Future Growth Suggestions - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

06/17/2003 11:58:22 PM · #76

Originally posted by Jak:

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?

You aren't limited at all. People just don't post certian 'visions' here because of the know kick in the face they will get for doing it :) I am testing this theory with my 'off center' photo and being proven correct.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/18/2003 12:02:45 AM · #77

Originally posted by Gordon:

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,

How will restricting junior members widen their scope. This has not been explained to me. I see it as a limitation. Right now they are exposed to everything available on the site, and can join in at any time to do anything. Your change would restrict thir choices, not widen them.

I think the only one complaining about information overload was John's original post. I've never suggested any such thing.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/18/2003 12:04:26 AM · #78

Question: why do you think mixing with the "juniors" limits you? I guess that's the main thing I don't understand.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/18/2003 12:07:16 AM · #79

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The logic here seems faulty to me. As I understand the proposal, those who have done best at the current system would be siphoned off into an expert stream. Surely, if your post is correct, those of us who have not won at all -- because we choose more creative visions, perhaps -- should be in this more advanced stream, while the current ribbon winners should be relegated to the "ordinary vision" category.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

06/18/2003 12:08:00 AM · #80

Someone correct me if I am wrong (like I have to ask! lol). My understanding of John's original suggestion was that the individual could choose which level he/she/it wanted to be in. If three ribbons were won, then they would be required to move up. But, a straight beginner could, conceivably, join the higher lever just to challenge him/her/it self. Right?

If that is the case, then the Jrs. can still take Jr. level math if they want, but if they want an extra challenge, they can sign up to take it with the srs.

Or did I totally miss something?

edited for typo

Message edited by author 2003-06-18 00:33:05.

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

06/18/2003 12:13:49 AM · #81

Karmat, u are correct.

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

06/18/2003 01:35:35 AM · #82

I was the one who pushed the idea over and over of the different levels of competition and I am still very much in support of it and might I go a little further to suggest that you can not vote within your own level.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

06/18/2003 04:24:04 AM · #83

If it's just about the fact that you get punished (score-wise) for less mainstream, more 'arty' shots then I can't see how this is going to help.

Because the voting is done by an unregulated mass the stuff that does well is by definition going to have more 'mass appeal'. Short of requiring people to rate their artistic appreciation and only allowing them to vote on pictures they can "get" you can't get away from it.

Perhaps having some challenges specifically requiring "arty" entries would help but you'd still have the problem that, at the end of the day, people vote based on what they like.

bod

06/18/2003 07:22:36 AM · #84

A few thoughts:

Splitting the challenges -
It is really the open challenges that need splitting rather than the members challenges (for now). DPC may already have hit the point where some sort of self population control kicks in and people start leaving because they feel lost in the crowd.

Less obvious names for the categories may make people feel better about being in the lowest tier. ie Tier 1 rather than beginners.

The split could be made by different levels of editing rules rather than ability. This way you still get a mix of abilities in each group. Moving 'down' a level should be made difficult (ie need a reason) to prevent people switching for every challenge to give themselves a better chance.

Extended challenges -
I would like to see this now. If the editing-allowed challenges are going to be a monthly event (guesstimating based on what has previously been said as we have had no announcement) then why not use the whole month for submitting. I could certainly do with extra time if I need to edit a shot - I took about 100 shots on Sunday and I'm still working on the first one :-/ and that has nothing to do with DPC.

Superlative Voting -
I would expect most of these awards to go to shots already in the top 10, but it would be extra encouragement to them after just missing out on a ribbon. Good luck to the guys trying to code it in the usual DPC-user-friendly style though!

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

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

06/18/2003 09:02:10 AM · #85

Ooh, I like the idea of splitting by rules - I don't think you'd even need to worry about people shifting from tier to tier over each challenge though, would it matter?

If you had the same challenge, but split into (1) existing rules, (2) limited spot-editing and (3) anything goes and only allow people to enter in one of those categories you reduce the individual tiers to more manageable proportions and satisfy those who have been pleading for more relaxed rules all in one go. Got my vote bod :-)

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

06/18/2003 09:08:49 AM · #86

Originally posted by ganders:

I like that idea quite a bit. I believe that would solve the issue of large challenges while allowing editing freedom for those who want it. Excellent idea...

Refracted

Canon EOS-50D

06/18/2003 09:10:07 AM · #87

i saw a suggestion somewhere to split the open challenges, and not the member ones.. (i'm too busy at work to scroll up to see who said it :P). While this makes sense if this were a completly free community, DPC needs to pay the bandwidth costs somehow, and it's with members that it can atleast help with it.. By increasing the range of the "free" challenges, even less people would be inclined to become a member, as it wouldn't be a necessity anymore to be a member to participate in more than one challenge per week. I say let the open challenge grow.. when it gets to 500 entries per week, people will start thinking that the 100-ish entry member challenges might seem more interesting, and maybe even join.

The splitting by rules also intrigues me.. though i cant imagine a "anything goes" challenge (wayy too prone to get too much digital art, which i dont think fits in the spirit of this site), i definatly would like the option between the current rules, and some slightly modified ones (dodge&burn, etc.. typical photographic tools, but nothing extraordinary)

edit: i think i should clarify my "anything goes" comment.. as when i read it, it seems a bit odd.. What i mean is, we currently have a "anything goes" challenge once and a while.. and they can definatly produce nice images, but a constant "anything goes" challenge my gravitate towards more surreal submissions.. Though i think we could try it anyway and if it really does gravitate that way.. (which would be a shame, i'd like to sometimes be comeplty free in a challenge), we could maybe rethink it..

Message edited by author 2003-06-18 09:13:17.

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

06/18/2003 09:16:09 AM · #88

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by ganders:
Ooh, I like the idea of splitting by rules - I don't think you'd even need to worry about people shifting from tier to tier over each challenge though, would it matter?

If you had the same challenge, but split into (1) existing rules, (2) limited spot-editing and (3) anything goes and only allow people to enter in one of those categories you reduce the individual tiers to more manageable proportions and satisfy those who have been pleading for more relaxed rules all in one go. Got my vote bod :-)

I like that idea quite a bit. I believe that would solve the issue of large challenges while allowing editing freedom for those who want it. Excellent idea...

I like the idea too, allows everyone to grow and compete at there own pace. Helps those who have no idea what they are doing and those who are much more advanced aren't limited.

I said it in another thread too so what if there are 3 first place winners in each level and you end up with 9 ribbons for the challenge instead of just 3. It doesn't take from anyone the spotlight, it just makes the spotlight a little larger.

bod

06/18/2003 09:39:39 AM · #89

Originally posted by Refracted:

I said I thought that it was the open challenges that needed the attention first, but you're right - the cure for an overpopulated open challenge is not to change it, but to provide a more attractive members package.

Originally posted by ganders:

Ooh, I like the idea of splitting by rules - I don't think you'd even need to worry about people shifting from tier to tier over each challenge though, would it matter?

Maybe I'm over-thinking things, I often do!
My reasoning is that somebody who normally enters in the 'anything goes' tier has a shot with no spot editing. They would enter it in the lowest tier because it would possibly stand a better chance of finishing top 3 in that one. We would see people swapping between tiers on a weekly basis - I believe that the site needs more stability.
You could also end up with the situation where there's only 3 entries in the top tier or something silly like that.
Maybe a simple statement such as "switching tiers on a regular basis is discouraged" and a polite email to anybody doing a weekly switch would suffice.

06/18/2003 10:30:51 AM · #90

i think this actually works as I think about it more. if the member area was divided into three challenges based on rules, we could let the digital art crowd have their open edit challenges where anything goes. we could also have a challenge with the current rules and then a middle challenge with more flexibility than current but less than full editing. i think it should be kept to a choice of the three rather than any or all when entering these challenges though...

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

06/18/2003 12:02:45 PM · #91

I was thinking along same lines as I drifted off to sleep last night...

My thoughts:-

2 member challenges with relaxed rules, one just for touch up (such as dodge and burn, spot edit to remove dirt and hot pixels) and one for more far reaching post processing

2 member challenges on current rules

2 open challenges on current rules

Non paid members can enter only one open challenge a week.

Members can enter one open, one members current rules and one members relaxed rules a week.

No relaxed rules for open challenges to encourage paid membership

I think this will:-

a) make numbers in each challenge smaller and more manageable
b) allow for different styles of challenge themes, e.g. simple learning photography ones such as "rule of thirds" or "black and white", more abstract conceptual themes such as "honesty" or "balance", specific objects such as "pencils" and some themes that might stretch more advanced photographers too (can't think of any myself but others could)
c) mean that entry across different challenges is more fluid - meaning less rigid segregration of members of different abilities but hopefully still allowing more advanced members to enter challenges that stretch them and also allowing beginners to enter some more straightforward ones
d) take the site forward in a positive way

What does anyone think?

- - -
Edit to correct typo. I got to proof read more...

Message edited by author 2003-06-18 12:04:35.

Refracted

Canon EOS-50D

06/18/2003 01:49:36 PM · #92

that sounds great, but that ends up with 4 member challenges.. i think thats a bit much *for now* .. obviously we'd be able to expand in the future..but i think that 2 open (and only allowing to enter one of the two), and 2 member (one with current rules, and one with modified rules) would be great..

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

06/18/2003 04:27:00 PM · #93

KV, I think it's too many challenges to keep up with :)

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

06/18/2003 04:57:54 PM · #94

It'd be pretty funny if the people in the so-called "advanced" pool end up drowning :)

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

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?

06/18/2003 06:36:33 PM · #95

The reason I went for a higher number was really just to ensure that the numbers did drop sufficiently to make a difference.

Numbers were just examples - but the idea was what I was interested in - splitting by rules and challenge theme styles rather than by tiers on abilities.

06/18/2003 06:38:21 PM · #96

Originally posted by Kavey:

Your post led me to believe that photographers would be able to submit to more than one challenge at the open and member level. I am not confident that this would reduce the number of photos in any given challenge...

Journey

Canon PowerShot G3

06/18/2003 06:44:39 PM · #97

We don't need any more challenges than we already have. I don't like the idea of elite classes or tiers. With tiers, there will be all sorts of games being played to move tiers or procure ribbons. It would all become pretty meaningless with further pigeonholing.

I don't particularly care having to vote on all submissions. What i like to see is that the site makes it easy to just skip voting on an image and being able to quickly move on to the next one. People with habitually low scores and few comments will then also get the message from few votes that their pics are not particularly highly regarded at dpc and they perhaps then move on to another site. To avoid the possibility that such a pic gets 1 vote with happens to be a 10 from a friend, and ends up with an avg score of 10, there should be some rule that pics with fewer than x votes will be eliminated from final placement.

06/18/2003 06:56:59 PM · #98

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by Kavey:
The reason I went for a higher number was really just to ensure that the numbers did drop sufficiently to make a difference.

Numbers were just examples - but the idea was what I was interested in - splitting by rules and challenge theme styles rather than by tiers on abilities.

Your post led me to believe that photographers would be able to submit to more than one challenge at the open and member level. I am not confident that this would reduce the number of photos in any given challenge...

Well one could easily have more challenges and restrict the member more however I thought members would like to be able to submit to one with no editing rules and one with current rules - still restricted though.

This is just the details though.

A certain number of challenges - I'd go for a higher number in order to cut down size of each one
A limit on entering them so everyone doesn't enter every one
Split on rules and challenge theme styles

That is the essence of what I'm suggesting

06/18/2003 07:09:28 PM · #99

I don't think I have any additional input on this issue... I still like the idea of challenges either broken up by levels or by edit rules and only being able to submit to one at a time.

I don't view my opinion on that as 'elitist' no matter what is said about it. It's just my opinion.

Yes, I would rather compete within a group of photographers who consider themselves more advanced. If that is 'elitist', then maybe I am. I posted the idea of the levels challenges because it has been brought up several times before and gotten a lot of support. The 'against' members didn't seem to pop out until I brought it up for some reason or another.

I would rather compete in smaller challenges with photographers who consistently produce better photos than I do. That would raise the bar for me. It would make me work harder and think more about what I'm doing. It's not about 'ribbons'. I have no interest in winning a ribbon. I do, however, have a great interest in seeing how I personally stack up against the photographers who I admire the most on this site.

So, that will surely raise the question of: Isn't this how it works now? The answer is no. It's not. If it requires explanation of why it's not, I'm afraid I won't go into that here.