| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2003 07:06:20 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i would also add this: how does the existence of other skill levels change anything for people?
think about this hypothetical situation: someone codes a secret challenge for "advanced" level. know one else on the site knows about it. the rest of the site keeps going as normal.
Will it hurt the people that don't know that people are participating in a different venue? No, no more than if it were occuring in private or on a different (currently non-existent) web-site. So, bottom line, there's nothing to be afraid of , because it won't affect anyone's experience that much. |
This is the best idea i have heard today :) I will be sending out some emails :) |
Oooh!! :) Good thing you put in those smiley faces :) |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 07:16:30 PM · #52 |
Why use ribbons as the guage? Many folks have photographs in different challenges that have higher scores than some of the ribbon scores? Are these not considered superior photographs also?
Anyway, sign me up in as high as tier as I can possibly participate in. I wanna compete against the best to be the best photographer I can be !!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 07:25:38 PM · #53 |
This seems to be about reducing numbers of entries in challenges to make them more manageable and not so much about better photogs not wanting to see their work on the same page as crap!
In which case, why not just increase the number of challenges (as would be the effect of 3 tiers anyway) and limit entry to one of the 3 per week only.
That should drop the numbers in each one but allow people to compete across all levels still.
People could vote and comment on the one they entered and/ or other ones.
I really think if this is about making things more manageable then levels tiers are not the only solution.
Evolution is necessary - absolutely.
But it should benefit as many as possible and hurt as few as possible.
Can we at least DISCUSS some of the alternatives too?
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 07:41:57 PM · #54 |
oh absolutely :) ...
I didnt even think we'd gotten to the point of hammering out specific methodologies yet.
Originally posted by Kavey:
Can we at least DISCUSS some of the alternatives too? |
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 07:49:03 PM · #55 |
Can't we have a poll? I want something else to vote on.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 07:51:47 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Diversq:
Maybe they could have the Critique club make it a priority to critique beginner levels first. That way beginners would at least get an in-depth and valuable comment/critique. |
Although this is a side issue, I think this is a terrific idea. |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 08:06:22 PM · #57 |
hmm. that totally wasnt my point. :) my point was to try to imagine that if tiered challenges occurred offsite it would be invisible to people on the site and therefore not harmful. and so then to realize that having them onsite is equally harmless.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i would also add this: how does the existence of other skill levels change anything for people?
think about this hypothetical situation: someone codes a secret challenge for "advanced" level. know one else on the site knows about it. the rest of the site keeps going as normal.
Will it hurt the people that don't know that people are participating in a different venue? No, no more than if it were occuring in private or on a different (currently non-existent) web-site. So, bottom line, there's nothing to be afraid of , because it won't affect anyone's experience that much. |
This is the best idea i have heard today :) I will be sending out some emails :) |
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 08:12:38 PM · #58 |
Not at all. There are already plenty of places where this kind of streaming takes place. It doesn't make it right for dpc just because it exists elsewhere.
Message edited by author 2003-06-17 20:13:03.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 08:16:24 PM · #59 |
so you're saying that if u were in a swimming pool practicing and there was an advanced team in the same pool also practicing, it would take away from your experience somehow? can u please explain how?
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 08:32:33 PM · #60 |
After reading all this stuff, I had 2 thoughts about all of this. Someone said something about ribbons being the gauge. I think this is the easiest way to discern levels, but I don't think its the best way. I think we should go to a rotating 5 averages, like if your average of your last 5 pics is over 6, you move up to the next level. You can choose where you start, but after that it's merit based. I think if I have to earn my way up the food chain, it'll help me put my best foot forward. I think it will also help in my judgement of when to enter a photo, and when to sit quietly and vote and not just throw something on the table because I can.
The second idea I believe can be much, much more valuable. I sorta stole this idea from my sons. At school, they have reading buddies that help them read. Why not have a mentoring type thing where the advanced members can help out one or two of the beginners? I think it would be the best thing to do. Its a little more one on one. Maybe you could be a mentor to someone for 3 weeks, then you get someone else. I really enjoy helping people and I'm willing to bet there are others who also take some pride in helping out their fellow photographers.
Am I way off base here? Lemme know what you guys think.
-Bob |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 08:42:49 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by inspzil:
Why not have a mentoring type thing where the advanced members can help out one or two of the beginners? I think it would be the best thing to do. Its a little more one on one. Maybe you could be a mentor to someone for 3 weeks, then you get someone else. |
This is a really good idea and, with some work, it could really add value to the DPC experience. As DPC moves forward and tries to find the (current) best business model, perhaps this kind of mentoring should be open to members only (and maybe open challenge ribbon winners). |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 08:50:52 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
This is a really good idea and, with some work, it could really add value to the DPC experience. As DPC moves forward and tries to find the (current) best business model, perhaps this kind of mentoring should be open to members only (and maybe open challenge ribbon winners). |
You think the ribbon winners need mentoring? I think we might need to concentrate on the beginners. This might be well worth someone's $25 to become a member. Up to a year of one-on-one help and advice... Seems like a helluva deal to me. I think if the mentoring thing works, it might really lessen the need for critique club at all for the beginner levels.
Done for now.... - BB |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 09:00:02 PM · #63 |
The argument that a tiered challenge system would inhibit learning is flawed at best.
As best as I can tell, non-members don't seem to be learning less, despite not being able to enter the members-only challenges. Of course, the barrier to entry is relatively small (money, money, money), but the system is the same. Heck, some members don't enter the open challenges at all (or very infrequently).
How does one learn within the challenge context?
Challenges are entered anonymously and without any way to compare one's own entry with others. Comments provide a feedback system which may or may not contribute to learning. Looking at other photos, particularly winning photos is a great way to learn new techniques, tricks, and basic principles of photography. Asking questions in the forums provides answers from anyone interested in providing answers; most answers are informed, to the point, and delivered with tact.
How does the absence of expert/advanced DPCers impact your score?
Without access to raw data it's naturally difficult to answer this question, but if we assume the advanced DPCers are a rare bunch (say 10%), then the statistical impact on voting is not significant. Voting is a peer review process and putting yourself in the best/right peer group provides a better feedback loop. |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 09:05:41 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by inspzil:
You think the ribbon winners need mentoring? I think we might need to concentrate on the beginners. |
If it were open to only members, and someone wasn't willing to part with USD 25/year (it depends on your perceived value of DPC membership of course), then it might provide a nice incentive for non-members who haven't experience the value-added mentoring system that membership brings. Since members can enter the open challenge, then it might be best for top finishing, middle finishing, or some-other-selection-process non-members to be invited for mentoring (on giving or receiving end).
But those are little details for someone else. |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 09:30:40 PM · #65 |
My jury is still out on the tiered system. I can see both sides of the fence, so I will just straddle until I fall one way or the other.
The only thing I can concretely argue against is "dividing" it by ribbons. I have a couple of scores that would have won in some challenges, but didn't even place in the one it was entered in. I like what someone said about averages. Maybe your average of the ten (or five, or fifty) highest scores could determine what level you were at.
I also think that I would probably join the highest level, even if I don't consider myself that "able" just because I am a competitive nut, and if a challenge is there, I will take it. It's the overachiever in me, and no matter what I do, I can't seem to get over it. :-P
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 10:42:41 PM · #66 |
I'm on the fence, stoically poised.
My only wish, if I had one, would be for specific but less restrictive challenge topics on one hand and a more artistically motivated interpretation of these. I just 'never' take a shot with the sole purpose of entering it here. Frankly, I rather go out and 'find' points of interest. If one of a hundred 'fits' a given challenge, hey, I'm in! If not, well I miss a challenge or two or three.
Most of the 'ad hoc' shots that happen to me categorically, probably 'happen' to others accustomed to this approach with similar frequency. What I found interesting, was, that over time, I managed to sort my kind of variety into a very limited amount of folders bearing familiar labels of 'classic' photography, representative of 'life' really, as opposed to trivia (office art, secondary colours and so on).
II
Too much effort and attention, for my taste, is catering to the author, when there is talk of 'levels of skill' and references to a supposed 'food chain'. I do not deny that these expressions have a place in fact and context, I simply regret the faintness of an acknowlegement that we derive our greatest pleasures from 'life' and, more often than not, inexplically. More effort, therefore, ought to go into process and discovery, and attention, really, can be better held by a moment than by a future.
I just commented on a picture which had my attention for a few moments. It was smaller than most. It was also very simple. Technique, skill, concept, composition, lighting, perspective - hell, I don't know. All I can say with some certainty is that it didn't involve very much of any of these things, at least not 'visibly'. To judge by the size of the photo, it was likely submitted by a novice. Yet, it had my attention in no small way.
There's more to this than meets the eye. I just want magic, not systems.
Message edited by author 2003-06-17 23:07:36.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:20:39 PM · #67 |
Well said, Zeusen.
I believe that most of us, while happy to win if it happens, gain the greatest enjoyment simply from competing and swapping bits and pieces of information with each other. The challenges are nothing more than a pleasant way to do this. Clearly there are some, however, for whom the winning and the elitism/self-esteem/popularity gained from winning seem to be more important than the things I've mentioned. For these, the idea of "ranked" levels is obviously attractive.
Some appear to believe that the views and opinions of those "lower" than them (in their own estimation, of course) are of no interest or value; so little value in fact that they now no longer want to be even associated with them in the challenges. They only want to associate with their "equals". They are happy to "mentor" their inferiors so long as they can escape back to their gated enclaves.
You will notice that in their attempted justifications they tend to use the analogies of competition, rather than cooperation or joint learning. For some of them, I am sure, Ayn Rand's supermen are an inspiration.
Elitism and self-interest have ruined too many Internet sites in my twenty years' experience. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen here and that all members will be treated with the respect that full equals deserve.
Let me be clear that this is not aimed at anyone, but IS aimed at the atmosphere some suggestions (not just this one) have generated.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:34:48 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
I enjoy playing tennis when I get the chance. I used to play with a girl who was on the tennis team in high school, and she was infinitly better than I am. But playing with her made me much, much better. Likewise, I can remember playing with my college roommate who was -- to put it as politely as possible -- horrible, my skills deteriorated while I tried to dumb my skills to his level.
Same goes for the approach to this site. |
I think this point is extremely well made. Unfortunately I think I take the entirely opposite conclusion from it than was meant by Alan. I've had similar experiences in most of the competative sports & games I take part in. |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:36:54 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Well said, Zeusen.
I believe that most of us, while happy to win if it happens, gain the greatest enjoyment simply from competing and swapping bits and pieces of information with each other. The challenges are nothing more than a pleasant way to do this. Clearly there are some, however, for whom the winning and the elitism/self-esteem/popularity gained from winning seem to be more important than the things I've mentioned. For these, the idea of "ranked" levels is obviously attractive.
Some appear to believe that the views and opinions of those "lower" than them (in their own estimation, of course) are of no interest or value; so little value in fact that they now no longer want to be even associated with them in the challenges. They only want to associate with their "equals". They are happy to "mentor" their inferiors so long as they can escape back to their gated enclaves.
You will notice that in their attempted justifications they tend to use the analogies of competition, rather than cooperation or joint learning. For some of them, I am sure, Ayn Rand's supermen are an inspiration.
Elitism and self-interest have ruined too many Internet sites in my twenty years' experience. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen here and that all members will be treated with the respect that full equals deserve.
Let me be clear that this is not aimed at anyone, but IS aimed at the atmosphere some suggestions (not just this one) have generated. |
While entertaining, I think your implied accusations are untrue. From what I've read the people proposing changes are simply trying to widen the scope for learning within this site and attempting to further the worthy experiences we've all had here.
As has been brought up before there are a 'multiude' of better places for this apparently than on dpc - I'm still waiting for evidence of this fact however. |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:47:06 PM · #70 |
It isn't about winning. There are a growing number of people who are becoming unenthused about the challenges. They need new opportunities for growth...forums for competition in which the main emphasis isn't just technical wow factor. DPC in it's current form is a great place for beginners to learn technique...but most reach a point in which the 'art' side of the equation needs more attention and appreciation.
I'm not saying this is the view of anyone else...but I personally believe that those attempts at 'art' don't have a chance against razor sharp macros of flowers and bugs and will draw few useful comments. If we were divided into tiers, I believe more people would be able to benefit from dpc. The beginners being more likely to vote and comment on technical...and the more advanced would possibly be more likely to branch out and learn to attribute greater value to a photo's message/significance...maybe push the envelope a little and try something new and edgy. You know...grow. Beginners have great opportunity to grow on dpc...I'm not sure why you would be against providing equal growth opportunity for the more advanced.
Zeusen, I completely agree with you about getting out there and shooting 'life' (if that is indeed what you said..lol). I'd love to see more of it on dpc :) |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:50:41 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
From what I've read the people proposing changes are simply trying to widen the scope for learning within this site |
Explain to me how segregating the "juniors" from the "seniors" here will "widen their [the juniors] scope for learning"? This makes no sense to me at all.
I learn every day by mixing with people who are smarter than me in many disciplines. I know other people who are less good than me at certain things learn from me by working closely with me. Neither of things would happen if we were each locked in our own little boxes.
Do you remember how well "seperate but equal" worked? In case you forgot, it didn't.
----
"As has been brought up before there are a 'multiude' of better places for this apparently than on dpc - I'm still waiting for evidence of this fact however."
If you really want to learn from the experts, try your hand at //www.photoblink.com where images like this are an everyday occurence:
//www.photoblink.com/imageView.asp?ImageID=72467
Message edited by author 2003-06-17 23:55:18.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:54:13 PM · #72 |
| It would widen their scope by exposing them to some types of photography that they would not likely see here otherwise. |
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:55:00 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Froober:
Zeusen, I completely agree with you about getting out there and shooting 'life' (if that is indeed what you said..lol). I'd love to see more of it on dpc :) |
I don't know Froober. Life can get dirty, dontcha know! :-)
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:57:10 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It would widen their scope by exposing them to some types of photography that they would not likely see here otherwise. |
I'm sorry, John, but I don't understand your comment. Don't they see everything now? And how are you limited (other than by the editing rules) in what you post?
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 11:58:03 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Explain to me how segregating the "juniors" from the "seniors" here will "widen their [the juniors] scope for learning"? This makes no sense to me at all.
|
How do you feel it doesn't ? Do you think that being exposed to more creative techniques is somehow a bad thing and a deterrant to learning ? Rather than a kneejerk opposition to change can you explain how more choice and wider options is a bad thing ?
If you think it moves towards information overload, then there is nothing better than a more restricted category for beginners, which might act as 'training wheels' towards the full gamut of abilities - but I am bemused why you feel more choice and wider scope is a bad thing at any level beyond complete beginner. |
|
