't a competition in any recognised form. Have a look at the highest rated image in the history if you want an example right away that shows the pointlessness of considering this.


Good lord, what are you trying to say? ;)


You're a talentless hack? ;)

(I didn't say it! Gordon did. :)

Clara
 11/01/2004 07:43:48 PM · #204
Originally posted by langdon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Stats-wise isn't a competition in any recognised form. Have a look at the highest rated image in the history if you want an example right away that shows the pointlessness of considering this.


Good lord, what are you trying to say? ;)


[Edit: Correction, I don't think this is the point Gordon was making here. I must have overlayed my recollection of another comment about the high scores for the masters. But I think the point is still relevant to the discussion, so I'll leave it.]

I think the point being made statistically relates to the fact that a masters challenge is not fully "anonymous" voting. You know that all the shots are from a small pool of ribbon winners. Many who the site members hold in "awe" and don't feel qualified to criticize. So when they see an "ordinary" photograph that might have received a 4 in the regular challenge based on full anonymity, it received a higher vote, because these were "supposed" to be only the best photos.

Kind of like a placebo effect--with no disrespect intended to the participants.

Message edited by author 2004-11-01 20:22:01.
 11/01/2004 08:14:40 PM · #205
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It was also much easier to win ribbons and get higher scores in the past. Those are lumped right in with the rest of the challenges too.

You were here before me so tell me if I've missed something but I can't think of any way to avoid the statistical anomalies that occured as dpc grew.


I agree. There is no way to avoid this.

Originally posted by coolhar:

But, IMHO, this latest corruption of the database is unnecessary and easily avoidable.


Because of the first point above, this second one is completely irrelevant. The data is already corrupt and meaningless. More corruption doesn't change the fact that it is already meaningless numbers. In many ways it probably helps people realise this, so could be considered positive.

edit: Though thinking about it some more, statistically there are ways to normalise the data to give a more representative average, over time.

A simple moving average would maybe help, but doesn't take in to account the differences between open & member challenges for example.

Really, you'd need to work out a 'normal' over the entire history of dpc, calculate the deviation for any challenge and then normalise each score by weighting the average. This then completely ignores the fact that some challenges actually had better images in general than others, ignoring factors like it was a masters or members challenge so tended to get vote inflation, or was a later challenge so suffered from the general vote deflation over time.

None of these various permutations actually change that it is pretty irrelevant.

Message edited by author 2004-11-01 20:24:51.
 11/01/2004 08:14:55 PM · #206
Originally posted by langdon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Stats-wise isn't a competition in any recognised form. Have a look at the highest rated image in the history if you want an example right away that shows the pointlessness of considering this.


Good lord, what are you trying to say? ;)


Sorry ;) Wasn't trying to be rude ;)
 11/01/2004 08:59:14 PM · #207
Why not have the same challenge topic available to everyone, but if you want a Master's challenge then have the Masters in one and regular joes in another? If a master enters the master's only he/she can't enter the regular one.
 11/01/2004 09:00:29 PM · #208
Originally posted by traser:
Why not have the same challenge topic available to everyone, but if you want a Master's challenge then have the Masters in one and regular joes in another? If a master enters the master's only he/she can't enter the regular one.


So who wins ? and if you win the non-masters one, does it count ? Would you feel like it did ?
 11/01/2004 09:34:50 PM · #209
Originally posted by coolhar:
I am still convinced that something has been taken away from me. When an extra challenge is added that the vast majority of the community, registered users and paid members alike, are not eligible to enter, it:
1) takes away a chance for me to compete against the so-called Masters, and hopefully get a constructive comment from one of them;
2) takes away a challenge topic for which I may have had an inspiring idea for an entry (regardless of whether it was my suggestion or someone eles's);
3) takes away viewings, votes and comments from my entries in the other challenges by diluting the pool of potential viewers, voters and commenters;
4) it makes it more difficult for members like me to catch up with the Masters in ribbons;
5) it skews the statistics we use to measure our progress, and to compete with others, by giving the Masters a challenge where they don't have to compete against the general population of the community (think about how often we have seen ribbons go to first time entrants);
6) it reinforces the idea that the ribbon is the best measure of a persons contribution to the site, that the Masters somehow deserve a reward; and thereby belittles the contributions of the rest of us non-Masters.

Even if you can't see that it takes away from those not eligible, please try to come up with a better arguement in favor of it.


OK I'll respond to this post as it seems to be the only one that TRULY attempts to explain why a Masters challenge is a bad thing.

1-3 All these points are centered around you. They make you look rather selfish. This is a community site. You aren't the only one participating here!

1: You still get to compete against the masters! In one of the recent challenges, I finished only a few places behind jjbequin. That was a very proud moment for me! As for recieving comments from the Masters, you still have the opportunity to get one in the open or members challenges! Having a Master challenge doesn't automatically mean that masters will not vote or comment or enter in the Open/Member challenges!

2: I can give you this one, but only in the case where the challenge hasn't been done before! How many challenges in the last 3 months have been repeats though?

3: I don't believe that a challenge with only 50-75 entries is going to take comments away from you... People that are going to give votes/comments on the regular challenges will still do so! People that don't comment still won't, I WILL give you that the Masters challenge will probably get more comments per voter simply because of the deeper talent pool and 'better' entries...

4: You are contridicting yourself here! You say above that the Masters won't compete in the Open/Member challenges which theoretically would make it easier for you to get a ribbon in those challenges!

5: I'm not a mathematician so I can not comment on the statistical claim made here. I do know that I'm not here to compete against others based on average score! (My side bet with Artyste being an exception :-P) I compete against MYSELF! My ongoing goal is to always do better than my average score! I think this is a much worthier goal personally and if I get a ribbon in the process of bettering myself...

6: You again contradict yourself! Otherwise there would be no point 4 above... What's wrong with rewarding those that succeed? It's done all the time in real life! As for being belittled, I'm not belittled by a Master Challenge unless I ALLOW MYSELF TO FEEL BELITTLED! I'm not intimidated by the Masters, or I would never enter a shot in ANY challenge because the Masters can enter them too...

I don't see a problem with the Masters challenges, I see incentive, I see learning potential and I see some very good photography being posted to this wonderful community site! I definately do NOT see anything being taken away from me! I guess I'm not selfish or expecting to be entitled...

Message edited by author 2004-11-01 21:37:51.
 11/01/2004 10:22:39 PM · #210
Me personally, I don't give a rat's ass. I don't even have time to enter most of these challenges anyway. But I can understand that it IS unfair that Master's pay the same fee and can enter a greater variety of challenges. This is a way to resolve this disparity. As for winners you have two winners. The best one might not even be in the Master's challenge, that's presumptuous. There are other capable ppl besides those who have won 3 ribbons and those that have won 3 might enter the general contest anyway.

Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by traser:
Why not have the same challenge topic available to everyone, but if you want a Master's challenge then have the Masters in one and regular joes in another? If a master enters the master's only he/she can't enter the regular one.


So who wins ? and if you win the non-masters one, does it count ? Would you feel like it did ?


Message edited by author 2004-11-01 22:25:08.
 11/01/2004 10:24:46 PM · #211
Originally posted by traser:
But I can understand that it IS unfair that Master's pay the same fee and can enter a greater variety of challenges.


Why?
 11/01/2004 10:26:17 PM · #212
You gotta be kidding me right? If you pay $1 and get two cookies and I pay $1 and get one, everything's fair to you?

Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by traser:
But I can understand that it IS unfair that Master's pay the same fee and can enter a greater variety of challenges.


Why?
11/01/2004 10:34:29 PM · #213
Originally posted by traser:
You gotta be kidding me right? If you pay $1 and get two cookies and I pay $1 and get one, everything's fair to you?


Bill Gates pays a million times more taxes each year than I do. Is it fair that he gets the same number of votes for President as I?

Edited to add: Better example that more closely fits this supposed controversy. If you and I both pay $1.00 to enter a contest and I do better than you do and qualify for the next round in the contest and you don't, are you gonna tell me it isn't fair that you only got to compete in one round?

Message edited by author 2004-11-01 22:38:17.
 11/01/2004 10:41:03 PM · #214
Well if you paid a million times the user fee for dpc I would say be my guest and enter a million x more challenges. But every member here pays the same fee.

Bill Gates pays a million times more taxes each year than I do. Is it fair that he gets the same number of votes for President as I?
 11/01/2004 10:42:35 PM · #215
Well, if a round robin tourney was set up that's fine and good. But that's not what is happening here.

Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by traser:
You gotta be kidding me right? If you pay $1 and get two cookies and I pay $1 and get one, everything's fair to you?


Bill Gates pays a million times more taxes each year than I do. Is it fair that he gets the same number of votes for President as I?

Edited to add: Better example that more closely fits this supposed controversy. If you and I both pay $1.00 to enter a contest and I do better than you do and qualify for the next round in the contest and you don't, are you gonna tell me it isn't fair that you only got to compete in one round?
11/01/2004 10:48:31 PM · #216
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by muckpond:
I am guessing that a lot of people are upset because earning 3 ribbons just to get into another challenge appears completely out of reach.


Why is this out of reach? A bunch of folks have done it already!


I simply meant that there are a number of folks who are probably just dying to "break through" and earn a single ribbon at all. Now, instead of feeling good that they've gotten one, they feel bad that they still don't have enough to be a "master."

Anyone can see how many ribbons another user has. But when you start to be excluded from challenges based on the number of ribbons you've got, that's when people start to feel bad. It's similar to saying "only people with an average score of 5.5 or higher can participate."

That being said, I still don't mind the Master's challenges. I still want to know why the entry fee went from 2 ribbons to 3, though. No one seems to address that one.
 11/01/2004 10:56:53 PM · #217
Originally posted by traser:
Well, if a round robin tourney was set up that's fine and good. But that's not what is happening here.


No, what is happening here is that a few people that have succeeded here have been thrown a bone and a few people that haven't earned a bone are bitter...
 11/01/2004 10:59:10 PM · #218
Originally posted by muckpond:
That being said, I still don't mind the Master's challenges. I still want to know why the entry fee went from 2 ribbons to 3, though. No one seems to address that one.


The original proposal for the Masters Challenge set the number of ribbons at three. The first Masters Challenge was in fact introduced with three ribbons and then Langdon dropped it to two -- after discussion, we decided that the original three was best, but we didn't want to reverse it again on the same challenge. We decided to complete that challenge with two ribbons as the requirement, and set it back to three going forward.

In other words, we just went back to where we started.

-Terry
 11/01/2004 11:04:33 PM · #219
Originally posted by muckpond:
I simply meant that there are a number of folks who are probably just dying to "break through" and earn a single ribbon at all. Now, instead of feeling good that they've gotten one, they feel bad that they still don't have enough to be a "master."


Thank you Mucky! Finally someone has answered a simple question and allowed me to follow up. I am one of those people dying to "break Through". When I get my first ribbon, I will not mourn the fact that I only have one ribbon, I will rejoice in the fact that I'm one third of the way to becoming a Master!

Originally posted by muckpond:
Anyone can see how many ribbons another user has. But when you start to be excluded from challenges based on the number of ribbons you've got, that's when people start to feel bad. It's similar to saying "only people with an average score of 5.5 or higher can participate."


A self esteem issue! Drew and Langdon should not be blamed for others issues! And why does everyone see this as being exclusionary? It's INCLUSIONARY! You do good, you get included!

Originally posted by muckpond:
That being said, I still don't mind the Master's challenges. I still want to know why the entry fee went from 2 ribbons to 3, though. No one seems to address that one.


That is about the only valid point I've seen in this whole discussion and the only thing that I believe SHOULD be addressed by the site on this issue.

Edited to add: You beat me to the punch on the last point Terry! Thank you for the response!



Message edited by author 2004-11-01 23:06:56.
 11/01/2004 11:07:24 PM · #220
No, I'm not bitter at all. Some might be bitter, I don't know. Don't tell me or anyone else how I or they feel. It's not your place.

Someone thought the impressionist challenge was interesting and wanted to enter it but couldn't. They thought this wasn't fair. Others thought it was. That's what this is about.

Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by traser:
Well, if a round robin tourney was set up that's fine and good. But that's not what is happening here.


No, what is happening here is that a few people that have succeeded here have been thrown a bone and a few people that haven't earned a bone are bitter...
11/01/2004 11:10:14 PM · #221
Originally posted by traser:
No, I'm not bitter at all. Some might be bitter, I don't know. Don't tell me or anyone else how I or they feel. It's not your place.


I'm not telling anyone how they feel or should feel, they are displaying it with their posts on this subject.
 11/02/2004 12:01:49 AM · #222
Don't know if anyone else has said it or not, but I don't want to read all of this. So I will just say it again if it has been mentioned before. If you are going to do or get a chalenge for non winners, it would have to be for those who have 2 or less ribbons or then you are leaving out the people that have 1 or 2 ribbons and they would not have any extra challenges either. And in any case, I can't believe that this many people have had nothing else to do in the last day that this thread has grown as fast as it has. Just let it go. If you don't like it leave. If you don't care just keep trying to improve yourself as a photographer to get your 'extra challenge'. Look at it as a way to encourage yourself to become better. Anyway good night and sleep well all.
11/02/2004 12:20:08 AM · #223
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by muckpond:
That being said, I still don't mind the Master's challenges. I still want to know why the entry fee went from 2 ribbons to 3, though. No one seems to address that one.


The original proposal for the Masters Challenge set the number of ribbons at three. The first Masters Challenge was in fact introduced with three ribbons and then Langdon dropped it to two -- after discussion, we decided that the original three was best, but we didn't want to reverse it again on the same challenge. We decided to complete that challenge with two ribbons as the requirement, and set it back to three going forward.

In other words, we just went back to where we started.

-Terry


If you only managed to get 69 entries with the ante at 2 ribbons, how many do you think you'll get when the ante goes up to three? Wasn't the reason that it was dropped down because D&L felt there would not be enough entries? Have so many new 3 timers been crowned?

Just a little curious and quietly sitting on the fence...


11/02/2004 12:22:21 AM · #224
So much whine....................

Hello, Wisconsin?

Yes, please send cheese.

How much do we need? Ummmmm All of it MIGHT do it.

Do you know where we can get more when we run out?

11/02/2004 12:23:14 AM · #225
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Don't know if anyone else has said it or not, but I don't want to read all of this. So I will just say it again if it has been mentioned before. If you are going to do or get a chalenge for non winners, it would have to be for those who have 2 or less ribbons or then you are leaving out the people that have 1 or 2 ribbons and they would not have any extra challenges either. And in any case, I can't believe that this many people have had nothing else to do in the last day that this thread has grown as fast as it has. Just let it go. If you don't like it leave. If you don't care just keep trying to improve yourself as a photographer to get your 'extra challenge'. Look at it as a way to encourage yourself to become better. Anyway good night and sleep well all.


When people start off their posts by saying "I didn't read anything else but..." I always wonder why they expect people to read what they've written.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 09:21:02 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 09:21:02 AM EDT.