| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2008 09:09:17 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by eschelar:
And yet we didn't see any specific examples of anything that was directly insulting or libelous towards the models... |
You aren't privy to every little drama going on via PM. Remember, we are encouraged to resolve all our issues amongst ourselves and leave the powers that be alone. |
You are encouraged to be civil? |
Yes, and to refrain from baiting people. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:10:21 PM · #102 |
LanceW: One can only dream of being a punk loser.
Ok. so?
how is this libelous? is this insulting? to whom?
I don't know about you or the intent, but I read this as a nonsensical comment that could easily mean that he was jealous of the rapper (which is a drastically different thing than a punk)... I used to work with a bunch of punks and they were quite particular about the definition of what they were about.
Has the post been reported? SC seems to have asked this a couple of times. What was the response to the report?
Seriously, if that's a bad enough comment to get your panties in a bunch, wow. Over-reacting? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:10:32 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Read my post RE: gangsta in this thread |
Dave, You have been asked twice (I think) in this thread and at least once in a PM. If you want the comment removed, LET US KNOW.
We have no record of it being reported, therefore we have never acted on it.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 21:23:21. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:13:21 PM · #104 |
And eschaelar attitude and comment is exactly why the system needs to be implemented.
Thank you for proving my point so very clearly
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 21:14:17.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:14:24 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
You and others keep saying this, and I still find it a cynical attitude that disregards what I think the majority would do: accept honest criticism. Your opinion of the user base seems surprisingly low. |
Cynical? Perhaps, guilty as charged. It's also reality. If people know that they can obtain removal of a comment just by complaining about it, the amount of complaints *will* increase exponentially. Fact of life, human nature. If you have an open path to a desirable result, you'll take that path. It says nothing about my opinion of the user base, and I do take exception to the implication. |
"Nothing more than a venue for back-patting" and the like implies, to me at least, that you think the majority of users would delete constructive criticism. This seems to indicate you think the majority of people here aren't interested in criticism, and will, as you put it, take the intellectually lazy path of least resistance to meet this nefarious goal. I personally think that's not a very high opinion of people's motives, and actually I take exception to the implication that that's what I would do. |
The point was, that allowing removal for any reason will strongly discourage commenters from honest assessment of images. Why would I make a comment that is not flattering, if I know the recipient is free to remove it?
By submitting our images for public scrutiny, we risk comments that don't flatter our skills. That's how we learn. Our job as SC is to make sure that when unflattering comments are made, they are made in a manner that is not in violation of the TOS. To start to censor comments that don't rise to that level is not supportive of an atmosphere of open discussion. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:15:11 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
You and others keep saying this, and I still find it a cynical attitude that disregards what I think the majority would do: accept honest criticism. Your opinion of the user base seems surprisingly low. |
Cynical? Perhaps, guilty as charged. It's also reality. If people know that they can obtain removal of a comment just by complaining about it, the amount of complaints *will* increase exponentially. Fact of life, human nature. If you have an open path to a desirable result, you'll take that path. It says nothing about my opinion of the user base, and I do take exception to the implication. |
"Nothing more than a venue for back-patting" and the like implies, to me at least, that you think the majority of users would delete constructive criticism. This seems to indicate you think the majority of people here aren't interested in criticism, and will, as you put it, take the intellectually lazy path of least resistance to meet this nefarious goal. I personally think that's not a very high opinion of people's motives, and actually I take exception to the implication that that's what I would do. |
I'm a bit puzzled by your stance. You listed pros and cons for having an editorial option but I find it odd that you would be championing this. Are you not in favor of receivinig honest reactions even if they may be packaged in a crude or even vile manner? Even if the comment is ridiculous at the very least you know why the person didn't like the photo, which is helpful. Sure you can retain that info after the comment has been deleted but why rob others from seeing the reaction the photo produced? Rather than have a delete button, I'd rather have a "freeze" button that is the photographer gets to mark a comment permanent so the commenter can't change it later. Heck, create a page called "comments marked as vile" that way people can just see who leaves them. The photographer can have the option of having their photo included on that page or not. :P
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 21:17:28.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:16:33 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by eschelar:
And yet we didn't see any specific examples of anything that was directly insulting or libelous towards the models... |
You aren't privy to every little drama going on via PM. Remember, we are encouraged to resolve all our issues amongst ourselves and leave the powers that be alone. |
I don't need to be privy to everything. He's the one who started the thread. If he wants to get specific about a comment, then he should get specific about the comment.
The comment is already publicly viewable.
If the photog doesn't like a comment, then keep it private.
But if the comment is a breach of ToS, take it first to SC. If it's ignored, or mishandled, then get specific and take it to the forums.
If it's a big enough deal to make it to the forums then shouldn't it be OK to reveal a little 'drama'? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:21:50 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
And eschaelar attitude and comment is exactly why the system needs to be implemented.
Thank you for proving my point so very clearly |
Can you be a bit more specific please?
my attitude is that the person who commented did so unclearly. the comment presented could have been intended in two different ways. The first step would naturally be to find out what their intent was and state that their intent was not clear, requesting clarification.
Generally good policy.
The comment that I referenced leaves a bit of room for doubt. And if it were left intact, it certainly says far, far more about the commenter than it does about the image itself - it's not even relevant to the image. There is no punk in the picture.
As for slander/libel... perhaps you need to look a bit closer at the definition. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:22:23 PM · #109 |
I had a comment on my image from the last self portrait challenge it simply said
WT* (but included the letter) HA HA HA
I reported the post stating that it added nothing to the conversation and I would like it removed. SC removed the comment no questions asked.
I had several comments that were not to my liking but I accepted them because they did add value to the conversation. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:25:19 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
I think a point that was missed since karmat posted these examples is that in several cases, these comments alone may not mean much as far as a learning/improvement tool to the photographer or a viewer. However, we're not seeing these in context. If the "sky looks unnatural" comment is mixed in with other comments making observations like "that hue of orange is rather interesting...I've not seen that before", or "the clouds seem to have picked up a pink tinge, perhaps from a hue shift?". Then, those seeking to learn from others may get a better idea of why that photo placed in the bottom 10% of the challenge. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:27:51 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
And eschaelar attitude and comment is exactly why the system needs to be implemented.
Thank you for proving my point so very clearly |
Added comment to image's page to add my 2 cents and interpretation of the comment.
 |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:31:19 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm a bit puzzled by your stance. You listed pros and cons for having an editorial option but I find it odd that you would be championing this. Are you not in favor of receivinig honest reactions even if they may be packaged in a crude or even vile manner? ... |
I'm championing this because of the issue of vile reactions to models and not photographs (which I've experienced), and because the SC is not qualified to recognize potential issues of libel and the like.
To answer your question directly, yes, I am in complete favour of receiving honest reactions packaged as crude obervations and the like. I have many on my photos; one comment compares my landscape subject with pubic hair. I am a big fan of posthumous' reaction club, for example. I enjoy all commentary, and would find it a rather bland experience to get nothing but "you're awesome" comments. I would use the delete function sparingly.
Others might not, and that's the point of contention with kirbic for example. I recognize this - read the first post in this thread, which I wrote. But my view, which is not being addressed at all (presumably because it is so diametrically opposed to the view of the majority of SC) is that most people would not use a delete function to excise negative comments that are constructive. Some people would, sure. But who cares? What difference does it make? I don't accept the view that the commenting system would collapse or become meaningless because a minority would choose to use it for the shallowest of reasons. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:31:47 PM · #113 |
to all those that think we should have a delete button that we can use at will, imagine you saw a photo that you liked but had some issues with, or maybe your a CC member and like to do real indepth comments. You spend a lot of time on the photo, looking at it and trying to put your thoughts into words, maybe half an hour, maybe even an hour. The next day you notice the thin skinned photographer deleted it because you mentioned that the focus may be a little off, among all your other thoughts, ideas and opinions on the photo.
Would you think twice about putting that much effort into a comment again? If you did do another long and indepth comment like that, would you dare say anything negative? Or do you have no problem putting a lot of time into something only to have someone delete it? Or do you simply never comment? Or do you rarely spend more then a minute or two on a comment?
I'd love to hear some responses.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:33:46 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Others might not, and that's the point of contention with kirbic for example. I recognize this - read the first post in this thread, which I wrote. But my view, which is not being addressed at all (presumably because it is so diametrically opposed to the view of the majority of SC) is that most people would not use a delete function to excise negative comments that are constructive. Some people would, sure. But who cares? What difference does it make? I don't accept the view that the commenting system would collapse or become meaningless because a minority would choose to use it for the shallowest of reasons. |
Louis, thus my post showing examples of what we get reported to us. YOU may use it sparingly, but our experience is that there are a lot more photographers that would not. We get a lot or report posts. More about "petty" stuff than serious ones. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:36:26 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm championing this because of the issue of vile reactions to models and not photographs (which I've experienced), and because the SC is not qualified to recognize potential issues of libel and the like. |
If you are worried about your models being offended or even sueing you, you can simply not post the photos here.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:38:20 PM · #116 |
I've had a few comments that I marked unhelpful mainly because it just didnt make sense but I got one comment on my 1st or 2nd entry when I first started "they're not even in FOCUS! did you actually think you might win?" To me that was a little harsh since I was new and I wasn't aware of the report comment feature when I first came.
I personally would like to be able to delete comments or to have the option of not recieving any at all. Not that I haven't left rude comments, but it was usually something that made me wanna barf. Comments that I dislike usually tick me off then I get over it cause i'm sure i've peed in someones wheaties before. But if we had a poll I'd vote for user control on deleting them. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:38:30 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Louis:
Others might not, and that's the point of contention with kirbic for example. I recognize this - read the first post in this thread, which I wrote. But my view, which is not being addressed at all (presumably because it is so diametrically opposed to the view of the majority of SC) is that most people would not use a delete function to excise negative comments that are constructive. Some people would, sure. But who cares? What difference does it make? I don't accept the view that the commenting system would collapse or become meaningless because a minority would choose to use it for the shallowest of reasons. |
Louis, thus my post showing examples of what we get reported to us. YOU may use it sparingly, but our experience is that there are a lot more photographers that would not. We get a lot or report posts. More about "petty" stuff than serious ones. |
Yeah, I understand. And I do understand the desire to balance the needs of photographers versus the need to make the comment system an educational experience, especially for newcomers. This might not be such a cut-and-dry issue as it might at first seem. There has to be a consensus though, to be fair to everyone. Which is why I thought Gordon's suggestion in the other thread was so reasonable. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:40:21 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
This thread or the other did not start about harsh comments about a photograph. It started about personally insulting the models in the photographs. |
To state one's opinion about how the subject of the photo makes one feel is not a personal insult -- it is an honest reaction -- one with which some may or may not agree. Besides, I'd rather get that than phony platitudes lies. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:42:14 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Gordon, that's not the point at all... and I think you know this. The point is, the minute we start removing things "just because", we simply won't have time to do anything else. The tidal wave of requests we'll get will make the current rate look like a ripple on a mud puddle.
We *must* accept that with the intelligent, considered comments we'll get some inane, juvenile, and arguably useless ones. If I've got to sort through thousands of comments per week to decide which are which, then please accept my resignation. |
So implement a delete button that the photographer can use for comments on their images ? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:43:55 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So implement a delete button that the photographer can use for comments on their images ? |
How precisely will that help to encourage honest, open discourse on images? I don't like your comment, pfft, it's gone. Well, I'm sure you'll be greatly encouraged to comment honestly (or at all) in the future.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 21:44:53. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:51:40 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So implement a delete button that the photographer can use for comments on their images ? |
How precisely will that help to encourage honest, open discourse on images? I don't like your comment, pfft, it's gone. Well, I'm sure you'll be greatly encouraged to comment honestly (or at all) in the future. |
Well deleting messages from threads according to SC do encourage honest, open discourse on issues, so it would do the same on images. I guess. :-D |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:55:16 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Well deleting messages from threads according to SC do encourage honest, open discourse on issues, so it would do the same on images. I guess. :-D |
So I guess you want to be able to spout off however you wish in the forums without censorship of any kind, and you wish to censor others' comments at your whim... correct? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:58:28 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Well deleting messages from threads according to SC do encourage honest, open discourse on issues, so it would do the same on images. I guess. :-D |
So I guess you want to be able to spout off however you wish in the forums without censorship of any kind, and you wish to censor others' comments at your whim... correct? |
I merely stated current situation where deleting messages works. So if that works, why other could not work.
Don't take it too seriously though, was just pulling your leg. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:02:11 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
I merely stated current situation where deleting messages works. So if that works, why other could not work.
Don't take it too seriously though, was just pulling your leg. |
Yes, deleting messages that violate the ToS works... as does deleting comments that violate the ToS. Same standard, same action. you've just described the current status.
And I *try* to not take it all too seriously |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:09:09 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
How precisely will that help to encourage honest, open discourse on images? I don't like your comment, pfft, it's gone. Well, I'm sure you'll be greatly encouraged to comment honestly (or at all) in the future. |
So what ? you don't like my comment. It's gone. So what ? Really - what are you afraid of ?
I've spent the time to type it. If it was randomly stupid/ insulting/ useless like all the examples of comments people would delete, then so what ?
I might learn that randomly moronic posting isn't particularly valuable.
Or that posting 'LOL' doesn't have a lot of value.
Maybe I'll learn that comparisons to my uncle Horace aren't particularly useful in relation to 12 year old girls.
If those are the sorts of comments we lose then I say, great - then the comments might actually start getting useful and we could distill down to the valuable, meaningful comments.
I suppose if you've actually had insightful, detailed comments reported and asked to have those removed then that's certainly a different concern. Feel free to point out those cases to help with the discussion. If it's just inane rambling about people who look like relatives or snapshots, then I say make the report post button do an automatic delete. The SC can get back to doing all the important stuff you are doing and the comments get purged of the crap that gets reported (at least from the examples posted so far to date, nobody would be losing anything educational at all) |
|
