| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2007 11:24:08 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
How, as a voter, do you have any idea why people aren't voting? Because you clearly find reasons to vote, and therefore have no real idea why non-voters aren't voting. All you can do is guess, because you're not one of them. Most of what I've seen in this thread is either useless or punitive and alienating, and little of it comes from the people you're trying to motivate. So I repeat, why not ask them? That's the only way you'll ever really know why or how. Anything less is wasting a lot of time and energy. |
She does have a point... I wonder if the site can sort out in some way a list of those who participate in challenges but vote very little, and send them a mail asking for feedback as to why? 'Cuz I doubt very many of the non-regular voters participate in these threads.
R. |
Count me as one of the non-regular voters. If you want my reasons for not participating, see my earlier posts.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 11:34:51 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Actually, this response is a perfect example of why SC shouldn't be taking suggestions from the people who do vote regularly - their answers are a reflection of their own bitterness, resentment, perception of inequity, and so on. It certainly taints their answers, and is clearly pitting voters against non-voters instead of bringing the two groups closer to the middle. It's a defensive stance, not an inclusive action.
|
It's stuff like this that promote defensive stances and inhibit inclusive actions. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 11:36:35 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Count me as one of the non-regular voters. If you want my reasons for not participating, see my earlier posts. |
Same here. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 11:49:54 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Actually, this response is a perfect example of why SC shouldn't be taking suggestions from the people who do vote regularly - their answers are a reflection of their own bitterness, resentment, perception of inequity, and so on. It certainly taints their answers, and is clearly pitting voters against non-voters instead of bringing the two groups closer to the middle. It's a defensive stance, not an inclusive action.
|
It's stuff like this that promote defensive stances and inhibit inclusive actions. |
Well, when one group effectively attacks another by making suggestions that serve to do nothing but institute a rather clever way of barring them from participating at all, what do you expect? Restrictive covenants really just eliminate one's competition, so I can see the benefit of suggesting it.
But then you're not increasing the number of votes, just reducing the number of entries - so why bother? Someone will pop up and suggest that the number of entries is the problem, but that's really just idle speculation. There's no way to know without asking the people who aren't voting.
Really, this is a marketing problem, so attack it from a marketing perspective. Right now, all you know is that you have a problem, but you're looking for an answer before you even know the question! You want to sell the idea of voting to non-voters. The first thing you need to know is why they're not voting, and all the board room speculation in the world will not make up for a lack of actual research. Brainstorming ideas on how to fix it should happen after the cause has already been established.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 11:55:21 PM · #205 |
We could give a .01 score boost to those that vote 100%. 90% of those that entered would vote then. :-)
I actually like Simms' idea in the OP though.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 11:58:27 PM · #206 |
I think it's very clear why people are not voting... too many photos to go through (too many entries) and lock of quality of the photos waiting to be voted (bad entries)
It comes to this; people enter to challenge just to enter, without thinking the quality of the image and the concept here.
And the concept is (or I thought it was) to improve our photography, exchange ideas. Not throw garbage and hope someone would pick it up (Please no offence to people, I do have some garbage I put out also, but I have changed my way now... so...) |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:00:43 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I think it's very clear why people are not voting... too many photos to go through (too many entries) and lock of quality of the photos waiting to be voted (bad entries) |
Despite the fact that multiple people have given this as the reason they are no longer voting, I'm afraid this still qualifies as idle speculation. Move along now. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:01:19 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
I don’t know if this has been suggested before so here goes.
How about introducing a “Profile Browse” feature under My Home. It would work like the “Browse Photos” feature under the Photo menu.
It would list up to 500 profiles per page (max. 1000) and you could browse by
1. Most Votes Cast
2. Most Comments given
3. Most Challenges voted
It would show the users profile picture and below, the username.
Then below that it would (based on which browse function the viewer chooses) show 1, 2, or 3 from above.
If users love to see their photos make it to the top of the page, they should want to see their profile make it to the top of the page. With thousands of users on the site this would be a great way to get seen. Others will click your profile and want to see your work or review your comments.
What do you think about this idea? |
After five pages of post I feel this suggestion may have been lost among the chatter. Thank you  Bear_Music for thinking it was a good idea.
If anyone does not understand what I mean about this post just go to Photo> Browse photos. Just think of everyone of those pictures being a Users profile picture and their voting stats below. Viewers can browse by
1. Most Votes Cast
2. Most Comments given
3. Most Challenges voted
Personally I think this would work. Try to make it to the first page then try to make it to the top. So what someone has 100K votes so far and you or I only have 17k, lets play catch-up. Would you like to see your profile first or on the in the top 5 or 10.
Site Council please think about this idea.
SDW |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:04:12 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Move along now. |
Yessssir ;) |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:13:10 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Actually, this response is a perfect example of why SC shouldn't be taking suggestions from the people who do vote regularly - their answers are a reflection of their own bitterness, resentment, perception of inequity, and so on. It certainly taints their answers, and is clearly pitting voters against non-voters instead of bringing the two groups closer to the middle. It's a defensive stance, not an inclusive action.
|
It's stuff like this that promote defensive stances and inhibit inclusive actions. |
Well, when one group effectively attacks another by making suggestions that serve to do nothing but institute a rather clever way of barring them from participating at all, what do you expect? Restrictive covenants really just eliminate one's competition, so I can see the benefit of suggesting it.
But then you're not increasing the number of votes, just reducing the number of entries - so why bother? Someone will pop up and suggest that the number of entries is the problem, but that's really just idle speculation. There's no way to know without asking the people who aren't voting.
Really, this is a marketing problem, so attack it from a marketing perspective. Right now, all you know is that you have a problem, but you're looking for an answer before you even know the question! You want to sell the idea of voting to non-voters. The first thing you need to know is why they're not voting, and all the board room speculation in the world will not make up for a lack of actual research. Brainstorming ideas on how to fix it should happen after the cause has already been established. |
I was referring to the tone of your post, not the content.
When you accuse people of being biased, bitter and resentful, you're not engaged in solving the problem, you're adding to it.
Addressing the concerns of non-voters achieves little if in the process you alienate the people who do vote now.
There's as much to learn about motivation to vote from the people who do vote as there is from those who don't.
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 00:16:19. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:22:39 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
[quote=swhiddon] I don’t know if this has been suggested before so here goes.
How about introducing a “Profile Browse” feature under My Home. It would work like the “Browse Photos” feature under the Photo menu....
SDW |
I like this idea also. It doesn't come across negative, or 'punitive' or anything like that, just purely motivational. We all know that there are a LOT of stats junkies around here.
I don't think anyone has suggested this yet, if so I apologize, but- how bout frequent 'invitational' challenges, based on voting stat criteria? We've done it before, for like comments, seemed to work??? SC could even make an announcement beforehand stating that there will be a challenge coming up with [insert specific criteria here].
ETA: to clarify, I mean as in the past, these would be an extra 'bonus' challenge, not something that would exclude people from the regular challenges
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 00:25:27. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 01:57:23 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Actually, this response is a perfect example of why SC shouldn't be taking suggestions from the people who do vote regularly - their answers are a reflection of their own bitterness, resentment, perception of inequity, and so on. It certainly taints their answers, and is clearly pitting voters against non-voters instead of bringing the two groups closer to the middle. It's a defensive stance, not an inclusive action.
If you want the non-voters to vote, you need to ask them what it would take. |
Just for the record, I think I've pretty clearly identified myself as someone who no longer regularly votes.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:07:31 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
how about after every "x" number of comments made or vote cast or both the person making the comment or voting would have their best challenge shot displayed on the front page in a special corner until the next "x" vote/comment received, then that person's best shot takes the place of the previous one. |
What a wonderful idea! |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:34:54 AM · #214 |
We have had some answers as to why people don't vote so why don't we put the shoe on the other foot and try to understand why people do vote - maybe the answer lies there also.
As stated in a previous post ... I usually vote on all pictures in a challenge that I am participating in and I am trying to get better with the comments.
Why? Because I figured that was the way it worked. If I want people to vote on my entry, I in return would vote on theirs. I sometimes vote on other challenges that I am not participating in but not very often.
Are some of the shots boring ... well ... yes. But I take comfort in knowing that that person is hopefully going to vote on my entry so that makes things even.
Do I think it's fair for people to put in an entry with no intention of voting? No. If a greater percentage of people were to do that the whole competition side of things will fall apart and that was the thing that drew me to the site in the first place. Forums and side competitions are an added bonus. I suppose that's why I feel that a 20% vote should be compulsory if you enter a challenge because that helps keep the balance.
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 02:41:51. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 09:44:45 AM · #215 |
Just bumping this thread, and the commenting thread, to say that even with my dialup, my 33,600 dialup, I have made my 20% voted and 15% commented in both challenges I'm entered in right now.
I will do better, but that's my bump/up date.
I know, I know, if I'd quit yammering in the forums, I'd get more done, but hey.......8>)
Edited for fat fingers.....I oughta just put that in my signature!
Message edited by author 2007-11-13 09:47:00.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2007 10:22:15 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Edited for fat fingers.....I oughta just put that in my signature! |
I don't see signatures ;)
I actually haven't voted in a while, but mostly because I work in retail and it is the holidy season. Plus, my business picks up around this time and I am involved in a couple of "helping hands" projects for the season. My husband is also out of the country and that leaves me with my 5 kids to wrangle LOLOL
I will be back as I am sure many of us will... a lot of people are pressed for time right now and I don't know about you, but I like to have the time to vote right and comment when I do it :) |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 10:39:22 AM · #217 |
What about this idea to get people voting
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=703702 |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 10:51:58 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by spencerwood:
What about this idea to get people voting
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=703702 |
Here you go. :-)
link to thread |
|
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: 08/07/2025 02:35:29 AM EDT.
