| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2007 03:00:40 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by studiog2:
...
Regardless of their interpretation, are they considering the theme at all? How do we know?
The voting page simply says to rate this from good to bad. In a free study that is that is needed, imo. But if there is more criteria to be considered how does anyone know? I know it is in the rules page and people are *supposed* to know that, and consider it in there vote. But how do we know that is happening? |
How do we know they are not voting with their eyes closed or that they are voting with one shoe on. I guess I don't get your point... |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 03:31:43 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by studiog2:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If you don't think a photo meets the challenge, that's fine, but complaining about the placement of a photo means that the bulk of the voters disagree with you. |
You can not tell that from the available data. You are assuming people are voting under the guidelines set forth in rules of this site. |
Sure you can. If you don't think a photo should have placed high, the available data (average score) proves that the bulk of the voters disagree with you. I don't have to assume that people are voting under the guidelines- it's obvious from the fact that there's no doubt most winners met the challenge and that many great DNMC photos bomb. If you think voters don't take the topic seriously, just try entering a stunning photo with zero conceivable connection to the challenge and see where you wind up. You'll quickly discover the difference between ignoring the topic and having an open mind. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 03:59:30 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by studiog2:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If you don't think a photo meets the challenge, that's fine, but complaining about the placement of a photo means that the bulk of the voters disagree with you. Good luck with that. There are plenty of beautiful photos that score poorly, but few ugly ones reach the top no matter how well they meet the challenge. Clearly, a pretty picture alone isn't enough and merely meeting the challenge is not the only goal. |
"...the placement of a photo means that the bulk of the voters disagree with you"
You can not tell that from the available data. You are assuming people are voting under the guidelines set forth in rules of this site.
How do we know people are doing that?
How does anyone know how people are voting? Where is the data?
Regardless of their interpretation, are they considering the theme at all? How do we know?
The voting page simply says to rate this from good to bad. In a free study that is that is needed, imo. But if there is more criteria to be considered how does anyone know? I know it is in the rules page and people are *supposed* to know that, and consider it in there vote. But how do we know that is happening? |
Maybe everyone just needs you to tell them what to think. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:15:10 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by studiog2:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If you don't think a photo meets the challenge, that's fine, but complaining about the placement of a photo means that the bulk of the voters disagree with you. |
You can not tell that from the available data. You are assuming people are voting under the guidelines set forth in rules of this site. |
Sure you can. If you don't think a photo should have placed high, the available data (average score) proves that the bulk of the voters disagree with you. I don't have to assume that people are voting under the guidelines- it's obvious from the fact that there's no doubt most winners met the challenge and that many great DNMC photos bomb. If you think voters don't take the topic seriously, just try entering a stunning photo with zero conceivable connection to the challenge and see where you wind up. You'll quickly discover the difference between ignoring the topic and having an open mind. ;-) |
I̢۪m not complaining, I̢۪m asking questions. And I do have an open mind.
All the average scores tell me is the impact of the images had on the viewer. Is that what you mean?
The top 20 highest average scores were mostly advanced editing. The 20 lowest average scores were basic or classic editing.
So what that tells me is advanced editing makes images that have more impact (better) then images done with basic editing. Just my opinion.
Please tell me how that corresponds to not meeting the challenge. Your argument would have more merit if the majority of submissions did not meet challenge, then the scores would reflect that. Assuming voters were giving photos a lower score for what they thought did not meet the challenge. And that̢۪s what we don̢۪t know.
If you are saying that the more open minded viewer is going to see fewer submissions that they feel does not meet challenge. I would agree.
So then why have challenges with themes at all? That to me is like giving children tests and not grading them because it may hurt a few feelings. A few schools have wanted to implement that btw.
Why not just have free studies? Then this idea of not meeting challenges goes away.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:34:27 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Maybe everyone just needs you to tell them what to think. |
I think you have it backwards. I want to know what others think.
How do I know what the votes means with out a comment. All I can do is assume. It's good photo but dnmc. It's a bad shot but it does mc.
What I want to know is what could I have done better?
Did you get what I was trying to do? What is wrong with my photo technically?
Comments tell me that. But you don't always get them, or in large numbers. Considering the vote to comment ratio.
And althought comments like: great shot. Beautiful photo are nice to hear, good for the soul. But it is not very constructive.
edited for spelling
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 16:36:02. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:43:51 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by studiog2:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Maybe everyone just needs you to tell them what to think. |
I think you have it backwards. I want to know what others think.
How do I know what the votes means with out a comment. All I can do is assume. It's good photo but dnmc. It's a bad shot but it does mc.
What I want to know is what could I have done better?
Did you get what I was trying to do? What is wrong with my photo technically?
Comments tell me that. But you don't always get them, or in large numbers. Concidering the vote to comment ratio.
And althought comments like: great shot. Beautiful photo are nice to hear, good for the soul. But it is not very constructive. |
You've repeatedly asserted that other's opinions about images meeting the challenge or not meeting the challenge are wrong and that your opinion about shots that place well but do not, in your mind, meet the challenge, supercedes the opinion of the majority.
My suggestion, in light of your high-minded approach, was that you should simply tell the voters what to think so that we don't have to bother.
As for comments, they are left solely at the discretion of the commenter. If you are lucky enough to receive any, you should view them as gifts, no matter how insignificant you believe them to be. There is almost always a degree of truth in them. If you can't extract that bit of truth from the comments you recieve, I'd say it's a sign you fall short and not the comment. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:45:24 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...just try entering a stunning photo with zero conceivable connection to the challenge and see where you wind up. You'll quickly discover the difference between ignoring the topic and having an open mind. ;-) |
With an open mind zero connection may be imopssible. ;)
But, ok I'll try, as soon as I take a stunning photo, so don't hold your breath. :) |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:01:22 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by studiog2:
All the average scores tell me is the impact of the images had on the viewer. |
...within the context of the challenge topic. To think otherwise implies that the bulk of DPC voters are too stupid to understand the rules or incapable of judging challenge connections on their own. An entry simply cannot get a high score unless most voters accept its connection to the topic, no matter how much a few people may disagree. How MANY think an entry meets the challenge doesn't matter as much as whether a majority do. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:05:51 PM · #459 |
I just glanced over the recent posts so I may be wrong but am I seeing those who don't seem to have an open mind in regards to the checkbox idea accusing others of the same in regards to photos not meeting the challenge? How ironic! :))
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 17:06:14.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:40:03 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I just glanced over the recent posts so I may be wrong but am I seeing those who don't seem to have an open mind in regards to the checkbox idea accusing others of the same in regards to photos not meeting the challenge? How ironic! :)) |
Au contraire, I have carefully evaluated the checkbox proposal and still don't like it, for several reasons which I (and many others) have stated ... |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:43:18 PM · #461 |
I still do not see what would be so tough about simply having the same set up we have now, with the exception of having two sets of 1-10 radial buttons to click on. One for the technical and viewing quality of the photo, and the second for how well it meets the challenge. (not req. for free studies obviously) Then simply average the two and apply it as the score given.
If I rate a photo an 8 for viewing, and a 2 for meeting the challenge, then it would score a 5. What is so tough about that? It forces everyone to think about meeting the challenge when voting, and would not take any more time for anyone. (since folks are trying to say that everyone considers both these things now anyways..)
The other thing would be that no one would be getting disqualified for not meeting the challenge this way, however it is in your advantage for your connection to meeting the challenge to be obvious, as it should be.
Of course the last time I suggested this I got slammed, so I likely will now as well....bring it on. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:12:55 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Then simply average the two and apply it as the score given. |
I'd think that those who automatically give DNMC a 1 would obviously think that more weight should be given to that criterion. Others might think the photo "quality" should account for at least 70% of the score. Other's will think there should be other weighting schemes. "Simply averaging" is not that simple ... FWIW this type of voting has been proposed/considered many times in the past. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:24:01 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Then simply average the two and apply it as the score given. |
I'd think that those who automatically give DNMC a 1 would obviously think that more weight should be given to that criterion. Others might think the photo "quality" should account for at least 70% of the score. Other's will think there should be other weighting schemes. "Simply averaging" is not that simple ... FWIW this type of voting has been proposed/considered many times in the past. |
Thank you for the response. The fact that weighting each equally is both the easiest and the middle road for the two sides makes it the right choice. This system also handles the complaints of the side that says that DNMC should be taken into account somehow, and also the side of those that think that a photo should not be DQ'd just for DNMC. Even you yourself Gen E have stated that if you enter a photo where the challenge is not obviously met (because it is something obscure but really does meet it) then you deserve to get a lower score because you know the masses will not make the connection.
So once again...is this not a decent middle road?
edit spelling
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 18:25:32. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:33:12 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd think
Others might think
Other's will think |
Think you've done an excellent job summarizing all the arguments being offered against this proposal. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:36:16 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd think
Others might think
Other's will think |
Think you've done an excellent job summarizing all the arguments being offered against this proposal. |
If he indeed speaks on behalf of all those people..which he doesn't. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 07:48:48 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
A "secret ballot" is not the same as facing a specific accusation without the ability to respond. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It is if the secret ballot includes voting instructions to bear the relevance of the image to the challenge topic in mind while voting. Anyone who thinks an image DNMC will score it lower.
We're just trying to encourage more people to explicitly express the DNMC opinion, and making it anonymous makes it easier to do. It's not an accusation, it's a perception.
FWIW, I'm NOT in favor of having this feature change the scoring in any way; I think the idea of "15% or more DNMC = DQ" or whatever the scheme was; I think that's ridiculous and subject to abuse. I just think the DATA would be good to have. |
This is a reasonably worded and perceived concept of what I, and others, are asking.
Throw in the details that it's been suggested that both using it and viewing it are optional, how is there a downside?
It's a non-issue to those who don't care and/or don't want it, and it *may* be of some help to others who would like to more carefully gauge an entry on the image's merits and it's relevancy, as expressed to them by the photog.....again, how is this bad?
Originally posted by yanko:
I just glanced over the recent posts so I may be wrong but am I seeing those who don't seem to have an open mind in regards to the checkbox idea accusing others of the same in regards to photos not meeting the challenge? How ironic! :)) |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Au contraire, I have carefully evaluated the checkbox proposal and still don't like it, for several reasons which I (and many others) have stated ... |
Just my impression, but I question the careful evaluation based on your vehement dislike of the premise from the outset. I can't imagine that your perspective would allow you to see the positive aspects versus the drawbacks and not reach the conclusion you had when you started. Not that it's wrong, but I don't believe you're interested in reviewing it in a favorable light at all. I can respect your point of view, I just don't agree any more than you with us.
Originally posted by muckpond:
actually, i don't think i've ever bashed the checkbox idea. i've been trying to bash the "DNMC" idea in general. |
Well this kind of floored me! Especially coming from an SC member.
How can you possibly quash someone's opinion that one photog's entry didn't translate for another?
That's inconceivable. A DNMC opinion is just a fact of the varied cultures and perspectives of the voters and the entrants.
Can those that are opposed really support this supposed detrimental outcome of a feature that effectively doesn't mean anything to those who choose not to use it?
And I'm not trying to bait anyone with that question......I'm sort of stunned by how resistant some are to this simply because in the grand scheme, it really doesn't mean much.
The proponents of this feature across the board are people who *will* take the time and effort to make a conscientious comment and score to any image that moves them greatly, be it positive *or* negative, and have, and you won't hear of any of us crying ourselves to sleep, but why is it that such a trivial, but what may turn out to be valuable info gatherer has you all so worked up?
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 19:51:18.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:13:35 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Au contraire, I have carefully evaluated the checkbox proposal and still don't like it, for several reasons which I (and many others) have stated ... |
Just my impression, but I question the careful evaluation based on your vehement dislike of the premise from the outset. |
You'd have a stronger point if this was the first time the idea (or something similar to it) had been presented. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:40:37 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Au contraire, I have carefully evaluated the checkbox proposal and still don't like it, for several reasons which I (and many others) have stated ... |
Just my impression, but I question the careful evaluation based on your vehement dislike of the premise from the outset. |
You'd have a stronger point if this was the first time the idea (or something similar to it) had been presented. |
...or even the tenth time... |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:52:33 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's a non-issue to those who don't care and/or don't want it, and it *may* be of some help to others who would like to more carefully gauge an entry on the image's merits and it's relevancy, as expressed to them by the photog.....again, how is this bad?
Can those that are opposed really support this supposed detrimental outcome of a feature that effectively doesn't mean anything to those who choose not to use it?
|
Yepp this is what I am saying all along, if one could switch it off in his/her preference, this should not be any issue to him/her.
But the idea people tossing here is 'since I do not like it' or 'since it is useless to me' the people who wants it should not have it.
Is it not simple that if you do not like the idea or something you could just switch it off. Don't some of you switch off your scores many times.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
......I'm sort of stunned by how resistant some are to this simply because in the grand scheme, it really doesn't mean much.
|
Yepp I am too.
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 20:53:15. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:55:38 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
I still do not see what would be so tough about simply having the same set up we have now, with the exception of having two sets of 1-10 radial buttons to click on. One for the technical and viewing quality of the photo, and the second for how well it meets the challenge. (not req. for free studies obviously) Then simply average the two and apply it as the score given.
If I rate a photo an 8 for viewing, and a 2 for meeting the challenge, then it would score a 5. What is so tough about that? It forces everyone to think about meeting the challenge when voting, and would not take any more time for anyone. (since folks are trying to say that everyone considers both these things now anyways..)
|
Liked the idea. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 08:57:14 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I still do not see what would be so tough about simply having the same set up we have now, with the exception of having two sets of 1-10 radial buttons to click on. One for the technical and viewing quality of the photo, and the second for how well it meets the challenge. (not req. for free studies obviously) Then simply average the two and apply it as the score given.
If I rate a photo an 8 for viewing, and a 2 for meeting the challenge, then it would score a 5. What is so tough about that? It forces everyone to think about meeting the challenge when voting, and would not take any more time for anyone. (since folks are trying to say that everyone considers both these things now anyways..)
|
Liked the idea. |
3 clicks to vote? No thanks.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:03:24 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I still do not see what would be so tough about simply having the same set up we have now, with the exception of having two sets of 1-10 radial buttons to click on. One for the technical and viewing quality of the photo, and the second for how well it meets the challenge. (not req. for free studies obviously) Then simply average the two and apply it as the score given.
If I rate a photo an 8 for viewing, and a 2 for meeting the challenge, then it would score a 5. What is so tough about that? It forces everyone to think about meeting the challenge when voting, and would not take any more time for anyone. (since folks are trying to say that everyone considers both these things now anyways..)
|
Liked the idea. |
3 clicks to vote? No thanks. |
Domp worry not implemented yet.
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 21:03:45. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:05:48 PM · #473 |
The pro-check box people are missing a big point.
There is a real risk that a DNMC tick box would have the opposite of the intended effect. Take the average voter, not overly-familiar with the rules. Faced with a scale of 1-10 and the option to mark an image as "MC" or "DNMC", the voter may be tempted to score the quality of the image using the scale (regardless of the challenge title) and its relevancy using the DNMC radio button.
Result: DNMC images get voted higher and challenges become increasingly divorced from challenge titles.
It is a huge mistake to think that this is only data collection - it WILL influence how voters vote.
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 21:06:49.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:25:40 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The pro-check box people are missing a big point.
There is a real risk that a DNMC tick box would have the opposite of the intended effect. Take the average voter, not overly-familiar with the rules. Faced with a scale of 1-10 and the option to mark an image as "MC" or "DNMC", the voter may be tempted to score the quality of the image using the scale (regardless of the challenge title) and its relevancy using the DNMC radio button.
Result: DNMC images get voted higher and challenges become increasingly divorced from challenge titles.
It is a huge mistake to think that this is only data collection - it WILL influence how voters vote. |
Yet another reason to simply have two criteria, one for the look of the photo, the other for the relevancy, both on the scale of 1-10. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 09:28:34 PM · #475 |
Sorry if the point has been made, i havn't been through all 19 pages of this arguement, but isn't a 1 vote a DNMC?
I personally believe that the winner of the Deja Vu contest was the LEAST like the original in the whole lot.
"Description
Choose a previous ribbon-winning entry THAT ISN'T YOUR OWN and try to emulate it as closely as possible!"
Zero 1 votes Zero 2 votes One 3 vote (thats mine... its a monkey at least)
So, specifically to those of you complaining that we need a DNMC button, what did YOU rate "Thought Process", and why? |
|
