| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 10:45:30 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you can enforce the date, then you can just as easily enforce a shutter speed. |
In this instance maybe yes, but how would you enforce the next topic and the one after that? - The rules have to remain constant, you can't change the rule or lack of rule on an arbitary variable. You either enforce DNMC or not period, and as its a subjective value then it can't be enforced. |
How is an exact shutter speed subjective?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:47:39 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Cyndane:
Originally posted by sigth:
I ask for the photos in 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th seat to be disqualified and all those who do not have exif. information, untill they prove their 2 sec. exposure time. |
The SC would have to request/get/go through 192 EXIF data files... |
No, they wouldn't. As mentioned earlier the only EXIF data files to check are the same ones that get checked now - for the top 5 images in any particular challenge (or any during voting that have been requested for validation). No additional burden whatsovever.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:50:14 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you can enforce the date, then you can just as easily enforce a shutter speed. |
In this instance maybe yes, but how would you enforce the next topic and the one after that? - The rules have to remain constant, you can't change the rule or lack of rule on an arbitary variable. You either enforce DNMC or not period, and as its a subjective value then it can't be enforced. |
I don't think it would be considered a subjective value if there were a Special Rule added to something like 2-Second Exposure or 4:00-5:00 a.m. to say that not meeting the challenge was a DQ'able offense. And I don't think it is a hugh burden on SC if they just checked the EXIF info of the top five finishers, and the entries that receive a DQ request during voting, to see if the challenge topic was met. For the themed, non-technical, challenges the way it currently works, with the voters having the final say, is probably best.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:50:38 PM · #79 |
One difference between the 'Rubber Ducky' challenge and a couple of the recent technical challenges is that the extra rules described a component that was visible to the voter.
The two technical challenges in question, the component being debated was invisible.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:50:47 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by sigth:
I ask for the photos in 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th seat to be disqualified and all those who do not have exif. information, untill they prove their 2 sec. exposure time. |
While I understand the spirit behind your statement, it's not realistic. No rules were broken - repeat rules, not the challenge description.
From the OP of this thread.
1) The challenge topic and description are just that; they identify the subject and general guidelines of the photo shoot. The "assignment" if you will.
2) The rules are things you can and cannot do that cover all challenge entries (ruleset for Basic and ruleset for Advanced).
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:50:55 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you can enforce the date, then you can just as easily enforce a shutter speed. |
In this instance maybe yes, but how would you enforce the next topic and the one after that? - The rules have to remain constant, you can't change the rule or lack of rule on an arbitary variable. You either enforce DNMC or not period, and as its a subjective value then it can't be enforced. |
Informative vs Normative wording. The challenge in question used normative wording and should have been judge appropriately. Since the voters couldn't know the shutter speed then it would have been left up to the SCs.
But this is all moot since there is no rule to DQ on DNMC. So back to the original suggestion I made (instead of bitching about what has already happened) which is to utilize the normative/informative wording/flag. If a challenge has normative wording then a flag or notice could be given on the challenge announcement to identify and it would be up to the SC to verify. If the wording is informative then it is up to the voters to verify challenge guidelines.... |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:51:12 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Cyndane:
Originally posted by sigth:
I ask for the photos in 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th seat to be disqualified and all those who do not have exif. information, untill they prove their 2 sec. exposure time. |
The SC would have to request/get/go through 192 EXIF data files... |
It is very easy to disqualify those 3 photos that clearly do not have the asked for 2 sec. exposure time, the photo in the 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th - so please do that. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:52:01 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Cyndane:
Originally posted by sigth:
I ask for the photos in 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th seat to be disqualified and all those who do not have exif. information, untill they prove their 2 sec. exposure time. |
The SC would have to request/get/go through 192 EXIF data files... |
No, they wouldn't. As mentioned earlier the only EXIF data files to check are the same ones that get checked now - for the top 5 images in any particular challenge (or any during voting that have been requested for validation). No additional burden whatsovever. |
I just meant, in response to sigth's request that the 1st, 7th, 16th place photos be DQ'd, as well as "all those who do not have exif. information, untill they prove their 2 sec. exposure time."
I took that to mean that sigth wanted each image submitter to prove their 2 sec. exposure time by sending in their exif data. I may have misunderstood...
I didn't mean it for the future, just for that particular request. :) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:54:01 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by sigth:
It is very easy to disqualify those 3 photos that clearly do not have the asked for 2 sec. exposure time, the photo in the 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th - so please do that. |
You are asking us to change the rules after the game is over ... it's not going to happen.
As has been mentioned numerous times, we will try to avoid such situations in the future. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:54:09 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
One difference between the 'Rubber Ducky' challenge and a couple of the recent technical challenges is that the extra rules described a component that was visible to the voter.
The two technical challenges in question, the component being debated was invisible. |
Agreed, however possibilities exist in ANY given challenge where entries could have been submitted with the actual rules bent/broken. We never know that either until validation requests are generated for the top 5 (or special validation requests).
Have to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority and believe in your fellow competitors (as we do now overall).
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:58:36 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by sigth:
...It is very easy to disqualify those 3 photos that clearly do not have the asked for 2 sec. exposure time, the photo in the 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th - so please do that. |
What you are asking has been debated in great detail in the following thread. That may be a better venue for the request you seek.
When is 2 seconds NOT?
The intent here is to discuss/debate how to incorporate change for future challenges that are fair to all and workable. If you care to share your thoughts on this point it would be most appreciated.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:00:55 PM · #87 |
I'll echo the general. the challenge is over. we do not dq on the grounds of not meeting the challenge. to do so now would be to change the "rules" after the game has started. I can just hear the uproar if we chose to do that.
Should it have had an extra rule? Maybe, probably(my opinion).
Has a lesson been learned? Yes.
It has been discussed in the SC forums, and I think there is a general consensus (site wide) that challenges like this in the future need a flag.
Boycott, complain, keep sending tickets to request dq's, keep feeling cheated, but as it stands right now, SC won't dq pictures with other than a 2 second exposure, because we don't have the right to.
In the future, something different may happen, but it will (should) be identified when the challenge is announced, not after voting has finished. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:02:01 PM · #88 |
I will have to say that I am losing interest in participating in challenges if the details are just bullshit.
It says in the detals for the 2 sec. exposure challenge:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
I did my very best to follow this and now I see it didn´t matter....
I think this is stupid and unfair to those participating and following these "rules"... |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:04:21 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by sigth:
I will have to say that I am losing interest in participating in challenges if the details are just bullshit.
It says in the detals for the 2 sec. exposure challenge:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
I did my very best to follow this and now I see it didn´t matter....
I think this is stupid and unfair to those participating and following these "rules"... |
They weren't rules. If I submit a picture of a dog to a cat challenge and call it "Chasing cats" I haven't met the challenge. BUT, I have followed the rules that were in place for that challenge. Again, they didn't break the rules, SC cannot dq them because we do not have grounds to.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 23:06:07. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:08:07 PM · #90 |
| then disqualify them for not following the details |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:10:40 PM · #91 |
| please tell me you are kidding |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:12:20 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by karmat:
... It has been discussed in the SC forums, and I think there is a general consensus (site wide) that challenges like this in the future need a flag. ... |
Thanks Karma. It's good to know that this is in review.
For the record - I really wanted to try and generate some healthy debate/discussion on how to change/improve this area of our challenges for the future. Hence this thread was started this morning.
It sounds like the ball's rolling and this debate is now past it's usefulness. Should we consider locking this thread?
edit to add - oops! I thought everyone was mostly finished "talking". Sorry.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 23:13:57. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:19:15 PM · #93 |
Sigth. I understand that you feel slighted here on some level and I am not happy either, but DQ'ing here is not the answer.
If said participants requested self-DQ, it would be honorable of them, but this shouldn't be necessary.
These are digital ribbons.
Their meaning is VERY slight.
Sure, they are fun, but not worth getting so worked up about.
In fact, if it's only the 1st, 7th, and 16th place images in the top 20, that's not really a HUGE percentage is it?
The Debacle is in what we make of it. If we cool down a bit and view this as an opportunity to learn, then we can all move forward.
I will again restate that I think it would be a good idea to have a special challenge as soon as these things can be worked out in the SC to set things straight and build a new precedent. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:30:00 PM · #94 |
As a human being, I enjoy free will. I also recognize that there will be consequences deriving from my exercise of free will.
The consequences of "breaking the rules" is disqualification. Break them if you want, because you may exercise your free will and do so. But expect the consequences.
The consequences of failing to meet the challenge, in the eye of the voter, is a low score. Stretch a challenge description beyond all recognition if you want, because you may exercise your free will and do so. But expect the consequences.
Now, if you want to experience fewer undesireable consequences, and dramatically lower your frustration and blood pressure ... stick with shooting and editing within the rules ... and shoot the prescribed assignment as defined in the challenge description.
You will be a happier person. Those around you will find it easier to love you. Your collective kittens, puppies, children and guppies will live happier lives.
Anything less is simply undisciplined arrogance on your part. Worse, it's a trait of an unprofessional photographer. The DPC community won't reward your personal brand of arrogance or your unprofessionalism in this matter. And you certainly shouldn't expect them to. Get the hell over it.
NOW, can we stop the monthly threads about this and get back to why we are here? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:32:06 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I will again restate that I think it would be a good idea to have a special challenge as soon as these things can be worked out in the SC to set things straight and build a new precedent. |
I love the idea........and wonder just how many people would try to work their way around the guidelines... just to see if anything has truly changed.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:53:22 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you can enforce the date, then you can just as easily enforce a shutter speed. |
In this instance maybe yes, but how would you enforce the next topic and the one after that? - The rules have to remain constant, you can't change the rule or lack of rule on an arbitary variable. You either enforce DNMC or not period, and as its a subjective value then it can't be enforced. |
Informative vs Normative wording. The challenge in question used normative wording and should have been judge appropriately. Since the voters couldn't know the shutter speed then it would have been left up to the SCs.
But this is all moot since there is no rule to DQ on DNMC. So back to the original suggestion I made (instead of bitching about what has already happened) which is to utilize the normative/informative wording/flag. If a challenge has normative wording then a flag or notice could be given on the challenge announcement to identify and it would be up to the SC to verify. If the wording is informative then it is up to the voters to verify challenge guidelines.... |
A very good point and it seems it has been heard by those who need to. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:40:29 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by rblanton:
Originally posted by dleach:
<>
But this is all moot since there is no rule to DQ on DNMC. So back to the original suggestion I made (instead of bitching about what has already happened) which is to utilize the normative/informative wording/flag. If a challenge has normative wording then a flag or notice could be given on the challenge announcement to identify and it would be up to the SC to verify. If the wording is informative then it is up to the voters to verify challenge guidelines.... |
A very good point and it seems it has been heard by those who need to. |
Yes, it does seem that there is a process in place that could have handled this.
A suggestion before posting the new challenge is to ask the question, is the description normative or informative? If normative, then add the special rules flag to the challenge. If informative... just keep doing what the site always does. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:03:08 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by sigth:
I will have to say that I am losing interest in participating in challenges if the details are just bullshit.
It says in the detals for the 2 sec. exposure challenge:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
I did my very best to follow this and now I see it didn´t matter....
I think this is stupid and unfair to those participating and following these "rules"... |
They weren't rules. If I submit a picture of a dog to a cat challenge and call it "Chasing cats" I haven't met the challenge. BUT, I have followed the rules that were in place for that challenge. Again, they didn't break the rules, SC cannot dq them because we do not have grounds to. |
Hi Karmet
I have a question if I can. The details are not rules so they don't need to be followed! Correct?
So what are the details there for, they seem to have no real purpose if they can be completly ignored and do what ever you want?
So why have details? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:09:44 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by sigth:
I will have to say that I am losing interest in participating in challenges if the details are just bullshit.
It says in the detals for the 2 sec. exposure challenge:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
I did my very best to follow this and now I see it didn´t matter....
I think this is stupid and unfair to those participating and following these "rules"... |
They weren't rules. If I submit a picture of a dog to a cat challenge and call it "Chasing cats" I haven't met the challenge. BUT, I have followed the rules that were in place for that challenge. Again, they didn't break the rules, SC cannot dq them because we do not have grounds to. |
Hi Karmet
I have a question if I can. The details are not rules so they don't need to be followed! Correct?
So what are the details there for, they seem to have no real purpose if they can be completly ignored and do what ever you want?
So why have details? |
Honestly, the SC is taking the heat for what the ADMINS Drew and Langdon should of fixed after the last time (4-5am) and when this was brought up after this challenge was first started.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 02:41:53 AM · #100 |
Suggestion for future challenges, especially technically specific ones:
EXIF data can be read on uploads, that is a given, as TrekEarth / Lens / Nature sites read on uploads if attached to the image. Server side software could easily read EXIF on uploads to qualify a shot by date, exposure data, etc.
Presently 150k is allowed, and at times even save for web will leave artifacts of compression, especially on high-detail images, so bump another 30k to cover the non-image data that would accompany it, no longer saving for web.
No qualifying EXIF, no submission allowed.
Maybe ALL challenges should pass a pre-screening of this type, at least to qualify date/time, unless world regions would create havoc with that, though IP filters should be able to handle that side of the filtration process.
Sure would eliminate a lot of hassles & heartaches and subsequent civil unrest because someone didn't have their camera set to AM instead of PM and fell outside the submission dates, thus being disqualified on a technicality.
In the case of the 2-second challenge, a go/no-go filter to read and allow uploading if exposure time was between 1.90 to 2.10 seconds, could have been in place, kicking out anyone from submitting a shot that truly DNMC, thus easing the already over-burdened Site Council that continue to do, for the most part, a thankless job on this site, and yet always seem to be in the cross-hairs when someone is unhappy.
Just a thought. |
|
