| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/03/2004 12:10:28 AM · #1 |
I just found DPC in the April issue of PC Magazine listed as one of the 100 best undiscovered web sites you didn't know you couldn't live without. That pretty much describes what DPC is to me, my addictive home on the internet. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the creators of this site for their vision and achievement.
However, this discovery does worry me slightly. Certainly, this site cannot remain "undiscovered" for long, and I would dare to say that it no longer is. The number of members, both paying and non-paying, is increasing at an extremely rapid rate. This, of course, is great for the site, and I wholeheartly urge DPC to continue growing. I believe that with massive growth some changes are going to be needed in the future. These ideas have already been discussed, but I'd like to mention briefly some of the problems that I feel are already starting to arise.
There are nearly too many images to vote on per challenge, even to get our 20%, and I would say that the quality of the average shots have gone down, making it even harder to sit through voting. Ideas have been thrown around about making a double level voting process. In the first round, which would last half the week, the bottom half of the images would be eliminated from voting. These photos would not be eliminated and would reappear at the bottom when the challenge was over with any comments they received. The second round of voting would proceed as normal. This is a very rough suggestion and I encourage people who have thought this out more thoroughly to share your ideas with us. Another possible idea would be to have more challenges but only be able to submit to one of them per week or something like that.
Pc magazine described us here as a "lively community", something I expect not to change. I look forward to addition of new members but I think it is necessary to filter out the fluff to keep the "serious digital photography buffs" satisfied while still catering to the needs of inexperienced "newbies" looking to improve.
thoughts?
Message edited by author 2004-04-03 00:10:57. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 12:32:25 AM · #2 |
The number of photos in any given challenge is usually large. THAT aspect of this site will continue to get worse over time as new people come on board.
I think a good idea to ease up the number of photos in any given challenge is to create (in the members section) multiple challenges each week. Maybe open up 3 or 4 challenges with different topics and allow a member to submit to ONE of the available challenges.
This would reduce the number of photos on any given challenge and would make the voting a lot less tedious. It's tough to wade through 200+ photos on the same theme. It's simply tiring.
This would also give the members several topic ideas to work with and allow them to shoot whichever topic suits them best during the week...
just my two cents...
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 12:38:59 AM · #3 |
| I like Jim's suggestions. Another idea might be to limit each challenge to the first 100 or 200 entries, perhaps. You snooze, you lose! |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 12:42:55 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by boomer:
I like Jim's suggestions. Another idea might be to limit each challenge to the first 100 or 200 entries, perhaps. You snooze, you lose! |
I don't see how that would help the image quailty go up. I think it would make it worse.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 12:44:47 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by boomer:
I like Jim's suggestions. Another idea might be to limit each challenge to the first 100 or 200 entries, perhaps. You snooze, you lose! |
a) it's John :)
b) the you snooze, you lose" idea only encourages people to enter quickly, and would likely degrade the quality of image submitted. People hurrying just to make sure they get it in kind of idea.
P |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 12:47:18 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by boomer:
I like Jim's suggestions. Another idea might be to limit each challenge to the first 100 or 200 entries, perhaps. You snooze, you lose! |
I don't think limiting would be fair, what if you worked really hard on a challenge only to find the limit had been reached ?
John has come up with a pretty good idea, have several to choose from and vary the themes, ie. everyone has their favourite type of pictures so why not cater for them to develop their skills in a more specialised way,if they so desire ? |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:02:57 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by boomer:
I like Jim's suggestions. Another idea might be to limit each challenge to the first 100 or 200 entries, perhaps. You snooze, you lose! |
a) it's John :)
b) the you snooze, you lose" idea only encourages people to enter quickly, and would likely degrade the quality of image submitted. People hurrying just to make sure they get it in kind of idea.
P |
You could advertise an upcoming challenge. That'll give people time to think about their entry and if they want to compete. Then the number of entries could be limited. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:03:41 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by jdw91479:
Originally posted by boomer:
I like Jim's suggestions. Another idea might be to limit each challenge to the first 100 or 200 entries, perhaps. You snooze, you lose! |
I don't see how that would help the image quailty go up. I think it would make it worse. |
Agreed... it would force people to hurry up and submit rather than take the little time they have.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:04:04 AM · #9 |
I agree as well with the multiple challenge idea. That would decrease the number of pictures in each challenge, but with that, commenting would more likely decrease, and number of votes. People may vote differently (probably better) for that challenges they hadn't entered, because the great temptation for the challenges one has entered is to just simply vote down all the other pictures. If people voted on noncompetive (for them) challenges votes would increase.
Just some more thoughts. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:14:02 AM · #10 |
| But wait a second. If there were more challenges, but less people entering each one (in theory), there still might be as many total entries in all the contests as before, making voting on them just as daunting as before. Right? Or is my brain frazzled? |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:15:36 AM · #11 |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:18:23 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by boomer:
But wait a second. If there were more challenges, but less people entering each one (in theory), there still might be as many total entries in all the contests as before, making voting on them just as daunting as before. Right? Or is my brain frazzled? |
A little frazzled, I fear.
People would vote on less challenges and not feel compelled to vote on every entry in every challenge. At least, that's the theory. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:26:25 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by boomer:
But wait a second. If there were more challenges, but less people entering each one (in theory), there still might be as many total entries in all the contests as before, making voting on them just as daunting as before. Right? Or is my brain frazzled? |
If there were three challenges you had to choose from and you could only enter one, what if you couldn't vote in the challenge you entered? Theoretically then, there would only be roughly 2/3 the amount to vote on.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 01:47:15 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by rickhd13:
Originally posted by boomer:
But wait a second. If there were more challenges, but less people entering each one (in theory), there still might be as many total entries in all the contests as before, making voting on them just as daunting as before. Right? Or is my brain frazzled? |
If there were three challenges you had to choose from and you could only enter one, what if you couldn't vote in the challenge you entered? Theoretically then, there would only be roughly 2/3 the amount to vote on. |
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of not having a set limit, image quality would SURELY fall. Jim has the best suggestion I have seen. Really, I think having several challenges for members would solve more problems (in the future that is) for several reasons:
*Given that you would vote only in the challenge you entered*
1.OVERALL Quality of Images Increased:
People wouldn't feel quite as pressed to get in a shot for the heck of it because they have to bend over backwards just to get it at the last second. Granted, that won't be totally eradicated, but there would be less problems.
2. I need to think about it overnight, I am quite tired.
By the way, I had always wondered if DPC had ever been mentioned, and I have worried about what that would do. I am glad this was brought up, because I am EXTREMELY interested what fellow DPCers felt about it.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 05:08:55 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by goinskiing:
Originally posted by rickhd13:
If there were three challenges you had to choose from and you could only enter one, what if you couldn't vote in the challenge you entered? Theoretically then, there would only be roughly 2/3 the amount to vote on. |
*Given that you would vote only in the challenge you entered*
1.OVERALL Quality of Images Increased:
People wouldn't feel quite as pressed to get in a shot for the heck of it because they have to bend over backwards just to get it at the last second. Granted, that won't be totally eradicated, but there would be less problems.
|
Wait, isn't the human natural tendency to vote down the competition, so if I were to submit to a challenge and vote ALL the other pictures at one't then my picture would do better. I know this isn't the case for most people but it is the theory and temptation behind it. I more agree with rickhd13. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 06:05:55 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Maybe open up 3 or 4 challenges with different topics and allow a member to submit to ONE of the available challenges.
|
I like this idea. It also gives the photographer more chance to concentrate on certain subjects, because it is more likely that his style & interest will suit one of the challenges imo. That also gives more room to improve in the areas where you want to improve instead on entering stuff that doesn't interest you in the first place just for the sake of participating.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 07:55:21 AM · #17 |
A couple of posts here have suggested that we NOT be allowed to vote in the challenge in which we have an entry. I wholeheartedly agree. In particular, this rule would eliminate (or at least reduce...) the all-too-human tendency (however subconcious??) to vote down the competition within the challenge. It would also address the topic here - of reducing the amount of work one feels 'obligated' to do in voting.
I also believe that the lower limit of # of votes should be set at 10%, and an upper limit set to 20%. This would enforce what to me is a 'reasonable' number of votes that a member or registrant should place before they get counted. Now, if a voter feels strongly that s/he wants to vote on a specific image, but can't because the upper limit has been reached, why not give the option of canceling a vote, thus allowing the vote on this particular image? |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 08:22:19 AM · #18 |
Except for the free studies, the Advanced Editing challenges seem to remain at manageable size. Since we apparently have a backlog of suggested topics why not start using them at a faster pace by starting a new Basic Editing challenge when the currently posted one approaches the "too many" number of entries? Example: a Sort Focus Basic challenge starts on a Sunday evening, by Wed it has 200 entries, at midnight Wed a Motion Blur Basic challenge starts while the closing time for Soft Focus is announced as midnight Friday, Motion Blur Basic doesn't draw "too many" entries so it closes after 7 days. No restrictions on how many a person can enter or vote on, just put a restriction on the number of entries.
I would really be opposed to any plan that would restrict anyone from voting and/or commenting. We should be encouraging more, not less. The larger the number of voters the less influence the "vote down the comp" syndrome will have. If you are going to limit the voter to less than all the entries the selection MUST be random and not voter definable. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 08:23:29 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
A couple of posts here have suggested that we NOT be allowed to vote in the challenge in which we have an entry. I wholeheartedly agree. In particular, this rule would eliminate (or at least reduce...) the all-too-human tendency (however subconcious??) to vote down the competition within the challenge. It would also address the topic here - of reducing the amount of work one feels 'obligated' to do in voting. |
I don't come here to win, I come here to learn. By voting on other pictures in the same challenge I entered, I learn how I might have more creatively met that challenge. Surely this is the most important thing? |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 08:31:33 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
You could advertise an upcoming challenge. That'll give people time to think about their entry and if they want to compete. Then the number of entries could be limited. |
So we'd pre-announce the challenge, let everyone take their shots, then open entry for the first 200 and have a mad rush to submit ? :)
Or do you mean, we'd 'register an intent to enter' for a challenge ? That might work... |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 08:36:55 AM · #21 |
I think in general, the problem is limited to the open challenges right now.
Entries are getting up close to 400 images. With some questionable quality. Voting them becomes a slog through a morass of bad quality images with some gems. I think everyone suffers - the bad pictures don't get much in the way of good critque or even careful scoring, the good pictures get similarly short shrift because the voters are so depressed by
the other images.
Many sites that have much higher entries than this one do well with a first pass / second pass voting scheme. The question is how would we want to reduce the number of entries from the first to the second pass. Those less fortunate images that get weeded out the first time honestly probably aren't going to get lots of helpful feedback - though if someone can direct me to several low scoring images with great, meaningful feedback I'll be happily surprised (and I don't mean one or two - show me 10 - that shouldn't be hard if I'm wrong on this)
An extended site council of sorts could be formed with the responsibility of doing the first pass in some way - this would mean those that made the cut might get better quality review, better feedback.
Kinda like golf - got to make the cut. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 08:59:40 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
A couple of posts here have suggested that we NOT be allowed to vote in the challenge in which we have an entry. I wholeheartedly agree. In particular, this rule would eliminate (or at least reduce...) the all-too-human tendency (however subconcious??) to vote down the competition within the challenge. It would also address the topic here - of reducing the amount of work one feels 'obligated' to do in voting. |
I don't come here to win, I come here to learn. By voting on other pictures in the same challenge I entered, I learn how I might have more creatively met that challenge. Surely this is the most important thing? |
But, all indications are that people DO come here, if not to win, then to score high in relation to others in the challenge. After all, isn't the score and ranking a measure of how much they have learned, - and, more imortantly, how they're viewed by their peers? I do view and mentally critique the entries in challenges where I'm competing (and occasionally vote..), but don't really see how voting helps me to learn.
If we're looking to make this a less watered-down exercise, then not allowing you to vote in a challenge in which you compete is one way to reduce the effort and make for a more focused and deliberate voting exercise. |
|
|
|
04/03/2004 09:07:32 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
If we're looking to make this a less watered-down exercise, then not allowing you to vote in a challenge in which you compete is one way to reduce the effort and make for a more focused and deliberate voting exercise. |
The problem with this method is that maybe the more experienced people may enter the same challenge and the critiques could suffer.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 09:26:07 AM · #24 |
i respectfully disagree with the idea of having multiple challenge topics per week. i think it would take away some from winning the weekly challenge and agree that we would probably still have the same number of images to vote on -- just spread out in multiple challenges.
and it's possible that we would have even MORE images. many times i've not submitted because i don't have anything to submit for that particular topic. if i had 4 or 5 opportunities to submit, i'd be a lot more likely to enter at least ONE instead of sitting out -- and that would increase the overall number of submissions.
i do agree that there needs to be some way to immediately/quickly discard the "fluff" that has started creeping into the site. gordon's idea of a first pass is plausible.
i also like the idea of challenges making "cuts" through the week -- much like a golf tournament. if you don't make a certain score by tuesday, say, your score is locked and your photo removed from voting. same on thursday or friday, etc. the problem here lies with people waiting until later in the week to start voting.
maybe gordon's first pass idea is better. enable a group of users to be a "selection committee" and allow them to choose the 100 photos that will be voted on by the general public. i'd volunteer.
whatever the solution, something's got to be done. we've been found out! and the challenges are getting harder and harder to wade through. not to mention, it's taking a significant amount of time. most of us have such little free time anyway, and i'd prefer to spend more of it actually taking pictures!
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 10:32:51 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i respectfully disagree with the idea of having multiple challenge topics per week. i think it would take away some from winning the weekly challenge and agree that we would probably still have the same number of images to vote on -- just spread out in multiple challenges. |
I agree with this logic. More is not less.
Originally posted by muckpond:
i do agree that there needs to be some way to immediately/quickly discard the "fluff" that has started creeping into the site. gordon's idea of a first pass is plausible. |
I'd like to suggest that we provide folks the "opportunity" to withdrawl their photo from the voting. If after 3 days, you see your photo is scoring a 4.4, chances are pretty good you realize your photo isn't going to place well.
Maybe even combine a "cut" with an opt-in withdrawl process.
1st pass is a cut at 48 hrs, and at 96 hrs the individual can withdrawl his/her photo from the voting.
Voting on larger open challenges is becoming somewhat painful. I do not believe we have an issue with member challenges though.
|
|
