| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2008 06:47:29 PM · #26 |
I'm not sure why SC decides to take upon themselves these impossible situations. It seems like it's an obvious "no-win" situation to stand and fight on a principle which is subjective to start with (I'm speaking of the ToS which talk about "good taste" etc.). It only engenders hard feelings, but unfortunately there seem to be elements on SC who are more than willing to pick these fights for a reason that is beyond me.
Why is this? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:50:55 PM · #27 |
Followed the other thread somewhat throughout the day. Decided to add my .02 here.
Even the title of this thread sounds absurd to me. Editorial control over what somebody else says about a shot I posted? And posted, at least in part, to attract viewers and commenters? Absurd!
Within the TOS, the commenter must be allowed to say what they want to say. Jokers and idiots will soon be dealt with by the process of natural selection.
If anything, when posting a photo, give the photographer a chance to opt for no comments. IOW, post a photo as "locked" or whatever. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:56:43 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why is this? |
Pick fights????
A few points:
1.) People should not be made to be afraid of making comments, even ones that may be negative, as long as those comments comply with site rules
2.) The SC tries very hard *not* to be the judge of comment quality, but *only* to act when there are TOS violations
3.) We sometimes do make polite requests for the commenter themselves to edit, if the recipient of the comment feels very strongly, but we make it clear that it's a *request*, not a demand
4.) We'd very much rather that users report comments to us rather than engage in flame wars with commenters themselves
We feel that the above approach yields a comment system that at once encourages openness and honesty, and that minimizes our need for intervention, while keeping us apprised of truly mean-spirited commenters.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 18:58:50. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:56:57 PM · #29 |
It's difficult for us to discuss specific comments on specific images and still have full regard for the rights of the commenter.
With that said, I feel OK with sharing about my own personal thought process (in no particular order) when it comes to evaluating complaints about comments:
1) Does the comment itself violate the TOS?
2) Does the comment relate to the image in any way? (as opposed to the photographer personally)
3) Is there a way that the comment can be interpreted to not be rude? (assuming good faith)
4) Does the comment reflect an evoked emotion based on image content?
5) Does the comment reflect a "valid" reaction to the image content? (is it likely that others might also see the point stated)
6) Is the content of the comment clearly a matter of opinion? (not slanderous)
7) Consider photographer complaint - would a reasonably prudent person also be offended by the comment?
8) Consider history of photographer complaints about comments.
There are others, but that's the general gist.
Is this helpful?
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:58:56 PM · #30 |
I requested the removal of the comment ... I probably should have done it long ago but being the quiet type I didn't. Since it obviously still irritates me (after reading the original locked thread, I immediately remembered that comment), I do not find it helpful or funny I decided to request it's removal. I thought DPC was all about being helpful, via comments and forums, for the most part it is but when comments like the one I received are not, are offensive and have absolutely nothing to do with the photograph then they should be removed at the photographers request. Just my honest opinion.
FYI .. the young man was praying after a very long, hard football game. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:00:52 PM · #31 |
I must admit I'm with site council on this one. The comments did not seem offensive to me in any way. I though they were constructive criticisms. I've seen some lay down some very off beat comments . Personally I believe some ego's were bruised. If your going to use your friends, children, wife, etc. in images on a world stage, don't get upset when criticism is given. I received one comment that I thought was offensive on the last Self portrait challenge. The comment added nothing to the discussion, I submitted the comment to SC and it was removed.
Edited to comply with the disgruntled
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 19:13:06. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:04:56 PM · #32 |
.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 19:13:28.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:07:31 PM · #33 |
Just to be clear...
we're not talking about comments like:
"The lighting is too harsh"
"the photo could use more depth of field"
"A tighter crop would have accentuated the subject more"
We are talking about:
"Disgusting - feed you model next time"
"You model is too fat for this kind of photo"
"The little girl looks like she came from a trailer park"
IMO these kinds of comments are no different than:
"use a white model next time"
"you model looks like a terrorist"
"two women together is repulsive"
They don't serve any purpose in their current form and the photographer would be the one who decides if they are offended by them or not. If the photographer is offended - who is the SC to say they are wrong?
Or are all the comments above just fine?
If it's all about the TOS then fine - adjust the TOS. That's the whole point of this and the other thread, DO SOMETHING because a great deal of the site doesn't like the way it is now. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:08:23 PM · #34 |
You know I am about to be very torqued off at the sheer arrogance of the SC on this one ...
folks it needs to simply be this clear ...
If the photographer finds the comment offensive for any darn reason that the photographer holds ... the comment needs to be gone ... end of discussion.
There doesn't really need to be a SC caucus over the issue to decide on the comment makers reason. The comment needs simply to go away. Is it that hard to understand?
Please see the only comment "not marked as helpful" on this immage 
THIS IS THE REASON THAT PHOTOGRAPHER DELETE NEEDS TO HAPPEN ... Ya get it ???
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 19:12:23.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:08:36 PM · #35 |
As I mentioned in the other thread, there are some broader considerations.
For myself, I am pretty robust and it would be quite hard for someone to offend me through comments on my pics. I also think that the SC do a good job and don't have any real criticism of what they do, and think that the website and commenting system is very far from "broken".
However, I recognise that there are people who may be offended much more easily than me. I would not pretend to be able to judge through the medium of the net whether someone is genuinely or falsely pretending to be offended, or if they are right to be offended given their circumstances and the circumstances of the image.
It would be a great shame to me if images were left displayed and associated with comments that (rightly or wrongly) offended the photographer because a third party (the SC) was unable to see what was offensive about those comments.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:12:23 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
We are talking about:
"Disgusting - feed you model next time"
"You model is too fat for this kind of photo"
"The little girl looks like she came from a trailer park"
IMO these kinds of comments are no different than:
"use a white model next time"
"you model looks like a terrorist"
"two women together is repulsive"
|
These are examples of what we would probably remove, immediately. Some of them look remarkably like what we have removed, without question. None of the comments that started this firestorm were anything like this in severity. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:13:16 PM · #37 |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:13:44 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
You know I am about to be very torqued off at the sheer arrogance of the SC on this one ...
folks it needs to simply be this clear ...
If the photographer finds the comment offensive for any darn reason that the photographer holds ... the comment needs to be gone ... end of discussion.
There doesn't really need to be a SC caucus over the issue to decide on the comment makers reason. The comment needs simply to go away. Is it that hard to understand?
Please see the only comment "not marked as helpful" on this immage
THIS IS THE REASON THAT PHOTOGRAPHER DELETE NEEDS TO HAPPEN ... Ya get it ??? |
Did you report it? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:14:10 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
We are talking about:
"Disgusting - feed you model next time"
"You model is too fat for this kind of photo"
"The little girl looks like she came from a trailer park"
IMO these kinds of comments are no different than:
"use a white model next time"
"you model looks like a terrorist"
"two women together is repulsive"
|
These are examples of what we would probably remove, immediately. Some of them look remarkably like what we have removed, without question. None of the comments that started this firestorm were anything like this in severity. |
"would probably"???? you wanna clarify that???
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:15:17 PM · #40 |
As I posted in the other thread in regard to your photo  Katmystiry and the comment that you find offensive I can see where the commenter is coming from. The way he phrased it is a bit blunt and could have been phrased much better but I will admit one of the first things I thought when I saw that pic is he was taking a pee. I know that was not your intention in the photo and I know the comment was a bit blunt but I think the comment points to a view that others may have of your photo that you might not have intended. To me I would want to know if my photo came across completely different than my intentions. So I'm not saying your wrong to be offended but I do think there was some value in that comment/ Trevor~
edit to fix link
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 19:25:54. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:15:46 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by karmat:
These are examples of what we would probably remove, immediately. Some of them look remarkably like what we have removed, without question. None of the comments that started this firestorm were anything like this in severity. |
Depends on who's doing the interpretation. And really, what does it matter? If I find it offensive that should be enough to have it removed. No one clicks the report comment button just for a place to type.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:16:04 PM · #42 |
most likely
almost absolutely.
would probably = in the absence of extenuating circumstances, and in the event that the commenter did not change/remove at the request of either a) the photographer or b) the SC, the SC would remove it. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:16:30 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by nomad469:
You know I am about to be very torqued off at the sheer arrogance of the SC on this one ...
folks it needs to simply be this clear ...
If the photographer finds the comment offensive for any darn reason that the photographer holds ... the comment needs to be gone ... end of discussion.
There doesn't really need to be a SC caucus over the issue to decide on the comment makers reason. The comment needs simply to go away. Is it that hard to understand?
Please see the only comment "not marked as helpful" on this image
THIS IS THE REASON THAT PHOTOGRAPHER DELETE NEEDS TO HAPPEN ... Ya get it ??? |
Did you report it? |
Does it matter? ... I should be able to simply zap it no fuss no bother no drama ...
In the case that I did report a comment it took 2 days of hemming around to make the comment disappear ...
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 19:19:25.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:19:23 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by karmat:
These are examples of what we would probably remove, immediately. Some of them look remarkably like what we have removed, without question. None of the comments that started this firestorm were anything like this in severity. |
Isn't the point that people can be offended by the strangest of things? And they would not necessarily be apparent to you, nor capable of being removed if they relate to a challenge image.
I don't think that it would happen often, but this is a public space and people may not want certain (apparently harmless) comments associated with their images - I don't think it an unreasonable request to ask for the comment to be removed without questions being asked.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:19:44 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
You know I am about to be very torqued off at the sheer arrogance of the SC on this one ...
folks it needs to simply be this clear ...
If the photographer finds the comment offensive for any darn reason that the photographer holds ... the comment needs to be gone ... end of discussion.
There doesn't really need to be a SC caucus over the issue to decide on the comment makers reason. The comment needs simply to go away. Is it that hard to understand? |
So, if for instance you find that you find a comment "offensive" because the commenter had negative things to say about your shot, you'd want it removed. Bottom line, if we started removing everything that hit a nerve, we'd never do anything else, and the comment system would become nothing more than a venue for folks patting each other on the back.
If we give editorial power to the comment recipients, then we might as well just fold up the comment system, for all the honesty that will remain. We open up the system to retaliatory removal for reasons completely unrelated to comments, for removal of any comment that the recipient doesn't like... in other words, again the comment system becomes a far less potent educational tool.
The only real solution is for us to exercise control over truly abusive comments and commenters, but leave wide latitude for expression of thoughts both positive and negative. It floors me that taking a "minimize censorship" approach is perceived as "arrogant" and that defending the logic and fairness of the current system is perceived as "picking fights." Sheesh. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:20:41 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
..."You model is too fat for this kind of photo"...
|
These are examples of what we would probably remove, immediately. Some of them look remarkably like what we have removed, without question. None of the comments that started this firestorm were anything like this in severity. |
but can't you see, "unattractive belly" was exactly the same to Leroy. He did ask the commenter to change and got no result. He then went o the SC and got no result.
I don't want to make this about that specific incident again, just pointing out that the current "logic" isn't working. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:26:29 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I don't want to make this about that specific incident again, just pointing out that the current "logic" isn't working. |
Please, let's not, but yes it does. I find that comment VERY offensive. Had it been me in the photo, not so much as can be seen by most of my SPs. And, as I've stated before, if any comment I make gets deleted, I don't really care. I hope I'm told it was and why, maybe I can grow from that.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:28:29 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nomad469:
You know I am about to be very torqued off at the sheer arrogance of the SC on this one ...
folks it needs to simply be this clear ...
If the photographer finds the comment offensive for any darn reason that the photographer holds ... the comment needs to be gone ... end of discussion.
There doesn't really need to be a SC caucus over the issue to decide on the comment makers reason. The comment needs simply to go away. Is it that hard to understand? |
So, if for instance you find that you find a comment "offensive" because the commenter had negative things to say about your shot, you'd want it removed. Bottom line, if we started removing everything that hit a nerve, we'd never do anything else, and the comment system would become nothing more than a venue for folks patting each other on the back.
If we give editorial power to the comment recipients, then we might as well just fold up the comment system, for all the honesty that will remain. We open up the system to retaliatory removal for reasons completely unrelated to comments, for removal of any comment that the recipient doesn't like... in other words, again the comment system becomes a far less potent educational tool.
The only real solution is for us to exercise control over truly abusive comments and commenters, but leave wide latitude for expression of thoughts both positive and negative. It floors me that taking a "minimize censorship" approach is perceived as "arrogant" and that defending the logic and fairness of the current system is perceived as "picking fights." Sheesh. |
My point was missed here ... I stipulated (in the other thread) that there is a difference to me at least between comments about the "image" and attacks on the model. For some reason there seems to be a lumping together of the 2 very separate issues. I have been harsh on images in challenges ... but I have never made a offensive comment about a model.
Also suggested in the other thread a token type system would be very acceptable ... you can zap 5 comments in a year... or something like that ...
This type of thing does not happen often ... but when it does it is much easier for all to make the situation go away quietly and without drama
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:29:38 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nomad469:
You know I am about to be very torqued off at the sheer arrogance of the SC on this one ...
folks it needs to simply be this clear ...
If the photographer finds the comment offensive for any darn reason that the photographer holds ... the comment needs to be gone ... end of discussion.
There doesn't really need to be a SC caucus over the issue to decide on the comment makers reason. The comment needs simply to go away. Is it that hard to understand? |
So, if for instance you find that you find a comment "offensive" because the commenter had negative things to say about your shot, you'd want it removed. Bottom line, if we started removing everything that hit a nerve, we'd never do anything else, and the comment system would become nothing more than a venue for folks patting each other on the back.
If we give editorial power to the comment recipients, then we might as well just fold up the comment system, for all the honesty that will remain. We open up the system to retaliatory removal for reasons completely unrelated to comments, for removal of any comment that the recipient doesn't like... in other words, again the comment system becomes a far less potent educational tool.
The only real solution is for us to exercise control over truly abusive comments and commenters, but leave wide latitude for expression of thoughts both positive and negative. It floors me that taking a "minimize censorship" approach is perceived as "arrogant" and that defending the logic and fairness of the current system is perceived as "picking fights." Sheesh. |
I think it's discrimination we're really talking about here. This topic has from the beginning been about people and whether a photographer feels that a comment based upon the model's body type, race, gender, religion, sexual preference, age, culture, economic status, etc. should be grounds for comment removal. If the photographer is offended because a comment violates one of those things in their opinion, why can't the SC just respect that and either require the commenter clarify their comment or delete the comment all together. How does that hurt the integrity of the site? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:34:33 PM · #50 |
Just out of interest, is it possible under the current system to have comments removed with the agreement of both commenter and commentee? Because I can't imagine many people insisting on their right to have a comment permanently up, if the person to whom the image belongs politely informs them that they find it offensive; whereas, many of the same people would be very angry if they felt that their comments were being arbitrarily censored.
I can't imagine a situation in which I would ever be offended by a comment, but some kind of system of mutual agreement working beside the SC's current moderation of clearly abusive comments would seem to be a fair compromise.
Edit: Although, I can imagine people being driven to rage by a constant stream of pointless requests.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 19:36:15. |
|
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 03:11:21 PM EDT.
