| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/22/2007 12:14:48 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by mk:
Does this make it crystal clear - - - or perhaps, ring a bell?
I think your crystal is a bit less than clear. What actually happened...
1. You received an automated request for proof, as do all top 5 placements in every challenge.
2. You uploaded the wrong file.
3. You received another request for original, with a note that said "Please upload the original THAT MATCHES YOUR ENTRY and not another shot from the same shoot."
4. You inquired whether or not we had received your original.
5. We responded no.
6. You replied that you had confirmation on your front page.
7. We responded "There is in fact a proof file there, however it is a different frame (4671 is the frame we have). Please verify the correct frame and upload it; we've re-requested."
8. You uploaded the correct file and it was validated.
So, aside from your initial message, every message you received was custom-tailored to your situation. Twice you were told that the file you uploaded was another image. Feel free to elaborate on ways we can further enlighten you. |
Is there gonna be smiting? If not, I'm going to bed...
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:15:41.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:17:05 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Non-response is probably the most common reason for DQ...
now I'm curious to know:
-how many reply after the DQ and the picture later validated?
-how many had a valid picture but never replied for one reason or another?
-how many were actually legitimate DQs? |
People almost never come back to complain about a DQ after a non-response. Most of those are OBVIOUS DQ's (added text, ghost accounts, etc.), and we're only requesting the original as a formality. In any given challenge, there are only a handful of DQs (sometimes zero). We do make a mistake sometimes or the photographer comes back with more info to clarify the situation, but I'll bet I could count the number of legitimate files that are DQ'd in a given year on one hand. |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:18:13 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yakatme:
8) I compared that with the number of the file for my entry and finally determined that it was the shot taken 1/3 of a second before! |
Which means it was not the "original straight from the camera" from which you derived your entry as required from the rules -- if you'd sent the correct file in when first requested, none of those "cold, unfeeling" follow-up requests would have been necessary. |
No shit!!!
You've missed the point. Maybe you can put Karmat back on when she wakes up. She was a least a little more coherent and willing to improve on this problem.
I'll try to help you understand. I KNOW now that what I submitted was the wrong file.
And somebody sending me these multiple requests apparently knew that they had received something and that it was the wrong file.
Simply asking me to send in the file lead me to believe that you had received nothing.
Instead of telling me "We received a file but it was not what you submitted for your entry", I was simply sent another request for the file.
I MADE A MISTAKE. I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW. Somebody on the admin side knew it too but didn't offer what they knew would help to resolve it.
Don't write this off as simply as saying it would be unecessary if I had done it right the first time. Sonmebody knew what the problem was and was unwilling (initially) to offer what they knew.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:18:21 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
This is precisely why we provide a means to upload an original in advance. If you will be going on vacation, you can upload your original image, and it will be held aside. If your entry comes up for review, we would then review the original and make a decision at that time.
~Terry |
Which I've done. And one time I was on vacation when the request came in, I sent a note back asking the SC to wait a week until I got back, and they agreed. It was validated when I came back.
I'm one of the people taterbug mentioned who takes it as a compliment when I'm asked for validation. It's happened several times, and as he said, it means I pulled something off they couldn't figure out.
Don't take a validation request as "YOU CHEATING JERK" but as your boss coming over and saying "hey, ya know that report you filed? You followed normal procedures, right?" You demonstrate you did, and that's that.
Also, remember that no one has any clue who took the shot. It's not a personal attack. It's just a question as to whether a shot meets the rules. I submit validation requests when it looks like something might not have. As Rebecca says, I think of it as asking the SC to check, not an assumption of guilt. And then I vote assuming it's legal.
And if you check, I think you'll find that the OVERWHELMING majority of DQs were mistakes or lack of understanding, not real cheating attempts. My two DQs certainly were. I said "oops, sorry," learned not to do THAT again, and moved on.
Since someone mentioned text on images, I have to say those baffle me. I mean, of all the possible misunderstandings, that one is written plain as day. So when I see text on an image, I think "there's someone who's probably new and hasn't read the rules."
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:19:23 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
This is the problem...
Non-response is probably the most common reason for DQ...
now I'm curious to know:
-how many reply after the DQ and the picture later validated? |
Almost none.
Originally posted by ericsuth:
-how many had a valid picture but never replied for one reason or another? |
Almost none. Those that are usually reply at some point after the DQ, and very few have ever done so.
Originally posted by ericsuth:
-how many were actually legitimate DQs? |
There's obviously no way to know for certain, but it's almost certainly a strong majority. Most entries where we don't get a response are ones where it's 99% clear from the submission that the rules were violated, but we're requesting proof in case the photographer did something really clever that just *looks* illegal. I suspect that if the photographer knows they violated the rules, they don't bother submitting their original, perhaps hoping it will slip through the cracks.
~Terry
Originally posted by ericsuth:
the way it currently stands, an anonymous person can potentially decrease the competition and directly acheive DQs against them by clicking one little link. There is absolutely no repercussions and as Allanfreed also noted some think that it's a good idea to sort of 'spot-check' or actually possibly 'spot-DQ' I do wonder how many legitimate images have been DQ'd by this system. |
That's not true at all. Remember that all incoming validation requests are reviewed by Site Council. There is a vetting process involved, and we only request originals on those entries where we need them to make a decision. Most die in the inbox and never have validation requested. Even many requests initiated by Site Council members never go as far as a proof request. Filling in the Photographer Notes drastically reduces the chance that you'll receive a request, but it still can happen.
If someone submits an excessive of DQ requests, we do take notice, if only because it creates a lot of extra work for us. In most cases, it's an honest mistake, like someone misunderstanding a rule, or missing an "extra rules" flag on a challenge. When that happens, an email to the user almost always resolves it, though we will take additional action if that becomes necessary. We do not tolerate deliberate abuse of any site feature, and the DQ/validation system is no exception to that.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:19:58 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
No shit!!!
You've missed the point. Maybe you can put Karmat back on when she wakes up. She was a least a little more coherent and willing to improve on this problem.
I'll try to help you understand. I KNOW now that what I submitted was the wrong file.
And somebody sending me these multiple requests apparently knew that they had received something and that it was the wrong file.
Simply asking me to send in the file lead me to believe that you had received nothing.
Instead of telling me "We received a file but it was not what you submitted for your entry", I was simply sent another request for the file.
I MADE A MISTAKE. I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW. Somebody on the admin side knew it too but didn't offer what they knew would help to resolve it.
Don't write this off as simply as saying it would be unecessary if I had done it right the first time. Sonmebody knew what the problem was and was unwilling (initially) to offer what they knew. |
Dude, take a pill or something... Remember that this is just a game. You only get a chance to win a stupid cyber ribbon...
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:20:59.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:22:45 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yakatme:
8) I compared that with the number of the file for my entry and finally determined that it was the shot taken 1/3 of a second before! |
Which means it was not the "original straight from the camera" from which you derived your entry as required from the rules -- if you'd sent the correct file in when first requested, none of those "cold, unfeeling" follow-up requests would have been necessary. |
No shit!!!
You've missed the point. Maybe you can put Karmat back on when she wakes up. She was a least a little more coherent and willing to improve on this problem.
I'll try to help you understand. I KNOW now that what I submitted was the wrong file.
And somebody sending me these multiple requests apparently knew that they had received something and that it was the wrong file.
Simply asking me to send in the file lead me to believe that you had received nothing.
Instead of telling me "We received a file but it was not what you submitted for your entry", I was simply sent another request for the file.
I MADE A MISTAKE. I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW. Somebody on the admin side knew it too but didn't offer what they knew would help to resolve it.
Don't write this off as simply as saying it would be unecessary if I had done it right the first time. Sonmebody knew what the problem was and was unwilling (initially) to offer what they knew. |
I'm missing something. What was unclear to you about the note:
"Please upload the original THAT MATCHES YOUR ENTRY and not another shot from the same shoot."
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:22:57 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
...somebody sending me these multiple requests apparently knew that they had received something and that it was the wrong file.
Simply asking me to send in the file lead me to believe that you had received nothing.
Instead of telling me "We received a file but it was not what you submitted for your entry", I was simply sent another request for the file. |
This is exactly what we sent you on the second request, "Please upload the original THAT MATCHES YOUR ENTRY and not another shot from the same shoot." Obviously, we DID tell you your first file was another shot from the same shoot. Again, feel free to suggest alternate wording.
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:23:14. |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:23:43 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Eric, methinks you're taking this a little too seriously. |
Actually I'm not, I'm calm and working on a drink but it is an issue. Again, we're not solving world hunger or finding the cure for AIDS here but I do think precautions should be in place to help ensure legitimate images aren't DQ'd.
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's clearly in the rules that you must be able to provide an original within 48 hours. If that's not possible, then you should submit the file (as a ticket) before you go away or contact us so we can work something out. |
good to know, I didn't and have been a member for longer than a day but generally, if you're not a legal beagle or on the SC, you might not know about that little rule.
All in all, we're having a good time but it's still not a bad thing to chat about these little things
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:25:47 AM · #60 |
I've changed my mind. SC Please disregard any future applications from this IP for a seat at the Site Council. I don't think I really want the job! :-P
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:26:15 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by mk:
3. You received another request for original, with a note that said "Please upload the original THAT MATCHES YOUR ENTRY and not another shot from the same shoot." |
This was a while back. In all that you stated in your response, all of it sounds familiar with the exception of number 3. That would certainly help to make it clear. Because I don't remember receiving that message as quoted I would normally doubt that I received it. However, I must say that all else is as I remember it. So it is certainly possible that I missed that one, or that I read it too fast, or something.
It seemed to me at the time that I was struggling to figure out what the hell was wrong (my email is not always reliable, was that the problem?) and that it seemed that I was only getting a generic, computer generated response.
edit to add a suggestion: In a case like this, when somebody asks if you received something when they indicate that they think that they sent in the original file, it would be better if you answered their question and said something like...
..."Yes, we received a file but it appears to be the wrong one."
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:35:40.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:28:47 AM · #62 |
Too many admins when you DON'T need them. I can't keep up with you all.
Neil and Shannon, please see my last post.
edit to add: for us dim witted folks, maybe you could spell it out and say "Yes, we received a file but it was the wrong one."
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:31:02.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:29:56 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
I didn't and have been a member for longer than a day but generally, if you're not a legal beagle or on the SC, you might not know about that little rule. |
Ya might want to peek through those rules again before you check the little box indicating that you've read the rules. The relevant part shouldn't require a legal background...
"You must... retain your original, unedited file (exactly as recorded by your camera), and provide it to the Site Council along with a list of your editing steps within 48 hours of any validation request."
Seriously... I was DQ'd after missing part of the Minimal rules that I helped write! :-( |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:30:26 AM · #64 |
"We have a question about your entry that we don't know how to answer just yet. It doesn't necessarily mean that you've broken the rules, but we need to check just in case. Please send us your unaltered original along with your editing steps so we can figure it out. Don't worry, we'll let you know if something is amiss."
And blah blah blah, etc. Is that inoffensive enough for an off the cuff, half-tired attempt?
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:32:24 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Because I don't remember receiving that message as quoted I would normally doubt that I received it. However, I must say that all else is as I remember it. So it is certainly possible that I missed that one, or that I read it too fast, or something. |
Any note we send out is automatically recorded in the validation thread for that image, so that IS what it said. |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:33:11 AM · #66 |
The "too many admins" are really just trying to help clear things up for you... we have all of these things on file, and can look 'em up to help clarify things when questions come up.
They've taken the time to look these things up because you're asking about them, and we're simultaneously trying to understand where there was confusion, and what we can do better.
Originally posted by yakatme:
Too many admins when you DON'T need them. I can't keep up with you all.
Neil and Shannon, please see my last post. |
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:36:09 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
It seemed to me at the time that I was struggling to figure out what the hell was wrong (my email is not always reliable, was that the problem?) and that it seemed that I was only getting a generic, computer generated response. |
Most original requests are automated. It's just the simplest way to work through the queue of validation requests without having to reinvent the wheel every time. Additional requests nearly always include a personal explanation as to why it's being requested again (we are occasionally subject to error...we are human after all.) All responses to tickets submitted via the contact page are generated by an actual human (or an mkbot), although on occasion we do copy and paste things like are you sure you want to self-dq, these are the repercussions etc., etc. Any time you're not clear about what's going on, you can feel free to submit a ticket (as you did, and which received an explanation). |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:40:50 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
The "too many admins" are really just trying to help clear things up for you... we have all of these things on file, and can look 'em up to help clarify things when questions come up.
They've taken the time to look these things up because you're asking about them, and we're simultaneously trying to understand where there was confusion, and what we can do better.
Originally posted by yakatme:
Too many admins when you DON'T need them. I can't keep up with you all.
Neil and Shannon, please see my last post. |
|
Yet ANOTHER one! What is that? Four now???
Just kidding. It might not seem like it Alan, but I understand what you are saying and I appreciate it. Like I said, I trust that what has been quoted to me is accurate because all of it definitely sounds familiar with one exception. That one exception certainly could be my fault.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:42:07 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
I do think precautions should be in place to help ensure legitimate images aren't DQ'd. |
I'm confused. What precautions do you need beyond the following:
1) No one need submit an original unless asked
2) Requests for validation are reviewed by the SC to see whether they're legit before anything else happens
3) The SC checks the photog's notes and often makes a decision from those. Sometimes people say things like "dodged and burned" in a basic editing challenge, and that's that. No original needed.
4) When the SC can't determine, they ask for the original AND editing steps
5) The SC discusses the original, the final, and the editing steps, and tries to recreate the final from the original. They discuss, debate, and eventually take a vote. Only a majority vote from SC can DQ a shot.
(Hey, SC, I've been paying attention when you answer these questions!)
Now, on top of that, SC has at least two, and sometimes as many as 4 or 5, challenges going at once. How long should they wait with no response on a validation request? Three days? A week? Two weeks?
Finally, you do know they're volunteers who aren't paid, right?
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:42:42 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's clearly in the rules that you must be able to provide an original within 48 hours. If that's not possible, then you should submit the file (as a ticket) before you go away or contact us so we can work something out. |
good to know, I didn't and have been a member for longer than a day but generally, if you're not a legal beagle or on the SC, you might not know about that little rule. |
* On the submission page, there is a checkbox that says, "If requested, I will provide the unedited, original file from my digital camera within 48 hours." You must check that box to be able to submit.
* Right below that is a checkbox which says you've read and understood the editing rules for that challenge. Those also include the 48-hour requirement.
* After you submit your entry, the landing page (the one which shows your submission and allows you to change it) contains the following Leftbox:
Originally posted by Leftbox:
Submit Original
Are any of the following applicable to your situation?
# You will be away or offline and unable to submit an original during or in the few days after voting.
# You feel strongly that others will question the validity of the shot.
# You are opening a ticket prior to voting to get Site Council opinion on legality of your editing steps.
If so, you may submit your original for review in case the entry is questioned. |
Again, if we can make this clearer, we're open to suggestions. It seems to be a problem no matter how many times, ways and places we say it. At some point, we have to assume that users have actually read and understood what they've told us (twice!) that they've read and understood.
Originally posted by ericsuth:
All in all, we're having a good time but it's still not a bad thing to chat about these little things |
Glad to hear it, and agreed. Like I said, suggestions are always welcome.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2007-05-22 00:44:04.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:43:50 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ericsuth:
I didn't and have been a member for longer than a day but generally, if you're not a legal beagle or on the SC, you might not know about that little rule. |
Ya might want to peek through those rules again before you check the little box indicating that you've read the rules. The relevant part shouldn't require a legal background...
|
hehehe, COMMON! you've now officially entered the 'us vs them' mentality :P
WHO really reads that stuff that indepth? (and more thinks their image will be questioned), as it is, I feel like a nerd enough already because I actually do scan the rules every once in a while, some though (especially content issue) draw my attention more than others.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Seriously... I was DQ'd after missing part of the Minimal rules that I helped write! :-( |
sorry for your DQ but nice to know you're not a machine :)
Anyway all, thanks for your points and points of view; I'm off to bed!
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:44:30 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by mk:
Any time you're not clear about what's going on, you can feel free to submit a ticket (as you did, and which received an explanation). |
Actually, I didn't submit a ticket, unless I did so without knowing that what I did generated a ticket. If I had submitted a ticket maybe I would have gotten a person to explain to me what I had apparently missed with the automated responses.
I don't expect this to happen again, but if I feel that I need a human response then I'll submit a ticket.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:47:33 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by mk:
Any time you're not clear about what's going on, you can feel free to submit a ticket (as you did, and which received an explanation). |
Actually, I didn't submit a ticket, unless I did so without knowing that what I did generated a ticket. If I had submitted a ticket maybe I would have gotten a person to explain to me what I had apparently missed with the automated responses.
I don't expect this to happen again, but if I feel that I need a human response then I'll submit a ticket. |
You must not have known then. :) You did submit a ticket (which is what happens when you contact us via the help page) and received a response explaining what image file we had and that we needed another one (see my #4-7). Maybe you're just remembering this all worse than it actually happened? :) |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:47:52 AM · #74 |
Maybe the 'I have read and understand the rules' box should be bole, blinking, bright red, humongous letters, and when you check it, another big flashing box opens up and says, 'Are you SURE you really did read and understand the rules?????'
:-P |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 12:50:00 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Maybe the 'I have read and understand the rules' box should be bole, blinking, bright red, humongous letters, and when you check it, another big flashing box opens up and says, 'Are you SURE you really did read and understand the rules?????'
:-P |
Shhh... Too much logic and there won't be any smiting. Want some popcorn?
|
|
