| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2005 10:08:39 PM · #26 |
| This thread should be renamed "Bag over their head photographers". |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 10:08:41 PM · #27 |
Why not have ALL comments anonymous until voting has ended? Or not even REVEAL them until voting has ended? Just thinking out loud. Why is it important to be able to read comments on your image as they happen? You can't change it anyway...
Aside from sheer curiosity, the only reason I can think of is so that you can write to the commenter explaining something s/he missed, and this doesn't seem a very good reason to me. If someone missed it, it probably wasn't clear enough in the first place.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 10:09:29 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...If you let one segment remain hidden then this segment has an advantage over you because he knows who he is and who you are... |
Well, actually no. the commentor has no idea who you are, since you are anonymous. (S)He only would know who you were if you responded. Anonymity of commenting during the challenge places both the commentor and the photographer on an even field; neither knows whom the other is.
If you recieve rude/inappropriate comments from anyone, including anonymous commentors, report them to the SC immediately. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your reply here is 98.5 accurate. There are times when voters identify the person. However, I stand corrected in general. But when I vote I am visible. So if I comment on say 20 percent you all have my signature. If I receive 10 comments and two have hidden I.D.'s than I would have to have the option to block these commetators until the end.
Cbeller got the drift very swiftly. I am not complaining. I simply ask that if a voter has the option to hide then give me the alternative option not to read the headless wonders until the end. Perhaps I am being unreasonable? |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 10:41:58 PM · #29 |
Am I being dense, or is this what we are talking about as an added feature? "Hide Commenters' Names: Hide the name of commenters on my entries until voting is over."
That's available in my preferences. So we can make ALL commenters anonymous if we wish, on our side, and any commenter can make himnself anonymous from his side. What more do we need?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 10:45:36 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Am I being dense, or is this what we are talking about as an added feature? "Hide Commenters' Names: Hide the name of commenters on my entries until voting is over."
That's available in my preferences. So we can make ALL commenters anonymous if we wish, on our side, and any commenter can make himnself anonymous from his side. What more do we need?
Robt. |
I believe they are talking about the ability to hide the comments made by those anonymous commenters. If you chose this option, you wouldn't read any anonymous comments, they would be hidden from you until the challenge was over and the identity was revealed. |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 10:51:31 PM · #31 |
I almost wish people that I comment on would email (if there were not as many as there is.. I wouldn't have time to read them all). It's the same reason we interview musicians.. to learn what they were feeling and thinking at that time. What their life was like etc..
We don't see alot of spotlight for photograhers.. Even top notch ones. I for one am curious about this sort of thing. I doubt it would help my liking of it, but I would like to know what the artist really meant.. not just what i think he/she meant. It's hard to widen your vision when you only see what you want to see. Getting feedback from shots you enjoyed or even didn't can help you believe it or not. It can help you learn to see what art means to other people. Or what 'resolutions' are to other people, or any countless number of things. That is what this site is about. Finding and interpreting ideas based on a theme. I am never a bag over the head commentor.. (as all voting is bag on head). Because I'm not only willing to defend my comment, but am willing to listen to another angle, without all the crowd noise.
Joe
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 11:02:50 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by KDO:
If someone is too fragile to leave his or her name with a comment, that comment then becomes meaningless to me. If someone threw a bucket of crap at you would you stand there and let it hit you? Of course not. The same is true for words. You don't have to let someone else's crap stick to you. Step aside, man (er, sorry... or woman), and let it hit the wall. It is their crap, you don't have to own it. |
The opposite of this statement is equally true:
If someone is too fragile to accept comments unless they know who the commenter is, then, indeed, the comment is meaningless to everyone involved. (Ignored by the photographer, and a waste of time for the commenter.) As for the part about words, and crap... well, let's face it, that's why many commenters choose anonymity: they don't want someone else's crap thrown their way (via nasty PM's).
BTW-I'm NOT arguing with anyone, just adding to the spirit of the discussion. : )
Linda |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 11:13:28 PM · #33 |
To me there is no confusion here. Magicshutter expressed a thought consistent with the spirit of DPC.
Like him, I can handle replies and I do noy lose my cool because my object is not to judge like the wise King, but to understand the thought behind the image. I believe that I have good manners and I can take care of myself. But if the object is to improve our understanding of an image than to me the bag over the head voter is merely a judge.
I am from the school that if I receive negative comments and the general score bears this, then I have no one to blame but myself. I never want to beg for a reconsideration. But if you say my image is Photoshoped and it is not, then I think that your perception is under estimating the photographic technique. I also know that if I gently point this out that there is no PS, that the voter may even vote me lower. I would take the hit, but at least I have the pleasure to explain myself. If the voter is rude, I let him be because my object is to communicate and discuss ideas. The object is not to argue. |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 11:46:10 PM · #34 |
There are two sides to this site. One is learning. We do that by asking questions in the forums and having discussions.
The other is having an anonymous (Not known or lacking marked individuality) contest that people enter. If someone leaves a comment on your entry that is inaccurate, it's their lack of knowledge that is reflected when everyone reads the comments at the end of the challenge.
I find the words you use to describe the people that would rather follow the spirit of the challenges and not learn the id of the photographer inappropriate. |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 11:57:21 PM · #35 |
Since I was cameraless for a couple of weeks I have not had an entry in a challenge since this change was made. Just out of curiousity, how many voter/commentors are actually using the bag over head option?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:01:07 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Since I was cameraless for a couple of weeks I have not had an entry in a challenge since this change was made. Just out of curiousity, how many voter/commentors are actually using the bag over head option? |
In the Mechanical challenge I got 8 comments, only one had a bag over the head. The one with the bag simply said âI love itâ, not too much to complain about there.
I may just be lucky but I have yet to receive a comment that I would consider insulting or rude.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:03:23 AM · #37 |
| My opinion.... the more comments I can get the better even if this means that it has to be from a faceless person. But just as people have the option to remain faceless some people who want to should also have the option not to see faceless comments. But the main thing is to try to promote more people to make more comments. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:21:45 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Some of the most thoughtful commenters on the site use the anonymous feature. Don't automatically assume the comment is meaningless. You might learn something from it. |
I have to agree with Konador that this has been my experience also since the anonymous commenting feature was activated.
I find the rudest comments come from folks who have never entered a contest. Has anyone else found this to be the case in general? If so, we might want to consider instituting a rule that prohibits voting until the individual has entered a photo in at least one challenge. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 01:45:05 AM · #39 |
graphicfunk-- there is one way for you to avoid all anonymous comments. It will work perfectly for you. Don't enter any challenges. But I suppose that would be a loss to the community. We would have to balance that off against the loss of the comments from people who are turned off by your constant abuse (as in calling anonymous commenters names like headless wonders).
If you are really interested in comments to improve your photography skills why does it matter who it is from? With all the photography experience that you have, your extensive film background and all that, you shouldn't need to know what someone's Avg Vote Recieved is, or how many ribbons they have, to evaluate the merit of their comment. Why is your need to know who made a comment immediately so great that the site should be re-coded?
I guess you think it is really important for people to know that it came from you when you leave a comment. Seems like you always tell them what your vote is too. Is the anonymity of the site's voting system causing you to have an identity crisis, or something like that?
For Drew and Langdon to put in the feature you are trying to promote would be a waste of their valuable coding time. And your threads complaing about those who choose to respect anonymity are beginning to get a little repeatative and boring. Your posts are always acomplaining about something. When it's not anonymous commenters it about people who vote low. Can't you just accept the community the way it is?
I think we really should make all comments anonymous until voting is finished. Maybe just hide all the comments entirely until the challenge is over.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 04:03:39 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
graphicfunk-- there is one way for you to avoid all anonymous comments. It will work perfectly for you. Don't enter any challenges. But I suppose that would be a loss to the community. We would have to balance that off against the loss of the comments from people who are turned off by your constant abuse (as in calling anonymous commenters names like headless wonders).
If you are really interested in comments to improve your photography skills why does it matter who it is from? With all the photography experience that you have, your extensive film background and all that, you shouldn't need to know what someone's Avg Vote Recieved is, or how many ribbons they have, to evaluate the merit of their comment. Why is your need to know who made a comment immediately so great that the site should be re-coded?
I guess you think it is really important for people to know that it came from you when you leave a comment. Seems like you always tell them what your vote is too. Is the anonymity of the site's voting system causing you to have an identity crisis, or something like that?
For Drew and Langdon to put in the feature you are trying to promote would be a waste of their valuable coding time. And your threads complaing about those who choose to respect anonymity are beginning to get a little repeatative and boring. Your posts are always acomplaining about something. When it's not anonymous commenters it about people who vote low. Can't you just accept the community the way it is?
I think we really should make all comments anonymous until voting is finished. Maybe just hide all the comments entirely until the challenge is over. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, I think you miss the point. I am not a spoilt child that demands and if resisted I throw a fit. My viewpoint is simply to maintain fair play.
If one group wants to wear a bag for comments then give the others the option to make them invisible. I do not think it takes the mind of a rocket scientist to decipher this.
Now, if members ask to wear a bag, then they should not be so sensitive to being chided, after all, they are going out of their way to wear this ikon.
Now, this was not made as a request to be honored. I made the observation because when you confer a special privilege to one group then a counter option should be extended.
I have no such a problem with an identity crisis. This remark is not even essential to the topic of extending fair play. Think of it this way, the bag over the head voters were just recently implemented. What was wrong before? This addition has left wanting the option to see these comments at the end.
Now, there is nothing wrong with you voting and revealing your score. I remember, in the first masters, where we were asked to comment and reveal our scores. Not everybody did it. I did it not on all. I still do it bit not on all images. However, this has nothing to do with the topic of fair play.
If the founders feel that all should remain as is, then that is all right with me. This does not mean that I can not express the fair play inequity. |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 05:28:32 PM · #41 |
i rarely respond to comments. simply enough, i just read them.
i really don't care if whomever made the comment has a bag, bong, bic, or blue jeans on their head. anonymous observation is alright in my opinion. i'd be fine if the commentor was never revealed. though i don't keep myself hidden, i can understand why some would prefer not to hear what the creator had to say in defense.
i don't see a need to change the way commenting is currently set up.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 01:44:58 PM · #42 |
Personally I do not care if the voting procedures are changed or not changed. By the same token, I feel the current changes to hide voters was not made. However, if the majority can live with it than so can I.
The minor problem I see is that this procedure gives them the ability to throw stones. For example, the element of the question is forfeited by them. Why: because to ask a question is simply to annoy because they know all the member can do is stare at the screen and the little bag ikon that the sight so appropiately selected to define their presence or lack of.
Is this harassment. Of course not. It is simply bad manners to ask a question when you know that the recipient is unable to answer because a bag over your head protects your identity. If the question is a dumb one, it is more annoying.
My first instinct with this group that complained of being harassed by emails is that they lack tack in expressing their thoughts. Now they can proceed with impunity, because they can say what they will without much repercussion, for how many of us will give their comment enough weight to report them.
Not all ideas implemented are good ideas.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 02:05:21 PM · #43 |
Daniel... you know that I have the utmost respect for your opinions and your photographic skills. But I fail to understand what the problem is here.
Comments made by "bag over their head" commenters (I am one of them, and I personally dislike the icon that was selected and its connotations) are not anonymous. They are merely "temporarily hidden". The only thing it does is force you to wait until after the challenge voting period is over to begin a dialogue with the commenter.
There is strong value, IMHO, in also selecting the option that says "Hide the identities of all commenters". That way, the comments can be taken "for what they are", without pre-judging them by who said them. Is that not the same way we judge the images we vote and comment on? Without knowing whose they are until the voting is over?
In terms of "reporting a comment"... if it violates the rules of the site, it should be reported. If it simply "tactless", then it isn't likely that any action would be taken anyway, regardless of whether their identity was temporarily hidden or not.
By the time anybody else but the photographer can read the comments, the identities are no longer hidden, and everybody reading any comments on the photographer's photo will be able to take them at "face value".
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 14:09:15. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 02:10:12 PM · #44 |
Dan, ditto EddyG's comments, with exception to the icon. Personally, I do like the idon. I certainly don't feel that a little light-heartedness is out of place on a site like this, after all we're not a funeral home. The "Baggie" icon is nothing more than a bit of good old fashioned humor. I've tried to understand how folks are reading in negative connotations, but I just don't really comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:14:26 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Dan, ditto EddyG's comments, with exception to the icon. Personally, I do like the idon. I certainly don't feel that a little light-heartedness is out of place on a site like this, after all we're not a funeral home. The "Baggie" icon is nothing more than a bit of good old fashioned humor. I've tried to understand how folks are reading in negative connotations, but I just don't really comprehend it. |
The Icon does kick ass.. I wish I could have it on and not be hidden!! :D
edit: makes wanna be one of you guys/gals so I could have something cool like that!
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 15:15:15.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:08:13 PM · #46 |
So in essence, what you are saying is that it is alright for bag over head voter to leave a question as an act of annoyance.
Also, the option to change say rude statement to a more palatable one at a later time and right before the challenge ends.
Consider this: if all voters were hidden, then there is no inequities. If all voters are visible there is no inequities.
Consider this: If we have the option to turn off all comments when all voting is visible, there is no inequities.
If only some are visible and some are hid then the only option is to turn them all off.
Logic follows that if you choose to hide, then the receiver should have an equal option to turn you off.
I admit, I am at the edge of sophistry. I am not seeking to change the system only to acknowledge that this current implementation was added without addressing all the following considerations:
First: that the system is now open for more complaints because while not all, but some hidden voters can express a harder edge in the comment and then change it.
Second: Those that do not hide may resent having their space littered with questions that are made to annoy because they know that the recipent can not answer.
In other words you give the hidden voter an extra edge even if is at the expense of looking ridiculous.
While the system does not have to changed, especially since you only have a single member complaining, but this does not mean that a simple inequity exists as of the recent implementation. If you can not see this inequity then it is all right. I will disappear back into cyber space without a further word. lol |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:22:52 PM · #47 |
Dan,
Your thoughts are well-spoken and believe me they are well-taken. I don't understand, though, why you seem to feel that a question posed by an anonymous commenter is necessarily "meant to annoy." Personally, I woudn't take it that way, unless it was worded blatantly to suggest that was the case. If, for instance, an anonymous commenter asked me
why did you choose that particular crop? It seems to confine the subject and that doesn't seem appropriate. Or was that what you were going for?
The (completely hypothetical, I might add) commenter has asked two questions. Am I to assume they want an answer? On the contrary, I assume that they wish me to think about the answers to the questions. In no way do I interpret this as "intent to annoy."
Certainly a very few comments *are* meant to annoy, and you are correct that because of the anonymity period, commentors can make and later change comments and not be found out. I'd suggest that those few who might do so are best ignored in any case. If the comment is truly out of line, immediately report it to the SC.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:24:06 PM · #48 |
One easy solution then, it seems, is to simply not read any comments until the challenge is over. Then, whether a particular user chooses to be "hidden" or not, or change their comment (which seems unlikely to me), is not an issue, since once voting is completed, all identities are revealed...
But, just so I understand what you are suggesting:
You would like a third checkbox in the user preferences that says:
[_] Hide comments from temporarily hidden commenters until voting has ended
(doesn't have to be exactly those words, but that is the general idea, right?)
So the front page would show "Comments: 3", but when you clicked to read them, and assuming you had the above option enabled, and assuming one of the comments was from me (since I have the "hide during voting" option enabled), you would only see 2 comments, with perhaps some indication that there was another comment that was "hidden"?
If that is what you want, I will certainly add your suggestion to "the list" for implementation consideration by D&L.
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 16:36:47. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:30:02 PM · #49 |
i think realistically the number of folks who will leave a rude comment, and go back and change it is very minute.
../
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 16:32:06.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:47:35 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Dan,
Your thoughts are well-spoken and believe me they are well-taken. I don't understand, though, why you seem to feel that a question posed by an anonymous commenter is necessarily "meant to annoy." Personally, I woudn't take it that way, unless it was worded blatantly to suggest that was the case. If, for instance, an anonymous commenter asked me
why did you choose that particular crop? It seems to confine the subject and that doesn't seem appropriate. Or was that what you were going for?
The (completely hypothetical, I might add) commenter has asked two questions. Am I to assume they want an answer? On the contrary, I assume that they wish me to think about the answers to the questions. In no way do I interpret this as "intent to annoy."
Certainly a very few comments *are* meant to annoy, and you are correct that because of the anonymity period, commentors can make and later change comments and not be found out. I'd suggest that those few who might do so are best ignored in any case. If the comment is truly out of line, immediately report it to the SC. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Kirbic: In the examples you quote I see no problem with the rhetorical question.
Suppose however that you are asked, "Where is Waldo?", or "what is the resolution?" or any pertinent question whose answer is there to be seen or understood. I simply believe that these questions should not even be asked by a hidden voter. Because to pose it is to annoy since they are not seeking an answer.
Look, I understand that this being blown up to be more than what it deserves. If someone would have said, yes, in this implementation we gave the hidden voters the edge, then case closed. But to deny the existence of the inequity is the only point I am picking on.
Look: A while ago the site gave in to having a challenge for non ribbon winners. This was not a very good idea. I protested against it, but I did not say okay, since I do not agree with it, I will not vote. I did accept the ruling and voted accordingly. But this was another example of giving a group a special privilege.
|
|
