| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2002 01:07:36 PM · #1 |
So far, I have gotten two comment this week that have gotten me totally frustrated. Both commenters stated they did not get the illusion (join the crowd!) AND stated they would be willing to change their score if I contacted them, THEN THEY DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE!
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhh! |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 01:30:02 PM · #2 |
I do not agree with this mechanism of changing score after coomunicating the week of the challenge. Does everyone think the opposite ?
If everyone think that it's a valid approach then let's just display the details through a link.
PS : and I get my load of 'oh I get it, it's not an illusion' or 'I do not get it'
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/30/2002 1:28:03 PM. |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 01:31:00 PM · #3 |
| I believe that it would be wrong to contact someone with any description or explanation during the contest week that would have them change their score anyway. If your shot is not clear enough or self-explanatory enough that you have to explain it then then you must live with the score that you get. You already have the advantage of being able to use (abuse?) the title to help you explain. That is more than some photos get when they are exibited. The voters should be able to vote without ANY interference from the photographer. That is the way the site is set up and the way that it should be IMHO. |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 01:42:31 PM · #4 |
Awww, come on folks, this was supposed to be funny, a lark.
Have a nice day! |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 03:46:53 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
So far, I have gotten two comment this week that have gotten me totally frustrated. Both commenters stated they did not get the illusion (join the crowd!) AND stated they would be willing to change their score if I contacted them, THEN THEY DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE!
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhh!
hey swash! heheh i know whatcha mean - and i thought it was funny if that counts for anything ;o)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2002 04:12:14 PM · #6 |
Till this day I was in agreement with dpc's golden rule, to vote without
any interference from the photographer by the photo details. But the
actual challenge is going to change my position. There is one shot among
the submissions, where I voted relatively low on. I didn't realize the
illusion, because it is just too perfect. At first I thought, that this
one is only a photo of a paintig. But it isn't. The photographer told me
by mail, that this painting is self-made and that there is more to be
seen than only a painting. But even in a perfect illusion.
After this experience I think it would be helpful sometimes to see the
details through a link. |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 04:15:54 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by DougPaz:
I believe that it would be wrong to contact someone with any description or explanation during the contest week that would have them change their score anyway. If your shot is not clear enough or self-explanatory enough that you have to explain it then then you must live with the score that you get.
The difficulty with this particular challenge is that the entire aim
of the challenge was to trick the viewer. If you do this perfectly
well, then it is likely you'll get voted down as they perhaps don't
see the illusion that you've performed. However, if that was the
case then perhaps the subject wasn't a good source for a photographic
illusion...
|
|
|
|
10/30/2002 04:43:36 PM · #8 |
| I shoulda taken a shot in a completely dark closet and called it "The Emperor's Clothes." |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 05:36:59 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nds:
Till this day I was in agreement with dpc's golden rule, to vote without any interference from the photographer by the photo details.
Did somebody just make up this "golden rule". It is not in the Rules, it is not in Site Etiquette, it is not in the FAQ.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2002 05:44:46 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by PhotosByAyme:
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
[i]So far, I have gotten two comment this week that have gotten me totally frustrated. Both commenters stated they did not get the illusion (join the crowd!) AND stated they would be willing to change their score if I contacted them, THEN THEY DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE!
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhh!
hey swash! heheh i know whatcha mean - and i thought it was funny if that counts for anything ;o)
[/i]
It's all an illusion - right?
|
|
|
|
10/30/2002 06:06:47 PM · #11 |
It's kind of an ongoing understanding, and definitely unwritten. It came about with a great long discussion about whether comments should be anonymous. For those who don't know, comments were linked to the author, back in the dim beginnings. This led to many commenters getting follow ups from their comments, with the photog begging the commenter to change their vote, based on one reasoning or another. This immediately destroyed the air of anonymous voting that is somewhat a tenet of DPC. Thus, the general consensus was that commenting should be anonymous during voting. However, many commenters choose to sign their comments, and some like to get feedback from the photog in case they missed the point. This, however, is somewhat unfair to the photog who did NOT receive a comment and thus is not given the chance to argue his photo to a given voter.
But it is definitely NOT a written rule. I think the issue needs to be cleared up for newcomers one way or another. (Hint, hint, moderators and admins).
All that said, I for one am all for rescinding the current philosophy and putting names back on the comments during voting. But that's just me. :-)
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by nds:
[i]Till this day I was in agreement with dpc's golden rule, to vote without any interference from the photographer by the photo details.
Did somebody just make up this "golden rule". It is not in the Rules, it is not in Site Etiquette, it is not in the FAQ.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/30/2002 07:10:39 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Did somebody just make up this "golden rule". It is not in the Rules, it is not in Site Etiquette, it is not in the FAQ.
Maybe you misunderstood me, my english is surely not the best. I spoke about the
obvious fact, that I can't read the photo details during the voting time. But at least
in the actual illusion challenge it would be helpful due to the mentioned reasons. But
I guess, that there were already a couple of discussions to this topic and I understand
the reason for this arrangement. But sometimes... ;-)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2002 07:53:34 PM · #13 |
All that said, I for one am all for rescinding the current philosophy and putting names back on the comments during voting. But that's just me. :-)
I agree, with two thoughts in mind. Trolls and learning. Trolls can't hide behind their anominity. This is a learning site where last week's challenge is largely left behind when the voting is complete. |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 07:54:11 PM · #14 |
I think de-anonymising the comments would discourage a lot of people from leaving comments at all. I certainly don't want to receive 150+ 'Please upgrade my score' emails every week!
The competition would end up either turning into a challenge for politicians rather than photographers, or nobody would dare leave any negative comments. Not good - I learn more from negative comments than positive ones.
If a comment says 'please pm me' then fair enough.
If it says that without a name then that's plain funny :)
Non-participating voters may not realise that their comments remain anonymous until voting is over.
At the end of the day I come here to enjoy myself, look at good photos and try to produce good photos in return; hopefully learning something in the process. If somebody doesn't understand or doesn't like my photos ... so what? I have no urge to spend all my time trying to convince them otherwise.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2002 11:36:17 PM · #15 |
I keep thinking of the Moody Blues line in one of their songs..."But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion" Actually not a song, it's recited as prose, on Days of Future Past album.
Take a look at my pictures
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/30/2002 11:34:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2002 10:02:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Did somebody just make up this "golden rule". It is not in the Rules, it is not in Site Etiquette, it is not in the FAQ.
It's not written anywhere. It's just some kind of urban legend... ;-)
Anyway... I think voting should remain anonymous. That way people who don't want to get Emails begging to upgrade the score (who would do that anyway?) can stay anonymous. People who want the feedback sign their comments just as it's done now.
But what I would like to see changed (pretty much since I started participating here) is the display of the photo details. The details help to understand the photo better. They tell me about the background of the photo. That's something I want to include in my voting process, because in my opinion photography is not just about the technical aspects. And I'm optimistic that in most cases people will not be tempted to reveal their identity in the photo details. On the other hand I think we're all grown-up enough that we will not be influenced by that and can objectively rate such photos.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2002 01:33:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
So far, I have gotten two comment this week that have gotten me totally frustrated. Both commenters stated they did not get the illusion (join the crowd!) AND stated they would be willing to change their score if I contacted them, THEN THEY DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE!
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhh!
didn't get it and had to have somebody explain it to me , but , thats the beauty of a perfect illsion.granted though i would have given you a 9, if i had known the illusion before i voted,sorry-anz |
|
|
|
11/06/2002 01:39:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
All that said, I for one am all for rescinding the current philosophy and putting names back on the comments during voting. But that's just me. :-)
I agree, with two thoughts in mind. Trolls and learning. Trolls can't hide behind their anominity. This is a learning site where last week's challenge is largely left behind when the voting is complete.
I think everybody should put their names on a comment. It really
ticks me of when i get a nice comment and i have to wait till the end of the week to thank somebody for it. plus it is cowardly to give a nasty comment and not back it up with your name.-anz |
|
|
|
11/06/2002 03:18:30 PM · #19 |
People should think about how they say things, but how cowardly is it when their name is attached to it for you to see at the end of the week anyway? The point of anonymity is to keep free for all open discussions about particular photos from happening until the end of the challenge. I think the best part is discovering who's shot it was at the end of the week! Mystery unveiled! :0) As far as thanking people for their comments...that is great.. maybe write an email leaving the address blank to be filled in at the end of the week? Just a thought to help triage a large number of comments to be answered at the end.
|
|
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: 07/18/2025 12:22:35 PM EDT.
