| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2007 01:44:18 PM · #151 |
Holy shit, I subconsciously yanko'd Artyste. This whole yanko'ing this is just getting completely out of control.
edit: Artyste is no longer a user - is this still yankoing? Do I need to submit a ticket?
edit edit: You're as wrong now as you were in April 2007!
edit edit edit: Maybe Artyste would still be here if the idea had been implemented back then. Stop chasing off users with your stubborness  L2!
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 13:46:09. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 01:55:06 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by L2:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious flaw in the plan with regard to splitting up the Free Studies into one week groups and limiting submissions to just one entry per month:
Let's say Minimal runs first, you aren't interested, move on. Basic runs next, you got a great shot so you enter. Advanced runs, you only had an OK shot but you know you can't enter so you lick your wounds and hope your Basic score holds up. Now here's Expert, and OMG you have your best idea ever ever ever, but you've already taken your chance in Basic so you miss out. Damn! If only you hadn't entered too early!
Shoot, lose, hope, repeat. |
The answer is simple: The November free studies are open for any image shot in November. BUT the submissions are staggered throughout December, in a rotating order. So you can review all your November shots before picking your challenge; you just may have to wait a while to enter the one you pick.
Meanwhile, it's December and you're busy shooting for the December Free Study...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:00:56 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Holy shit, I subconsciously yanko'd Artyste. This whole yanko'ing this is just getting completely out of control.
edit: Artyste is no longer a user - is this still yankoing? Do I need to submit a ticket?
edit edit: You're as wrong now as you were in April 2007!
edit edit edit: Maybe Artyste would still be here if the idea had been implemented back then. Stop chasing off users with your stubborness L2! |
You can call me wrong all day long, routerguy, but the fact remains that more challenges to enter does not equal less submissions. Increasing the frequency of the Free Studies from random to quarterly to monthly has proven that. :) |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:05:09 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I don't think we can make people vote more than already is, but, what we should think about is that how to make voted images lesser than already is; so people already voting hundreds a week would better justify most images (I think that's what I mean here)
So, here is another idea... Free study should stay in voting 3 weeks. Each week last 150 images that are scored low could be dropped totally (or some percentage can be worked out, like 1/3 images dropped out)... and last week voting there will be only about 200 photos left (or only 1/3 left)... people might be more interested in last finalists and vote on them...
Would that be fair? or no?
(I may just become stupider here with that suggestion) |
I proposed something similar over a year ago, a tiered voting system where the field was cut to, say, the top 50% or 33% or whatever after 3 days of voting. Went over like a lead balloon...
R. |
I like celebrating the other end..shots that are quirky and scoring either mediocre or poorly...I don't really care about ribbons. I am sure some people wonder why I bother at all. Simply put, there seems to be a community within DPC who like these same things.
Narrowing down to the few possible 'ribbon' winners makes sense from a practical point of view I agree, but I don't think I could stomach the boasting and moaning on the forums regarding making the cut. How many plus 7's etc., extra awards for finishing with a 'high' score. Maybe these things would clean up the site, and make it run more efficiently. Personally I would rather get fewer votes than put more emphasis on the winners. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:05:36 PM · #155 |
What does the verb "to yanko" mean? And how is it conjugated? Yanko'd or yankoed?
typos
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 14:05:58. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:12:00 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
What does the verb "to yanko" mean? And how is it conjugated? Yanko'd or yankoed?
typos |
yanko: (v): (yayn-koh) : To present someone else's ideas as your original thought, most often in the same venue.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:12:23 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by L2:
You can call me wrong all day long, routerguy, but the fact remains that more challenges to enter does not equal less submissions. Increasing the frequency of the Free Studies from random to quarterly to monthly has proven that. :) |
... but it might if we take into consideration the proposal made by  bear_music and others.
As things are now what we have is a free for all, devil may care approach to submissions. A more structured approach might alleviate some of the problems we are currently experiencing.
Perhaps the most important facet of the proposal made is that the proponents of the new mechanism are suggesting it be undertaken on a trial basis... surely that would provide us with an appreciation of whether it works or not.
Just a thought,
Ray |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:15:32 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Holy shit, I subconsciously yanko'd Artyste. This whole yanko'ing this is just getting completely out of control.
edit: Artyste is no longer a user - is this still yankoing? Do I need to submit a ticket?
edit edit: You're as wrong now as you were in April 2007!
edit edit edit: Maybe Artyste would still be here if the idea had been implemented back then. Stop chasing off users with your stubborness L2! |
You can call me wrong all day long, routerguy, but the fact remains that more challenges to enter does not equal less submissions. Increasing the frequency of the Free Studies from random to quarterly to monthly has proven that. :) |
Nonsense. This is like saying "well we started offering free crack every month thinking that doing so only once per quarter was causing a big build-up of demand".
People like the Free Studies and will continue to enter wether offered weekly, monthly or quarterly. By segregating them based on editing ruleset, you can at least split the crowd up into 4 more manageable groups. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:20:49 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Holy shit, I subconsciously yanko'd Artyste. This whole yanko'ing this is just getting completely out of control.
edit: Artyste is no longer a user - is this still yankoing? Do I need to submit a ticket?
edit edit: You're as wrong now as you were in April 2007!
edit edit edit: Maybe Artyste would still be here if the idea had been implemented back then. Stop chasing off users with your stubborness L2! |
You can call me wrong all day long, routerguy, but the fact remains that more challenges to enter does not equal less submissions. Increasing the frequency of the Free Studies from random to quarterly to monthly has proven that. :) |
Nonsense. This is like saying "well we started offering free crack every month thinking that doing so only once per quarter was causing a big build-up of demand".
People like the Free Studies and will continue to enter wether offered weekly, monthly or quarterly. By segregating them based on editing ruleset, you can at least split the crowd up into 4 more manageable groups. |
Ok, so what happens when we hit 100,000 people, and the 4 once-manageable groups swells to 600 entries each? Then what? Make it 8 groups? 16 groups? Have a Daily Free Study?
While splitting the Free Studies may work in the short term for reducing the number of entries, we have seen that each time challenges have been split up to reduce entries or run more frequently to reduce entries, within 6 months we are right back where we started.
I'd rather see a forward-thinking long-term solution, one that will continue to work as the site grows. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:32:59 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by L2:
I'd rather see a forward-thinking long-term solution, one that will continue to work as the site grows. |
Ok... Let's limit growth. There are lots of ways to do that, and it's not a negative idea either. One way to potentially limit growth is to increase the membership fee. $50 or even $100 per year could have a very positive impact on challenges by taking out the casual participants. You could also possibly create a 'gold' membership level where the members pay $100 per year and get exclusive access to a different set of challenges that aren't visible to the other membership...
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:39:00 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by L2:
I'd rather see a forward-thinking long-term solution, one that will continue to work as the site grows. |
Ok... Let's limit growth. There are lots of ways to do that, and it's not a negative idea either. One way to potentially limit growth is to increase the membership fee. $50 or even $100 per year could have a very positive impact on challenges by taking out the casual participants. You could also possibly create a 'gold' membership level where the members pay $100 per year and get exclusive access to a different set of challenges that aren't visible to the other membership... |
What a thought! continue in the same venue, for $500 a year you get access to exclusive challenges with no more than 3 entries, so one ribbon is guaranteed, and for $100 a pop you can buy yourself a blue ribbon... :P
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 14:39:45.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:44:34 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by L2:
Ok, so what happens when we hit 100,000 people, and the 4 once-manageable groups swells to 600 entries each? Then what? Make it 8 groups? 16 groups? Have a Daily Free Study? |
So just because the proposed changes may only improve things for a certain amount of time, you suggest we might as well do nothing at all?
If we keep growing, we'll have to keep coming up with ideas to make things workable. Surely you don't expect to operate anything the same way with 500 members as you would with 50000?
So far, you have presented plenty of arguments against the proposal, but every single bit of your negativity has been countered with a very workable and reasonable solution.
Do you have it in your heart somewhere to listen to everyone and consider that this suggestion could just possibly actually WORK? |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:45:12 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by L2:
I'd rather see a forward-thinking long-term solution, one that will continue to work as the site grows. |
Ok... Let's limit growth. There are lots of ways to do that, and it's not a negative idea either. One way to potentially limit growth is to increase the membership fee. $50 or even $100 per year could have a very positive impact on challenges by taking out the casual participants. You could also possibly create a 'gold' membership level where the members pay $100 per year and get exclusive access to a different set of challenges that aren't visible to the other membership... |
Different levels of membership - I agree that this is not necessarily a negative idea. I had proposed something similar earlier in the thread with regard to participation privileges that had no extra financial cost, so I believe we are in the same book if not on the same page. :)Other sites also have varying levels of membership; it's certainly something that should be under consideration. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:46:17 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by bucket:
I like celebrating the other end..shots that are quirky and scoring either mediocre or poorly...I don't really care about ribbons. I am sure some people wonder why I bother at all. Simply put, there seems to be a community within DPC who like these same things.
Narrowing down to the few possible 'ribbon' winners makes sense from a practical point of view I agree, but I don't think I could stomach the boasting and moaning on the forums regarding making the cut. How many plus 7's etc., extra awards for finishing with a 'high' score. Maybe these things would clean up the site, and make it run more efficiently. Personally I would rather get fewer votes than put more emphasis on the winners. |
Well said...well said. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:49:34 PM · #165 |
Premium membership with the following perks would get my vote:
- prem only challenges with 720x/200kb entry paramaters
- extra portfolio space
- more stuff I can't think of now but will demand later |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:50:34 PM · #166 |
Personally, I live for the free studies. At least my DPC life.
Since too few people are willing to vote, perhaps it's time to cut down on the entries indeed. But I'd rather continue to have choices, like the free studies, and another solution.
What about simply limiting the number of challenges you can enter to one per week. And the week when the free study is available, that's one of your choices as well.
(Forgive me if it's been suggested below, I've read part, but not all of the thread.)
I'm sure the knee jerk reaction is "No!" But think about it: it's virtually guaranteed to limit, and scale back, the number of entries more than the current system, with or without free studies.
And then you get your choice of challenges to enter. But you may only enter one a week. Perhaps people will focus on quality as well, and there will be a nice increase in the effort per "photo" submitted.
Just my two cents. (BTW - I like the staggered four free study idea. And it fits in nicely with the above, or can be modified simply that you could potentially enter ALL FOUR free studies, but that's your only challenge for the week.)
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:51:22 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
So just because the proposed changes may only improve things for a certain amount of time, you suggest we might as well do nothing at all?
If we keep growing, we'll have to keep coming up with ideas to make things workable. Surely you don't expect to operate anything the same way with 500 members as you would with 50000?
So far, you have presented plenty of arguments against the proposal, but every single bit of your negativity has been countered with a very workable and reasonable solution.
Do you have it in your heart somewhere to listen to everyone and consider that this suggestion could just possibly actually WORK? |
Except, we already know that it does not work for any length of time.
For the record, it was, in fact, me who put Judi's suggestion in the SC Discussion area so your assertion that I'm not listening isn't quite accurate.
I (personally) am looking for an idea that will work for more than 6 months. I hardly think that means I'm not looking to resolve the concerns. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:52:55 PM · #168 |
NShapiro's idea is also agood, plus he is for the split FS idea which makes his ideas all the more attractive.
Get on the bus, L2. Get on the bus or get run over. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 02:56:43 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suggest that the free study challenges be abandoned. It's very obvious that the voters are not interested in them when you examine the number of votes that are cast. The winning photo in the most recent free study only received 126 votes in that challenge. That's 24.2% of the total number of entries (520) in that challenge. This leads to the conclusion that people are interested in entering but not voting on that challenge. Why should we continue doing it?
I'm sure the first line of defense for keeping it is that we just don't have time to vote on 520 photos. We have time to make photos for them though... |
I haven't had the entire thread, so I apologize if this thought has already been expressed.
I normally do fairly well in the free studies, but I have to agree with the OP. There are simply too many images to wade through and as I've seen suggested before; splitting up the free study into different "free study" categories will not work either. It will just spread the images out and be even harder to vote on them all.
I say get rid of free study all together. Perhaps have an occasional weekly free study to make up for it, but make it very occasional. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 03:04:54 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Premium membership with the following perks would get my vote:
- prem only challenges with 720x/200kb entry paramaters
- extra portfolio space
- more stuff I can't think of now but will demand later |
I already know number 3. It's another forum bot like "outtakes" but this one acknowledges your posts with a post of it's own saying "word up" and the music of Cameo starts to play for like a minute.
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 15:05:24.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 03:05:36 PM · #171 |
Does it look so bad when the stats are presented like this:
Oct Free Study: 61,360 total votes
Halloween: 19,470 total votes
Something New: 17,820 total votes
Something Old: 27,664 total votes
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 03:11:27 PM · #172 |
I'm more than a little surprised at all the gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair, etc., over a problem that at worst doesn't exist, and at best is ill-defined.
What's the real issue? Too many entries, or too few votes? I submit that:
1.) Voting has been declining, and that it is reaching a point where we're getting near the minimum acceptable number of votes per image on some challenges. The challenges most affected are the Free Studies, since they have typically the largest number of entries, thus the available votes are spread out.
2.) We already know that splitting challenges has really no positive effect on anything other than to give more choices, and in fact is correlated with (notice I did NOT say "caused") the reversal of our growth trend.
3.) The real solution to the problem is to find ways to encourage voting (see the other thread)
I personally see no compelling reason to undertake revamping of the Free Studies. They are a pleasure to vote. they comprise, currently, about half of the member images submitted per month. They often contain some of the most outstanding images submitted during the month.
In short, let's focus on getting out the vote. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 03:17:21 PM · #173 |
Maybe this has been suggested before, I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll give it a shot. If it was, well, sorry.
~~
I haven't been aroud here for a while, but when I "left", the discussion wasn't the voting but the commenting (times change apparently ;-)). Can we try and find a way to combine these 2 issues?
What I'm thinking about, is that a member needs to make, for example, 50 or 100 comments in one month before he or she can participate in the Free Study. This helps to reduce the amount of entries, it's fair play, comments are given, and there are less photos in the challenge to vote on, so it might be easier to take the step and vote.
~~
Another idea is to do it the same way as the Special free study:
"This challenge is open to those who have given more comments than they have received."
Maybe try to change it like this:
"This challenge is open to those who have given more VOTES than they have received."
~~
Just throwing in some suggestions :)
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 15:18:24. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 03:20:25 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by biteme:
Another idea is to do it the same way as the Special free study:
"This challenge is open to those who have given more comments than they have received."
Maybe try to change it like this:
"This challenge is open to those who have given more VOTES than they have received." |
The second is better, for sure. The trouble with the first is that more "succesful" and "popular" members get HUGE numbers of comments; it's like punishing people for doing well...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 03:22:01 PM · #175 |
Hanneke,
The reason that we're unlikely to re-run the "special" Free Study is that it encouraged comments alright... we got lots and lots of fluff comments, and at worst some users that gave cut/paste comments to hundreds of shots just to meet the criteria.
Mandating commenting (or voting) to get some benefit guarantees poor quality comments/votes. the only way that we get meaningful commenting/voting is for it to be voluntary. Folks have to *want* to do it. |
|
