| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2003 09:09:27 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by glimpses:
In my relatively short experience on DPC I underlined many times the vulnerability of the site to trolls attack (and there is no better demo of it then to have the Blue Ribbon DQed...). |
How does the DQ of a photo that broke the rules the fault of trolls??? |
If you expand the definition of trolls to include individuals who register and submit fraudulent entries with the hope winning or impacting the overall outcome, the number of recent DQs could be considered evidence of a potential problem. I don't think this is the case for the most recent DQ situation as the photographer did offer an explanation on one of the forums, but it is possible.
I'm sure things could be tightened up a bit on the site, but in the meantime I will continue to post with the hopes of getting meanful comments from the photographers on this site who have already earned my respect. The trolls still cannot impact the quality of your portfolio or the content of your comments. |
You could also, with a less paranoid world view see it as a growth of the site due to its popularity, bringing in new, talented photographers, who by oversight didn't realise that the challenges are weekly, unlike many places that allow photographs shot in any period to be entered.
But I guess it depends if you go looking for conspiracies everywhere or not. This comment is not directed at anyone in particular.
Message edited by author 2003-09-17 21:10:02. |
|
|
|
09/17/2003 09:46:59 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
But I guess it depends if you go looking for conspiracies everywhere or not. This comment is not directed at anyone in particular. |
Oh, yes it is! I know you're talking about me. Behind my back. You're all against me! ;-) |
|
|
|
09/17/2003 09:48:25 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
If you expand the definition of trolls to include individuals who register and submit fraudulent entries with the hope winning or impacting the overall outcome... |
Ah, I get it. I thought the implication was that trolls were causing legitimate winners to be DQed somehow. |
|
|
|
09/17/2003 10:30:03 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Favorite button : "It's never too late to have a happy childhood"
Food for thought Glimpses :) Lighten up... It really is funny :) |
I don't know myqyl.. I have recently witnessed Faidoi retiring his thread, then Zeus did the same after apparently showing some resistance.
Two blue ribbons have been DQed recently and the last one is still on the homepage..
And some people is discussing if it is correct or not to address the whole population of the website in a thread (I tought that would happen automatically after somebody's opinion was posted in a thread which is not "Rant"). But, maybe, the very existence of "Rant", as category, shows a kind of culture which is quite difficult for me to understand.
In my relatively short experience on DPC I underlined many times the vulnerability of the site to trolls attack (and there is no better demo of it then to have the Blue Ribbon DQed...).
At this point I can bet that if the site will not show some real defence to survive to those attacks, it won't last very long...
I must say that, following the DQed of the current blue ribbon (second one in the last four open challenges) I am by far less motivated to challenge. I will take a rest for "At Rest", so you can come and make my portrait if you like..
edited in the desperate attempt to improve my English |
Sigh... I renew my suggestion... Lighten up :) Life is too short to worry about any of this :)
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 06:37:08 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
If you expand the definition of trolls to include individuals who register and submit fraudulent entries with the hope winning or impacting the overall outcome... |
Ah, I get it. I thought the implication was that trolls were causing legitimate winners to be DQed somehow. |
That doesn't work too well logically, does it.
It works better this way: Trolls would make a winner of somebody which then would be DQed.
That attack sounds pretty more effective, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 06:38:48 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Sigh... I renew my suggestion... Lighten up :) Life is too short to worry about any of this :) |
myqyl, you words are extremely wise.
Unfortunately it can happen to everybody to get hooked by bad thoughts and, sometimes, the way back is not the shorter path...
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 06:45:58 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
If you expand the definition of trolls to include individuals who register and submit fraudulent entries with the hope winning or impacting the overall outcome... |
Ah, I get it. I thought the implication was that trolls were causing legitimate winners to be DQed somehow. |
That doesn't work too well logically, does it.
It works better this way: Trolls would make a winner of somebody which then would be DQed.
That attack sounds pretty more effective, doesn't it? |
I'd suggest reading up on occam's razor. Maybe there isn't this huge conspiracy of trolls out there, submitting deliberatly great, but just a couple of days out of the challenge time, so that the rest of the trolls can vote it up, knowing that it is actually going to be DQed later.
Maybe , just maybe, someone took a great picture a couple of days before the challenge started and entered it by mistake ? And then a lot of people recognised that it was great, and voted it high ?
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 07:04:26 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Maybe , just maybe, someone took a great picture a couple of days before the challenge started and entered it by mistake ? And then a lot of people recognised that it was great, and voted it high ? |
Of course. The easiest explanation is usually the best.
I was just explaining my previous post, being Scott interpretation quite different from how I intended.
Bad speculations in a bad day.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 08:11:15 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by glimpses:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
If you expand the definition of trolls to include individuals who register and submit fraudulent entries with the hope winning or impacting the overall outcome... |
Ah, I get it. I thought the implication was that trolls were causing legitimate winners to be DQed somehow. |
That doesn't work too well logically, does it.
It works better this way: Trolls would make a winner of somebody which then would be DQed.
That attack sounds pretty more effective, doesn't it? |
I'd suggest reading up on occam's razor. Maybe there isn't this huge conspiracy of trolls out there, submitting deliberatly great, but just a couple of days out of the challenge time, so that the rest of the trolls can vote it up, knowing that it is actually going to be DQed later.
Maybe , just maybe, someone took a great picture a couple of days before the challenge started and entered it by mistake ? And then a lot of people recognised that it was great, and voted it high ? |
Time for me to bail out of this one!
After reading the post from the photographer of the DQed photo, I didn't think there was any malice.
I was merely supporting the idea that a web application of this nature could be vulnerable to users who have objectives other than expanding their knowledge of digital photography.
I'm am here to improve my photography so I think I will stick to that and avoid further discussions on topics such as this.
Message edited by author 2003-09-18 20:12:58. |
|
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: 08/02/2025 12:35:28 AM EDT.
