| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2004 10:46:29 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea to let the photographer decide if the comment was helpful by checking it. They don't check those boxes now for a lot of helpful comments they receive. A lot of what I see says that if the photographer doesn't get a 'kudos' comment, they don't consider it helpful. Requiring photographer approval to get credit would make all the comments become pats on the back rather than critical. |
Exactly!
If the critiques are reviewed independently by others, that would serve as enough "Quality Control" to ensure that the critiques given are balanced and fair assessment of the photo in question. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:46:51 AM · #52 |
These are all very good points, I just guess I was thinking in a perfect world.
Of course I have had a problem with the helpful button from the start. There is a lot of difference between technically helpful and psychologically helpful. I hate to mark the kudo's helpful but do because the voter took the time to write something and generally without kudos there wouldn't be much left.
Off subject anyway. Added
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 10:47:35. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:47:54 AM · #53 |
I am a beginner photographer myself, and I have very little confidence in my ability to critique photos (especially ones that would be posted by more experienced photographers). I generally avoid putting in comments unless the photo has something obviously wrong with it. How would I earn critiques then?
Also, although I dont really take abstract photographs, I've seen some good ones. How do those fit in with the critique criteria? They may break every guideline intentionally and still be good. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:56:21 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by eugene:
I am a beginner photographer myself, and I have very little confidence in my ability to critique photos (especially ones that would be posted by more experienced photographers). I generally avoid putting in comments unless the photo has something obviously wrong with it. How would I earn critiques then? |
It doesn't matter how experienced you are, you should still be able to post comments on any challenge entry, since you don't need to be technical - a simple comment saying "i like this shot, but the colours dont seem right" or "the blurring thing in the foreground is distracting" are as equally valuable to the photographer as a critique, since it gives them an idea what users like yourself think of their image.
Originally posted by eugene:
Also, although I dont really take abstract photographs, I've seen some good ones. How do those fit in with the critique criteria? They may break every guideline intentionally and still be good. |
Hopefully, the photographer would have put their intentions into the 'details' field of their enty, thus giving you an idea of what they were trying to achieve. In addition, you'll also be able to read all the comments make on the photo during voting, since critiques only happen after challenges end, so you'll have those to help you analyse the image. I understand your feeling that if you don't know a technique you can't critique it, but there are more aspects to a photo than just the technical sides - the composition and subject matter are up for critique as well.
Ultimately, the best thing is to jump in and give it a go, since learning by doing is (IMO) the best way of learning something like this...
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 10:57:06.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:57:29 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by techtraum:
I like the idea in general. Here are two slight concerns:
1. I would guess that the ability to effectively critique is highly correlated to one's photographic ability in general. The better a photographer you are, the easier it will be to earn credits from effective critiques, thus affording greater access to "priority critiques". Those who could potentially benefit the most from these critiques (i.e. amateur/new/learning/student photographers), will likely be the one's least likely to be able to earn the credits necessary to afford such a "luxury".
|
I don't think is true. In fact, most of the more respected photography critics in the world at large are certainly not considered great photographers. It is a very different skill after all, to construct
useful feedback verbally, than to put together a fine composition visually. |
Ok, I'll take your point as fact. However, it still doesn't address the fundamental paradox that I stated. Amended with your corrections, the problem still remains that those with the greatest critical ability are those most likely to have the luxury of getting the best critical feedback. Conversely, those not so gifted with critical ability, will not be able to afford as many "priority critiques" and will potentially miss out on useful learning opportunities.
In fact, with your correction the problem may be exacerbated in that good "critiquers" (is that a word?) will only be critiquing other good "critiquers" (maybe if I use it enough it will automatically be added to the English lexicon). Those with only photographic ability (or neither photographic nor critical ability) might be left to wander around in a void of ambivalent "this is a good photo" comments.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:05:05 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by techtraum:
However, it still doesn't address the fundamental paradox that I stated. Amended with your corrections, the problem still remains that those with the greatest critical ability are those most likely to have the luxury of getting the best critical feedback. Conversely, those not so gifted with critical ability, will not be able to afford as many "priority critiques" and will potentially miss out on useful learning opportunities. |
I see your point, but that's what the initial signup allocation is for - it should be enough to get most beginners up to the point where they can start having a go at critiquing. Since their first critique is likely to need work, this I why I mentioned (somewhere in this thread) the idea of having the moderators "mentor" the user through their first critique, so that they get the confidence to carry on critiquing by themselves.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 11:05:21.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:06:48 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by eugene:
I am a beginner photographer myself, and I have very little confidence in my ability to critique photos (especially ones that would be posted by more experienced photographers). |
If you have an opinion then you have the ability to offer a critique. Try it - you might surprise yourself, and I don't think anyone stands in aloof judgement on critiques anyway - since they represent another's viewpoint and nothing more than that. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:16:07 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea to let the photographer decide if the comment was helpful by checking it. They don't check those boxes now for a lot of helpful comments they receive. A lot of what I see says that if the photographer doesn't get a 'kudos' comment, they don't consider it helpful. Requiring photographer approval to get credit would make all the comments become pats on the back rather than critical. |
Right on the money! If the critiques has already passed muster of being reviewed, then credit should be given. Asking the photog to pass judgement will inevitably lead to "critique brown-nosing." |
I'm not talking about CC critiques here -- only about a way for people to get some kind of credit for ordinarily helpful comments made during the voting, so that people aren't tempted to quit commenting in general and reserve all their efforts for "official" critiques.
I suppose when the CC moderators are reviewing the critique they could mark all the other comment boxes, but that seems like just more work for them. Who else could judge if a comment is helpful?
And why shouldn't a thoughtful, helpful comment not be rewarded, when it would garner 5 points if the commenter would just wait until the voting is over and call it a "critique."
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 11:18:27. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:18:37 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
...If you have an opinion then you have the ability to offer a critique... |
I seriously question this. Everyone has opinions. Not everyone has the inclination and/or ability to subordinate an opinion to the facts of a picture.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:28:52 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea to let the photographer decide if the comment was helpful by checking it. They don't check those boxes now for a lot of helpful comments they receive. A lot of what I see says that if the photographer doesn't get a 'kudos' comment, they don't consider it helpful. Requiring photographer approval to get credit would make all the comments become pats on the back rather than critical. |
Exactly!
If the critiques are reviewed independently by others, that would serve as enough "Quality Control" to ensure that the critiques given are balanced and fair assessment of the photo in question. |
Ditto!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:33:16 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by techtraum:
Ok, I'll take your point as fact. However, it still doesn't address the fundamental paradox that I stated. Amended with your corrections, the problem still remains that those with the greatest critical ability are those most likely to have the luxury of getting the best critical feedback. Conversely, those not so gifted with critical ability, will not be able to afford as many "priority critiques" and will potentially miss out on useful learning opportunities. |
There are a couple points here. One - I don't really expect the 'barrier' for a critique to be accepted to be very high. At a basic level there could be a form/ template that could be used to give a starting point. Basically a series of questions that would lead you through expressing your thoughts on the picture. This doesn't require
fantastic critical abilities, nor does it pre-suppose any great photographic knowledge. Certainly, there are aspects of technical photography that can and will be considered in a critique - but they do not have to. So - getting involved and providing a critique is not going to be a very high bar.
Secondly, I think the best way to learn how to critique photographs, is by writing critiques of photographs. The people who are good at this are good at it by having done it before, either formally or informally. The process of looking at a picture and actually trying to formulate your thoughts well enough to write them down really makes you look at what works and doesn't work. Through this you become better at understanding what you like or don't like. This helps your own photography, next time you have a camera to your face. It also helps you to write better, more thoughtful critiques in the future.
A basic template could be along the lines of what I posted earlier in this thread. Thoughtful answers to the majority of those questions don't even require much photographic knowledge. Just looking and thinking. Hopefully quite quickly you'd grow beyond just using the template, but getting started isn't so difficult. Many people have done this with the CC before.
Everyone has opinions and with some care and thought, those can be directed usefully towards a photograph (to prempt Zeus's reply..)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:35:18 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And why shouldn't a thoughtful, helpful comment not be rewarded, when it would garner 5 points if the commenter would just wait until the voting is over and call it a "critique." |
Ignoring the rhetorical tags ;) it should be rewarded. The disagreement is over the mechanism of identifying 'thoughtful' and/or 'helpful' and more specifically, who gets to do the identifying.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:36:33 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea to let the photographer decide if the comment was helpful by checking it. They don't check those boxes now for a lot of helpful comments they receive. A lot of what I see says that if the photographer doesn't get a 'kudos' comment, they don't consider it helpful. Requiring photographer approval to get credit would make all the comments become pats on the back rather than critical. |
Exactly!
If the critiques are reviewed independently by others, that would serve as enough "Quality Control" to ensure that the critiques given are balanced and fair assessment of the photo in question. |
Ditto! |
Like I said, my idea had to do with COMMENTS, not CC Critiques. Those would be reviewed by CC Mods exactly as proposed. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:40:14 AM · #64 |
One point which I don't think was made clear in the original proposal was that the critiques are randomly allocated to the critiquers when they request one to do, whereas comments allow the commenter to pick and choose which photos they want to comment upon.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:40:51 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And why shouldn't a thoughtful, helpful comment not be rewarded, when it would garner 5 points if the commenter would just wait until the voting is over and call it a "critique." |
Ignoring the rhetorical tags ;) it should be rewarded. The disagreement is over the mechanism of identifying 'thoughtful' and/or 'helpful' and more specifically, who gets to do the identifying. |
There's no disagreement necessary, I just threw out the first and seemingly logical/simple-to-implement idea. You and some others have noted some significant flaws with that, and so we now merely await better ideas.
I once took a class on group problem-solving, where they promoted the idea of deferred judgement or "brainstorming," where you toss ALL the ideas on the table, and then separate the good from the bad ideas later. It's especially effective when you have limited time. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:45:00 AM · #66 |
Just to clarify, a few things.
1)
I'm personally against attaching "critique point" value to ordinary comments, especially if it's done on the basis of photographer decision.
Some people mark all comments as helpful just to encourage people to comment.
Some people mark no comments as helpful, either because they don't find ANY to be helpful or because they can't be bothered to give that feedback to those who have commented.
Some people only mark comments that are positive about their picture as helpful yet the most constructive ones in terms of improvement are left unmarked.
Some people feel that if a commenter hasn't guessed their exact intentions in the image and comments on something they intended to do that the comment isn't helpful. I'd argue that it's still helpful because it shows them how the image (and that aspect of it) is perceived.
I would strongly be against widening this excellent idea for a CC scheme up to include ordinary comments.
2)
I strongly believe that the skills of being able to take a winning image and the skills of being able to usefully critique an image are two very separate things. I have seen some rather dull and un-insightful critiques from some of DPCers top performers (no I'm not going to single out ANY examples) and I have also seen some absolutely fantastic and eye-opening critiques from those whose own images don't necessarily hit the target.
3)
As said above, I think this should start on a 100% level playing field in terms of credit given, any recognition tags given and so on. And I say that as someone who has, in the past, put in a lot of CC critiques so might benefit if credit were given for previous critiques. (I don't know how to count them as I did a lot more before the automated assignment system was in place but I did do a lot). What I mean is I'm not saying this because I'm jealous of the idea of people getting credits. I would imagine that all of us who have done (and those who still do) CC critiques have done and do so because it's something we enjoy/ it's something that helps us learn and improve in our own photography/ we enjoy helping others. Personally I think it would just be a lot nicer to start at a level ground - I think it would be a more generous way to start and just be more inclusive and more inviting. Of course, perhaps everyone else who has been or is a CC member will disagree and say that they DO want a wee headstart in terms of value credit or recognition credit! Who knows? I'm just saying that personally I think it would be great to start this from scratch for all of us.
4)
I really like the idea of having those who have reached a certain recognition level be the ones who both help new critiquers to learn how to critique and also be the ones who approve critiques as acceptable before they are displayed/ paid for. I think that's a great idea. It would certainly make me strive to comment as well and as often as I could. In the mean time, if I can volunteer to help in any work needed to get this off the ground (not with any credit expected) I'd be happy to do so. Manic and Ben you both know when I'm away and when I get back. Let me know if I can be of any help with anything at all.
THANK YOU to both of you for taking this on and looking to provide something that will benefit the site so much.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:46:58 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea to let the photographer decide if the comment was helpful by checking it. They don't check those boxes now for a lot of helpful comments they receive. A lot of what I see says that if the photographer doesn't get a 'kudos' comment, they don't consider it helpful. Requiring photographer approval to get credit would make all the comments become pats on the back rather than critical. |
Exactly!
If the critiques are reviewed independently by others, that would serve as enough "Quality Control" to ensure that the critiques given are balanced and fair assessment of the photo in question. |
Ditto! |
Like I said, my idea had to do with COMMENTS, not CC Critiques. Those would be reviewed by CC Mods exactly as proposed. |
Sorry I ditto-ed the wrong reply to Setz' comment.
My feeling, as clarified in my recent longer post, is that there should not be any credit attached to regular comments, especially if this is decided by photographer marking the comment as helpful or not.
Not to mention how many people will start commenting friends' entries and marking each other's comments as helpful. There are, sadly, always those who find ways to subvert the system and this one in particular would really be open to it.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:49:51 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I once took a class on group problem-solving, where they promoted the idea of deferred judgement or "brainstorming," where you toss ALL the ideas on the table, and then separate the good from the bad ideas later. It's especially effective when you have limited time. |
Yeah I agree that getting the ideas out on the table is the best thing. I hope you don't take arguments against such ideas as personal? I think it's better to express any potential flaws one sees sooner rather than later in the process.
I was at a language school in France recently and loved their expression for brainstorming: remue-meninge.
Remue = to stir
Meninge = part of the brain
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 11:50:03.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:55:54 AM · #69 |
I've tried to read the original post very carefully and the subsequent responses. I think there is a concept that is missing but that could easily be added. The proposed credits and reward system values only quanitiy, not quality of critiques.
Suggestion: Let those receiving critiques give them a grade, or to put it in other terms, rate their helpfulness. Keep a helpfulness quotient for each critiquer ... not unlike the sellers quotient on eBay ... and reward critiquers for a combination of quantity (how many they have done) and quality (how helpful they have been). Quantity times quality quotient equals cumulative critique value. Those with a high enough value could critique without admin oversite. If you need to choose critiquers to sit on an oversite committee, start with those with the highest cumulative critique value.
This approach, of letting those who receive critiques rate them, will make the process easier to administer, will align the incentives of critiquer and critiqued. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:00:01 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
I've tried to read the original post very carefully and the subsequent responses. I think there is a concept that is missing but that could easily be added. The proposed credits and reward system values only quanitiy, not quality of critiques.
Suggestion: Let those receiving critiques give them a grade, or to put it in other terms, rate their helpfulness. Keep a helpfulness quotient for each critiquer ... not unlike the sellers quotient on eBay ... and reward critiquers for a combination of quantity (how many they have done) and quality (how helpful they have been). Quantity times quality quotient equals cumulative critique value. Those with a high enough value could critique without admin oversite. If you need to choose critiquers to sit on an oversite committee, start with those with the highest cumulative critique value.
This approach, of letting those who receive critiques rate them, will make the process easier to administer, will align the incentives of critiquer and critiqued. |
This is an idea... but some people would never do back to mark comments as helpful though, so the equation would be better as:
(Total Critiques - Unrated Critiques) x Rating = Cumulative Critique Value.
That would give a fairer non-skewed result.
Alternatively, the person moderating the critiques could grade them.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 12:00:49.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:03:09 PM · #71 |
I like the idea of grading but I think it makes the whole thing too complex.
After guidelines are agreed, it shouldn't be too hard to decide whether a critique passes or fails, though there will be some borderline decisions I'm sure.
It would be a lot harder to maintain consistency if critiques also needed to be graded - a much more personal decision.
Personally, I'd imagine the best thing would be to get the scheme off the ground and running smoothly by keeping it relatively straightforward.
I dunno. Just my 50 pence. (I never can keep it to two pence!:o)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:07:45 PM · #72 |
The critique is requested by a photographer and has value only to the photographer. In the end, only the photographer can rate the helpfulness of the critique. Plus letting photographers do the rating dramatically reduces admin time, an important objective if this is going to work with a few thousand requests a month.
I like Konador's suggested modification regarding unrated critiques.
Edit: Damn typos.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 12:08:35. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:10:27 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
The critique is requested by a photographer and has value only to the photographer. |
You get to read them too. A good critique has value to anyone who cares to learn from it. It can act like a signpost to show you what is interesting in the picture, pick out aspects you hadn't thought of, and so on.
One thing that occurs to me, is I'd like to see an element of follow-through and dialog on these. I know some people seem to feel that their opinion is an entirely unassailable thing, completely not open for debate but I think it would be interesting to discuss the image rather than make a pronouncement upon it.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:15:26 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
A good critique has value to anyone who cares to learn from it. It can act like a signpost to show you what is interesting in the picture, pick out aspects you hadn't thought of, and so on.
One thing that occurs to me, is I'd like to see an element of follow-through and dialog on these. I know some people seem to feel that their opinion is an entirely unassailable thing, completely not open for debate but I think it would be interesting to discuss the image rather than make a pronouncement upon it. |
I think some people also forget that a CC Critique isn't some defined set of thoughts - EACH and every critiquer will provide different insights on any given image. Their thoughts might coincide to a lesser or greater extent but they won't be identical.
For me, the dialogue that has often resulted from the more detailed critiques I have left, has been one of the very best parts of doing them.
I also really learn from and enjoy reading the critiques others have left on images. Shows me new ways to look and consider what I see.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:26:04 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Imagineer:
...If you have an opinion then you have the ability to offer a critique... |
I seriously question this. Everyone has opinions. Not everyone has the inclination and/or ability to subordinate an opinion to the facts of a picture. |
I would also question whether it's right to suggest that someone without sufficient 'knowledge' should not impart a critique. Someone may be very able to appreciate the artistry in a photo or painting for example, but maybe doesn't know how to articulate this ordinarily.
Some guidance on the CC section may help to structure a critique more usefully. For instance, I've started to evaluate challenge images based on:
1. Challenge relevance (was it on-brief?)
2. Image critique (the merits of the shot aside of the challenge)
3. After-challenge appeal (whether or not I'd revisit the photo and for whatever reason).
I believe that these criteria would enable most people to form a useful opinion, regardless of experience, and aid the understanding of how one's work is perceived.
|
|
