| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2005 02:52:15 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Knowing your audience is one of the most important aspects of art, or any other communication. |
Excellent point! Now I'm smiling again :-) |
heh, I do what I can. Glad I could help.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:00:12 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
To my great disgust, this time I went for votes :-( It looks like I made the right choice, at present it is shaping up to be my highest scoring photo, but I'm not proud of it. In fact, it hardly deserves the 6.5 it is getting. I have taken way better photos that didn't do as well as that *sigh*
|
There's nothing wrong with competing when you're in a competition...is there?
Unless you are using the Challenges to learn...go for the points...I say.
There's some great value in learning how to shoot for DPC. It's important to know and keep in mind that the DPC eye isn't the, know all, last stop in judgement.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 15:02:36. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:09:20 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
There's nothing wrong with competing when you're in a competition...is there?
Unless you are using the Challenges to learn...go for the points...I say.
There's some great value in learning how to shoot for DPC. It's important to know and keep in mind that the DPC eye isn't the, know all, last stop in judgement. |
Yep, everything is subjective, I'm starting to learn that audience is everything. Stock angencies look for something, modeling something different, portrait clients, architecture clients, product photography, outdoor/landscape... it's all relative to what is expected and needed, not to what our personal tastes are. Some might call that selling out, but if you never had a personal moral directive against it, it's not really selling out anything is it? Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:16:19 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by keegbow:
I expect more images to finish above 7.
I base my judgement on the number of images that finish above 7 compared with the number of images that finish below 4. |
I couldn't DISagree more. It takes effort to separate a challenge entry from a snapshot that could've been taken by Aunt Mabel. Fewer people are willing to expend the necessary energy on careful lighting, composition, post-processing, etc. (not to mention going out of your way for a unique scene) to get a 7+ score, especally for a virtual ribbon. A great photo appeals to us because it's special- something that we don't see every day. Scoring below 4 requires little more than pushing a button.
There is a natural "gravity" to photography (as with any form of art), and without effort your score will fall. So, far from your premise, I am pleasantly surprised that so many entries DO score over 7. |
I'm probably seeing this based on the way I vote on images, I very very rarely give a score of 1 or 2. To come in with a score of below 4 requires a hell of lot of 1s and 2s to be given. Surely if it meets the challenge it should be scored above three.
The guidelines of the site require that we should firstly vote on the entry meeting the challenge, just a suggestion but what if we had a system in place where you are required to answer a question before each vote with a tick box "Does this meet the challenge" If you say yes then you are able to vote but only on a scale option of let's say for example 4 - 10 and if you say no your only option is for example again 1 - 6. This would enable you to have another data field after the challenge has ended of number of votes saying "Did not meet the challenge" and help in the anaylsis after voting on why your image didn't score well.
I just thought of this as I was typing so feel free to tear it apart. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:41:01 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
[quote=pawdrix]Some might call that selling out, but if you never had a personal moral directive against it, it's not really selling out anything is it? Just a thought. |
I would call it connecting and not selling out.
What I'm learning here at DPC mostly is how to connect and hopefully my style and what I like to shoot will connect with viewers more on my own terms at some point.
I've never sold out a day in my life. I always stick to my guns and there's a long list of people who will attest to that. But at the end of the day...as a chef...people still need to like the taste of my food. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:51:07 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
...The guidelines of the site require that we should firstly vote on the entry meeting the challenge, just a suggestion but what if we had a system in place... |
My prior comment still applies, even more so to this kind of thinking. It's not broken people...
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... I think this whole concept of voting scales, what number range should everyone use, etc... is a mute point and can be discussed indefinitely without group concurrence.
Votes are a way of stating an opinion by the vote caster. Opinions cannot and should not be confined to some additional set of restrictive parameters. The diversity of the community here is going to be reflected in voting methods. In the end, it all averages out. |
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:51:46 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There is a natural "gravity" to photography (as with any form of art), and without effort your score will fall. So, far from your premise, I am pleasantly surprised that so many entries DO score over 7. |
I couldn't agree more. If you consider the large number of challenges available to enter, the average skill of photographers and the average experience with the critique process along and COMBINE those elements with the mathematical application of statistics to a medium that factors in weighted opinion, I'm shocked how many score over a 7.
I personally think this has nothing to do with the average skill or critical thinking process of the average DPCer. Let's hypothesize that all of a sudden there was an influx of better photographers and critiquers. While there may be an overall improvement in quality, how the numbers relate to each other will remain the same, no matter how 'good' or 'bad' someone might judge the level of photography here.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 05:36:53 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nitin:
While voting, I inherently tend to ask 'is this photograph better than my entry?'. |
So do I, but I wouldn't allow that to influence my voting. My wife will look over my shoulder sometimes and say, "Why are you giving that shot a 9? |
So you agree that the stats do tell a story?
Being a participant might not affect YOUR voting, but it does in general?
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 21:22:42.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 07:00:19 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nitin:
While voting, I inherently tend to ask 'is this photograph better than my entry?'. |
So do I, but I wouldn't allow that to influence my voting. My wife will look over my shoulder sometimes and say, "Why are you giving that shot a 9? |
So you agree that the stats do tell a story?
Being a participant might not affect YOUR voting, but it does in general?
|
That's the one I had seen before, pretty conclusive results. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 07:01:46 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by keegbow:
...The guidelines of the site require that we should firstly vote on the entry meeting the challenge, just a suggestion but what if we had a system in place... |
My prior comment still applies, even more so to this kind of thinking. It's not broken people...
|
I'm not saying it's broken just that it can be improved. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 09:05:10 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Only the people who vote well below the site average. |
Why only those who vote below the site average? Why not also focus your disatisfaction on the ones who vote above the site average?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 09:08:23 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Only the people who vote well below the site average. |
Why only those who vote below the site average? Why not also focus your disatisfaction on the ones who vote above the site average? |
Why? |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 09:14:53 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Only the people who vote well below the site average. |
Why only those who vote below the site average? Why not also focus your disatisfaction on the ones who vote above the site average? |
Look what’s your problem Harvey you’re coming across all hot under the collar. All I have done is ask a for a discussion on how people vote in particular I believe we have too many 1s and 2s handed out, no big deal we both disagree get over it.
I apologize for mentioning your low vote average if that’s what is getting you so fired up, let’s just leave it.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 09:47:54 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
... Look what’s your problem Harvey you’re coming across all hot under the collar. All I have done is ask a for a discussion on how people vote in particular I believe we have too many 1s and 2s handed out, no big deal we both disagree get over it.
I apologize for mentioning your low vote average if that’s what is getting you so fired up, let’s just leave it. |
No need to apologize for mentioning my voting average. It's right there on my profile page for everyone to look at. Actually, in a certain way, I am proud of the fact that I don't vote like everyone else does.
But what's really bugging me is the nagging feeling that you have been disingenuous about your motives for starting this thread from the beginning. You presented your assumption -- that we score too low -- as if it were a forgone conclusion, or a proven fact. And when I raise questions, trying to get to the bottom of your intentions for starting it, and where you seem to want to go with it, you can't answer them. To me, it's beginning to look more and more like your motive is to try to convince people to vote higher. Because that's the way you think they should vote, not because the photography is improving. What would you think if I tried to get everybody to vote the way I do?
I think the results of our challenges would be best left to an interaction of the entry and the voter with the challenge details being interpreted by each of them (us) in their own way. I think we are capable of that, and I trust us to come up with the right results. What could possibly be added to that interaction that would improve it without swaying the results one way or another?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 11:19:07 PM · #115 |
I've never been to thrilled by the portfolios of the low voters so I figure...who cares...whatever and let them wallow in their own misery...the poor souls.
I used to look at that stat as a matter of class, when I'd noticed most, if not all of my favorite photogs voted generously. I loosened up a bit myself when I realized there was no need to punish people for their efforts. I do give out a very rare 1 every now and again but my bottom vote is usually a 4.
I'm pretty competetive too but this is DPC...what's the point of being mean? |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 11:24:35 PM · #116 |
| How can a picture that has never been taken before, not have originality? LOL just wondering |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 11:28:16 PM · #117 |
As long as a voters voting is consistant it doesn't matter how low or high the scores given are. If i decided to only use 1 2 or 3 as possible scores to give, and i did that for everyone, it would still be fair. I tend to stick to the middle numbers for almost all the shots. Every now and then there is an 8 or so, and that, from me is an amazing shot to my eyes. It's my choice to only use a 3 - 7 scale even tho there is more available. But as long as there is consistancy, there is no reason to think the scores are too low.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 11:45:48 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
As long as a voters voting is consistant it doesn't matter how low or high the scores given are. If i decided to only use 1 2 or 3 as possible scores to give, and i did that for everyone, it would still be fair. |
What if you voted on 50% entries after adopting that scale, and ran out of time?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 11:57:53 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by keegbow:
... Look what’s your problem Harvey you’re coming across all hot under the collar. All I have done is ask a for a discussion on how people vote in particular I believe we have too many 1s and 2s handed out, no big deal we both disagree get over it.
I apologize for mentioning your low vote average if that’s what is getting you so fired up, let’s just leave it. |
But what's really bugging me is the nagging feeling that you have been disingenuous about your motives for starting this thread from the beginning. You presented your assumption -- that we score too low -- as if it were a forgone conclusion, or a proven fact. And when I raise questions, trying to get to the bottom of your intentions for starting it, and where you seem to want to go with it, you can't answer them. To me, it's beginning to look more and more like your motive is to try to convince people to vote higher. Because that's the way you think they should vote, not because the photography is improving. What would you think if I tried to get everybody to vote the way I do?
|
Here in this thread and as seen in other threads Harvey you seem to conclude that if someone puts up an opinion contrary to yours you label them with trying to influence the voting of the site.
You say you raised questions trying to get to bottom of my intentions for starting this, well I didn't know I was on trial and you were the Judge and jury if so please forgive me for opening a discussion on, why I think we vote low.
Please re-read what I originally posted and subsequent posting and you will realize that no conspiracy exists, no need to be paranoid, I asked a few questions and got a few answers even your last post gave me a few answers you vote low because you are proud to be different, that’s you right and it's different to my opinion but I don't care I'm getting all out of shape over it, just chill out we are all different.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2005 12:05:17 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Nitin:
So you agree that the stats do tell a story?
Being a participant might not affect YOUR voting, but it does in general?
|
That's the one I had seen before, pretty conclusive results. |
Question - How does EddyG get the statistics for participants/non-participants for each challenge? Is it a lump sum by challenge that pulls this, or is it by accumulating the votes for each person per challenge?
There are some other conclusions that could be drawn from this, I mean who's to say that the logic/reasoning is correct - unless of course you want to agree with it.
For instance - could it be that participants are more critical of photography in general and have higher standards? Are they more active? Who are non-participants? Would that include people who never, or rarely enter challenges and just vote? What is their makeup as to photography? How many times have you seen "No Camera" votes come in much higher on a "Wow" image when those of us taking the images know that the "Wow" wasn't really difficult to do technically...therefore vote it lower? Or how about that shot that was extremely difficult to get with the lighting and setup - "No Camera" votes go "ho-hum", no big deal... And yes, I know there are some out there that vote "No Camera" that have great photo skills - I've seen that talked up in the forums before.
The point I'm trying to make is that numbers/statistics can be looked at many different ways and it's quite easy to "make them work" for the point you want to make.
In the end, this whole thing (voting) washes out and averages across the board. Still amazes me how much energy has been devoted to the subject. Myself included after this post. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/20/2005 12:21:29 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
As long as a voters voting is consistant it doesn't matter how low or high the scores given are. If i decided to only use 1 2 or 3 as possible scores to give, and i did that for everyone, it would still be fair. |
What if you voted on 50% entries after adopting that scale, and ran out of time? |
I said "and i did that for EVERYONE".
|
|
|
|
11/20/2005 12:44:00 AM · #122 |
| I don't think that it really matters how low people vote as long as they are consistant. As long as everyone is getting low scores, it's fine with me. |
|
|
|
11/20/2005 01:11:00 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Nitin:
So you agree that the stats do tell a story?
Being a participant might not affect YOUR voting, but it does in general?
|
That's the one I had seen before, pretty conclusive results. |
Question - How does EddyG get the statistics for participants/non-participants for each challenge? Is it a lump sum by challenge that pulls this, or is it by accumulating the votes for each person per challenge?
There are some other conclusions that could be drawn from this, I mean who's to say that the logic/reasoning is correct - unless of course you want to agree with it.
For instance - could it be that participants are more critical of photography in general and have higher standards? Are they more active? Who are non-participants? Would that include people who never, or rarely enter challenges and just vote? What is their makeup as to photography? How many times have you seen "No Camera" votes come in much higher on a "Wow" image when those of us taking the images know that the "Wow" wasn't really difficult to do technically...therefore vote it lower? Or how about that shot that was extremely difficult to get with the lighting and setup - "No Camera" votes go "ho-hum", no big deal... And yes, I know there are some out there that vote "No Camera" that have great photo skills - I've seen that talked up in the forums before.
The point I'm trying to make is that numbers/statistics can be looked at many different ways and it's quite easy to "make them work" for the point you want to make.
In the end, this whole thing (voting) washes out and averages across the board. Still amazes me how much energy has been devoted to the subject. Myself included after this post. ;^) |
I agree you can draw any number of conclusion to suit an argument from statistics and in this case a see a direct correlation of voters with images in the challenge and how they vote.
(Disclaimer) Just my opinion, no trying to influence voters intended. |
|
|
|
11/20/2005 01:55:41 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
... I used to look at that stat as a matter of class, when I'd noticed most, if not all of my favorite photogs voted generously. I loosened up a bit myself when I realized there was no need to punish people for their efforts. ... |
I've noticed that as well -- but drew a different conclusion from it. To me it had nothing to do with punishment or reward -- just a matter of being willing to look at what is there. After all, those who are unwilling or unable to see the good works of others are never going to see the possibility of good work in themselves.
I concluded that they didn't vote high because they were doing well themselves, but that they were doing well themselves because they could see the value in the work of others.
David
|
|
