| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2006 06:27:00 PM · #1 |
| I think that when a validation is requested, the reason should be given. This could be at the time of the request, after validation is complete, or after voting on that challenge is finished. I had to validate one of my current entries, and I am curious about what someone thought I did. If there were several requests, either each reason could be listed or just the one that the SC felt might be a problem. Is there a reason why you are not told? |
|
|
|
02/06/2006 06:37:03 PM · #2 |
The requester has to say why they call the image into question, but I don't think the reason is passed over to the photographer.
I agree though that it would be good for a photographer to know why a DQ request was made
|
|
|
|
02/06/2006 06:45:25 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Falc:
The requester has to say why they call the image into question, but I don't think the reason is passed over to the photographer.
I agree though that it would be good for a photographer to know why a DQ request was made |
Yeah, I would certainly like to know. I cant think of a reason why it should be a secret. |
|
|
|
02/06/2006 06:49:40 PM · #4 |
There are several reasons why we do not provide that information:
1. In some cases, knowing the reason for the request might help a photographer who is intentionally cheating cover his or her tracks.
2. We have in the past been "tipped off" to rule infractions by individuals who knew the photographer personally. In some of those cases, revealing the reason would have made it obvious who made the DQ request. Since anonymity of the DQ system is critical to its operation, this is probably the most important reason.
3. When we are investigating very serious infractions, a photographer might claim a lost original, knowing that he or she would be disqualified but hoping to bypass suspension for the more serious violation.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2006-02-06 18:50:48.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2006 06:53:36 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
There are several reasons why we do not provide that information:
~Terry |
Makes sense. |
|
|
|
02/06/2006 07:07:02 PM · #6 |
| OK, those are good reasons, but it sure doesn't help my curiosity! lol |
|
|
|
02/06/2006 07:15:57 PM · #7 |
In cases where the shot is DQ'd, of course the photog is made aware of why, and if asked we will elaborate and give guidance to avoid a similar mistake.
In the cases where the photo is found to comply with the rules, there really was no violation, and so the reason the request was originally made is really irrelevant. We hold the information on those requests confidential such that the voters can feel sure that their requests are processed in a completely anonymous manner. Following is a little further information that may give you an appreciation for why this is as it is:
Many, many requests are made that never result in proof being requested, because they are for non-DQable reasons like "does not meet challenge" or because it's clear that the perceived violation was a result of a misinterpretation by the requestor. In cases where we receive multiple requests of this type, we may request proof even though we feel there was no violation, just to give the photog the benefit of the validation note. On the other hand, if ONLY the photographer has requested validation, we do not apply the note, to avoid giving any perceived advantage to photos bearing the notice. To further complicate things, sometimes we'll see a request for one reason and request proof, only to find that the rule that the original requestor thought was violated was not, but that another was. In this case, what should we tell the photographer? In cases where there is intent to deceive us(they do happen) we would also rather not divulge how we come to know what we know.
We are also dealing with an ever-increasing volume of requests as the number of submitted shots grows. There are currently 61 images in the DQ/validation queue, and that does not include images that already have been DQ'd or validated for challenges open for voting or still on the front page. We simply couldn't respond to all requests, even if we felt the need to do so. To do that, we'd have to carefully look at the history of all requests for a particular shot and determine which reason was the one for which we requested proof, then respond with that, if doing so would not raise other concerns.
So after reading this confusing tome, perhaps you understand why it's a kinda complex situation and why, as a rule, we don't communicate the reasons for DQ requests on validated images.
Edit:
I see Terry raised a couple good scenarios I missed ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-02-06 19:16:39.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:02:24 PM · #8 |
i just got a request for proof, it is probably as i used my lensbaby. anyway it was a canon raw file and i sent the original .crw file, should i have sent the .thm file?
thanks
jude |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:03:49 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:06:29 PM · #10 |
a quick question while we are discussing this DQ thing:
if after a proof and steps were provided by the photographer, but the SC finds it unsatisfactory, will there be further correspondence between them, or will the photo be DQ without any further notice?
example: the photographer may have accidentally forgot to mention in this proof that he also rotated the image, or something like that.
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 23:09:29. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:06:30 PM · #11 |
Hey guys. How about notifying the validator that their entry is legit? i'm always on pins and needles looking for that "green highlighted" bar in the forums when I submit proof ;)
'cause you never know ;)
edit for spelling
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 23:07:47. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:09:03 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by crayon:
a quick question while we are discussing this DQ thing:
if after a proof and steps were provided by the photographer, but the SC finds it unsatisfactory, will there be further correspondence between them, or will the photo be DQ without any further notice? |
If we need more information to make a determination, we will typically contact you. This most often happens if the wrong file was sent, or if the editing steps were incomplete and we cannot determine the validity of the entry without them.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:09:32 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by crayon:
a quick question while we are discussing this DQ thing:
if after a proof and steps were provided by the photographer, but the SC finds it unsatisfactory, will there be further correspondence between them, or will the photo be DQ without any further notice? |
We will usually ask for more information if we need it. If you forget something and remember it yourself, you can also send us another note. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:10:08 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
Hey guys. How about notifying the validator that their entry is legit? i'm always on pins and needles looking for that "green highlighted" bar in the forums when I submit proof ;)
'cause you never know ;)
edit for spelling |
You mean the photographer?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:10:50 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:11:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by crayon:
a quick question while we are discussing this DQ thing:
if after a proof and steps were provided by the photographer, but the SC finds it unsatisfactory, will there be further correspondence between them, or will the photo be DQ without any further notice? |
If we need more information to make a determination, we will typically contact you. This most often happens if the wrong file was sent, or if the editing steps were incomplete and we cannot determine the validity of the entry without them.
~Terry |
Thanks Terry.
That's comforting to know. I havent had experience with a bad proof submission, so I'm just keen to know the "what ifs", as I sometimes have poor memory and might have accidentally missed a step or something. Thanks again for the clarification. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:15:56 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by crayon:
... I sometimes have poor memory and might have accidentally missed a step or something. Thanks again for the clarification. |
If you list your editing steps in the photographer's notes section at the time of submission you won't have to remember anything -- just submit the original -- plus you will have helped fulfill the educational mission of the site by allowing all viewers of your image to know how you made it ... isn't that supposed to be the whole point of the site? |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:26:59 PM · #18 |
| any thoughts about my question SC? |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:31:30 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
any thoughts about my question SC? |
*poof*ΓΆ„ΒΆ
Geez... Give Langdon a half-hour to code why don't ya?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:33:56 PM · #20 |
| no i mean... via email or something saying all is well ;) |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:43:36 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
no i mean... via email or something saying all is well ;) |
Right... like I said... *poof*ΓΆ„ΒΆ
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 02:25:50 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
How about notifying the validator that their entry is legit? i'm always on pins and needles looking for that "green highlighted" bar in the forums when I submit proof ;) |
Your image in voting gets the red byline "This image has been Validated"
If it's after voting, I believe you'll get emails from SC before the final decision is made to DQ.
Brett |
|
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: 08/30/2025 12:46:46 PM EDT.
