| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2008 02:37:30 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by Qart:
... all this was the right of a photog to defend themselves and/or their models from attack. |
"I find your model's belly unattractive" is an "attack?"
Why is the subject of the photo exempt from consideration as part of the viewer's assessment of your entry? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:38:41 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well doesn't it mean that users of this site should know that it's possible they could see/read things that they may object to? |
That's exactly what it says, but I believe that in spirit, it refers to the potential of users seeing material in other people's photographs that they might find objectionable. I don't think it was intended to be a catch-all to be used whenever any situation came up, with the response being, "Well, you agreed to our terms, so..." |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:40:22 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then give control to the photographers... it can't be censorship then. |
The photographer whose considered comment gets arbitrarily deleted may not agree. |
It isn't censorship. It might be something else, but it isn't censorship, ungratefulness perhaps. Petty, maybe. |
I agree with Shannon. If SC does it, it is certainly is labeled censorship. Why is it different if the photog does it? It's still selective removal based on some criteria. At least if one group applies a single criteria, there is a measure of consistency, and commenters know where the line is. If photogs have the power to excise comments as they see fit, there is no longer a consistent line, in fact there's anarchy.
As a commenter, I would not be encouraged to comment in a system where the recipient could simply elect to delete my comment, after I took the time to make it.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:40:25 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Qart:
... all this was the right of a photog to defend themselves and/or their models from attack. |
"I find your model's belly unattractive" is an "attack?"
Why is the subject of the photo exempt from consideration as part of the viewer's assessment of your entry? |
The belly is just one example. There are others. I don't think it's necessary to analyse every example in minute detail when the larger issue is one of control over the content surrounding one's image. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:40:59 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Qart:
... all this was the right of a photog to defend themselves and/or their models from attack. |
"I find your model's belly unattractive" is an "attack?"
Why is the subject of the photo exempt from consideration as part of the viewer's assessment of your entry? |
if i have the right photo, there were 2 bellies in it and i have not yet ascertained which belly is unattractive. not that it matters, but since it's getting so much attention, i'm really curious now.
leroy's photos are getting a lot of publicity in these threads. not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:41:45 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then give control to the photographers... it can't be censorship then. |
The photographer whose considered comment gets arbitrarily deleted may not agree. |
It isn't censorship. It might be something else, but it isn't censorship, ungratefulness perhaps. Petty, maybe. |
I agree with Shannon. If SC does it, it is certainly is labeled censorship. Why is it different if the photog does it? |
Because by definition, censorship is exercised by someone in authority (you), not by someone who controls personal property (the photographer). |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:44:25 PM · #257 |
| Could the comment be considered personal property? After all, the commenter made it and spent time putting it together. So now you, the photographer, get to censor my property (comment)? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:44:58 PM · #258 |
Well my new motto is "tact be dammed" ...
From this point on my critiques will not have a trace of sugar and will encompass the entire photograph ...
Subject and all.
They will be on target and totally relevant and if any one is offended . then they are weenies. pure and simple .
Who wants to be first !
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:48:20 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Because by definition, censorship is exercised by someone in authority (you), not by someone who controls personal property (the photographer). |
If I took the time to post a comment like this, and the photographer deleted it because he found it offensive, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care whether it was called censorship, pettiness or just plain mean-
"Great photo, with nice composition. Although bluish in color, it doesn't have the feel of a duotone. Maybe converting this to B&W first and then adding the blue tone would have helped. I for sure don't think its DNMC, but believe you will get those people that feel it is. 8"
Whatever label you want to give it, I'd call that discouraging, and I'd be much less likely to post such comments in the future. The owner of one photo wins and everybody else loses. :-/ |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:49:16 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't think it's necessary to analyse every example in minute detail when the larger issue is one of control over the content surrounding one's image. |
It is, because we already have a system for exercising such control, but some people are dissatisfied with the specific criteria used to evaluate what is an acceptable vs an unacceptable comment. I refer to that example because it is one which triggered this discussion, where the photographer says the comments is outside site guidelines, and the SC as a whole disagrees. If the comment had been along the line of "Please don't ever make me look at over-larded human swine again" it would have been gone in an instant. That's not the same as "unattractive belly."
There's already a mechanism, and a line, but some people want individual, exclusive control of where that line is drawn, and that is not in the site's best interests overall. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:50:59 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Qart:
... all this was the right of a photog to defend themselves and/or their models from attack. |
"I find your model's belly unattractive" is an "attack?"
Why is the subject of the photo exempt from consideration as part of the viewer's assessment of your entry? |
The subject of the photo is never exempt and I'd think that was pretty obvious unless of course there was no benefit from the comment whatsoever. So of course your next question is... benefit by whose standard? It dosn't matter. This isn't the United Nations or the Summer Olympics where every word and action counts. This is a photog community where people come to advance in a happy, and comfortable environment. AS a SC member, does the comment effect you in any way? The answer is no of course. Does it effect the photog or model it was intended for? In most cases no. But in some cases, yes it does. In those rarer cases, and yes they are rare, cut some slack if you agree or not. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:51:23 PM · #262 |
| Ditto Shannon again. FWIW, the comment is no one's "property" but it *does* represent the time investment of the commenter(author). The recipient certainly does not own it. Whether SC or the recipient removes it, it is censorship of the author. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:51:25 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Who wants to be first ! |
I'll volunteer ;-) My collection of Brown Ribbons should provide ample fodder for your grapeshot ... |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:53:00 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Whatever label you want to give it, I'd call that discouraging, and I'd be much less likely to post such comments in the future. |
Yes, I agree with this point. I don't like to leave comments on other sites where the comment must be pre-approved, either. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:53:53 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Well my new motto is "tact be dammed" |
There are much less tactful ways to say "unattractive belly," but there is some value to knowing the viewers' reactions and not too many ways to express it without offending somebody. Direct comments at the models without any tact, and you'll find out very quickly that we DO take action against mean spirited comments. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:55:20 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Who wants to be first ! |
I'll volunteer ;-) My collection of Brown Ribbons should provide ample fodder for your grapeshot ... |
Too easy a target ... NEXT
love ya man :)
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:58:35 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Well my new motto is "tact be dammed" |
There are much less tactful ways to say "unattractive belly," but there is some value to knowing the viewers' reactions and not too many ways to express it without offending somebody. Direct comments at the models without any tact, and you'll find out very quickly that we DO take action against mean spirited comments. |
But this whole cotton picking thread is about tacky comments that can be interpreted as mean-spirited to the recipient.
So as long as the comment is not mean-spirited in intent ... lack of tactfulness is permitted if not encouraged.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 14:59:20.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:58:50 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The recipient certainly does not own it. Whether SC or the recipient removes it, it is censorship of the author. |
No, you don't get to redefine the word just because you'd like to. It is perhaps censorship if you do it. It wouldn't be if the photographer did it. Much in the same way that copyright infringement isn't theft, just because the RIAA would like to redefine it that way because it sounds worse. That's why it would seem to be better to get the SC out of the equation. The collective you claim you are constantly inundated with removal requests, so this would save that time too.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 14:59:53.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:59:43 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Send a polite PM- "I appreciate the time you took to post a comment (maybe a different camera angle or lighting could have worked), but my model is rather sensitive. Would you mind editing your comment to prevent an embarrassing situation? Thanks!" |
And if they refuse? |
In the very unlikely case they refused, you'd have a much stronger argument for showing the comment was intended maliciously. If the response is abusive, you'd simply report it. However, I believe that the VAST majority of voters will gladly rephrase or remove a sensitive comment if approached politely and respectfully (thereby eliminating the need for any SC involvement). If you want control, it's already within your power to have a comment changed or removed.
Look, I really have no problem with deleting ANY comment aimed at the model if the photographer requests it (and I've said as much in earlier SC discussions). My objection is to allowing photographer complete control over posted comments. In the photo with the "not very attractive belly" comment, there was one other comment that wasn't marked helpful. It was a respectful, on-target critique that addressed the photo itself. Do you think it would still be there if the photographer could remove it? Would the commenter continue posting constructive criticism if he found that his posts were being deleted by the photographers? |
DAMMIT SHANNON ... stop being reasonable ! :)
The point is that the photographer did not find it respectful or on target.
You might ... heck ... I might also ... but that is not the point. The point is that the photographer wanted the comment to go away ... he doesn't need to go to you guys to make the determination.
a system that would allow a member to just make comments go away on a limited basis would not harm at all the commenting system but would allow the member to control to some extent what is publicly visible in relation to his or her work.
This is not a issue about constructive critique. |
The example Shannon gave would be an issue of constructive critique and if such critiques were being removed on a regular basis if photographers had the ability (which I believe would happen, but just my guess), it would harm the commenting process. That is those who are active engaged in the commenting process would be effected should their comments be deleted not to mention the value of such comment lossed to everyone else. To say this wouldn't harm anything at all is wrong, IMO. These threads are proof of the heighten sensitivity among DPCers, do you think this sensitivity only functions when one has the photographer hat on? Why is it nobody in favor of a delete button care about the sensitivity of the commenters? After all we are not talking about deleting malicious attacks designed to hurt because those do get removed when requested.
What I don't get at all in this debate is the sense from others that just because you upload a photo to this web site that you "own" the page it displays on. You don't. Nor do you own the mini forum functionality attached to the photo page or who favs your work. Why anybody would think they should control any of this content of a site they don't own is beyond me. If we are going to just give people ownership of content they didn't author, why stop at just the photo page? Why not give me full editorial control over any thread I create or any thread I post a photo in? Actually we do have full control right now. It's called not uploading. I practice that all the time whenever I feel the subject of my photo might be sensitive to negative comments.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:01:50.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:00:34 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then give control to the photographers... it can't be censorship then. |
The photographer whose considered comment gets arbitrarily deleted may not agree. |
It isn't censorship. It might be something else, but it isn't censorship, ungratefulness perhaps. Petty, maybe. |
Removing what someone else authored isn't censorship? What is?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:02:18 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
But this whole cotton picking thread is about tacky comments that can be interpreted as mean-spirited to the recipient. |
See the example I posted 15 minutes ago. That comment was reported as offensive with a demand to remove it. We get plenty of requests on comments like that that make us go, "HUH?" |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:02:28 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I know I am jumping in a bit late on this conversation, but I am curious if the following "compromise" has been suggested.
Currently we have a single box - This comment was helpful - which functions as listing for the commenter. What if we expand that listing to a scorecard and rate the value of the comment on a scale, much as we do for scoring images. Implementing a "Rate This Comment" system, say a 5-0 scale, along with a field on the the Preferences page to "Hide Comments rated 0 from image page" may solve the issue. Personally, I would like to know the value of my comments other than it just being "helpful".
Just a thought...
Flame on! |
I suggested that some time ago in a since locked thread. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:03:02 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If I took the time to post a comment like this, and the photographer deleted it because he found it offensive, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care whether it was called censorship, pettiness or just plain mean-
"Great photo, with nice composition. Although bluish in color, it doesn't have the feel of a duotone. Maybe converting this to B&W first and then adding the blue tone would have helped. I for sure don't think its DNMC, but believe you will get those people that feel it is. 8"
Whatever label you want to give it, I'd call that discouraging, and I'd be much less likely to post such comments in the future. The owner of one photo wins and everybody else loses. :-/ |
You are concerned with the learning part of this place and I'm completely with you, but from my experience I never took any valuable information from comments on the others photos. The true information I found and used when improving my skills was reading the forums, the tutorials and photographs descriptions like you use to do with almost of your photos... By the way, thanks a lot Pal. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:04:18 PM · #274 |
I am curious about one thing though.
"I find your model's belly unattractive" (since this example was cited)
Is this a comment any of the site council members here would leave on ANY image... and why?
As I said... just curious.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:04:35 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Why is it nobody in favor of a delete button care about the sensitivity of the commenters? After all we are not talking about deleting malicious attacks designed to hurt because those do get removed when requested. |
What he said. |
|
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: 08/10/2025 11:06:51 AM EDT.
