| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2008 07:13:14 PM · #326 |
Weird.
So let's see, the biggest arguments for the selective deletion of comments are:
I don't have any examples, but comments DO get through that offend people. Therefore the system is broken. I do have some examples that haven't been addressed by the system and some other examples that are ambiguous.
The issue is not about the intent, but rather my interpretation of the comment - and I want to be able to remove other people's comments (their property) if my feelings are hurt on my own limited judgement without the meddling of an independent third party who actually has authority and the right to exercise it.
I'm not saying dead horse or anything like that, but isn't it about time that we saw some more substance on the part of those arguing 'for' this idea?
How about that comment that was used as an example from LanceW? Has it been reported yet? Does the owner even care enough to report it?
Any other examples of comments that have been reported that are insulting or abusive that the SC has left that might actually support the idea that the current system is actually broken?
Louis, you don't have rights over people's commentary on your photos. You never have.
Gordon, if you want to remove a photo and repost it, that's your choice, and you DO thus get the ability to wipe the slate clean on your photo. But if that's such a big issue for you that you need to remove a photo thanks to a single comment that the SC did not deem to be truly insulting/abusive/offensive/whatever, why repost it?
if you feel a need to throw the bulk of good comments out with a single or minority of bad comments, are you being fair and reasoned or are you throwing a tantrum? Even more so if you can't wait a day or two for the SC to take action one way or another. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:27:34 PM · #327 |
Guys (and gals, and others in between), I am getting ready to post something that is probably the most controversial thing I've ever posted on dpc.
Any further communication, via proxy, about "what Leroy says" will be deleted. He has a forum suspension -- for a reason (several actually). If he has anything further to say, he can post it when the suspension is up.
And, for the record, here is what I said in the "Poll" thread
Originally posted by karmat:
It was not why, and he does not have a full site suspension. He is probably reading this thread, if he is onsite.
If Leroy wishes the reasons to be made public, he can either
a. forward the message to JamieLynn and she can post it.
b. pm me and let me know and I will post it.
c. reply to the ticket he was sent giving us permission to post it |
I've added bold to show what Leroy had permission to post via "proxy."
It's fine if you want to communicate with him and support him. Great. Do it. Not a problem with that. But when you start channeling him into the forums, that he is suspended from posting in, then, there is a problem.
His suspension will be up shortly, and he will be back. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:28:24 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by Louis:
The issue is one of control of one's own property. Sometimes the SC do not agree that a particular comment is damaging, after a photographer brings it up via the ticket system. I know from personal experience. In my view, they are not qualified to make such distinctions, and do so at their potential peril; turning control over to the actual owners of the material in question absolves them and this website of any liability arising from their inability to make accurate determinations 100% of the time. |
Point 1: The SC as a committee who first attempt to take into consideration the intent of the commenter are not qualified to determine if the comment is damaging or not.
Point 2: The receiver of the comment is in the best position to determine if a comment is damaging or not.
Point 3: the solution would be to turn control over to the owners of the material.
Point 4: the question at hand reflects strongly on the legal liability of the SC.
uhm....
1 - why not? When does interpretation supercede the importance of intent? Case in point, when I say "hello" to some girls, they get all upset and offended. Intent: Hello. Interpretation: EWWW. Interpretation does not equal Intent. Just because offense is taken does NOT mean that the substance is offensive or abusive.
2 - It is VERY possible for a comment to be 'damaging' where the taking of offense itself is in error. The arguments presented here seem to say that the emotional response of those who read the comments are always correct and justified. And most certainly are the most important consideration.
3 - this is the case. The owner of the material of a comment would be the commenter. They have the ability to edit the comment at any time.
4 - the liability of the SC is their problem and is well covered by the TOS. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:31:04 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Gordon, if you want to remove a photo and repost it, that's your choice, and you DO thus get the ability to wipe the slate clean on your photo. But if that's such a big issue for you that you need to remove a photo thanks to a single comment that the SC did not deem to be truly insulting/abusive/offensive/whatever, why repost it? |
I haven't. Other people have. He he must currently not be named for one. But that was the point. We can already do that. So why not let us have more refined control ?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:32:03 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
4 - the liability of the SC is their problem and is well covered by the TOS. |
The ToS would be meaningless in court for two reasons: They're vague and the site can't use them as protection from liability in a trial, should someone take offense and decide that their best remedy lies with the courts.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 19:38:23. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:40:03 PM · #331 |
| Perhaps it has already been mentioned, but if selective comment removal isn't adopted, why not give the photographer the ability to remove any of his images (challenge entries included)? I would think the photographer should have that right anyway. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:43:12 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
Perhaps it has already been mentioned, but if selective comment removal isn't adopted, why not give the photographer the ability to remove any of his images (challenge entries included)? I would think the photographer should have that right anyway. |
But it would distort the challenge results.
I think it might have been done once before when a member had an exceptional "taking my ball and going home, please cancel my account" tantrum, but I can't be 100% certain. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:45:28 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
Perhaps it has already been mentioned, but if selective comment removal isn't adopted, why not give the photographer the ability to remove any of his images (challenge entries included)? I would think the photographer should have that right anyway. |
But it would distort the challenge results.
I think it might have been done once before when a member had an exceptional "taking my ball and going home, please cancel my account" tantrum, but I can't be 100% certain. |
To my knowledge and recollection, we've never removed an entire collection. We have removed a very few (and I mean a very, very few) if there were legal implications or if a picture had been sold for exclusive rights. I can only think of 2, maybe three that this applied to, though (off the top of my head). |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:46:42 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
But it would distort the challenge results. |
So I wonder: are the results calculated once and stored somewhere. Or are they generated on-the-fly as necessary (ie user is browsing challenge results, etc)?
ETA:
The reason I wonder has to do with server load. Obviously, I'm not privy to the site's database schema and such. If the results are simply the result of a user's database query, then it shouldn't matter if the contents changed since last access. Perhaps deleting ribboned entries would pose more of a problem...I dunno.
Everyone below the deleted image advances one spot, too. Woohoo!
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 19:52:13. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:09:53 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Hypothetically, if someone looks at this and comments, "Your lighting is bad because you've made her look like a hag," am I obligated to let that stand? Some would say, absolutely. Some would be appalled and would want to see it gone. What's my opinion? I don't know. I'm torn between the slight to my elderly mother, and the learning experience gained that might help me avoid lighting mistakes. It's not so cut-and-dry, but if at the end of the day I vote to spare my poor mother from comparison to a hag, only my vote should count, not SC's. This is an extreme example and I'm sure SC would also vote to spare my mom, but you get the point. I never suggested this was a cut-and-dry situation, but I'm not convinced it's settled to everyone's satisfaction. |
(emphasis mine)
I'm more of the opinion that if you want your vote to count and nobody else's, put your images up on a private website.
edit: by private I don't mean hidden, I mean one that you personally control
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 20:13:49. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:12:29 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
But it would distort the challenge results. |
So I wonder: are the results calculated once and stored somewhere. Or are they generated on-the-fly as necessary (ie user is browsing challenge results, etc)? |
As Spazmo posted, removing images from previous challenges does impact the challenge results. We *rarely* remove a challenge image in a past challenge. The reasons that karmat stated are the only ones under which images typically get removed, and there have been very, very few of those.
Challenge results are not recalculated except in case of a top-placing image getting removed or disqualified. In those cases, we do recalculate, and when that is done an announcement is made. It's pretty uncommon for disqualifications to happen after challenges are archived. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:30:05 PM · #337 |
I think that all of this is very engaging conversation. I as yet have not learned enough about anything to really feel comfortable submitting my work in a timely fashion and therefore have not. I believe that, for the most part, people are aware when someone is being rude or ingenuous and accountably so. If the same person or people make the type of comment that we may complain about, then everyone sees, both who and when and perhaps why. That being said, I say, I have learned so much more from all of the comments in this site regarding the composition, talent, how to's, and when to's, not to mention the why not's. I have also learned to respect the very superior talent and respect and constructiveness of most all of the commenters and artists who have participated in this forum of learning and sharing and untethered banter. I have to say that I would learn less and understand less if the photograghers had the ability to remove all of the little things that upset them. And something I have seen in the past is that if commenters are freely censored at the whim of the artist, the artist is dampened by a sort of prima-donnish cloud where things can be ignored as if not important. Suddenly there goes the overall flavor of respect between and the next thing that happens, the judges are then placed in a vacuum of probation of sorts. Soon enough, the entire facade deteriates and all that is left is the few that are left to their own devices and pats on the back and freely given to one another out of chided fear rather than honest respect, for who knows who will be the next target, set out of the gate to be said as leaving, 'There goes an artist gone of the talent.' And soon enough there are only two left, the one that calls the for the ringing of the laureate bell and the one who rings it in their honor.
Then again, maybe I'm paranoid of rejection and that is why I haven't entered any of the contests in the months through which I have been watching along.
You are all wonderful just the same. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:59:22 PM · #338 |
Hey, who's the NewGuy? ;-)
And whaddaya gonna do when you've been addicted to DPC for 5 years?? Some suggestions: OldGuy? DPCDestroyedMyLifeGuy? Maybe NudeGuy? TheDeadHorseWhisperer? Take my advice- get out while you still can. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:09:43 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Louis, you don't have rights over people's commentary on your photos. You never have. |
Precisely. I believe that's what this whole thing is about. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:09:58 PM · #340 |
emphasis added.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... there are others who feel the same way, and therefore there exists an issue that is worth talking about. ... |
Actually, it looks like you're in the extreme minority on this.
Pulled from a related thread ==> A Poll
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by karmat:
From the posts in this thread
2
1
1
1
1/7
4
2 (with limits)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1/6
1/3/5
3
Now, I want everyone to ask yourself a question, and answer it honestly. IF the totally unscientific/informal poll was showing a 2 everywhere there was a 1, would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
I don't understand the numbers you've written here. I think the informal poll won't work, because not everyone is going to see it. It seems to me more people respond to official polls than informal ones. |
|
If you want to follow the strict "majority rules" thing, we'd still have segregation. |
:-) Okay... So a poll is suggested and run (informally), the majority say they want one thing - but you're saying what; that the majority should be dismissed and site rules changed anyway for the extreme minority? A poll, if run "formally" on this topic should be dismissed as well? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:11:14 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hey, who's the NewGuy? ;-)
And whaddaya gonna do when you've been addicted to DPC for 5 years?? Some suggestions: OldGuy? DPCDestroyedMyLifeGuy? Maybe NudeGuy? TheDeadHorseWhisperer? Take my advice- get out while you still can. |
Hey the  Newguy is from my home state. Welcome Newguy from Idaho!! |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:13:29 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Point 1: ..etc. |
I'm not certain I'm entirely comfortable with you interpreting my views in your own words and responding to that, instead of direct quotes. So I'm not going to respond. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:29:54 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
:-) Okay... So a poll is suggested and run (informally), the majority say they want one thing - but you're saying what; that the majority should be dismissed and site rules changed anyway for the extreme minority? A poll, if run "formally" on this topic should be dismissed as well? |
Not every change to the site has to go to referendum. There have been many improvements made to the site in the past which just appeared overnight, people either loved them or hated them, and things moved on. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:35:22 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
:-) Okay... So a poll is suggested and run (informally), the majority say they want one thing - but you're saying what; that the majority should be dismissed and site rules changed anyway for the extreme minority? A poll, if run "formally" on this topic should be dismissed as well? |
Not every change to the site has to go to referendum. There have been many improvements made to the site in the past which just appeared overnight, people either loved them or hated them, and things moved on. |
True, good point. However, I think the whole dynamic surrounding the commenting system here at DPChallenge is a cornerstone of what makes this site work. Changes to this should not be made lightly (not at all IMO) and certainly not at the whim of a vocal few. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:36:28 PM · #345 |
Thank you for the 'Welcome'  bamartin (I used to live in the state you are currently occupied at.)and Thank you for the suggestions  art roflmao. I believe I will remain the NewGuy for a while. I need learnin' |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:46:41 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Weird.
How about that comment that was used as an example from LanceW? Has it been reported yet? Does the owner even care enough to report it?
. |
EDIT ...
None of your damn business why
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:49:01 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
:-) Okay... So a poll is suggested and run (informally), the majority say they want one thing - but you're saying what; that the majority should be dismissed and site rules changed anyway for the extreme minority? A poll, if run "formally" on this topic should be dismissed as well? |
Not every change to the site has to go to referendum. There have been many improvements made to the site in the past which just appeared overnight, people either loved them or hated them, and things moved on. |
True, good point. However, I think the whole dynamic surrounding the commenting system here at DPChallenge is a cornerstone of what makes this site work. Changes to this should not be made lightly (not at all IMO) and certainly not at the whim of a vocal few. |
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 09:57:36 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
:-) Okay... So a poll is suggested and run (informally), the majority say they want one thing - but you're saying what; that the majority should be dismissed and site rules changed anyway for the extreme minority? A poll, if run "formally" on this topic should be dismissed as well? |
Not every change to the site has to go to referendum. There have been many improvements made to the site in the past which just appeared overnight, people either loved them or hated them, and things moved on. |
True, good point. However, I think the whole dynamic surrounding the commenting system here at DPChallenge is a cornerstone of what makes this site work. Changes to this should not be made lightly (not at all IMO) and certainly not at the whim of a vocal few. |
Do you really believe in the majorities? Have you ever notice that the majorities are always obsolete?
Soon they are sentenced to follow the minority ideas ;) |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:00:24 PM · #349 |
This is first and foremost a site for photo competitions. It is not primarily a way of showing off or advertising your work, or keeping your web galleries, though of course it can be used in that way.
The onus, if any, should be on the photographer to make sure that the model is comfortable with having his or her image put up on a site which allows for free and frank criticism.
Again, most problems could easily be solved by a polite message to the commenter saying that the model is sensitive, and there is already a system in place for dealing with blatant abuse.
While those equating the proposals with censorship are misusing the term, there is no question that the ability to delete comments would not only change a fundamental part of the site's learning mechanic, but would also make people even less likely to spend time on a carefully considered critique. And please remember that these critiques are of use to others; not just to the creator of the image. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:04:55 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by Louis:
We vocal few are hardly advocating this change on a "whim" for goodness' sake. Surely, through all that vocality, you've actually heard some of the rationale for it? Or is it such anathema to you that you haven't really heard it at all? |
The needs (opinions) of the many outweigh the needs (opinions) of the few or the one... |
|
