| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 05:34:26 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
As the person who has cast the most votes of anyone on the site, I feel qualified to add an informed opinion here. I really don't need to sit there and dwell on an image for a full ten seconds to come up with an opinion on it. And there are plenty of times when I click a number to vote, think about it, and go back and re-evaluate my opinion of a shot.
There are some shots that I will sit and stare at for a while for one reason or another (strangely, there were a lot of those in the Nude challenge!), but there's no need to force me to do so. |
I could not agree more. I too, have often went back and re-scored an image after going on to the next and spent time staring at some images a lot longer than others.
Interestingly enough, like you, as a genre I have found that I require more time to properly evaluate nudes as well. LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:39:07 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What I always get out of these threads is "I want the site to change, because I perceive this way would work best for my photos."
I'm not saying it is the case, but ... I'm not saying it's not. |
no, this is not the case here. if you look at my photos you'll see they are pretty straightforward. But I appreciate the fact that a number of great photos on this site regularly gets robbed partly because of speed voting. And I am guilty of that, too.
...but it seems that almost everybody hates this idea. oh well, forget it then, no problem. back to our regular programming...
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 17:55:52.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:40:28 PM · #53 |
| If there was to be an implementation of this I would make it totally voluntary. A setting much like the number of threads you want to see on the DPC homepage could be added to the preferences page. You would be able to set the number of seconds you would like to view each challenge image before the scoring mechanism was displayed. Default it to the current "no waiting" amount and let people choose their own wait time. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:48:31 PM · #54 |
| I spend a varying amount of time on each shot. Some need 15 seconds some only 1. Sometimes, the longer I look, or when I make a comment, I end up finding even more wrong and lowering my original score. I don't think forcing me to look at something for 5 or 10 seconds will make me vote higher, and I certainly wouldn't do my second pass to refine my scores. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:58:02 PM · #55 |
When your photo is good enough I'll look at it longer.
I would be extremely annoyed if I have to look 5 or 10 seconds at each photo. Some people read a book word by word, I read several lines in the same time. Same goes with images.
When your photo makes me stop for more than 2 seconds, I'll give it a high score. And its not the ribbon winners that always get the high scores, even photos in the bottom 25% regularly end up with higher scores from me.
Ooh it was my fav of the year, people don't appreciate me, they don't see my intentions, blah blah blah.... When your image is good it will make people stop and pay attention, but not everyone has the same taste as you or me.
Before submitting your pic critique it yourself, as harsh as you possibly can.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:10:10 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by RamblinR:
I don't agree with the 10 second thing. But believe it may be more useful that thumbnails are not shown until after you have voted on the whole selection. Thumbnails would then appear for you to adjust vote values. This would eliminate selective voting. If you only vote on 20% of the pictures and don't continue you don't get to see the rest of the shots.
For those just browsing with no intention of voting, thumbnails would be displayed at completion of voting so anyone can look at all the shots at that time.
Whilst there may be 270 entries in a challenge you may receive only 120 votes. Maybe it should be part of the deal that if you have entered a challenge yourself you MUST vote on all the shots in that challenge.
Thoughts? |
yes I thought about this, too. With the only correction that you can see thumbs of the images you voted on for before finishing voting on the whole batch. You voted on 10 images, you see 10 thumbs, etc. You don't see the thumbs of images you did not vote on. ...I am shooting myself in the foot though, because I often browse through images without voting, and that would be hard to do... :) |
As far as thumbnails, what about making them available, but you just can't click on them to get to the voting. It still allows folks to take a quick peek at the shots in the competition, but doesn't allow the cherry picking of shots to vote on.
And, at the risk of beating this poor horse any more... no, I don't want to be forced to vote on all the entries. Competing in the WPL, it's hard enough to shoot some weeks, much less to vote on everything too.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:12:33 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What I always get out of these threads is "I want the site to change, because I perceive this way would work best for my photos."
I'm not saying it is the case, but ... I'm not saying it's not. |
no, this is not the case here. if you look at my photos you'll see they are pretty straightforward. But I appreciate the fact that a number of great photos on this site regularly gets robbed partly because of speed voting. And I am guilty of that, too.
...but it seems that almost everybody hates this idea. oh well, forget it then, no problem. back to our regular programming... |
I like the idea of voters taking more time to evaluate each photo but you can't force it. To be fair it's really a failure on the part of the photographer and not the voter if he/she can't provoke more than 1 second of someone's time.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:26:51 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by kteach:
As far as thumbnails, what about making them available, but you just can't click on them to get to the voting. It still allows folks to take a quick peek at the shots in the competition, but doesn't allow the cherry picking of shots to vote on.
And, at the risk of beating this poor horse any more... no, I don't want to be forced to vote on all the entries. Competing in the WPL, it's hard enough to shoot some weeks, much less to vote on everything too. |
You do know you can skip voting an image by hitting the << or >> just surf through them lol |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:34:09 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by kteach:
And, at the risk of beating this poor horse any more... no, I don't want to be forced to vote on all the entries. Competing in the WPL, it's hard enough to shoot some weeks, much less to vote on everything too. |
I view this site as a community. One in which we are expected to put in as well as get from. If I am to expect everyone to look at my shot and vote on it then I would naturally do the same for them. I recently made a personal decision that if I enter a challenge I will vote on all the shots in that challenge.(I am only new to DPC and whilst I didn't do this right off the bat - as I was getting to understand the site and voting etc as I have never been part of anything like this before - I have come to realise that this is an important aspect of the site) If I have not entered the challenge then I may not vote at all or I might only fill the 20% quota but even then I do not selectively vote from thumbnails, I just get to my 20% from the random shots.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 18:47:01. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 08:37:42 PM · #60 |
[quote] However, based on what you've just said you've made a good selling point for the "slow down" or "no thumbnail" camps on DPC. Basically, an image that "draw(s) you in" needs to be a simple image to have thumbnail impact. [/quote]
As of right now I am spending about 8-10 sec a picture...from load to vote to next image. If a image intrigues me...I may look at it for 30 seconds. I only use the thumbs to do a first ruff sort. Like is said...I then go back and look at each photo and vote either way.
I too only have time here and there to look at these and vote...mainly at work if I have a slow moment, I do not always have time to vote on 100(example) photos.
I see every photo by browsing the thumbs. If I like it, it for sure gets a vote. If I have time to vote on all and view full size for all...I do...otherwise I don't. This should not be a problem. If it is not one that really catches my eye...I more than likely will not give it the highest score. In my experience..a really low score lowers your average. So perhaps if I bypass voting on your image..would it not keep you from receiving a lower score? Please correct me if I am wrong...I believe this is how it works.
I have almost no entries...the ones I do...did't score that well...I do not presume that I have much say around here. I am mainly here as a spectator, and From time to time I may enter a challenge..or remark in a thread. I am here for fun. If I like something...I like it...thats all that matters.I couldn't give a gorram about the technical portion of an image.( I will give credit where due).I am just being honest about how I vote. Over all though...I see no good outcome from forcing viewers to slow down. If they become annoyed...they won't vote.
my 2..well 4 cents. Sorry about the long post.
Travis
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 08:59:38 PM · #61 |
People keep saying "it doesn't matter what your personal voting method as long as you apply it consistantly". So let us do that, please!
I vote when I can, in a way I feel is fair. If I'm treated like a child and told, "no, you're not paying attention. You MUST look longer!" I'd probably resent it enough to quit voting.
Just MHO. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 09:20:05 PM · #62 |
Hey lets invoke an election system for the president to prevent democrats from all picking the democratic representative.... j/k
Lets prevent people from voting for a certain person because everyone tolds them to make that vote. Lets stop people from voting on a particular candidate only because they hate the other guy more!
Lets list more ridiculous ways to try and punish the bad people while only hurting the good. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:00:22 PM · #63 |
I think we ALL agree that "banging out votes" just to vote isn't a good thing.
We all lose, when that's the case as photographers, as competitors and as viewers.
I've missed most of the best stuff served up on this site because I ripped through the voting. I still kick myself when I see a world class image re-emerge that I gave a 4....or worse, some silly techno-comment.
Entirely my loss but the point is that we should want to be better viewers and that can't be enforced. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:10:16 PM · #64 |
| Yeah, I guess thoughtfulness can't be enforced. But if it could, it would be cool to see the premature evaluators strung up by their thumbnails. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:35:23 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What I always get out of these threads is "I want the site to change, because I perceive this way would work best for my photos."
I'm not saying it is the case, but ... I'm not saying it's not. |
no, this is not the case here. if you look at my photos you'll see they are pretty straightforward. But I appreciate the fact that a number of great photos on this site regularly gets robbed partly because of speed voting. And I am guilty of that, too.
...but it seems that almost everybody hates this idea. oh well, forget it then, no problem. back to our regular programming... |
Really, I didn't mean for that to sound the way it did, but the topic of voting comes up about 10x more than threads about photography.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:50:53 PM · #66 |
First impressions are everything.
Quality of image should give the viewer a second look.
Imigery depends on the first 10 seconds anyway to sell itself.
If the image doesn't force the viewer to look again, than the impression is lost.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:53:42 PM · #67 |
This is an interesting discussion and I'm sure that most will agree that it is very difficult to carefully evaluate art at a quick glance. For example, a song. How many songs have we heard that were "catchy" and captured our attention for a flash and then they were gone. How many of those same songs endured and are now in our "favorite" music collections? For myself, very few. My long lasting favorites are ones that, given a reasonable listen, ended up caturing my imagination and stirring my emotions. Much the same can be said for sculptures, painting, dance, etc.
The unfortunate result of the current voting system is that it promotes pop art and ignores creativity and insight. I have seen many images that are pure genius and have scored poorly because they lacked the "curb appeal" needed to capture the voter's .325 seconds of interest. When I made the time to look at them closer, I was amazed at their impact. As the currently method of voting stands, it only promotes a shallow glimpse of what is presented. Sorta like "Blipverts", if anyone recalls those. We are just promoting "Stock Imagery" and the voters are the buyers browsing through and endless selection of "Slick Stock Shots".
What is also disheartening is the overwhelming need to protect this superficial ideology. I feel sorry for those who "formula" ribbon on this site as the images are mostly predictable and unimaginative "bubble gum" subbmissions. Almost like a Stephen King novel, formula photgraphy.
As it stands, there ARE better ways of voting. Whether it be limiting the number of images you can view at one time, early elimination of poor photos or possibly other ideas, there MUST be a "better" way.
I guess the "better way" will only be revealed if there is a will for us to become better photographers and more appreciative viewers. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 12:27:07 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
As it stands, there ARE better ways of voting. Whether it be limiting the number of images you can view at one time, early elimination of poor photos or possibly other ideas, there MUST be a "better" way.
I guess the "better way" will only be revealed if there is a will for us to become better photographers and more appreciative viewers. |
There are better ways of voting, but none of them are technical in nature. Better voting depends entirely on the voter.
Removing photos early would be a logistical and psychological nightmare. What defines a bad photo... what score does it need to get removed, after how long? Just not a good idea. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 12:35:34 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
There are better ways of voting, but none of them are technical in nature. Better voting depends entirely on the voter. |
Exactly! This site has a fixation with "technical". The colors must be on the verge of oversaturation, the focus always must be "tack sharp" and the the represention, ridiculously literal. Otherwise, they just dont get it.
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Removing photos early would be a logistical and psychological nightmare. What defines a bad photo... what score does it need to get removed, after how long? Just not a good idea. |
Logistical problem? Its just programming. Psychological nightmare? Already the case for alot of people? Update .. Update .. Update .. Update .. Update .. Update ..
Message edited by author 2007-02-10 00:45:19. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 12:57:36 AM · #70 |
Most everything in art is based on first impression, usually you get the best score if someone likes what they see within the first 1-3 seconds, then and only then will most voters slow down and look at your entry with any depth. If it is poor, out of focus, over-processed or just not "eye candy" the first couple of seconds is all that is needed to give it a 5 or less. The real bad ones earning a 3 or 4 a second or two is all that is needed. At the end I usually go back and look at the photos again, especially those that were 6 and above and those that were 3 or 4. If it was so bad that it managed something less than a 3 then it will most likely stay there. Many 6's get bumped to 7 or 8's. When a 9 or 10 pic comes up it really only takes a second or two to decide.
. Make every entry be "eye candy", if viewers have to analize the deep inner meaning in order to vote it will probably not do too good.
FIRST IMPRESSIONS do count here and most everything in life. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 01:20:24 AM · #71 |
If y'all don't mind my saying so, this is one of the craziest ideas I've ever seen floated seriously at DPC. If a 10-second pause was implemented in voting, I'd stop voting. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. 10 seconds is an eternity. I just tried it, it is ridiculous. If I had to look at every image that long I'd go bananas.
I've been a photographer all my life. I've looked at tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of images with a critical eye. It's what I do, you know? And I guarantee you I'm not the only one like me in here. I honestly believe that virtually every experienced and visually articulate member of this site can "sort" images by their own particular aesthetic as rapidly as I can. And a damned good thing, too, 'cuz we have a LOT of them to go through, don't we? So I'm totally in the Steve Davidson camp on this one.
There's NO way I can be convinced, for example, that every entry, just by being entered, "deserves" a longer look from me. I completely reject that. I'm perfectly capable of rapidly sorting through images to cull the group that most interests me, that I want to go back and study/vote more carefully on. This, to me, is the ONLY rational voting strategy for long-term involvement with the site. If I tried to "study" them all, out of some misguided sense of fairness, I'd burn out, totally.
In fact, even WITH my rapid-sorting approach, I suffer periodic burnouts and step back from voting for a bit. I don't want to do it if I can't do it with an open and appreciative eye, approaching the task as an opportunity rather than as a chore.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 02:53:55 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If y'all don't mind my saying so, this is one of the craziest ideas I've ever seen floated seriously at DPC. If a 10-second pause was implemented in voting, I'd stop voting. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. 10 seconds is an eternity. I just tried it, it is ridiculous. If I had to look at every image that long I'd go bananas.
I've been a photographer all my life. I've looked at tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of images with a critical eye. It's what I do, you know? And I guarantee you I'm not the only one like me in here. I honestly believe that virtually every experienced and visually articulate member of this site can "sort" images by their own particular aesthetic as rapidly as I can. And a damned good thing, too, 'cuz we have a LOT of them to go through, don't we? So I'm totally in the Steve Davidson camp on this one.
There's NO way I can be convinced, for example, that every entry, just by being entered, "deserves" a longer look from me. I completely reject that. I'm perfectly capable of rapidly sorting through images to cull the group that most interests me, that I want to go back and study/vote more carefully on. This, to me, is the ONLY rational voting strategy for long-term involvement with the site. If I tried to "study" them all, out of some misguided sense of fairness, I'd burn out, totally.
In fact, even WITH my rapid-sorting approach, I suffer periodic burnouts and step back from voting for a bit. I don't want to do it if I can't do it with an open and appreciative eye, approaching the task as an opportunity rather than as a chore.
R. |
Here here!! |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 04:20:46 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Logistical problem? Its just programming. Psychological nightmare? Already the case for alot of people? Update .. Update .. Update .. Update .. Update .. Update .. |
I'm a programmer by profession (PHP, in fact), so I know exactly what kind of technical work it would be. That's not what I mean by logistical. As I gave examples of, how do you define "bad"? Below a certain score? A certain number of a certain level of votes? How long does it have to stay there? What if it drops below the threshold for an hour but then goes on to ribbon?
There are too many variables to consider for something like that to be feasible, but none of them overcome the issues it would cause in the community. Every single person who had a photo removed for failing to meet "standards" would be angry, and you can bet that if it happened to new members, many of them wouldn't come back for a second entry. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 04:30:40 AM · #74 |
| Frankly I feel the same way about 'quick voters' as I do 'low voters'. I really don't care so long as they are consistent. I'm comfortable for someone to only give my entry a quick glance before voting, so long as they do that with all of their other votes. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 04:50:08 AM · #75 |
Personally, I think we should streamline the process and have an option something like this.
Vote for all participants in this challenge:
[1] (default)
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Thank you for voting on this challenge.
;) |
|
