| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2006 08:11:49 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Nobody:
So, only include those comments made during a challenge, which would eliminate the congratulatory comments from the count. I would suggest taking it a step further, and also put a timeframe (say, within the last 12 months). This would allow someone who hasn't been very good at making comments in the past to get a clean start and get back in the game. |
But then Critique Club comments wouldn't count either. |
|
|
|
05/02/2006 08:14:33 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Nobody:
So, only include those comments made during a challenge, which would eliminate the congratulatory comments from the count. I would suggest taking it a step further, and also put a timeframe (say, within the last 12 months). This would allow someone who hasn't been very good at making comments in the past to get a clean start and get back in the game. |
But then Critique Club comments wouldn't count either. |
We never said it would be easy.... :) |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 05:11:15 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Don't sweat it Node!
Shoot on! |
Pretty hard not to when the DQ is worded like this!
[quote]Abuse of the comments system to enter the challenge is not tolerated, so your entry has been removed, as will the comments you left.[/quote]
I'm not bitter, I had over 200 comments to make in 2 days. I did it in 4 - 5 sessions and used a "Cut & Paste" only on the photo's that I didn't have anything special to say on, nothing obvious to me anyway.
What is a quality comment? Does dpc look at all the few word comments made over time by all the others, I don't think so. Of the over 200 comments I made I guess 50 - 60 were simular "Cut & Paste" type comments.
At least I made an effort and had made well over 800 comments before the challenge started, I just don't like being called an abuser, that I'm not nor do I cheat on the rules with over 100 entries and no DQ's before this I hope that give's me some credit.
Anyway there it is... Think what you will.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 05:14:21 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Node:
Originally posted by Rooster:
Don't sweat it Node!
Shoot on! |
Pretty hard not to when the DQ is worded like this!
[quote]Abuse of the comments system to enter the challenge is not tolerated, so your entry has been removed, as will the comments you left. |
I'm not bitter, I had over 200 comments to make in 2 days. I did it in 4 - 5 sessions and used a "Cut & Paste" only on the photo's that I didn't have anything special to say on, nothing obvious to me anyway.
What is a quality comment? Does dpc look at all the few word comments made over time by all the others, I don't think so. Of the over 200 comments I made I guess 50 - 60 were simular "Cut & Paste" type comments.
At least I made an effort and had made well over 800 comments before the challenge started, I just don't like being called an abuser, that I'm not nor do I cheat on the rules with over 100 entries and no DQ's before this I hope that give's me some credit.
Anyway there it is... Think what you will. [/quote]
As far as I'm concerned I welcome all comments, I was one who got a number from Rooster and I marked that as helpful.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 05:30:52 AM · #55 |
I benefitted from some wonderful help from Bear, and I am eternally grateful for them.
And I respect Rooster for such honesty and sincere desire to make amends :) |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 06:43:12 AM · #56 |
I've beat the drum on this before (and the dead horse as well) -- but the only fair way to handle a 'qualify to enter'-type contest is to publicly announce a start date, an end date and the criteria for qualifying. Then only count the activities that occur during the defined qualification period.
Anything else is burdened down with some form of 'grandfathering'-in or (as Rikki had to work hard to avoid) a 'grandfathering'-out. Eitehr way, the end result is not an accurate accounting of the current competitors.
In any event, to those who were DQed I am sorry to hear about it.
David
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 07:40:51 AM · #57 |
| The only way to avoid the situation in the first place is to say that the criteria applies as of the announcement date. No time to make up the difference. |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 08:19:45 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
3. I wonder what meter is used to measure 'quality' comments. |
I don't think a meter of any sort is required. But any comment that describes the reason(s) - rouhgly, why you voted as you did, is to me a quality comment.
But I'm not personally a stickler - a number as a comment is to me much better than no comment at all :) |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 08:25:18 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Are_62:
Originally posted by Rooster:
3. I wonder what meter is used to measure 'quality' comments. |
I don't think a meter of any sort is required. But any comment that describes the reason(s) - rouhgly, why you voted as you did, is to me a quality comment.
But I'm not personally a stickler - a number as a comment is to me much better than no comment at all :) |
You can comment without voting also... |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 08:41:22 AM · #60 |
I thought the challenge was an unqualified success. I was even happy to see my number from Rooster, even if it was only a 4! :) Is it so horrible that for one challenge, unpopular non-ribbon winners have an advantage?
|
|
