Something needs to be done!!! - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

12/31/2003 02:47:42 PM · #1

This is getting pretty ridiculous! All these DQs are getting out of hand, especially when it happens on the front page of the site. One minute you're in 4th, the next your on the front page. But you're there amidst contraversy. I have never been in that position, but I feel that it would take something away from the "win".

Here's my suggestion. Why not request the original files of the top 10 entries, but 48 hours before the end of the challenge voting period. I'm sure there could not be that much movement in position in the last 48 hours. Surely if your in the top 5 48hrs before, you're looking at a possible ribbon.

That way, the DQs would happen "off camera". Winners would be winners, and cheaters (or others) would be DQed. They would get no temporary glory, and be forgotten, instead of being martyred.

Just my 2 cents.

Message edited by author 2003-12-31 14:48:33.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

12/31/2003 02:50:13 PM · #2

I dont think it's controversial to win when someone gets DQ-ed for not following the rules.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/31/2003 03:05:39 PM · #3

I don't think there is any controversy on getting a ribbon because of a DQ either. I DO support your proposal that the all requests for originals should be made at least 48 hours prior to end of voting, allowing for DQ prior to end of voting. I ahve suggested exactly this in a prior thread.
IMHO, what we are now seeing is what we would have seen at any earlier time if we had started to have review of the top entries the way we do now. Unfortunately, when there is no penalty for cheating, many people will cheat. What we are going through now is necessary, and will work itself out in time.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/31/2003 03:06:32 PM · #4

Something needs to be done allright.

Like following the rules.

Yes, mistakes happen, that is part of life. But most of the dqs in the past couple of weeks were photographers disregarding the rules (some unknowingly, some knowingly) in some form or fashion.

Your idea makes sense. The SC, to my knowlegde, can't see the scores though, before you do. Drew and Langdon possibly could, or maybe it could be coded.

BUT if everyone a) paid attention to the rules b) paid attention to what they were doing or c) both of the above these things wouldn't happen.

Message edited by author 2003-12-31 15:07:20.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

12/31/2003 03:08:56 PM · #5

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

1) People make mistakes. They submit stuff in the wrong challenge class (as in maxpower's case) or are newcomers not very familiar with all the rules

2) Some people are just dishonest and feel compelled to cheat since they may feel it's the only way they think thay can get ahead. If ever the Admins have to disqualify a winner for this and their picture is yanked from the front page, serves them right. They won't do it again.

I for one am glad that the Admins are putting so much effort in trying to keep this site "clean" and making such an effort to ensure that we reward the proper photographers for their excellent work.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/31/2003 03:15:35 PM · #6

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

I for one am glad that the Admins are putting so much effort in trying to keep this site "clean" and making such an effort to ensure that we reward the proper photographers for their excellent work.

I agree COMPLETELY. I just think the clean up could be done off screen.

Karmat: I agree, that it would take a little tweaking, since SC members still have to be able to participate.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/31/2003 03:19:11 PM · #7

As Karma pointed out, we can't see the scores, so we have no idea what the current "top entries" are. And even if requesting proof was automated, all of the Site Council members would then have "advance knowledge" of the challenge results, 2 days before it officially ended. At a minimum, they would know what the top-scoring pictures would likely be. Since voting would still be open, such information could potentially be used for the wrong purpose.

I view the post-challenge "validation" phase like a NASCAR post-race inspection. All of the vehicles are checked after a race to ensure they have followed all of the NASCAR rules, and if any issues are found, the driver can be disqualified. But if there are no violations, there are no DQ's in the top-placing entries (none of the "Macro III" challenge winners were disqualified, for example, because the rules were all followed.)

Mario's post also seems to imply that the DQ's are only a recent problem. In actuality, we don't know how big of a problem "rules violations" have been in the past because it wasn't "standard procedure" to request proof of validity on winning entries. That is a "new job" for the Site Council to help ensure fairness among the DPC participants. Even though the SC is taking a lot of flak lately, I do feel validating the top entries is a good idea and fully support the idea.

Message edited by author 2003-12-31 15:21:51.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

12/31/2003 03:20:55 PM · #8

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

Yep, me too. About time we started appreciating what the site council do.

EDIT: Fixed quote

Message edited by author 2003-12-31 15:21:35.

Pepette

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/31/2003 03:26:10 PM · #9

I agree with Mario... I would not enjoy to win my ribbon few days late because someone got DQ.

But I also agree that knowing that you will be DQ for sure if you cheat or dont follow the rules will make everybody be more carefull and will "clean" the challenges in a short period of time...

justine

Canon EOS-50D

12/31/2003 03:26:57 PM · #10

We could just consider the resent DQ's as growing pains.
The SC is doing a good job. Maybe we should be congratulating them on their un-paid work and support their willingness to listen and change. This is a new site, we have growing pains.

Happy New Year to all.
My 2cents and ya know what that's worth.

Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital ED

12/31/2003 03:34:04 PM · #11

Originally posted by justine:

We could just consider the resent DQ's as growing pains.

I guess (and hope) that could be true. I look forward to seeing the day that the front page doesn't change after it's posted.

jdw91479

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

12/31/2003 03:48:05 PM · #12

Originally posted by Rooster:

I dont think it's controversial to win when someone gets DQ-ed for not following the rules.

I agree. Why let the cheaters win? (intentional cheating or not, the rules are there for everyone, and they're not hidden from anyone)

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

12/31/2003 04:10:25 PM · #13

Originally posted by jdw91479:

Originally posted by Rooster:
I dont think it's controversial to win when someone gets DQ-ed for not following the rules.

I agree. Why let the cheaters win? (intentional cheating or not, the rules are there for everyone, and they're not hidden from anyone)

I'm not saying to let the cheaters win, but they should be DQd before anybody sees that they had a winning picture. If they make it to the front page, they still get to brag that they HAD won.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

12/31/2003 04:17:52 PM · #14

Originally posted by mariomel:

I'm not saying to let the cheaters win, but they should be DQd before anybody sees that they had a winning picture. If they make it to the front page, they still get to brag that they HAD won.

To be honest, I don't really care since the result is moot. Chances are that if you're not here within the first part of the challenge result day you'd wouldn't know about any DQ's anyway (outside of posts, that is).

It could be worse. If the Admins were mean, they could have a "Wall of Shame" or ban people outright, which they don't do because they emphasize fair play.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

12/31/2003 04:21:16 PM · #15

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

It could be worse. If the Admins were mean, they could have a "Wall of Shame" or ban people outright, which they don't do because they emphasize fair play.

I say a public flogging would be appropriate.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

12/31/2003 04:23:53 PM · #16

Originally posted by mariomel:

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

It could be worse. If the Admins were mean, they could have a "Wall of Shame" or ban people outright, which they don't do because they emphasize fair play.

I say a public flogging would be appropriate.

TommyMoe21

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/31/2003 04:28:03 PM · #17

It's just like the olympics. They drug test the winners right after the event. However, druggies never get on the podium or touch a medal and are usually suspended for a while. Timing restricts us from not posting the winners. So, we'll have people dropped off the front page. Perhaps DQ'd images should be posted after the lowest ranked images in challenge history with a reason why they were DQ'd. If I went from 4th to a ribbon because someone DQ'd ahead of me, I'd take it in a heartbeat, with pride.

drewmedia

12/31/2003 04:35:56 PM · #18

If you're upset about shifting places, what you need to remember is that the issues with the winners aren't necessarily new -- the process to check for them is. More importantly, the Site Council brought the extra burden of checking all of these entries upon themselves without hesitation -- all for the integrity of the site. Along with the others I've seen in this thread, I whole-heartedly applaud them for that.

It should also be noted that the Site Council has been working very hard to help us refine the processes related to disqualifications, including recent changes to the submit pages, proof request e-mail and rule wording, and proof submit page among others. The logistical issues EddyG pointed out make a preemptive process impossible, but I honestly don't think that's a big issue. We're spoiled by a past where we boldly announced the winners without any question. I don't personally have any shame in watching our previously announced winners disappear from the page, because I don't think of it as a mistake -- it's a process I believe is necessary to keep the site fair and honest. At the very least, it teaches you that cheaters never win, so why bother.

Drew

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/31/2003 04:37:50 PM · #19

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

ROTFL!

Morgan

Nikon D800

12/31/2003 05:00:08 PM · #20

Originally posted by drewmedia:

Drew,

Is this really your position [it teaches you that cheaters never win, so why bother]? Are you really of the view that folks who are DQed are cheaters? Are there no other alternatives? Could it be that someone made an error? I thought that only governments with Napoleonic Law were the only people that were guilty until proven innocent? Is it not the American Way to say that people are "innocent until proven guilty"?

Just wondering.

Michael

drewmedia

12/31/2003 05:09:44 PM · #21

Originally posted by Morgan:

Are you really of the view that folks who are DQed are cheaters? Are there no other alternatives? Could it be that someone made an error? I thought that only governments with Napoleonic Law were the only people that were guilty until proven innocent? Is it not the American Way to say that people are "innocent until proven guilty"?

Of course there are other alternatives, and I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain that. That sentence was a light-hearted part of a much larger explanation of the issue at hand, and I'm pretty disappointed you took it that way. If we were so happy about our holier-than-thou power trip, we'd tar and feather disqualifed users. That sentence, too, should be read with a smirk.

Drew

12/31/2003 05:20:51 PM · #22

I think that some of the recently added items (submit page checkboxes) are probably going to help with people who submit things by mistake. The submit your original requests should take care of dissuading the cheaters. With all this, we will probably see far fewer DQs.

Let's hope.

deafwolf

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF for Canon

12/31/2003 05:29:39 PM · #23

"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
~Albert Einstein~

fsteddy

12/31/2003 05:45:12 PM · #24

I have never entered a photo and don't know if I ever will. IMHO it seems like alot of people are forgetting this is a digital photography contest and not a photo studio contest. Maybe people should try taking a great photo from the beginning so you don't have to try to fix it in PS.
This is just my opinion, like it or not.

justine

Canon EOS-50D