Suggestions to the S/C - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/17/2005 08:40:25 AM · #1

I realize the many obligations that envelope the Site Council. Also, their great effort is highly appreciated by all. However, I do have a suggestion to maintain a better lubrication to avoid the bottlenecks which occur on the validation of images. Now, we are all aware that there are times in which this functions creates an overload and in particular, those members who request their own validation suffer intensively because if the total votes are about 300 and validation arrives after 150 votes, or 50% then the sole object to obtain validation in unvalidated. It then serves very little purpose.

My solution is with the current approach. Here is my suggestion:

Get a small team of 4 S/C members to prescreen validation requests. Let this small team vote whether to validate or not. If all of these 4 agree, then validate the image and sent the validation notes to the other S/C members to inform them.

If there is even one dissent then bring in the entire S/C council for a general vote. In other words, the intitial team has the power to validate but it requires the entire team to DQ an image.

The rules for validation and Disqualification are not that involved. Basic editing is fairly straight forward. Problems hardly ever arise over basic post processing. The most difficult to judge are Advance Editing. But it makes no sense to bounce one straight forward image to all Council Members. It serves no purpose because the effort is redondant. Yes, when images exceed the norm then it is the responsibility for full S/C scrutiny.

I believe that the small team of four members will increase the timely response. And of course, when a particular image is delayed, it is because the image borders outside the norm.

It is commom sense that when the image has the proper date stamp and no uncommon editing there is no need for the full team to vote on the image and most personal request are more in this gender.

Message edited by author 2005-05-17 08:44:45.

peecee

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/17/2005 08:48:44 AM · #2

Good points Daniel,
One point I would make on this, am I correct that some of the validation requests are for people who will be unavailable,ie on holiday or working during the voting, and just wish to cover their backs so to speak? if so, could these be dealt with by just placing the files in a " holding " box in case they are needed?
no point in validating these for nothing.
just a thought.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

05/17/2005 09:04:13 AM · #3

Originally posted by peecee:

I believe you are correct peecee, and I think that purpose is what brought about the pre-validation process.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

... those members who request their own validation suffer intensively because if the total votes are about 300 and validation arrives after 150 votes, or 50% then the sole object to obtain validation in unvalidated. It then serves very little purpose.

But I think Daniel was talking about people who make the request for pre-validation hoping for a benefit scorewise from having the red text on an image (that they think may be perceived as violating the rules) as the image is voted upon.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/17/2005 09:05:58 AM · #4

In fact, a system somewhat like this is already in place. In order to expedite validation, we implemented late last year a system whereby if an image receives 6 unanimous votes for validation (or DQ) the image is validated or DQ'd without further ado. If the vote is not unanimous, however, it undergoes further review. This has sped up validation for the majority of images.
The effect of not having a "validate" stamp is debatable. In an ideal world, there would be no effect, since voters should always vote as if the image were achieved legally. In fact, there are voters who vote lower, whether subconsciously or not, for images that they feel look "unreal" or "manipulated." I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage all voters to make every attempt to be equitable; don't assume an image has been manipulated outside the rules. Give it the benefit of the doubt, and if you suspect specific rules violation, recommend a DQ review, but in any case, vote as if it were legal.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/17/2005 09:13:48 AM · #5

Not all requests warrant an admin note. Unless there's a reasonable likelihood that someone would suspect foul play, an image might not get an admin note even if it IS validated. If somebody requests a DQ for a non-DQ-able offense (like not meeting the challenge), or the photographer is going out of town, or the technique is obvious, we may vote on the image and wait to see if an admin note is actually needed.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/17/2005 09:14:49 AM · #6

Originally posted by kirbic:

... The effect of not having a "validate" stamp is debatable. In an ideal world, there would be no effect, since voters should always vote as if the image were achieved legally. In fact, there are voters who vote lower, whether subconsciously or not, for images that they feel look "unreal" or "manipulated." I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage all voters to make every attempt to be equitable; don't assume an image has been manipulated outside the rules. Give it the benefit of the doubt, and if you suspect specific rules violation, recommend a DQ review, but in any case, vote as if it were legal.

I agree -- I think an effort to educate the voters to vote "properly" -- i.e., always cast a vote assuming the photo is legal -- would have a more far-ranging benefit to all submitters, without adding any work or procedures.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/17/2005 09:26:00 AM · #7

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Even if a photo was legally photoshopped, voters still have the right to vote according to personal taste (even though others greatly dislike this type of voting).

A photo can look over processed and still be legal ... but that "look" could be deemed unappealing and voted down, no? This type of voting was actually encouraged during the "image border wars", no?

ps ... perhaps off topic, sorry

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

05/17/2005 09:29:20 AM · #8

Originally posted by hopper:

A photo can look over processed and still be legal ... but that "look" could be deemed unappealing and voted down, no?

Sure... as long as you're voting low for lack of appeal, not an assumption of illegal editing.

coolhar

05/17/2005 09:53:07 AM · #9

Thanks to all of the SC who responded. Enlightening info. Esecially about how an image can be validated, or DQ'ed, without having a majority of SC vote on it. I suspected that was the case but wasn't sure. I like the fact the the six vote method expedites rulings and lightens your load somewhat. But I don't like the fact that, in some cases, the outcome (validation, disqualification, or no action) will be determined by the order in which the various SC members have the opportunity to vote.

As for the effect of voters scoring an image low when it appears to use questionable editing techniques -- some of those low votes are coming from people (me for one) who really do give the benefit of the doubt on the legality issue (as the rules instruct them to do) but just don't like the effect the editing technique has had on the photo. This can happen whether or not there is validation text on the entry, and it can happen whether or not the voter feels moved to request a DQ; and therefore makes it all the more difficult to guage how much influence the red text has on the image's final score. This is compounded when the editing technique is so poorly done as to be very obvious, perhaps dominating one's impression of the image. The low vote is not always because someone thinks it's illegal but doesn't bother to request a DQ. It can also be because the voter votes as if it were legal but just doesn't think very highly of the entry.

graphicfunk

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/17/2005 09:55:52 AM · #10

We are now entering the realm od aesthetics. Let me give an example:

Images in which the tonal values and colors are pushed leave a tell tale of noise. It is the noise that creates the horror.

But what if you choose to recreate a pushed color image in the camera? Look at the image and it lacks the offending noise and the missing tonal graduation. What then? Well, it all depends on the quailty of the image. An example of this is this image wherein the push effect was obtained in the camera. You see, it is different than an image pushed in post processing. These two images give off the effect of post processing steps without noise.

Of course, if you hate the pushed look, then you will hate it however it was attained. But, there is a big difference between in camera and post processing. If you care not about graphical art than it is of little consequence. However, not all of us chose to accept the limiting chains because we feel that nothing in art is sacred.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

05/17/2005 10:01:46 AM · #11

Originally posted by coolhar:

... I don't like the fact that, in some cases, the outcome (validation, disqualification, or no action) will be determined by the order in which the various SC members have the opportunity to vote.

That's why some images can languish a bit even when there are 6 or more unanimous votes. If anybody voices concern (or new info surfaces that would affect the result) we'll discuss it and wait for a full majority vote. Anybody can put an image back into discussion even if they're late to the party.

blemt

Nikon D70

05/17/2005 10:10:33 AM · #12

Originally posted by coolhar:

It requires 6 unaminious SC votes to automatically validate or DQ an image. Based on what I've seen since I joined SC, if there is an issue on DQing an image, it pops up pretty darned fast. If anyone has an issue, a discussion begins and everything stops pending outcome of the discussion.

I think we have a pretty solid track record here. There has to be a balance between expediency and getting everyone to vote. The 6 vote limit is doing a good job.

Trust that your rookie SC members are keeping the old timers on their toes. :) If we see something that we think needs attention, we are agressively bringing it up. If we see indications that this system needs to be changed, you can be assured that we will be mentioning it. Frequently. :)

Clara

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

05/17/2005 10:34:16 AM · #13

Originally posted by blemt:

Trust that your rookie SC members are keeping the old timers on their toes. :) If we see something that we think needs attention, we are agressively bringing it up. If we see indications that this system needs to be changed, you can be assured that we will be mentioning it. Frequently. :)

they hate us.

we've stormed the castle with pitchforks and torches, ready to lay waste to any and all inconsistencies that the newbie group has sniffed out!

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

05/17/2005 10:37:30 AM · #14

I think the SC rookies are collectively referred to as, "The Troublemakers."

blemt

Nikon D70

05/17/2005 10:40:19 AM · #15

For some reason they keep trying to lock us into a watertower...what up with dat?

Princess Angelina Contessa Louisa Francesca Banana Balana--Oh, shoot!

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/17/2005 10:47:55 AM · #16

I think the biggest thing that has came out of this thread so far was stated by GeneralE, â��I agree -- I think an effort to educate the voters to vote "properly" -- i.e., always cast a vote assuming the photo is legal -- would have a more far-ranging benefit to all submitters, without adding any work or procedures.â�� If I had to say there is one thing lacking on this site it would be an area dedicated to voter discussion on images. I know it can be put it into just about any thread but it would be nice to have a set area were all can debate and lookup past discussions within one forum. I know everyone has there right to vote as they wish but there should be a starting point. Even in a court of law the jurors are given a basic guideline to go by before casting their vote and have a place to deliberate before coming to a conclusion on how they will vote. I think there should be a forum setup [i.e., Forums> Voting Discussions] just for voting were new comers and veterans alike could share voting techniques. I know there would be a fair amount of debate in this area but debate is good for understanding. It makes one think and evaluate their practices while making the other party do the same. This will not solve all problems but it will help voters understand the fundamental of voting such as OOF is not always a bad thing, Deep or shallow DOF have itâ��s place and time in some pictures. Some people donâ��t know what high or low-key photographs are and vote low on those picturesâ�� thinking they are over or under exposed when in fact that was the essence of the photograph. I could keep on rambling along but I think you get the point. Then when the voters learn the basics they can apply there own opinions on the photograph technique and score it accordingly to how it appeals to them.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

05/17/2005 10:51:51 AM · #17

Originally posted by SDW65:

Then when the voters learn the basics they can apply there own opinions on the photograph technique and score it accordingly to how it appeals to them.

unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast. voters already know what they do and don't like and vote accordingly. there are already a great number of threads saying things like "shallow DOF is NOT bad!!!!" but they still fail to convert many people, alas...

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/17/2005 10:57:10 AM · #18

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by SDW65:
Then when the voters learn the basics they can apply there own opinions on the photograph technique and score it accordingly to how it appeals to them.

unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast. voters already know what they do and don't like and vote accordingly. there are already a great number of threads saying things like "shallow DOF is NOT bad!!!!" but they still fail to convert many people, alas...

But don't you think a forum designated just for discussions like this would possibly curve some confusion in some cases. I don't see where having a forum for that would be a negative to this site at all. It should be a positive addition to the site.

Message edited by author 2005-05-17 10:57:50.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/17/2005 11:16:45 AM · #19

Originally posted by coolhar:

Kirbic actually ran some statistics (no idea how, he'll have to explain) that showed that 6 unanimous votes puts us in the 99% bracket for certainty of the result agreeing with a full vote. If it's not something that's obvious (ie. there's text on the photo, it's obviously the wrong date, the photographer admitted to improper editing, etc.), there's generally a discussion and an opportunity for everyone to vote/give their two cents.

theSaj