| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2005 09:45:48 PM · #1 |
I think that after your photo is validated or disqualified you should get an email stating:
A) The person/people who requested validation.
B) The text they submitted as to why they requested the validation.
OR...
People should just leave you a comment stating why they requested validation when they request validation.
Any one else?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 09:50:31 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:00:13 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I think that after your photo is validated or disqualified you should get an email stating:
A) The person/people who requested validation.
B) The text they submitted as to why they requested the validation.
OR...
People should just leave you a comment stating why they requested validation when they request validation.
Any one else? |
I completely understand why this would be desirable and helpful, however there are a few things to bear in mind...
- If we revealed who had requested DQ review on an image, folks would be very reluctatn to request review. The anonymity gives them the confidence to do so without fear of retribution from the photog. I'm certainly not implying that you would retaliate, but just the possibility of it happening would create a chilling effect on this process.
- When the review is complete, if your photo is DQ'd, the message sent will always contan an explanation of why. If the explanation is insufficient, you may PM any of us directly for clarification. If, however, the image is upheld, we need to keep the information generated during the review, including any information communicated to us by the person(s) requesting the review, in confidence. This is because giving out that information may compromise some of our verification methods, and so enable cheating. Again, let me stress that I'm not meaning to imply that you would misuse the information, but that misuse might become possible.
In summary, because we value the fairness of the process so highly, we maintain strict anonymity in the DQ review process. Although we understand the desire for information, manitaining anonymity comes first. We will, however, provide as much information on a DQ's photo as possible to ensure that the photographer understands whu the DQ happened, so they are able to avoid it in the future.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:11:50 PM · #4 |
I dont understand how telling someone that someone thinks they used dodge/burn on a basic editing challenge (for example) would lead to cheating. I think telling someone even in general terms the reason for the DQ would help that person understand the process a little more and not feel so alienated and like a victim. It could even be done after the validation was confirmed.
I do agree that the name of the person(s) who requested the DQ should be left confidential.
Message edited by author 2005-04-13 22:12:20. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:28:05 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I think that after your photo is validated or disqualified you should get an email stating:
A) The person/people who requested validation.
B) The text they submitted as to why they requested the validation.
OR...
People should just leave you a comment stating why they requested validation when they request validation.
While I can see your being informed as to the reasons why a "Validation" was requested ... I fail to understand what one would gain by being provided with the identity of the person making the submission.
What could you possibly gain from that???
Ray
Any one else? |
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:29:11 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I think that after your photo is validated or disqualified you should get an email stating:
A) The person/people who requested validation.
B) The text they submitted as to why they requested the validation.
OR...
People should just leave you a comment stating why they requested validation when they request validation.
Any one else? |
I disagree for the following reasons:
1. What would it accomplish if you knew who requested the DQ. They should not know who̢۪s photograph it is anyway so it̢۪s not personal.
2. I don̢۪t think it is in the best interest of the site. I have read thread after thread where people have been very angry about their DQ̢۪ed picture. Some have been very harsh toward the Site Council because of it so you know tempers will flair between the photographer and the person that ask for the requested. Before long friends of each parties side will join in and the site will be in disarray over a single DQ̢۪ed photograph. I say keep it anonymous and let the site council vote, it has to be a majority vote by the SC for the picture to be DQ̢۪ed anyway.
Message edited by author 2005-04-13 22:35:49. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:29:56 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by moodville:
I dont understand how telling someone that someone thinks they used dodge/burn on a basic editing challenge (for example) would lead to cheating. I think telling someone even in general terms the reason for the DQ would help that person understand the process a little more and not feel so alienated and like a victim. It could even be done after the validation was confirmed.
I do agree that the name of the person(s) who requested the DQ should be left confidential. |
ditto! |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:35:54 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by moodville:
I dont understand how telling someone that someone thinks they used dodge/burn on a basic editing challenge (for example) would lead to cheating. I think telling someone even in general terms the reason for the DQ would help that person understand the process a little more and not feel so alienated and like a victim. It could even be done after the validation was confirmed.
I do agree that the name of the person(s) who requested the DQ should be left confidential. |
To reiterate, in the case of a DQ, the reason is ALWAYS communicated to the photographer. That certainly is necessary, adn we'll go out of our way to explain furhter if the reaon i snot understood. Evidence the many public threads on DQs.
In the case of a review that does not result in DQ, however, we do not reveal information about the process. Though it is true that much of the information would be useless for somone looking to cheat, some of it might very well be useful, and a review with no finding of wrongdoing essentially supports the photographer's position, so there si really nothing to clarify to the photographer.
Message edited by author 2005-04-13 22:36:44.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:59:15 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by moodville:
I dont understand how telling someone that someone thinks they used dodge/burn on a basic editing challenge (for example) would lead to cheating. I think telling someone even in general terms the reason for the DQ would help that person understand the process a little more and not feel so alienated and like a victim. It could even be done after the validation was confirmed.
I do agree that the name of the person(s) who requested the DQ should be left confidential. |
To reiterate, in the case of a DQ, the reason is ALWAYS communicated to the photographer. That certainly is necessary, adn we'll go out of our way to explain furhter if the reaon i snot understood. Evidence the many public threads on DQs. |
I totally understand that and it is good for someone who did do 'something wrong' to know what and why that action resulted in a DQ.
Originally posted by kirbic:
In the case of a review that does not result in DQ, however, we do not reveal information about the process. Though it is true that much of the information would be useless for somone looking to cheat, some of it might very well be useful, |
If someone has already cheated and has to try and cover it up then they already know what they need to fix or change in order to receive a validation. If someone has done nothing 'wrong' to their image then there is no need to cheat. Telling them after the image has been validated in general terms what was thought to have been 'wrong' with their image can still make them feel a little better. That and the fact that they actually receive validation since I believe right now it is just a matter of 'no news is good news' as a positive validation is not given.
Originally posted by kirbic:
and a review with no finding of wrongdoing essentially supports the photographer's position, so there si really nothing to clarify to the photographer. |
That's like a police officer pulling someone over, looking at their particulars and then driving off without saying why s/he pulled you over nor saying you are free to go. Yes you feel relieved, eventually once you realise you're not getting ticketed, but you're still feeling confused about the whole thing.
I still dont understand the logic behind it but I guess since the response is always the same there isnt much point discussing it. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:07:37 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by moodville:
I dont understand how telling someone that someone thinks they used dodge/burn on a basic editing challenge (for example) would lead to cheating. I think telling someone even in general terms the reason for the DQ would help that person understand the process a little more and not feel so alienated and like a victim. It could even be done after the validation was confirmed.
I do agree that the name of the person(s) who requested the DQ should be left confidential. |
I find this thew hardest thing to swallow from this sight, you can be accused of cheating without knowing why.
I have had two request for validation and I still to this day don't know why I don't care who sent them that's not the issue I was proven innocent but if I was guilty I would have been told why.
This does not make sense. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:11:11 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I find this thew hardest thing to swallow from this sight, you can be accused of cheating without knowing why.
I have had two request for validation and I still to this day don't know why I don't care who sent them that's not the issue I was proven innocent but if I was guilty I would have been told why.
This does not make sense. |
I agree 100%
It's like Innocent until you're proven guilty (which it is) -- but imagine being detained, arrested, sitting in jail, going through court, AND NEVER KNOWING THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU unless you're found guilty.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:23:03 AM · #12 |
I angree that the person who requested the dq should be kept confidential but the reason for the request should definetely be revealed imo.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:45:32 AM · #13 |
Prosecutor: OJ, we need you to put this glove on to prove that it fits your hand and that you must have commited the crime.
OJ: This glove don't fit, see?
Prosecutor: Damn...
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 11:55:51 PM · #14 |
I am inclined to agree that the reason for the request should be revealed to the submitter, but NOT the identity of the one who requested it.
I also think people are making too much of having a DQ request submitted against their entry. It's not necessarily about guilt or a crime has been committed. Some people have probably entered photos in a Basic Editing challenge that had advanced editing techniques - just an oversight. I have twice prep'd an image using advanced techniques and I always go back and re-read the challenge details just before I submit and I've had to start over on the post processing of the image. Doh!
It is not that hard to always be prepared for a validation request and if you did nothing outside the rules, don't sweat it. Some probably even consider the red "This photo has been validated" as a badge of honor! Gives it a little prestige - like someone thought it was too good to be done within the rules. Then other voters think higher of it or at least give it a longer look. Think of it as a positive thing. :) |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 12:09:01 AM · #15 |
Folks should not regard a DQ request as an accusation. It's just the process that allows a user (of any experience level, FWIW) to question what they see. It's a unique and very good attribute of this site, and though I know it can be a little unsettling when it happens, the process works, and works well.
Believe me when I say there are certainly reasons why the communications are structured the way they are. I understand the desire for more information on DQ requests, but it is the way it is for good reason.
I've had DQ requests on several of my images, both prior to and during my time on the SC, and I've always felt the process was well thought out and fair.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2005 12:19:25 AM · #16 |
Simple fix: Change the nature of the request to VALIDATION instead of DISQUALIFICATION. When you win a challenge, you get a request for validation anyhow. This way, it will make us all feel like winners. I've had a couple of requests on my submissions so far.
and then .................then we........
we string up the buggers and rub goose poop all over their shiny anal camera lenses....ha ...ha ha .....ha ha ha (evil laugh) ......... er.........nevermind. 8-0 |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 02:23:01 AM · #17 |
I think we have to respect the wisdom of the SC in this case. Even if they were to decide to let the entering photog know why a request was made it would probably be in a very generic way, such as saying there was a question about editing tools used, or that their was a question about the date. What would you gain from that? It would just lead to more questions.
There are things I would like to change about the system, such as being advised that a request I send in has been received, and I'd like to be notified when a decision has been made, and what that decision was. But I trust the people that are running the system, and if they say there are good reasons for doing things the way they do, I accept that. I can see that some things are best kept unknown.
Sometimes you just have to have a little faith in the system and the people running it. Afterall, they are us.
|
|
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: 09/03/2025 06:28:29 PM EDT.
