| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2006 12:13:06 AM · #26 |
We have been using the current scoring system for over 500 challenges. It's not broken. I think a better idea would be to remove the suggestion about commenting on low scored entries from the rules.
Entering better images will get you better scores. Cutting off the bottom third of the voting scale doesn't make anyone's images any better.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:18:21 AM · #27 |
| I think you're missing the point, the people entering low scoring images WOULD enter higher scoring entries if they knew what it was they needed to fix, that is why there is a suggestion to comment on low scores so that the person is not in the dark about it, and can learn from it. After all, this is a site geared toward learning about photography and improving, not just a photography contest |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:20:16 AM · #28 |
| I've changed my mind about requiring comments on low scores, well actually, I never really fully embraced it to begin with, but I do think that maybe putting some kind of easy clickable suggestions might help out for people during voting in too much of a hurry to comment |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:31:09 AM · #29 |
| Why shouldn't comments be required for 1, 2, or 3's? I don't think it's a preventative measure so much as a way to keep people honest. If a picture merits a 1, 2, or 3 you must have had a particularly strong negative reaction to it, so it shouldn't be too difficult to jot down a criticism. As far as picture quality being a safeguard against low scores, there are terrific pictures that receive 1's, 2's, and 3's. Shouldn't we hold accountable those people who purposefully downgrade? |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:39:10 AM · #30 |
edit because I'm way too tired to be saying anything in this thread
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 00:39:40. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:39:26 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by samnotis:
Why shouldn't comments be required for 1, 2, or 3's? I don't think it's a preventative measure so much as a way to keep people honest. If a picture merits a 1, 2, or 3 you must have had a particularly strong negative reaction to it, so it shouldn't be too difficult to jot down a criticism. As far as picture quality being a safeguard against low scores, there are terrific pictures that receive 1's, 2's, and 3's. Shouldn't we hold accountable those people who purposefully downgrade? |
No,
Why are you assuming that it's out of spite or petty ambition? Some people just have no taste. That's their choice, and their vote.
I've been on DPC less than 10 months actively, and I swear this issue goes the rounds for every newer user. And then they figure out how to take pics for the DPC audience, and they suddenly don't care anymore. It's really amazing how that happens.
If you need comments on why your pictures suck or rule, solicit them in the forums.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:43:59 AM · #32 |
| but beating dead horses is one of my favorite passtimes.... actually, I'm lying and I'm tired |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:45:17 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by samnotis:
...Shouldn't we hold accountable those people who purposefully downgrade? |
Accountable for what? Thinking that a picture is bad?
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:28:18 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
I think you're missing the point, the people entering low scoring images WOULD enter higher scoring entries if they knew what it was they needed to fix, that is why there is a suggestion to comment on low scores so that the person is not in the dark about it, and can learn from it. After all, this is a site geared toward learning about photography and improving, not just a photography contest |
I think you are the one missing the point Amanda, you and the OP. This idea has been making the rounds forever. It's just a bad idea. It seems to have the ability to grab people who haven't been around dpc all that long.
People whined about low votes so much that the "suggestion" was put into the rules to placate them. But many here understood from the start that it would do no good. And time has proven them correct. What all of us need to accept is that low votes are a normal part of the challenge formula. The scale is 1 thru 10. Everyone gets to vote as they wish. Forcing low voters to comment would skew the votes, probably by a lot; which in turn means that scores lose all relevance when compared to the past, and the database. Vote inflation is not a desirable goal at the community level.
The thing I just can't get is the way so many people around here think it is OK to put down the people who cast lows votes, calling the trolls, nazis and worse, basically characterizing them as immoral idiots; but then many of the same people are constantly nagging about requiring these same low-life undesirables to share their opinions as if they were going to unleash some lightening bolt of superior photographic knowledge on all the crummy images in a challenge. It just doesn't compute, there's a disconnect in there.
If you want to require comments from someone who supposedly has a higher level of knowledge, and might be better equipped to give truely helpful advice, then why not require the ribbon winners to comment instead of the low voters? Make it so the ribboners have to leave 50 comments on challenge entries that are marked helpful by the recipient before they can enter another challenge. And they have to wear a bag on their head while paying their dues. You want forced comments? At least try to target the requirement a little higher that the bottom-of-the-barrel "trolls".
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:31:24 AM · #35 |
| Coolhar, seems like a very intelligent way of looking at things. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:38:15 AM · #36 |
| slow down coolhar, you haven't been reading my posts, have you? I am not for forcing comments or requiring them, I just said that it's kind of hard for people to get feedback on a low score and that makes it hard to improve... hell, I just voted on the empty room pics and gave out quite a bit of not so nice scores, and haven't commented on all of them, but at least I try and if someone posts a thread asking for critique, I usually do, you say use forums, but most people here ignore them too, so I see what you are saying, I agree that requiring comments is not a good idea, and I was just trying to explain why every new person who comes here and gets a low score posts this suggestion, so what are you getting all hot about? |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:43:20 AM · #37 |
I don't think coolhar is upset or anything, I just think that maybe it is a good point that people don't usually think about?
But then again I am very tired and should probably go to bed. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:50:00 AM · #38 |
and for the record, I've never complained about trolls, people who go around concerned about DNMC, yes, because most of these people just don't get it how the picture does in deed meet the challenge until they read the photographer's comments, and then go, duh, oh I should have realized that, sorry... like the self portrait challenge, how many people commented that it couldn't be a self portrait, because the person was too young? a lot.
but yeah, I hope you are not too concerned, ignore this thread and move on |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:22:11 AM · #39 |
For the record, I am completely comfortable with people voting 1 on my images. Even without a comment.
The reason is that I understand that the picture will be voted on by the PUBLIC. I don't believe that their votes can or should be controlled. Partly because the public's opinion isn't exactly the last word in the value of a photo, but also partly because if the public here has people that doesn't like it, much more so will there be members of the larger public that don't like it just as much or maybe more.
No worries.
I think there are better ways to encourage commenting.
I personally don't vote that much because I don't have time. I always vote when I submit a pic because I feel that it's fair based on the fact that if I want others to spend time voting on my pic, I should at least return the favor.
I do vote using the whole spectrum. And that means 1's.
Oh and amanda, just a friendly dig at your math: an equation needs to contain an equals sign. ;) Differentials are a little different if I recall correctly... Been a while for me too though...
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 09:26:00. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:58:44 AM · #40 |
OK - I give in! Maybe next time I will think twice about submitting a topic such as this late at night when I am in that interesting state between being wide awake and fully asleep.
Just for the record, I think there is a whole misconception about "take a better picture and get a better score". A significant number of the ribbon shots recently - as brilliant as they all are, period - did not meet the core of the challenge, although some may have met the bare essence. But they were all wonderful photos and I sometimes think that is why they win: because they are tremendous photos first and meet the sense of the challenge second.
This is not me complaining or anything of the kind, merely observing. I figured out a while back that I suffered the same problem, looking at the picture first without considering how well it met the challenge. SO I stopped voting for a while until I could get my head around it all. That is why the EMPTY ROOM challenge will be the first I vote on with my new system of scoring: I just hope it works for real.
As for low votes, high votes and any votes: I guess they are what they are and seeking uniformity is like herding cats. I just instinctively *feel* that there must be a better way. As an example (and no more than an example) a requirements management package I use has a pull down menu for scoring where you indicate your feelings towards a requirement based on the well-defined criteria in the pull-down box. The feelings indicated are then automatically correlated against a set of weighted criteria and a score defined. But it does take time to complete though...
Oh yeah - just a gripe (very small one): just because something has been debated many times in the past does not mean the issue is not relevant. Nor does it mean that the status quo is right either and that history implies that what we have is OK because it has always worked this way. Change is the only constant in this life and I think that there is a need to challenge the status quo as required, even if the old guard simply point out the futility of it all: one day it will not seem so futile. This is a challenge site, right? :-)
[soapbox mode OFF][retreat mode ON]
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:24:56 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by obsidian:
... A significant number of the ribbon shots recently - as brilliant as they all are, period - did not meet the core of the challenge, although some may have met the bare essence. But they were all wonderful photos and I sometimes think that is why they win: because they are tremendous photos first and meet the sense of the challenge second. |
Some of the most popular and influential forum posters here at dpc have worked hard to deter strict interpretation on challenge topics. They want us to equate meeting the bare essence with meeting the core of the topic. They want us to feel guilty for not being an imaginative thinker if we don't see how almost anything can be interpreted to meet the challenge. It's never the photographer's fault for entering a cryptic image, it's always your fault for being so limited and literal. You must give the benefit of the doubt or else you might squelch someone's creativity, and get called out as a DNMC nazi. I don't agree. I think there are degrees of meeting the challenge, and I vote accordingly.
Originally posted by obsidian:
I guess they are what they are and seeking uniformity is like herding cats. ... |
Each voter is a distinct individual. Why seek that they vote uniformly?
Originally posted by obsidian:
... just because something has been debated many times in the past does not mean the issue is not relevant. Nor does it mean that the status quo is right either and that history implies that what we have is OK because it has always worked this way. Change is the only constant in this life and I think that there is a need to challenge the status quo as required, even if the old guard simply point out the futility of it all: one day it will not seem so futile. This is a challenge site, right? :-) |
Without being right or wrong, people can get tired of things. Change for the sake of change is like creativity around here, it's over-rated. If one must seek change, why not go after something that needs it? There must be some reason why people say "It ain't broke".
Personally, I see value in keeping some things the same (such the voting system here at dpc), especially when you've got things that are successful. I like being able to compare current scores to the ones in the 500 challenge database. Being constant let's you stand out in a place like the internet world where you never know what to expect.
Thanks obsidian for letting me share the soapbox.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:45:11 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Search the forums for the other two hundred some odd threads where this has been thoroughly debated.
In summary:
:) |
I prefer this version
 |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:49:52 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Personally, I see value in keeping some things the same (such the voting system here at dpc), especially when you've got things that are successful. I like being able to compare current scores to the ones in the 500 challenge database. Being constant let's you stand out in a place like the internet world where you never know what to expect. |
So you are opposed to the IOC proposal to change it to the 97-meter dash? : ) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:55:31 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So you are opposed to the IOC proposal to change it to the 97-meter dash? : ) |
Hadn't heard about that one yet. What's the rationale? It was still the 100 yard dash when I ran it.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:55:59 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by obsidian:
Oh yeah - just a gripe (very small one): just because something has been debated many times in the past does not mean the issue is not relevant. Nor does it mean that the status quo is right either and that history implies that what we have is OK because it has always worked this way. Change is the only constant in this life and I think that there is a need to challenge the status quo as required, even if the old guard simply point out the futility of it all: one day it will not seem so futile. This is a challenge site, right? :-)
|
I think the issue is more that very, very few people opt to go back and read what was said the first through 9,000th times that the issue was discussed. If they had, they would have likely seen the reasons that certain, oft-repeated demands haven't been implemented, or at least brought some solutions to the table for the issues preventing it. Rather, it just turns into the same request answered by yet another round of identical answers pointing out the glaring flaws. I'm sure most would welcome fresh ideas accompanied with strong support to counteract the discussed-ad nauseum failures in a certain idea.
My actual thoughts on this suggestion have already been detailed at length by others in this thread so I'll pass on that part. :) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:58:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So you are opposed to the IOC proposal to change it to the 97-meter dash? : ) |
Hadn't heard about that one yet. What's the rationale? It was still the 100 yard dash when I ran it. |
Sorry -- joke! I was trying to draw a "real-life" comparison to what you were describing in the quoted paragraph. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 05:46:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
[quote=samnotis]And then they figure out how to take pics for the DPC audience, and they suddenly don't care anymore. |
Too bad the DPC audience is generally narrow minded when it comes to deciding what is or isn't a great photograph. Now, before you slam this statement, let me explain.
The photography on this site is primarily oriented towards stock images. That's what scores well so that's what people shoot in order to win. Art is subjective, but targeting a specific audience makes it less so. Think I'm wrong? What do you think would happen if some images produced by the world's greatest photographers were mixed in as anonymous control entries? You would still see *ones* and many of the images would probably not make it over a six. That's because most of the world's best shooters are NOT stock photographers. When newbies gripe about their low scores they are really saying, "I didn't realize I was joining the Digital Commercial Photography Contest."
Frankly, I don't care if the DPC voters like my photos or not. I use specific feedback to improve a shot before I post-process it for a frame. Repetitive comments like "That (specific thing) is a bit distracting" let me know I need to crop or clone the image. That is what I use DPC for.
OK, now you may slam my comment about narrow minded voters :).
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 06:29:30 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by conceptgraphics:
What do you think would happen if some images produced by the world's greatest photographers were mixed in as anonymous control entries? You would still see *ones* and many of the images would probably not make it over a six. |
I seem to recall some experements around the time I started hanging around here that did exactly that (I want to say Bear and Ansel Adams or something but I think there were a couple of these situtations) - Maybe some of the old timers can point you at a conversation. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:32:23 AM · #49 |
I think this debate fulfils the Mae West quote to a "T" (with apologies for the lack of PC):
"It's not the men in my life that count, but the life in my men."
I have found this debate useful and enlightening but - much to my amusement - feel as I am some young "Turk" challenging the wisdom of the "old guard"! Not bad a for a 50 year old and such a joy to be able to feel this again since becoming a "grey beard".
Chuckle - if nothing else this has proved to me - once again - that debate can be lively here!
Pax
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 03:08:25 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by conceptgraphics:
What do you think would happen if some images produced by the world's greatest photographers were mixed in as anonymous control entries? You would still see *ones* and many of the images would probably not make it over a six. |
I seem to recall some experements around the time I started hanging around here that did exactly that (I want to say Bear and Ansel Adams or something but I think there were a couple of these situtations) - Maybe some of the old timers can point you at a conversation. |
It was this picture
In the Ansel Adams Challenge and it placed 11th.
|
|
