| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2008 07:35:35 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
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. |
Nope, I didn't miss the point. Yes, there is a difference. It's also nearly impossible to comment about the photograph without saying something that *might* offend the model. In the case of the "unattractive belly" comment, what was the commenter supposed to say? The comment speaks to how the model was photographed, much more than to the model. Pretty much anyone can be shot "unattracively."
Originally posted by nomad469:
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 ... |
Yes, I was aware of the suggestion. It's one of the very few constructive suggestions made in that thread.
Originally posted by nomad469:
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 |
Yes, that's true. But throwing a public tantrum when one doesn't get their way is not the way to minimize drama, and probably won't change the outcome. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:35:46 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
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? |
Additionally ... Why does the SC need to arabtrate this? This isn't a schoolyard where we have to go to the teacher about "little johnny picking on me"
Frankly this conversation and position of some SC members is becoming shameful.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:38:34 PM · #53 |
I'm with the SC on this one ... I think the system works just fine. Also, it seems to me that demanding website changes is becoming an epidemic.
just my opinion, of course ... i understand the argument for changing things, I just don't agree with the argument |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:38:44 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
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. |
That avenue exists. Should a commenter get a direct request from a recipient and agree to modify or remove a comment, (s)he is free to do so. We also do occasionally ask politely for an edit even if we don't outright remove a comment. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:39:00 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nomad469:
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. |
Nope, I didn't miss the point. Yes, there is a difference. It's also nearly impossible to comment about the photograph without saying something that *might* offend the model. In the case of the "unattractive belly" comment, what was the commenter supposed to say? The comment speaks to how the model was photographed, much more than to the model. Pretty much anyone can be shot "unattracively."
Originally posted by nomad469:
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 ... |
Yes, I was aware of the suggestion. It's one of the very few constructive suggestions made in that thread.
Originally posted by nomad469:
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 |
Yes, that's true. But throwing a public tantrum when one doesn't get their way is not the way to minimize drama, and probably won't change the outcome. |
And the ability to zap a comment precludes the public tantrum in almost all cases.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:39:41 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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 instant, unreasoned response is to be sympathetic to your point of view. But my reasoned response would be to re-prioritise.
To paint a picture, if the girl with a comment about her belly had just recovered from anorexia then the photographer should not have to disclose her medical history to anyone in order to have the comment edited.
A comment is valuable to the site but it should not be prized above the reasonable (if sometimes opaque) sensibilities of the site's users and contributors:
1. A comment is easily edited or removed with minimum fuss - indeed that option is offered to the writer. The commentator is unlikely to be inconvenienced at all.
2. Challenge photographs are persistently associated with the photographer. They remain within the photographer's profile page. They and their comments are readily transparent to the photographer.
The current balance is to protect the commentator (who is unlikely to care substantially about his/her comments) and not the photographer (who is far more likely to care a lot about an image and its content). This does not seem right to me.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:43:57 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by hopper:
I'm with the SC on this one ... I think the system works just fine. Also, it seems to me that demanding website changes is becoming an epidemic.
just my opinion, of course ... i understand the argument for changing things, I just don't agree with the argument |
What he said... |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:44:49 PM · #58 |
You know, when I get a comment I disagree with, or which has missed or misinterpreted something in one of my photos, I reply to it in the discussion thread. Remember that the thread is supposed to be for the exchange of ideas, not just a "guestbook" where people sign in with their congratulations.
If someone's comment is rude to the point of bothering me, I can reply that I find it so, and point out that the route to a civil society does not lie in acting like an insensitive boor.
I usually don't bother, because I figure that most people reading the thread (the few that there are) will be perceptive enough to realize that a rude comment reflects to a far greater degree on the intelligence and personality of the commentor than on any aspect of me, my photo, or my subject. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:45:29 PM · #59 |
This is silly.
The thing that many people are forgetting completely is that comments come with a NAME attached.
If I see a pic that has a stupid comment, I look at the name. Why? because I associate the comment with the person who MADE THE COMMENT. Not the person who took the picture.
Ever been to a public art gallery or showing that has an open guest book?
Have a read. There are inevitable stupid comments such as "This is SO BoRiNG", "I like farts" and whatnot written by the 12 year old kids who were forced to go instead of playing Xbox.
You can usually tell by the handwriting.
Of course on a website, the handwriting doesn't change. BUT the commenters profile is only a click away - and this is far more informative.
Those art gallery books don't get the 'white-out' treatment. They don't need it. Mature readers of that book (and usually immature readers too) understand that dumb comments are usually kids.
What about people who have what might be perceived as a prejudice? Well those comments can likewise be filtered by the reader. This isn't a big deal.
If you white those comments out, you are assuming that your comment readers are unintelligent enough to need a filter.
If such comments have a spam-like quality or are obscuring the regular comments or are otherwise abusing the system, then the SC will probably oblige to clean them up. But there is a reason that people worked so hard to get something called 'freedom of speech'.
EDIT: just thought I would note that my post is not a reply to generalE's above comment which has similar content, just a coincidence in timing.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 19:50:39. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:46:44 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by hopper:
...Also, it seems to me that demanding website changes is becoming an epidemic... |
It's not a demand, this and the other thread have been under the "web site suggestions" topic. It's just a suggestion and people are now debating the merit of that suggestion.
With that said, the vast majority of website suggestions never come to be regardless of the outcome of the "debate" in them.
While I'd like to see a change on this issue, honestly, I think likely at best it'll get put on a list somewhere and if ever seen again it will be years from now. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:48:38 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You know, when I get a comment I disagree with, or which has missed or misinterpreted something in one of my photos, I reply to it in the discussion thread. Remember that the thread is supposed to be for the exchange of ideas, not just a "guestbook" where people sign in with their congratulations. |
Exactly!
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If someone's comment is rude to the point of bothering me, I can reply that I find it so, and point out that the route to a civil society does not lie in acting like an insensitive boor. |
I usually have a good laugh and remind myself that the small minded are quite amusing...
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I usually don't bother, because I figure that most people reading the thread (the few that there are) will be perceptive enough to realize that a rude comment reflects to a far greater degree on the intelligence and personality of the commentor than on any aspect of me, my photo, or my subject. |
Like I said above, the small minded are quite amusing... |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:48:56 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
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 believe that a commenter can just go back and edit a comment they made to remove content at pretty much any time. Mutual consent is not an issue. If the commenter consents, the comment is changed. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:49:11 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
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? |
Additionally ... Why does the SC need to arabtrate this? This isn't a schoolyard where we have to go to the teacher about "little johnny picking on me"
Frankly this conversation and position of some SC members is becoming shameful. |
To first address Megatherian's post, we *do* respect the views of the photographer, and if we see that a comment can reasonably be seen as offensive, we do remove it. There will, however, always be disagreement over whether a particular comment could be perceived as offensive. We can never please everyone.
To address nomad469's post, we need to arbitrate it to ensure that the TOS is followed... period. We wish to minimize censorship, while attempting to keep the comment system civil. Even where we don't remove comments, we *will* warn and eventually suspend commenters who continually behave badly.
Bottom line, it's our *job* to keep the comment system operating well. By that I mean:
- Minimizing our involvement (we don't want to be censors)
- Maintaining civility
- Maximizing the educational value of the system by encouraging a retaliation-free environment
- Ensuring that violations of the TOS are dealt with
- Dealing with those that abuse the system as appropriate on a case-by-case basis |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:51:36 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bottom line, it's our *job* to keep the comment system operating well. By that I mean:
- Minimizing our involvement (we don't want to be censors)
- Maintaining civility
- Maximizing the educational value of the system by encouraging a retaliation-free environment
- Ensuring that violations of the TOS are dealt with
- Dealing with those that abuse the system as appropriate on a case-by-case basis |
Thank you for your service! :-) |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:56:45 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
To first address Megatherian's post, we *do* respect the views of the photographer, and if we see that a comment can reasonably be seen as offensive, we do remove it. There will, however, always be disagreement over whether a particular comment could be perceived as offensive. We can never please everyone. |
I think this is true. It just seems to me that some people are "never pleased" more often than others. While the problem can exist with the user (we shall remember she-who-shall-not-be-named), the problem can also lie with SC. Sometimes it may take some introspection to ask if we are treating all members of our community equally. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 07:59:58 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
To paint a picture, if the girl with a comment about her belly had just recovered from anorexia then the photographer should not have to disclose her medical history to anyone in order to have the comment edited. |
I would say that the responsibility over the sensitive nature of the photo in that hypothetical situation would lie with the photographer and their choice to display or hide such an image. Additionally, the responsibility could lie with the subject who provides consent for such an image to be used.
When anything is put forward into a public forum, it will ALWAYS be subject to differing viewpoints and opinions. Some of which are very likely to be prejudicial, narrow-minded and worse.
If there is an issue which involves medical or ethical confidentiality, one would hope that the content would have received due consideration BEFORE it was plastered over the net.
I just took some portraits of my grandparents who may be nearing the ends of their roads, and I will be very selective of which shots make it to the net.
If a picture receives comments that indicate that a negative response is being generated, it could also be removed. Going public with something that displays vulnerability involves a great deal of bravery. If bravery is lacking, then keep it private. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:08:18 PM · #67 |
You know these threads would have a little more substance to them if it was sparked by some racial slur comment or similar type of attack. I can't find the photo now but the one that was posted earlier that received the comment "is he urinating?" was the only helpful comment I saw posted yet that's the one that doesn't get marked off as helpful? It's not like that's the only person that thought the same thing. So rather than get upset about it, perhaps that comment should be used to improve one's craft. If I had received that comment surely the next time I shot something similar I would have given the subject more context, which in turn would have more than likely resulted in a much better shot, while also elimiating the unwanted confusion.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 20:11:55.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:12:29 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Additionally ... Why does the SC need to arabtrate this? This isn't a schoolyard where we have to go to the teacher about "little johnny picking on me"
Frankly this conversation and position of some SC members is becoming shameful. |
SC needs to arbitrate this because abuse is a two-edged sword.
You feel that people are abusing their right to free speech.
But taking this right away over something frivolous is another kind of abuse
Indeed there are many cases where the feeling of the vast majority is that a specific 'comment' has crossed the line for their set of values and feelings, but the right to say it has prevailed. Just because a voice is small, untrained, disorganized, impolite, or divergent does NOT mean that the comment should be censored.
I had a look at the comment that you referenced above and my personal feeling is that a desire to have that comment removed is silly. The comment speaks for itself and the commenter. It has nothing to do with the image.
Remember, a comment is just an expression of thoughts in response to the image. You are not going to change the thoughts or responses that people have no matter what. All you could do by removing a comment is covering it over so others can't see.
It would be a very good idea to consider whether the goal of your image is reliant on what people say about it or what people think about it.
"A picture speaks a thousand words" specifically *because* there is so much that can go unsaid or unwritten that is still felt or thought.
Incidentally, I do like the idea of having the option to present a photo as 'commentary free' when uploading it initially. This would encourage people to think first. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:14:19 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
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 |
"This type of thing" being what Leroy is complaining about does NOT happen often.
Getting requests to remove comments because they offend the photographer does happen often. You really have no idea how many comments would simply disappear if the photographer had that ability.
It is difficult to give specific examples without "calling out" the commenter, but to make it as general, and as realistic as possible, here are some examples of what *most* report posts on images looks like.
Comment: Is that a real duck? That looks stuffed.
Photog: I would like this comment removed. It is an idiotic comment that does not help me improve the picture at all.
Comment: This looks like a snapshot.
Photog: This shot is obviously not a snapshot. I put a great deal of effort into this shot. It offends me that someone would say it was a snapshot.
Comment: That sky looks unnatural.
Photog: How in the world can a sky look unnatural. Of course it is a natural sky. This commenter has no idea about how to comment to improve my photography. Please remove.
Comment: The background would be better if it were more even/a different color/etc.
Photog: They obviously have no idea. I could not control this. Please remove it.
Comment: This shot reminds me of my great uncle, Horace.
Photog: This woman is nowhere near old enough to be a great aunt, and there is nothing manly about her. It is insulting to the model and does not improve my photography at all. Please remove.
Comment: I really don't like chess/horses/baby shots/the color green.
Photog: How is this helpful or constructive criticism. This is ridiculous.
We get, I would say 1 - 3 requests a day (average) to remove a comment on an image. A few are hidden immediately, simply because they are blatant abuses of the ToS. (Why don't you get a new hobby, you piece of horse dung, and take that fat, ugly, (insert choice insult here) piece of rotting meat with you?), offensive to the photog, but not a violation of the ToS (lots of examples today), or totally "ok" (albeit not always helpful) comments like I posted above. MOST (easily 90% or more, without doing the specific math) fall into the third category.
So, my opposition to a "delete comment" button is that there would be a significant number of honest, though perhaps unclear, comments that get deleted.
edit -- to change my number of requests per day
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 20:16:46. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:27:05 PM · #70 |
Sorry... But I think that those defending this position have no clue ...
I dont need to waste anymore time on it.
Typical
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:29:04 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Sorry... But I think that those defending this position have no clue ...
I dont need to waste anymore time on it.
Typical |
Interesting. I can give you "evidence," anecdotal though it may be (for reasons that I have already stated), yet I have no clue.
Thanks for your input, AND if you DO want the comment on the image you posted earlier removed, it really needs to be reported, otherwise we get accused of being heavy handed and censors and stuff like that.
edit - stoopid commas and missing words.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 20:29:43. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:29:34 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Sorry... But I think that those defending this position have no clue ...
I dont need to waste anymore time on it.
Typical |
Typical ... :-( |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:29:55 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Sorry... But I think that those defending this position have no clue ...
I dont need to waste anymore time on it.
Typical |
Now couldn't this be deemed offensive? Where's that delete button...
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:30:58 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Sorry... But I think that those defending this position have no clue ...
I dont need to waste anymore time on it.
Typical |
Now couldn't this be deemed offensive? Where's that delete button... |
I was going to say something like that, but figured since it is rumored that SC has no sense of humor, it would be taken the wrong way. :) |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 08:34:57 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Comment: Is that a real duck? That looks stuffed.
Photog: I would like this comment removed. It is an idiotic comment that does not help me improve the picture at all.
Comment: This looks like a snapshot.
Photog: This shot is obviously not a snapshot. I put a great deal of effort into this shot. It offends me that someone would say it was a snapshot.
Comment: That sky looks unnatural.
Photog: How in the world can a sky look unnatural. Of course it is a natural sky. This commenter has no idea about how to comment to improve my photography. Please remove.
Comment: The background would be better if it were more even/a different color/etc.
Photog: They obviously have no idea. I could not control this. Please remove it.
Comment: This shot reminds me of my great uncle, Horace.
Photog: This woman is nowhere near old enough to be a great aunt, and there is nothing manly about her. It is insulting to the model and does not improve my photography at all. Please remove.
Comment: I really don't like chess/horses/baby shots/the color green.
Photog: How is this helpful or constructive criticism. This is ridiculous.
|
if this is the level of things that would be 'lost' from the site - could you explain what the issue is ? Do you think other viewers are getting deep insight into photography by your preservation of these sorts of commentary ? The photographer may or may not get something from them and have obviously decided not to take anything from it. Anyone else is unlikely to gain much value from comparisons to Horace. One of the above is perhaps vaguely on topic, but again really only of value to the photographer who's decided not to care.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 20:40:30. |
|
