| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2005 12:01:49 PM · #1 |
| Very often, with the low number of comments, I'm unable to tell why some of my 'challenge' entries that I think will do well wind up doing so poorly. I"m left with a nagging question as to whether it was poor image quality vs "did 'not' 'meet' 'challenge' theme" that resulted in a poor showing. To help clarify an answer to this question I was wondering if a "'does' 'not' 'meet' 'challenge' theme" tick box during voting would be a good idea. The total number of ticks could be tallied at the end of the 'challenge' and give the submitter additional insight into the results. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:08:58 PM · #2 |
This is a constructive idea. It would 'not' need to be tallied, necessarily, although it would be good to see the "'does' 'not' 'meet'" count in the stats.
It could be anonomous, in that all you saw was the count. Or it could be considered a brief form of comment and you could show who ticked it among the comments.
In any event, good idea, which I support. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:46:10 PM · #3 |
'Not' a bad idea, but one that could be debated till hell freezes over. One needs only read some of the threads to gain a full appreciation that we do 'not' all share the same views as to what 'does' 'not' 'meet' 'challenge' really mean.
We have seen people argue that Tacks means several tacks and penalize individual that had only one tack in their photo, whereas others opined that tacks could be interpreted as "tax" since the contest was held on tax return day.
A tick in a box is useless unless we are all in agreement of what it means.... otherwise we are left with yet one more puzzling question for which we can only speculate as to what the "ticker" meant.
Just a thought
Ray :O) |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:51:47 PM · #4 |
| I am definitely for this. I want DPChallenge to allow me to assess the "mass appeal" of my images. Sometimes that's weighted down by people who give one's because they don't see the connection. Having the checkbox, and then a reported "count" of how many checks were given at the end of the 'challenge', would at least give you some idea of that. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:53:10 PM · #5 |
i am in agreement with ray. although the 'challenge' is described, it is still up to the individual to interpret it as well as the photograph. if i ve learned anyhing in the almost 2 weeks i have been here it is that everything should be taken with a grain of salt. cherish the positive comments and see if there is anything to be learned from the negative. ralize that you have one photo put up against 'not' hundreds of other photos but hundreds of other opinions....there is always the option of after the 'challenge' asking some opinions as to why you didnt score higher too.
Message edited by author 2005-05-01 12:53:53. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:54:35 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
'Not' a bad idea, but one that could be debated till hell freezes over. One needs only read some of the threads to gain a full appreciation that we do 'not' all share the same views as to what 'does' 'not' 'meet' 'challenge' really mean.
We have seen people argue that Tacks means several tacks and penalize individual that had only one tack in their photo, whereas others opined that tacks could be interpreted as "tax" since the contest was held on tax return day.
A tick in a box is useless unless we are all in agreement of what it means.... otherwise we are left with yet one more puzzling question for which we can only speculate as to what the "ticker" meant.
Just a thought
Ray :O) |
I'm 'not' sure I agree with that, Ray. For me, the value of this checkbox would be to see what percentage of voters felt from their perspective that the image did 'not' 'meet' the 'challenge'. I take it as a given, in all my entries, that I met the 'challenge' (except for self portrait as raindrop, where I knew damned well that others wouldn't "buy" my cocnept of metaphorical self-portrait but did it anyway) so what I'm interested in is a reality-check as to how many people don't AGREE with my interpretation of the 'challenge'.
Of course, there will be cases where the voter and I are in agreement as to the parameters of the 'challenge' and s/he simnply feels I didn't 'meet' them, but that's just a small part of what I'm interested in finding out.
So I like the idea.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:58:21 PM · #7 |
| ok now i agree with bear...wow im easily swayed...you could probably buy a "10" from me cheap....(have a boy in college im desperate) |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:58:23 PM · #8 |
Whether or 'not' any given image meets the 'challenge' criteria is so subjective I doubt this additional feature would be of much use. For example, in the 'Lines' 'challenge', it would be near impossible to enter an image that did 'not' contain lines. Yet many voters either did 'not' read the criteria or did 'not' understand the criteria for the 'challenge' and marked scores lower for images that did 'not' contain ruler straight parallel lines.
Better to just use your own judgement and be conservative if you want voters to approve of your entry. Even then, some will disagree about what meets the 'challenge'. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:59:59 PM · #9 |
My obeservation is that there are entries which 'meet' the 'challenge' exceedingly well without being recognized as doing so. Often these images explore an aspect of the topic which is 'not' blatantly obvious or pedestrian. I value this immensely and would hate to see any more prejudicial and uninformed opinions added to those already soiling these creative efforts.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:05:52 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My obeservation is that there are entries which 'meet' the 'challenge' exceedingly well without being recognized as doing so. Often these images explore an aspect of the topic which is 'not' blatantly obvious or pedestrian. I value this immensely and would hate to see any more prejudicial and uninformed opinions added to those already soiling these creative efforts. |
If I were the maker of one of those images (and I have been, many times) I'd personally LOVE to see that my low score is coupled with a heavy preponderance of "DNMTC" checkoffs; this would reassure me that my score was poor 'not' because I did bad work, but because the voters didn't "get it".
of course, I'm usually aware of that anyway. But the flip side works; some people use presumed DNMTC voters as a crutch for a failed image that might, in fact, have scored low purely on technical/aesthetic merits; if few voters checked the DNMTC, the makers of these images would have a better idea what went wrong, absent more penetrating comments.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:13:11 PM · #11 |
I can truly appreciate what you are saying Robert, but from my perspective, having factor X people tell me they do 'not' think that an image fits the 'challenge', without any indication as to the reasons why, 'does' 'not' constitute a truly valid viewpoint. I am quite certain you remember all the threads on "Light vs Lite", "Tacks as a plural" , "People, meaning more than one Person" and the list goes on.
The mere fact that someone in "their" opinion perceive another's photo as "'Not' meeting the 'challenge'" 'does' 'not' make it a fact that it doesn't. Similarly, as there is no supporting viewpoints as to their reasons for this categorization, we have no idea as to whether all of the viewpoints were similar in nature, or whether each had a totally different interpretation of the reason why it did 'not' 'meet' the 'challenge'.
I have no problems at all with the addition of this box, but rather am of the opinion that its value is negligeable since we have no idea whatsoever as to what the intent or reasoning of the submitter was.
Ok buzzmom,,, you can come back into my camp for a bit if you want....hehehehehe
Ray :O) |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:15:56 PM · #12 |
ok ray packing up...on my way...
you can please some of the people some of the time
but you cant please all of the people ...ever |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:23:03 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by buzzmom:
ok ray packing up...on my way...
you can please some of the people some of the time
but you cant please all of the people ...ever |
No, mom, NOOOOO! Stay with me! He's the devil, I tell ya! The very DEVIL!
R.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:24:41 PM · #14 |
Hummmmmmmmm,,,having read your last comment Robert... I can see some value in the box after all....
Ray :O) |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:25:11 PM · #15 |
| great idea.....im with you. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:31:07 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My obeservation is that there are entries which 'meet' the 'challenge' exceedingly well without being recognized as doing so. Often these images explore an aspect of the topic which is 'not' blatantly obvious or pedestrian. I value this immensely and would hate to see any more prejudicial and uninformed opinions added to those already soiling these creative efforts. |
If I were the maker of one of those images (and I have been, many times) I'd personally LOVE to see that my low score is coupled with a heavy preponderance of "DNMTC" checkoffs; this would reassure me that my score was poor 'not' because I did bad work, but because the voters didn't "get it".
of course, I'm usually aware of that anyway. But the flip side works; some people use presumed DNMTC voters as a crutch for a failed image that might, in fact, have scored low purely on technical/aesthetic merits; if few voters checked the DNMTC, the makers of these images would have a better idea what went wrong, absent more penetrating comments.
Robt. |
I suppose it would depend on our premise.
If we wanted to culture (pun intended) popular opinion and mass appeal as the local quality standard for works which aim to conform to it, then, yes, this would be the way to go.
If, though, we saw as our aim to make the best photos popular, so there may be some possibility of creative growth and learning by example, we should, IMHO, fail miserably by implementing additional devices preventing this.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:33:27 PM · #17 |
| I'm 'not' a stats type of person but I feel this would be a good addition to them. I think what it will add is an indicator as to whether the photographer has communicated their message well enough to be understood by the mass of voters. And besides that, it would sooth my ego about getting all those low scores. I can go, "Ah, so those @**#@ didn't get it. My photo was a beautiful piece of art which was disrespected because it didn't fit the 'challenge', 'NOT' because it was crap." I always assume that it's a piece of crap first, never that it didn't fit the 'challenge', except once. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:34:48 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by buzzmom:
ok ray packing up...on my way...
you can please some of the people some of the time
but you cant please all of the people ...ever |
No, mom, NOOOOO! Stay with me! He's the devil, I tell ya! The very DEVIL!
R. |
Waaaaaaaaaaa You promised to keep it a secret.....
 |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:49:17 PM · #19 |
Well, if a tick box is useful for ''not' meeting the 'challenge'', wouldn't it also be useful for other judging criteria? Maybe we could just have checklist form. That way, everyone could make their opinions known about a set of pre-ordained image characteristics without having to write down a single word!
I agree that a low score without comment is rather uninformative and leaves the photographer in limbo about what is unpopular with the image.
But there are generally enough comments that there is no doubt as to what the voters find objectionable.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 02:00:26 PM · #20 |
It's an intersting idea but from what I can tell, you can get a very good feel of what people are thinking in general from what comments you already have.
I looked back at many of my comments recieved just now and saw that per each entry, 3-4 out of ten comments said what I believe the general consensus was. Without having to dig much further and I'm certain there are many exceptions, the answer to why you scored, what you scored is probably right there.
Unless you have a "tin ear" when it comes the critisism...personally, I could do without the sledge hammer. Again, there are times when you get no information from the comment left. It happens that way. Let sleeping dogs lie.......and then photograph them for the next pet 'challenge'.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 02:19:08 PM · #21 |
I think the doesn't 'meet' 'challenge' would just make people more angry. Imagine putting up a photo you thought met the 'challenge', getting a 5.3 and 49 'doesn't 'meet' 'challenge'' checks -- every person is going to start their own thread explaining how their shot did in fact 'meet' the 'challenge'.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 02:27:44 PM · #22 |
I think when you look at this as another 'rating', people say, no, it's just another "put down".
I look at it, like Robert, as additional feedback on the score you are already getting because the viewer doesn't think you met the 'challenge'.
So like any statistic, I view it as an adjunct to understanding your score, 'not' an additional "measure" of how you stacked up.
Perhaps it's just the cup half empty dilemma, but I at least read that into some of the responses.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 02:35:29 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My obeservation is that there are entries which 'meet' the 'challenge' exceedingly well without being recognized as doing so. Often these images explore an aspect of the topic which is 'not' blatantly obvious or pedestrian. I value this immensely and would hate to see any more prejudicial and uninformed opinions added to those already soiling these creative efforts. |
If I were the maker of one of those images (and I have been, many times) I'd personally LOVE to see that my low score is coupled with a heavy preponderance of "DNMTC" checkoffs; this would reassure me that my score was poor 'not' because I did bad work, but because the voters didn't "get it".
of course, I'm usually aware of that anyway. But the flip side works; some people use presumed DNMTC voters as a crutch for a failed image that might, in fact, have scored low purely on technical/aesthetic merits; if few voters checked the DNMTC, the makers of these images would have a better idea what went wrong, absent more penetrating comments.
Robt. |
I suppose it would depend on our premise.
If we wanted to culture (pun intended) popular opinion and mass appeal as the local quality standard for works which aim to conform to it, then, yes, this would be the way to go.
If, though, we saw as our aim to make the best photos popular, so there may be some possibility of creative growth and learning by example, we should, IMHO, fail miserably by implementing additional devices preventing this. |
I can see your POV, no problem. I'm 'not' sure I agree, in balance, that the checkbox would have that effect; I tend to believe that the more information I possess, the better off I am. I'm interested in knowing whether my conceptualizations have gone over the viewers' heads, so to speak, or 'not'. But you're right, the only practical result of this information would be to cause me (possibly) to lower mi sights, and this isn't a particularly desirable thing, unless my goal is to get "better scores", and I'm 'not' sure it is.
I'm human, I like better scores, but I'm stubborn, I don't like compromising my own vision to others'tastes, so it ends up as a bit of a wash. Certainly, I'm happiest when I have 'NOT' compromised and my score is still excellent. Would I be happier with a "pure" 30th place or a "compromised" ribbon? I don't know, I've never gotten a ribbon. I'm close to one, I think, in the current 'challenge', and my entry is 'not' compromised (by my standards) at all, so that's good...
Still, speaking of the community at large, many members are striving to do precisely that, appeal to the voters as a collective entity, and realistically this is to be expected. So the box might serve a practical purpose while defeating an aesthetic goal, I'd suppose. I donno. Certainly, deapee has a point also; include the checkbox and watch the defensive threads pop up. THIS, however, might possibly lead to real education, as the collective membership is exposed to detailed discussion of some of the more subtle (and aesthetically valuable) approaches to the 'challenge' topics get debated.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 02:44:53 PM · #24 |
| A while ago I started a thread called dnmc. I would link it if I knew how. Generally people were against even writing dnmc instead of 'does' 'not' 'meet' 'challenge'. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 03:18:11 PM · #25 |
maybe a check box that stated 'does' 'not' 'meet' 'challenge' PLUS a choice of maybe three or four common reasons that the viewer 'does' 'not' think it meets the 'challenge'. I also feel that is someone makes a note, review or statement that the 'challenge' is 'not' met that they should be obligated to answer an e-mail or IM from the photographer as to why and or suggestions. If the reviewer fails to explain in an email request or discussion with the photographer then his vote is DQ'd just like photos are DQ'd. We need to get where we help each other, afterall there is no real prize or money to the winners. We all like to win but we should also all like to do better also.
|
|
