|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2009 08:00:02 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
telling us that "it just doesn't do it for me". (one of my fave comments...so helpful! *smile*) |
But that's an honest comment!
Yet if the person told you what to do to make it "Do it" for them, if you didn't agree with their comment, then you'd be annoyed all over again, right?
So what is the commenter to do in your case?
Edited 'cause I can NOT type!!! |
On neither side of the fence would this be helpful to me, in my personal experience. The reason being, they are not saying WHY "it doesn't do it for them".
If I were to say...."Hey, Jeb....you just don't do it for me"....wouldn't you want to know why?!
Or, would you get ticked and run off to give me ones? LOL ;) |
I would probably go through their portfolio and favorites and comments to see what does 'do it' for them and attempt to get a better understanding of that particular user. If they're a registered user without a portfolio, I'd just go through their comments made. It would certainly be helpful if they explained the why, but sometimes that just isn't realistic due to time constraints, and some people just want their voice heard or feel they're contributing. That's not wrong.
There are many ways to find out why if the person saying the what isn't able or willing to tell you.
*EDIT* oops, even registered users can still have favorites, so that stands too.
Message edited by author 2009-01-28 20:03:21. |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 08:02:27 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by ubique:
To respond directly to the OP, I often give scores of 3. Thatâs my default score for all photographs that I feel are of no consequence, which is generally at least two thirds of all the entries in a challenge. And I donât care at all how good the âtechnicalsâ are, nor how difficult it was to get to shot, nor how many splashes had to be photographed to get that one frame that's as perfect as last weekâs splash. Inconsequential is inconsequential no matter how itâs dressed. |
This is the explanation that many of us would like to receive as a comment when you leave us that 3 in a challenge. It explains a lot, and most of us are thick skinned enough to take it. However, I now need to grill you some more in order to understand. What do you consider as having meaning? Does a pretty landscape have meaning, or does the photo only have meaning if you get a message out of it? |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 08:55:13 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by yanko:
the best adult artists are the ones who refuse to relinquish the child within. |
I should be good to go then, 'cause people are always telling me to grow up!......8>)
|
|
|
|
01/28/2009 09:05:26 PM · #129 |
[b]Scenario ONE[/b]
""""""""Does my butt look huge in these pants?"
"No YOU look great"
Go out to a club and dance like everyone thinks we are the booty queen of all booty's and we are going to pull every single man God in the club.
Go to the bathroom, Look in full length mirror and find out that one looks like the back end of an outhouse on steroids with squatters settling in and toilet paper sticking out of the top of our jeans.
Scenario TWO
"""""""""Does my butt look big in these pants?"
"""YES you look like you have 3 people stuck in their!""""""
Slap the shit out of who said that, BUT you CHANGE your pants.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The moral of the story:::::::::::::::::
WOuld you rather look like shit and have compliments that mean nothing
Or
would you rather someone tell you what they really thought
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same with us nitpickers and 1,2,and 3's
|
|
|
|
01/28/2009 09:09:06 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
[b]Scenario ONE[/b]
""""""""Does my butt look huge in these pants?"
"No YOU look great"
Go out to a club and dance like everyone thinks we are the booty queen of all booty's and we are going to pull every single man God in the club.
Go to the bathroom, Look in full length mirror and find out that one looks like the back end of an outhouse on steroids with squatters settling in and toilet paper sticking out of the top of our jeans.
Scenario TWO
"""""""""Does my butt look big in these pants?"
"""YES you look like you have 3 people stuck in their!""""""
Slap the shit out of who said that, BUT you CHANGE your pants.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The moral of the story:::::::::::::::::
WOuld you rather look like shit and have compliments that mean nothing
Or
would you rather someone tell you what they really thought
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same with us nitpickers and 1,2,and 3's |
Scenario 3
Baby, your butt looks big no matter what you're wearing, and bigger when they ain't nothin' on it at all. |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 09:12:28 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
telling us that "it just doesn't do it for me". (one of my fave comments...so helpful! *smile*) |
But that's an honest comment!
So what is the commenter to do in your case?
|
Certainly it's an honest comment but it's also a perfectly useless comment as well. I'm not sure who that comment would help or why. What does the photographer take away from that comment? Does he or she change something...shoot differently and even if there were more detail as to why...who cares? People will always like or dislike your work.
So, what is a commenter to do? Be quiet and move on. If you don't like something that's perfectly fine. How could anyone have an issue with that? It's tantamount to watching little kids go through a museum or flip through an art book and pointedly say at the turn of each page "CRAP...CRAP...CRAP...CRAP...I could do that...I could do that...I could do that..." (I assume we've all seen little kids do or say that?)
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
How experienced does one need to be to know when something is distracting? |
Have you tried to ask yourself why you find something distracting? What is the answer? |
Have you tried to ask yourself why someone else might find something distracting? Is it possible for someone to legitimately find something distracting that you don't? Is the ultimate validation (or repudiation) of another's opinion whether or not you agree with it? |
I NEVER saw or was bothered so many distractions until I was taught to be when I joined the site. Again, I never saw them until I started to look for them.
There certainly are distractions but rarely...RARELY so bad that they actually hurt an image. UNLESS you've been hyper-sensitized to a level where any little thing begins to bother you.
AND if your eye does move around an image from subject to another point to a different point to a third point back to the subject to another...
So what? Why is that bad? It might not always be a bad thing. maybe the photographer want you to feast on a scene. I've taken busy images to show "BUSY" I wanted people to see a bustling city and you guessed it I got comments "too busy"...
I am certainly generalizing but I do read enough distraction comments (by the hundreds) to see that as being more of a viewer problem, than any actual issue with many images that receive the comment. Sometimes there may be some validity but how rare those cases are or how troublesome the "eye drawer is is more significant an issue.
I used to be the person who mistakenly left a ton of very, very stupid comments that I'm now trying wake a few others up to what I see as my error, in the past. I used to look for distractions, blown highlights, etc. and I know that I aggressively looked for that stuff to a major fault AND more important if affected my shooting negatively.
I only realized what a total dick I was when I started reading thoughtful comments by people like Jutilda, Melethia, Ubique, e301, posthumous, Bear_Music...
Technical comments do help but as yanko said people should probably ask themselves why things bother them...AND look really hard for that answer. That may reveal a lot in itself about the photograph, the photographer and the viewer.
Message edited by author 2009-01-28 21:21:07. |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 09:21:48 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
telling us that "it just doesn't do it for me". (one of my fave comments...so helpful! *smile*) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But that's an honest comment!
Yet if the person told you what to do to make it "Do it" for them, if you didn't agree with their comment, then you'd be annoyed all over again, right?
So what is the commenter to do in your case? |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
On neither side of the fence would this be helpful to me, in my personal experience. The reason being, they are not saying WHY "it doesn't do it for them". The same holds true for the good...saying that it does it for them. I'd want to know WHAT it is about it that "does it". :)
If I were to say...."Hey, Jeb....you just don't do it for me"....wouldn't you want to know why?! |
To me, that may be enough......sometimes I don't have to know......it'd be nice, but not required.
I guess I just place a lot less importance on the depth or intent of the commet than most.
I don't feel that any commenter has to justify themself to me......if they felt strongly enough on any level.....even if they're just trying to get a 100% Comments icon in their profile and leave a "Nice!" comment, that's just peachy.
Even a lot of the basically constructive comments fade away for me......I have gotten somereally special comments, and those I remember......but those are rare....and perhaps that's not so bad since I appreciate them so much more.
Though I am STILL walking on air for having gotten almost 100 comments on my Abandoned entry!
|
|
|
|
01/28/2009 09:28:47 PM · #133 |
I understand why some comments seem poorly thought out or naive or whatever. But this is a learning site. And as such it should be a forum where people are encouraged to think about and critique others work. Just the way one would in school - even if criticism is not very sophisticated, it is valuable to the person expressing it. And it does tell you something about how one person who voted on your picture saw it, which can be useful to improving in one particular metric, your DPC score. Take from it what you can and let the rest roll off...
It would be equally unreasonable to tell students doing peer criticism in a class that their comments were not sophisticated enough. It would defeat the whole purpose of the class. Like it or not, this is primarily an educational site, and participating in the challenges means participating in the whole thing. Otherwise go to Flickr where people with fawn over you (but not tell you anything constructive). Or do what I do and do both, and get from each the different experience it offers. |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 09:44:05 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I understand why some comments seem poorly thought out or naive or whatever. But this is a learning site. And as such it should be a forum where people are encouraged to think about and critique others work. |
I think what people a saying is that some people should think a little or a lot harder before they comment.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
even if criticism is not very sophisticated, it is valuable to the person expressing |
I think that is understood but some comments or ways of seeing seem to gear people to a very narrow set of rules. If that's what you wish to see in all images or how you want your style to be...not much I can say but ti would certainly explain the sameness on the front page. True you may learn from that but again, it's narrow and lacks true substance. That doesn't sit as well with me as it does for others.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
It would be equally unreasonable to tell students doing peer criticism in a class that their comments were not sophisticated enough. It would defeat the whole purpose of the class. |
If there's a back and forth discussion (in a classroom with a teacher)it's far better than the one way, one sided exchange that I see here. People leave comments...good, bad or indifferent and we read them but there's no exchange of ideas or some understanding...resolution. If there was some exchange all comments would be fine or at least tolerable if people knew they might be engaged (by the photographer or another viewer) based on what they've said.
Message edited by author 2009-01-28 21:53:20. |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 11:45:51 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I understand why some comments seem poorly thought out or naive or whatever. But this is a learning site. And as such it should be a forum where people are encouraged to think about and critique others work. Just the way one would in school - even if criticism is not very sophisticated, it is valuable to the person expressing it. And it does tell you something about how one person who voted on your picture saw it, which can be useful to improving in one particular metric, your DPC score. Take from it what you can and let the rest roll off...
It would be equally unreasonable to tell students doing peer criticism in a class that their comments were not sophisticated enough. It would defeat the whole purpose of the class. Like it or not, this is primarily an educational site, and participating in the challenges means participating in the whole thing. Otherwise go to Flickr where people with fawn over you (but not tell you anything constructive). Or do what I do and do both, and get from each the different experience it offers. |
What makes you think DPChallenge is primarily an educational site? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but over and over again I've seen people make similar statements and I've yet to see anything here that would make me think that was the case. The very name "Digital Photography Challenge" and the primary activity being centered around challenges would make me think the place is primarily about photo contests.
Message edited by author 2009-01-28 23:46:56.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2009 11:54:59 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Originally posted by ubique:
To respond directly to the OP, I often give scores of 3. Thatâs my default score for all photographs that I feel are of no consequence, which is generally at least two thirds of all the entries in a challenge. And I donât care at all how good the âtechnicalsâ are, nor how difficult it was to get to shot, nor how many splashes had to be photographed to get that one frame that's as perfect as last weekâs splash. Inconsequential is inconsequential no matter how itâs dressed. |
This is the explanation that many of us would like to receive as a comment when you leave us that 3 in a challenge. It explains a lot, and most of us are thick skinned enough to take it. However, I now need to grill you some more in order to understand. What do you consider as having meaning? Does a pretty landscape have meaning, or does the photo only have meaning if you get a message out of it? |
Steve, your implied point is valid. My standards are based entirely on pandering to my personal interests, and Iâm happy to admit as much. If a photograph doesnât engage with me, doesnât stimulate my own sensibilities, I give it a 3. And I donât then differentiate between âgoodâ and âbadâ photography (in terms of technique etc), simply because at that point such a distinction is no longer relevant. Itâs like judging a chocolate cake on the basis of how perfectly round it is.
But how could I explain this? For those who care deeply about every âscoreâ they receive, my scoring system seems unfair. Surely a perfectly lit, exquisitely exposed and (add further hyperbole here) photograph should get a better score than a technically unsound rival? Not to me it shouldnât. I donât care how round it is if it tastes like cardboard.
FWIW, I give everything else a 5. Those I go back to and look at again later. Some (usually about a dozen) will still stand out and I change their score to 7. Then I look at those standouts more closely, often for 5-15 minutes for each image over several visits. Then I comment on a few of them and change their score to 8-10. But I donât necessarily think the 10s are âbetterâ than the 8s â¦., just more interesting to me at that moment.
So to answer your question about how you could understand why I give a particular shot a 3, you canât. You might, I suppose, look at my favourites and at some of my more detailed comments, but what would be the point? If you figure out what I donât like from noting what I say I do like, and then you start chasing my vote, Iâm afraid that it will have a catastrophic effect on your overall score. Just look how badly most of my favourites fare in the challenge results (conversely, I find that Iâve given 3s to virtually all ribbon winners).
So is my voting system illegitimate? Should my votes be scrubbed? Maybe. But the people who win all the ribbons have probably never heard of me, and in any case couldnât care less what madness I prefer to their work. But I have no real effect on the challenge results, except to encourage the occasional enquiring mind to take pause. And as long as we donât get too many of those enquiring minds on the loose at one time, all will be well.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2009 12:02:25 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by Mick:
What makes you think DPChallenge is primarily an educational site? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but over and over again I've seen people make similar statements and I've yet to see anything here that would make me think that was the case. The very name "Digital Photography Challenge" and the primary activity being centered around challenges would make me think the place is primarily about photo contests. |
From the "About" page;
"DPChallenge was created in January 2002 by two friends, Drew Ungvarsky (drewmedia) and Langdon Oliver (langdon). The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week. The idea quickly took off and became much more in the months that followed." |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 12:36:53 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by ubique:
My standards are based entirely on pandering to my personal interests, and Iâm happy to admit as much. If a photograph doesnât engage with me, doesnât stimulate my own sensibilities, I give it a 3. And I donât then differentiate between âgoodâ and âbadâ photography (in terms of technique etc), simply because at that point such a distinction is no longer relevant. |
Thank you for that description. It does confirm a pet theory of mine (at least in your case) that some folks vote based on a scale that is more like Like<--->Don't like, rather than a scale of Good<--->Bad.
It does make it easier to understand some of those extremely low votes on a shot that most voters acknowledge is at least ok. In my own scale, I consider a 3 to be the average snapshot taken by someone with no knowledge of photography, so it's easy to get offended when someone like yourself comes along and rates it a 2 and leaves no explanation. I now understand you are saying it does not speak to you, which is different from saying "it sucks". Thanks for taking the time to explain. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 12:46:42 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Thank you for that description. It does confirm a pet theory of mine (at least in your case) that some folks vote based on a scale that is more like Like<--->Don't like, rather than a scale of Good<--->Bad. |
Yes it's true; I give no 4s or 6s at all. My 'bell curve' looks like an ECG of a barely suppressed heart attack. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 12:57:54 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by Mick:
What makes you think DPChallenge is primarily an educational site? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but over and over again I've seen people make similar statements and I've yet to see anything here that would make me think that was the case. The very name "Digital Photography Challenge" and the primary activity being centered around challenges would make me think the place is primarily about photo contests. |
From the "About" page;
"DPChallenge was created in January 2002 by two friends, Drew Ungvarsky (drewmedia) and Langdon Oliver (langdon). The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week. The idea quickly took off and became much more in the months that followed." |
So what, we're all here to teach Drew and Langdon and some of their friends? Somehow I don't think so. Besides, they control the site and can give themselves and their friends all the ribbons they want. ;D
|
|
|
|
01/29/2009 01:36:51 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Steve, your implied point is valid. My standards are based entirely on pandering to my personal interests, and Iâm happy to admit as much. If a photograph doesnât engage with me, doesnât stimulate my own sensibilities, I give it a 3. And I donât then differentiate between âgoodâ and âbadâ photography (in terms of technique etc), simply because at that point such a distinction is no longer relevant. Itâs like judging a chocolate cake on the basis of how perfectly round it is.
But how could I explain this? For those who care deeply about every âscoreâ they receive, my scoring system seems unfair. Surely a perfectly lit, exquisitely exposed and (add further hyperbole here) photograph should get a better score than a technically unsound rival? Not to me it shouldnât. I donât care how round it is if it tastes like cardboard.
FWIW, I give everything else a 5. Those I go back to and look at again later. Some (usually about a dozen) will still stand out and I change their score to 7. Then I look at those standouts more closely, often for 5-15 minutes for each image over several visits. Then I comment on a few of them and change their score to 8-10. But I donât necessarily think the 10s are âbetterâ than the 8s â¦., just more interesting to me at that moment.
So to answer your question about how you could understand why I give a particular shot a 3, you canât. You might, I suppose, look at my favourites and at some of my more detailed comments, but what would be the point? If you figure out what I donât like from noting what I say I do like, and then you start chasing my vote, Iâm afraid that it will have a catastrophic effect on your overall score. Just look how badly most of my favourites fare in the challenge results (conversely, I find that Iâve given 3s to virtually all ribbon winners).
So is my voting system illegitimate? Should my votes be scrubbed? Maybe. But the people who win all the ribbons have probably never heard of me, and in any case couldnât care less what madness I prefer to their work. But I have no real effect on the challenge results, except to encourage the occasional enquiring mind to take pause. And as long as we donât get too many of those enquiring minds on the loose at one time, all will be well. |
This has my nomination as one of the most thoughtful, totally honest posts ever on the subject of voting. There is much food for thought there, actually. Good on ya, mate!
R.
Message edited by author 2009-01-29 01:37:15.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2009 03:32:29 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
[b]Scenario ONE[/b]
""""""""Does my butt look huge in these pants?"
"No YOU look great"
Go out to a club and dance like everyone thinks we are the booty queen of all booty's and we are going to pull every single man God in the club.
Go to the bathroom, Look in full length mirror and find out that one looks like the back end of an outhouse on steroids with squatters settling in and toilet paper sticking out of the top of our jeans.
Scenario TWO
"""""""""Does my butt look big in these pants?"
"""YES you look like you have 3 people stuck in their!""""""
Slap the shit out of who said that, BUT you CHANGE your pants.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The moral of the story:::::::::::::::::
WOuld you rather look like shit and have compliments that mean nothing
Or
would you rather someone tell you what they really thought
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same with us nitpickers and 1,2,and 3's |
Scenario 3
Baby, your butt looks big no matter what you're wearing, and bigger when they ain't nothin' on it at all. |
I've got to stop taking my coffee breaks to read posts in here! This is the 3rd time I've spit my coffee across the screen this week!!! If nothing else, I've had a really good set of laughs in this thread. Thanks guys!!! I really needed them this week! :)
|
|
|
|
01/29/2009 03:52:21 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
[b]Scenario ONE[/b]
""""""""Does my butt look huge in these pants?"
"No YOU look great"
Go out to a club and dance like everyone thinks we are the booty queen of all booty's and we are going to pull every single man God in the club.
Go to the bathroom, Look in full length mirror and find out that one looks like the back end of an outhouse on steroids with squatters settling in and toilet paper sticking out of the top of our jeans.
Scenario TWO
"""""""""Does my butt look big in these pants?"
"""YES you look like you have 3 people stuck in their!""""""
Slap the shit out of who said that, BUT you CHANGE your pants.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The moral of the story:::::::::::::::::
WOuld you rather look like shit and have compliments that mean nothing
Or
would you rather someone tell you what they really thought
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same with us nitpickers and 1,2,and 3's |
Scenario 3
Baby, your butt looks big no matter what you're wearing, and bigger when they ain't nothin' on it at all. |
Juliet, I'd agree with you but, with a slight caveat. The difference here is that often, the 1's, 2's and 3 voters are not actually out to truly judge a photo. Why am I saying this? It's because there are oftentimes 1 votes given out extremely quickly. One look at the score threads will tell you that there are those who are sitting at the ready and the moment rollover occurs, they're hitting the 1, 2 and 3 buttons. Sadly, I think that they get some type of kick out of seeing people get ticked on the score thread about "some idiot" that just gave them a 1 or a 2! How else do we know that they're not really looking at a photo? The fact that the scores are not reflective of the quality of a photo (however one judges that quality) because the rest of the voting population has scored it much higher and therefore, the photo can not have been that bad.
Traditionally, the 1's, 2's and 3's in DPC have been considered LOW votes and it used to be that there would be a box that jumped up when you hit one of those 3 keys, asking you to comment on WHY you have given that photo such a low score. It's been removed and the 1's, 2's and 3's have been handed out like candy by comparison. At the time that the site was really urging/demanding that people justify a low score of 1, 2 or 3, these scores were reserved pretty much for photos that were DNMC's or really horrible shots...ones that looked like you'd accidently snapped while carrying your camera under your arm. LOL 4's were reserved more or less by general voters for "snapshots". 5's were mediocre shots that had no real appeal but were decently photographed with decent technicals, 6's were above average shots that showed potential and were greatly appealing. 7's and 8's were way above average and well liked for both esthetics as well as technicals and of course, 9's and 10's were outstanding shots in all areas of photography.
I think that SC really should put up a general guideline of requesting or even making it impossible for a photo to be voted a 1, 2 or 3, without having to add a comment. No, it still won't stop people from making those votes and putting in ridiculous comments, but at the least, it will slow down those who would go through and just vote 1, 2 or 3 out of some sort of kick or getting ticked at their own scores (where that is applicable). If they have to sit and write something out, even DNMC or :), it may discourage the Troll votes somewhat or, at the least, take some of the ease out of it for them. It may also make people stop and think a bit more than simply handing out the low scores. If they are forced to have to THINK about it and are honest in why they are giving it, they may think twice about that low score and why they are giving them.
As for the pants....well, hey, there's a way to say "your butt is HUGE no matter what you wear"!
One could say, "Well, they aren't the most flattering pants. I think you'd suit a pair without the flashy diamond encrusted flaps and the large pockets as they tend to add a bit of extra bulk." LOL |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 04:20:30 PM · #144 |
I'm sorry. I'm a bit frustrated, so I'm taking my SC hat off at the moment, and speaking as karmat with a regular blue shirt and not hat.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Juliet, I'd agree with you but, with a slight caveat. The difference here is that often, the 1's, 2's and 3 voters are not actually out to truly judge a photo. Why am I saying this? It's because there are oftentimes 1 votes given out extremely quickly. One look at the score threads will tell you that there are those who are sitting at the ready and the moment rollover occurs, they're hitting the 1, 2 and 3 buttons. Sadly, I think that they get some type of kick out of seeing people get ticked on the score thread about "some idiot" that just gave them a 1 or a 2! How else do we know that they're not really looking at a photo? The fact that the scores are not reflective of the quality of a photo (however one judges that quality) because the rest of the voting population has scored it much higher and therefore, the photo can not have been that bad. |
How in the snot do you know why people vote ones???? Yes, there may be a person or two that do it quickly for nefarious reasons, but you know what? I've given low votes on pictures that ribboned. You know why? Because that is what my *opinion* allows me to do. You know what else? I've given 10s on shots that scored in the bottom percentiles. Why? Same reason.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Traditionally, the 1's, 2's and 3's in DPC have been considered LOW votes and it used to be that there would be a box that jumped up when you hit one of those 3 keys, asking you to comment on WHY you have given that photo such a low score. It's been removed and the 1's, 2's and 3's have been handed out like candy by comparison. At the time that the site was really urging/demanding that people justify a low score of 1, 2 or 3, these scores were reserved pretty much for photos that were DNMC's or really horrible shots...ones that looked like you'd accidently snapped while carrying your camera under your arm. LOL 4's were reserved more or less by general voters for "snapshots". 5's were mediocre shots that had no real appeal but were decently photographed with decent technicals, 6's were above average shots that showed potential and were greatly appealing. 7's and 8's were way above average and well liked for both esthetics as well as technicals and of course, 9's and 10's were outstanding shots in all areas of photography. |
Traditionally, they are considered the low votes because they are the low votes. Those are the only low votes there are. And, I would like to see you data that supports that the numbers 1, 2, and 3 were reduced during the time the box was in place. The pop up was removed because it was annoying to most people. The number of 1s, 2s, and 3s did NOT dramatically change from before the pop up, to the pop up, and again beyond the pop up. As far as your definition of the voting score, it is just that your definition. The site's definition is 1=bad, 10=good, with a caveat in the rules to consider the challenge topic. That's it.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I think that SC really should put up a general guideline of requesting or even making it impossible for a photo to be voted a 1, 2 or 3, without having to add a comment. No, it still won't stop people from making those votes and putting in ridiculous comments, but at the least, it will slow down those who would go through and just vote 1, 2 or 3 out of some sort of kick or getting ticked at their own scores (where that is applicable). If they have to sit and write something out, even DNMC or :), it may discourage the Troll votes somewhat or, at the least, take some of the ease out of it for them. It may also make people stop and think a bit more than simply handing out the low scores. If they are forced to have to THINK about it and are honest in why they are giving it, they may think twice about that low score and why they are giving them. |
Then, 4 will become the new one and instead of "why did my picture get a 1?" threads, there will be "why did my picture get a 4?" threads. This exact proposal has been discussed ad nauseum. And again, you are assuming that people don't think before they hand out a low score.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2009 04:30:03 PM · #145 |
| Now put your SC hat back on and lock the thread please Karma, purely as an act of mercy. Before someone mentions Rose. Oh damn, too late. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 07:27:24 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I'm sorry. I'm a bit frustrated, so I'm taking my SC hat off at the moment, and speaking as karmat with a regular blue shirt and not hat. |
Welcome to the club on frustration. :)
Originally posted by karmat:
How in the snot do you know why people vote ones???? Yes, there may be a person or two that do it quickly for nefarious reasons, but you know what? I've given low votes on pictures that ribboned. You know why? Because that is what my *opinion* allows me to do. You know what else? I've given 10s on shots that scored in the bottom percentiles. Why? Same reason. |
How in the "snot" do I know why SOME people vote 1's and 2's? Because I watch the rollover come in, then watch the score thread and sure as snot runs LOL, there are the 1 voters showing up, one after the other and I see them hit mine and others like dominos. It's SO quick that there is NO way that these people could possibly be actually LOOKING with any seriousness at the photos that they are handing out the 1's and 2's to. LOL...
Originally posted by karmat:
Traditionally, they are considered the low votes because they are the low votes. Those are the only low votes there are. And, I would like to see you data that supports that the numbers 1, 2, and 3 were reduced during the time the box was in place. The pop up was removed because it was annoying to most people. The number of 1s, 2s, and 3s did NOT dramatically change from before the pop up, to the pop up, and again beyond the pop up. As far as your definition of the voting score, it is just that your definition. The site's definition is 1=bad, 10=good, with a caveat in the rules to consider the challenge topic. That's it. |
Let me ask you then, what constitutes a 1 or a 2 or a 3 vote in your personal scoring system? Perhaps, that's a better way of being able to talk. I've given you what I consider a 1, 2 or 3 and upwards. Let me hear what would constitute a 1 shot to you.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I think that SC really should put up a general guideline of requesting or even making it impossible for a photo to be voted a 1, 2 or 3, without having to add a comment. No, it still won't stop people from making those votes and putting in ridiculous comments, but at the least, it will slow down those who would go through and just vote 1, 2 or 3 out of some sort of kick or getting ticked at their own scores (where that is applicable). If they have to sit and write something out, even DNMC or :), it may discourage the Troll votes somewhat or, at the least, take some of the ease out of it for them. It may also make people stop and think a bit more than simply handing out the low scores. If they are forced to have to THINK about it and are honest in why they are giving it, they may think twice about that low score and why they are giving them. |
Originally posted by karmat:
Then, 4 will become the new one and instead of "why did my picture get a 1?" threads, there will be "why did my picture get a 4?" threads. This exact proposal has been discussed ad nauseum. And again, you are assuming that people don't think before they hand out a low score. |
You know what, the original system was a good one. That little box jumping up was annoying because people didn't want to have to explain WHY they were going to vote something a 3 or under. It meant that they had to at the least, have the annoyance of that box popping up to remind them that it was a LOW score and make them think for just a second that they were voting a low score. Even if for only as long as it took them to close out that box, it made them think twice about that shot.
When I first started here, if I didn't like a shot, personally, I was going to hit that 3 score. Each time I did and that little box came up, it made me think of what I was doing. By the time I had closed out that box, I recognized that I was being overly critical and it made ME stop and think about that shot again. Often times, it meant I moved up the score...not because I didn't want to comment but, because it made me rethink what I was doing and made me look at that shot again. Sometimes, it moved up substantially, other times, it was only up one point to the 4....a few times, I still went back for the 3 or lower vote because even on a second look, I felt it deserved it. And, when I did give a 1 to 3 score with that little box, I felt that I owed it to the photographer to explain why to the best of my ability. We ALL knew then that the 1 to 3 scores were low.
But, please tell me...other than a DNMC, a black box, a severely out of focus shot or, one that looks like it was accidently snapped while under someone's arm pit...how many photos in here are actually worthy of a 1 to a 3? Really. Think about it for a moment. When you get a 1 or a 2 or a 3 on a shot that you've worked hard on and is in focus, in challenge criteria, don't you think that your shot is unworthy of a 1 to 3 score? At the least, it's worthy of a 4 or higher?
And, I don't remember 4 becoming the "new 1". That system was in place when I first started. No one looked at it that way that I know of. As for it being "annoying"...the ONLY people that it becomes truly annoying to are the ones who tend to vote the 1 to 3 scores on a regular basis and the ones who are "speed 1 to 3 voters" in which case, these particular voters NEED to be woken up to some fair scoring.
Sorry that you feel so frustrated but, so do a lot of us when we take the time to take shots to the best of ability and sometimes go to great lengths and sometimes expense to see the 1's 2's and 3's dished out.
Edited to differentiate the quotes
Message edited by author 2009-01-29 19:28:56. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 07:31:10 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Now put your SC hat back on and lock the thread please Karma, purely as an act of mercy. Before someone mentions Rose. Oh damn, too late. |
Lock the thread? Joking or, serious? If serious, why? |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 07:41:58 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by yospiff:
Thank you for that description. It does confirm a pet theory of mine (at least in your case) that some folks vote based on a scale that is more like Like<--->Don't like, rather than a scale of Good<--->Bad. |
Yes it's true; I give no 4s or 6s at all. My 'bell curve' looks like an ECG of a barely suppressed heart attack. |
LOL! I can see that to be true in your scoring ranges. You tend to score very low. Thank the heavens for your sake that the voters are not judging by your ranges otherwise, you'd not have the average score range that you have. I somehow can't imagine you voting a 1 or a 2 to a DeSousa...hmmmmm....or, maybe you have??? ;-) |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 07:47:12 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Originally posted by ubique:
My standards are based entirely on pandering to my personal interests, and Iâm happy to admit as much. If a photograph doesnât engage with me, doesnât stimulate my own sensibilities, I give it a 3. And I donât then differentiate between âgoodâ and âbadâ photography (in terms of technique etc), simply because at that point such a distinction is no longer relevant. |
Thank you for that description. It does confirm a pet theory of mine (at least in your case) that some folks vote based on a scale that is more like Like<--->Don't like, rather than a scale of Good<--->Bad.
It does make it easier to understand some of those extremely low votes on a shot that most voters acknowledge is at least ok. In my own scale, I consider a 3 to be the average snapshot taken by someone with no knowledge of photography, so it's easy to get offended when someone like yourself comes along and rates it a 2 and leaves no explanation. I now understand you are saying it does not speak to you, which is different from saying "it sucks". Thanks for taking the time to explain. |
Ooooo....Steve....I guess that I have it all wrong then. I guess I should go figure that 1 means "I hate it", 2 means "I don't hate it that badly, I guess", 3 & 4 is a "so what?" 5, is a "well, kinda like it, kinda don't...cant make up my mind", 6 and 7 are..."hey this tickles me a bit", 8 and 9 are "I am liking this!!" and a 10 is "WOW, bowled me over, can't take my eyes off it!"
ROFLMAO!!!
|
|
|
|
01/29/2009 08:05:37 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Ooooo....Steve....I guess that I have it all wrong then. I guess I should go figure that 1 means "I hate it", 2 means "I don't hate it that badly, I guess", 3 & 4 is a "so what?" 5, is a "well, kinda like it, kinda don't...cant make up my mind", 6 and 7 are..."hey this tickles me a bit", 8 and 9 are "I am liking this!!" and a 10 is "WOW, bowled me over, can't take my eyes off it!"
ROFLMAO!!! |
Yeah that is pretty much how the voting goes |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 06:56:37 AM  |
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: 08/06/2025 06:56:37 AM EDT.
|
