Low votes suggestion - DPChallenge Forums

02/24/2009 02:32:15 PM · #276

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why not just shoot a shot that is good "eye candy" that people might like and to heck with the technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph?

Do you really think that there is no connection between good "eye candy" and good technicals? What is good technically for one person isn't necessarily good technically for another. What is "eye candy" for one person isn't necessarily "eye candy" for another.

Isn't it great that everyone's different?

Again, I'll go back to the example of the Great Masters in painting. There are some people who hate Picasso's work and wouldn't give it 5 cents while others would spend millions on one. Does that mean that Picasso's work is garbage because it's simply not someone's "tastes"?

I've seen a red sucker, stuck to a wrinkled piece of red construction paper, shot with a flash that has overexposed it and no or very little editing done to it, score above a dozen other shots that were much better photographed. Why? Because more voters found it amusing so, they gave it a higher score than far better photographed images. What is that saying to those who were below this one? "Go take a blue sucker, stick it on a wrinkled blue piece of construction paper, give it a snappy title and forget the ISO, Apt., SS and editing and simply stick it into a challenge because it's going to do better than what you have done. Why waste the effort?"

02/24/2009 02:34:19 PM · #277

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why not just shoot a shot that is good "eye candy" that people might like and to heck with the technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph?

Do you really think that there is no connection between good "eye candy" and good technicals? What is good technically for one person isn't necessarily good technically for another. What is "eye candy" for one person isn't necessarily "eye candy" for another.

Isn't it great that everyone's different?

Again, I'll go back to the example of the Great Masters in painting. There are some people who hate Picasso's work and wouldn't give it 5 cents while others would spend millions on one. Does that mean that Picasso's work is garbage because it's simply not someone's "tastes"?

Gee, let me think. They have different tastes. Am I right? It's garbage to one viewer and a masterpiece to someone else.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I've seen a red sucker, stuck to a wrinkled piece of red construction paper, shot with a flash that has overexposed it and no or very little editing done to it, score above a dozen other shots that were much better photographed.

In YOUR opinion.

Isn't subjectivity wonderful?

Yes, it would be nice if the voters who thought an image was garbage would explain why. If they have to endure a bunch of excuses about why they're wrong (they're not by the way) then why should they bother.

Message edited by author 2009-02-24 14:43:43.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/24/2009 02:44:12 PM · #278

Wouldn't this whole thing be simplified if the voting scale were changed to allow only votes of 1 or 10? Basically turn the voting into a like vs. dislike (or whatever criteria you choose to use) scenario.

02/24/2009 02:45:09 PM · #279

Originally posted by mpeters:

10 way ties for each place. ;oP

02/24/2009 02:46:45 PM · #280

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Yes and does that make it right or fair to value a Picasso as garbage? Effectively, when someone says, "it's not my taste" and votes it a 1 or a 2, it's saying that the piece is essentially garbage. Is it really garbage?!

The rest of my previous post *not quoted* also went on to give the example of a shot of a sucker stuck to red construction paper that was really, an "in your face...stuck this in" entry and yet, it scored above others that were much better done. Rewarding that type of thing because it was amusing is like saying it's ok to shoot garbage as long as it appeals and ok to hand out 1's to far better photos simply because they're not to people's "tastes" is it not? If that is the case, why worry about technicals? Why worry about style? Why worry about any of that? Why not just come up with an idea that is "cute" or "amusing" for it may score as well or better than someone who has spent 3 days with models and lighting and great skill? That sucker may have appealed to more people's tastes and been rotten but, it scored higher than someone else's work who by all reality is a much better photo under this criteria, right? And, if that is the case, then the idea of learning anything better with photography is moot. It's all about getting something that appeals to more people's tastes, good or bad otherwise.

02/24/2009 02:47:04 PM · #281

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

What you are effectively doing by pointing out what is "reality in here" is saying that it's the "norm" to vote 1's and 2's when in reality, anyone who took the time to put in a half decent entry really doesn't deserve a 1. Would you say that a Yanko, or a DeSousa or any of the many time over, ribboner's works truly deserve 1's and 2's??? Honestly? Can you honestly say that their work deserves 1's and 2's and can be justified?

If you can say "yes" then, you are in effect, saying that there's no guidelines to what's good photography and what isn't. It's all about "what you like" and that's simply "the reality of it". What is that saying about photographers who are trying to improve their photographic skills then? Why bother? Why not just shoot a shot that is good "eye candy" that people might like and to heck with the technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph? By defending this line of thinking, it is akin to telling people to forget learning all of this and just go with what people like. In that case, there's no use in learning technicals or anything better.

So, if there is anyone who shouldn't "DARE" do anything, perhaps you may want to rethink what your stance truly is and how it is affecting photography in here???

What is it about what we're saying that you don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge? It's absurd to say that what k10 and I, among others, are doing is tacitly approving of so-called "troll voting". That's not the case at all. What we ARE saying is that the cure, as proposed by you and others, is worse than the disease. What we ARE saying is that, in the end, the presence or absence of "troll votes" is irrelevant, as they get applied more or less evenly across the board.

And, most emphatically, what we are saying is that it is NOT POSSIBLE to quantify and enforce some objective standard of what's "good" and what's "bad" upon the voters. It's absurd to even contemplate it. It's fascisim. And your oppositional rhetoric of placing "eye candy" up against/at the expense of "technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph" demonstrates with startling clarity the depth of your ignorance as to what's really going on.

Because, whatever else you may say, the winning images at DPC, almost without exception, demonstrate excellent technicals and composition. It's almost impossible to score well without those bases covered. No, the *real* issue, in MY opinion at least, is that too MUCH emphasis is placed on technicals and not enough on "soul"; and how the heck can you legislate an appreciation of "soul"?

It's irrelevant anyway, because that's not what you're after: as far as I can see, what y'all are after is to make it impossible for images that you like to get a score lower than 4, because they don't "deserve" it. But we all get hit with this stuff, there's no reason we have to care. In the end, from a conventional, conservative point of view, the good images (technical, compositional, a little wow mixed in) always win or place high. No reason to be all bent out of shape because a few oddballs threw out a few low scores.

Our friend Ubique, for example, was quite upfront in explaining how he does it: he's looking for the soul, the indefinable something that engages him, and if it doesn't have that, your image is an automatic 3. What's wrong with that? Why should anyone care? It's a perfectly valid POV. Show the challenge results to a team of MoMA curators and I assure you they wouldn't agree, AT ALL, with who we have selected as winners. But do I care? No, that's not the game here. How about someone who's been here for years, like me, and is SO damned tired of seeing refracting water drops and splish-splashes of viscuous liquids that his finger automatically hits the 4-button every time he encounters one? Aren't I entitled to that reaction? Aren't I entitled to judge your work on its orignality as much as its technical sophistication?

We cannot tell the voters how to vote. If we try, we're gonna kill the site. The trolls won't kill us, but the fascists could.

R.

Message edited by author 2009-02-24 14:49:38.

02/24/2009 02:49:34 PM · #282

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why not just shoot a shot that is good "eye candy" that people might like and to heck with the technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph?

Do you really think that there is no connection between good "eye candy" and good technicals? What is good technically for one person isn't necessarily good technically for another. What is "eye candy" for one person isn't necessarily "eye candy" for another.

Isn't it great that everyone's different?

Again, I'll go back to the example of the Great Masters in painting. There are some people who hate Picasso's work and wouldn't give it 5 cents while others would spend millions on one. Does that mean that Picasso's work is garbage because it's simply not someone's "tastes"?

Gee, let me think. They have different tastes. Am I right? It's garbage to one viewer and a masterpiece to someone else.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I've seen a red sucker, stuck to a wrinkled piece of red construction paper, shot with a flash that has overexposed it and no or very little editing done to it, score above a dozen other shots that were much better photographed.

In YOUR opinion.

Isn't subjectivity wonderful?

Yes, it would be nice if the voters who thought an image was garbage would explain why. If they have to endure a bunch of excuses about why they're wrong (they're not by the way) then why should they bother.

Ok, so then, no one should really worry about technicals? No one should really worry about composition? We should all just aim to shoot shots that are, in some way, amusing because it's all subjective anyway?

02/24/2009 02:50:55 PM · #283

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

No, we should freaking shoot the way we want to shoot and let the voters vote the way they want to vote!

R.

02/24/2009 02:52:07 PM · #284

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why not just shoot a shot that is good "eye candy" that people might like and to heck with the technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph?

Do you really think that there is no connection between good "eye candy" and good technicals? What is good technically for one person isn't necessarily good technically for another. What is "eye candy" for one person isn't necessarily "eye candy" for another.

Isn't it great that everyone's different?

Again, I'll go back to the example of the Great Masters in painting. There are some people who hate Picasso's work and wouldn't give it 5 cents while others would spend millions on one. Does that mean that Picasso's work is garbage because it's simply not someone's "tastes"?

Gee, let me think. They have different tastes. Am I right? It's garbage to one viewer and a masterpiece to someone else.

Yes and does that make it right or fair to value a Picasso as garbage? Effectively, when someone says, "it's not my taste" and votes it a 1 or a 2, it's saying that the piece is essentially garbage. Is it really garbage?!

Actually, yes it does. It's garbage in one person's opinion, so what.

02/24/2009 02:52:40 PM · #285

Originally posted by mpeters:

Why not? That's essentially what it's turning into anyways? :)

I guess, it could be turned down to a 1 to 5 score then to get around the 10 first place tie idea.

There could be a

1 Don't like it at all

2 Like it somewhat

3 Am indifferent, doesn't do it for me, doesn't not do it for me

4 I somewhat like this

5 I really like this

That's all that we need then. We don't need the 1 to 10. :)

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

02/24/2009 02:53:39 PM · #286

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Ok, so then, no one should really worry about technicals? No one should really worry about composition? We should all just aim to shoot shots that are, in some way, amusing because it's all subjective anyway?

No, we should freaking shoot the way we want to shoot and let the voters vote the way they want to vote!

R.

Ok, so by your method then, what's the use in having any challenges or scores at all? Why not just how many likes and dislikes there are for each photo?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

02/24/2009 02:54:48 PM · #287

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

.....and it is my belief that none of them are really wrong (outside of voting that is rule-bending or obviously malicious).

I just find that there's a large trend of people that just want to be patted on the back or made to feel better about their photography through artificially increased voting scales. Too many voices crying about the mystical troll voter but without any kind of data whatsoever to back their claims. Too many laments of "My photo is so much better than this!". etc. etc. etc.

In saying "outside of voting that is rule-bending or obviously malicious" that is, in effect, making notice that it is a possibility that it's happening.

As for the Troll voting, how does one explain that at rollover, practically every score thread sees the 1's and 2's coming in like dominos going down? One will exclaim that they've been hit by a thrash of 1's and 2's and following, more will note the same thing...one after another? Or, to see at midnight, that someone proclaims to have voted 100% within the first 20 minutes of voting having begun? How closely could those voters have looked over the photos to score them with any real sense of appreciation. It's akin to someone sitting there, saying, "like, don't like, don't like, don't like, don't like, don't like" in one second intervals. How can anyone truly "judge" a photo properly with "like, don't like" and hitting 1's and 2's?

To say that it's fair judging is saying that it doesn't matter what a photog has done to get a shot, they don't like it so, it's a 1!

There are Great Masters paintings that I don't necessarily like as my personal tastes but, if were to judge them on a 1 to 10 basis as we do in DPC, I'd not give them a 1 because it's not my personal tastes. I don't necessarily like Picasso's work nor, Andy Warhol for that matter but, I admire their own styles and the artistry that went into it! I may give Monet's work a 9 and Picasso a 7 but, all the same, there is merit in all of their work. The same holds true of every photographer's work in here, unless of course, it was an "in your face" snub with a black box or a total DNMC entry. All photographs in here, deserve a fair chance and evaluation. An "I don't like it...1" vote is infantile and certainly not valuing photography as it should be valued.

You're so far from reality that it's not even worth responding to you.

02/24/2009 02:56:19 PM · #288

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why not just shoot a shot that is good "eye candy" that people might like and to heck with the technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph?

Do you really think that there is no connection between good "eye candy" and good technicals? What is good technically for one person isn't necessarily good technically for another. What is "eye candy" for one person isn't necessarily "eye candy" for another.

Isn't it great that everyone's different?

Again, I'll go back to the example of the Great Masters in painting. There are some people who hate Picasso's work and wouldn't give it 5 cents while others would spend millions on one. Does that mean that Picasso's work is garbage because it's simply not someone's "tastes"?

If it were only one person's opinion, it wouldn't matter at all. It's when there are several hundred people voting by a criteria that judges someone's work as garbage or great, according to personal tastes that makes a difference and that is what essentially happens in challenges.

Gee, let me think. They have different tastes. Am I right? It's garbage to one viewer and a masterpiece to someone else.

Yes and does that make it right or fair to value a Picasso as garbage? Effectively, when someone says, "it's not my taste" and votes it a 1 or a 2, it's saying that the piece is essentially garbage. Is it really garbage?!

Actually, yes it does. It's garbage in one person's opinion, so what.

For some reason, this didn't post..so, trying it again. :)

It's a different story when it's a challenge into which people are putting their time and effort into entry shots and several hundred votes are going into each person's work according to, I don't like it...1. I love it...9 in a couple of seconds worth of glancing.

Message edited by author 2009-02-24 15:00:28.

02/24/2009 03:01:22 PM · #289

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

.....and it is my belief that none of them are really wrong (outside of voting that is rule-bending or obviously malicious).

I just find that there's a large trend of people that just want to be patted on the back or made to feel better about their photography through artificially increased voting scales. Too many voices crying about the mystical troll voter but without any kind of data whatsoever to back their claims. Too many laments of "My photo is so much better than this!". etc. etc. etc.

In saying "outside of voting that is rule-bending or obviously malicious" that is, in effect, making notice that it is a possibility that it's happening.

As for the Troll voting, how does one explain that at rollover, practically every score thread sees the 1's and 2's coming in like dominos going down? One will exclaim that they've been hit by a thrash of 1's and 2's and following, more will note the same thing...one after another? Or, to see at midnight, that someone proclaims to have voted 100% within the first 20 minutes of voting having begun? How closely could those voters have looked over the photos to score them with any real sense of appreciation. It's akin to someone sitting there, saying, "like, don't like, don't like, don't like, don't like, don't like" in one second intervals. How can anyone truly "judge" a photo properly with "like, don't like" and hitting 1's and 2's?

To say that it's fair judging is saying that it doesn't matter what a photog has done to get a shot, they don't like it so, it's a 1!

There are Great Masters paintings that I don't necessarily like as my personal tastes but, if were to judge them on a 1 to 10 basis as we do in DPC, I'd not give them a 1 because it's not my personal tastes. I don't necessarily like Picasso's work nor, Andy Warhol for that matter but, I admire their own styles and the artistry that went into it! I may give Monet's work a 9 and Picasso a 7 but, all the same, there is merit in all of their work. The same holds true of every photographer's work in here, unless of course, it was an "in your face" snub with a black box or a total DNMC entry. All photographs in here, deserve a fair chance and evaluation. An "I don't like it...1" vote is infantile and certainly not valuing photography as it should be valued.

You're so far from reality that it's not even worth responding to you.

Well, I guess it's all according to your sense of "reality" so, yeah, don't bother. :)

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

02/24/2009 03:03:50 PM · #290

These complaints about 'troll voting' that have been at the forefront of so much forum activity lately are really beginning to cheese me off. Over the course of the last week I voted on the three challenges currently in voting - and my average votes were 4.6, 4.5 and 5.1; I suspect that subconsciously I must have absorbed the complaints and thought sod this for being told what I should do! It was really quite liberating handing out all those 1s, 2s and 3s - and yes, I genuinely feel each and every one of them deserved a vote of 3 or less.

02/24/2009 03:06:42 PM · #291

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Ok, so by your method then, what's the use in having any challenges or scores at all? Why not just how many likes and dislikes there are for each photo?

That's exactly what we do have! *Most* of us accept that fact that this is a low-key, popular imaging site and let it go at that. Why don't you?

Based on your complaints, the best system would be "juried challenges", where respected community members or respected outside judges do the scoring. It's a great idea, it's been proposed many times, but it doesn't have much support because it's not what DPC is about!

R.

Message edited by author 2009-02-24 15:09:23.

02/24/2009 03:08:33 PM · #292

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why not just shoot a shot that is good "eye candy" that people might like and to heck with the technicals, composition and whatever else goes into a good photograph?

Do you really think that there is no connection between good "eye candy" and good technicals? What is good technically for one person isn't necessarily good technically for another. What is "eye candy" for one person isn't necessarily "eye candy" for another.

Isn't it great that everyone's different?

Again, I'll go back to the example of the Great Masters in painting. There are some people who hate Picasso's work and wouldn't give it 5 cents while others would spend millions on one. Does that mean that Picasso's work is garbage because it's simply not someone's "tastes"?

If it were only one person's opinion, it wouldn't matter at all. It's when there are several hundred people voting by a criteria that judges someone's work as garbage or great, according to personal tastes that makes a difference and that is what essentially happens in challenges.

Gee, let me think. They have different tastes. Am I right? It's garbage to one viewer and a masterpiece to someone else.

Yes and does that make it right or fair to value a Picasso as garbage? Effectively, when someone says, "it's not my taste" and votes it a 1 or a 2, it's saying that the piece is essentially garbage. Is it really garbage?!

Actually, yes it does. It's garbage in one person's opinion, so what.

For some reason, this didn't post..so, trying it again. :)

It's a different story when it's a challenge into which people are putting their time and effort into entry shots and several hundred votes are going into each person's work according to, I don't like it...1. I love it...9 in a couple of seconds worth of glancing.

Donning a thick skin around here is a good thing. We are all attached to our own images and the low votes can hurt. Not everyone is going to like your images and some are going to think they are garbage. That's just reality, here and anywhere in the art world. Not everyone likes everything and you can't force them to.

Message edited by author 2009-02-24 15:34:09.

02/24/2009 03:08:53 PM · #293

Originally posted by SaraR:

I find it quite interesting that someone finds it "liberating" to "hand out all of those 1's 2's and 3's". That's like saying, "I quite enjoyed and took delight in saying that your shot sucks in my opinion". Hmmmmm...interesting statement to have made.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/24/2009 03:11:59 PM · #294

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by SaraR:
These complaints about 'troll voting' that have been at the forefront of so much forum activity lately are really beginning to cheese me off. Over the course of the last week I voted on the three challenges currently in voting - and my average votes were 4.6, 4.5 and 5.1; I suspect that subconsciously I must have absorbed the complaints and thought sod this for being told what I should do! It was really quite liberating handing out all those 1s, 2s and 3s - and yes, I genuinely feel each and every one of them deserved a vote of 3 or less.

I find it quite interesting that someone finds it "liberating" to "hand out all of those 1's 2's and 3's". That's like saying, "I quite enjoyed and took delight in saying that your shot sucks in my opinion". Hmmmmm...interesting statement to have made.

NO! That's not the liberating part. Many voters aren't anywhere near as harsh as they feel they ought to be, out of a misplaced sense of empathy. What's *liberating* is to say "Sod that!" and vote exactly the way you feel, damn the consequences.

R.

Message edited by author 2009-02-24 15:12:19.

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

02/24/2009 03:19:35 PM · #295

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by SaraR:
These complaints about 'troll voting' that have been at the forefront of so much forum activity lately are really beginning to cheese me off. Over the course of the last week I voted on the three challenges currently in voting - and my average votes were 4.6, 4.5 and 5.1; I suspect that subconsciously I must have absorbed the complaints and thought sod this for being told what I should do! It was really quite liberating handing out all those 1s, 2s and 3s - and yes, I genuinely feel each and every one of them deserved a vote of 3 or less.

I find it quite interesting that someone finds it "liberating" to "hand out all of those 1's 2's and 3's". That's like saying, "I quite enjoyed and took delight in saying that your shot sucks in my opinion". Hmmmmm...interesting statement to have made.

NO! That's not the liberating part. Many voters aren't anywhere near as harsh as they feel they ought to be, out of a misplaced sense of empathy. What's *liberating* is to say "Sod that!" and vote exactly the way you feel, damn the consequences.

R.

Exactly!

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/24/2009 03:20:25 PM · #296

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Ok, so then, no one should really worry about technicals? No one should really worry about composition? We should all just aim to shoot shots that are, in some way, amusing because it's all subjective anyway?

No, we should freaking shoot the way we want to shoot and let the voters vote the way they want to vote!

R.

Ok, so by your method then, what's the use in having any challenges or scores at all? Why not just how many likes and dislikes there are for each photo?

Perhaps the thing that saddens me the most about this discussion rests in the fact that I remain absolutely convinced that you know nothing about

bear_Music(Robert's voting habits.

Do you happen to know that he normally makes three passes when he votes on images, opening each thumbnail, analyzing the image an pegging it into a slot. He then re-visits each image twice and upon further scrutiny adjusts his scores accordingly.

Surprisingly, he is not alone in doing this... and there are others, such as myself, who have a scale that they use to categorize images.

While I can appreciate that cores of 1 and 2 are hard to digest, the impact these scores have is negligeable. We must also consider that these low scores are offset by the 9 and 10 scores, and I would wager that there are a lot more of these than the ones and twos.

I know how I vote and can assure you that I have meted out 1 and 2 scores and make no apologies for it, because in my opinion, they were richly deserved, and since I am in control of the mouse, mine is the only opinion that really counts relative to my vote.

Rather than casting aspersions and attacking the integrity of those who do not share your views, you might consider trying to comprehend that we do not all share the same likes and dislikes and that life would be absolutely drab if we did.

As the French say: "Vive la diffÃ©rence"

Ray

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/24/2009 03:21:30 PM · #297

You know, I've come to look at the names in the thread here and the ones who tend to be really defensive and I've come to realize something.

Most of the same opinions are coming from members of a group/team that has become a site within a site and unto itself, so to speak. A movement AWAY from mainstream DPC photography...one that calls itself "low scoring" (by virtue of "the illustious leader's words" as posted in the "camp thread")

So, I find it ironic and contradictory that all of the same posters would be fighting to say..."that's just the way it is IN DPC" when in actual fact, it seems that the very goal of this same group IS to go AGAINST the grain of what is or has been considered "Mainstream DPC Values".

I'm not exactly sure what it really is that is being said anymore because it is so contradictory and ironic. So, I shall end my portion of this discussion here because there is no real sense to banter any further with those who fight so fiercely against opinions that may change DPC and yet, are part of a "movement" (for lack of a better term at this moment in time with which to phrase it) against mainstream/traditional DPC values.

Besides, my work break has long since ended and I have a pile of things that need to be done before leaving it for the day. That puts the roof over my head and food on my table. This discussion doesn't. :)

Best wishes to all! I mean that with sincerity and no disrespect or sarcasm intended in any way. Have a great day and evening.

Bebe

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/24/2009 03:28:33 PM · #298

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I don't know the "camp thread" of which you refer, so perhaps I'm missing something , but ... As a medium long-time member here I can assure you that, in my opinion, the members who are most actively debating you are some of the most respected people here, both for their willingness to help as well as for the quality of their knowledge & their photography. I tend to be more of a "lurker" than a poster, but I don't want you to think it's just a small "specialized" group arguing against you - I'm sure there are many like me who agree with them but just don't tend to be quite as vocal.

02/24/2009 03:40:09 PM · #299

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Oh, boy! Let's get logical here:

1. "Mainstream DPC Values": These haven't changed as long as I've been here, basically. And what strikes me is that, according to extensive research reported by SC, there is NO evidence of any relatively recent increase in "troll voting", or indeed in frequency of low votes at all.

2. Now, by your own words, you're in favor of leading a movement AWAY from the mainstream, and TOWARDS a more structured voting experience where the powers that be can insure that no image gets a score lower than it "deserves", because these scores are seriously hurtful to people who have invested time and effort in their images, only to have them dismissed out of hand by voters who either don't understand that or don't care. And your solution is to buck the highly independent culture of DPC by placing restrictions on how we place our votes.

3. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, some of us laid-back, counter-culture sorta people like me, Ubique, too many others to mention, continue doing what we've ALWAYS done, and lobby at every opportunity for an opening of the eyes and the spirit to a broader range of photographic expression than is typically seen at the top of the pile in our challenges. Now, MANY of our accomplished photographers of the past have "outgrown" DPC and packed their tents and moved on, because they saw the site as a whole was no longer responsive to the more personal work they had evolved to.

But *some* of us don't want to do that, so we hang around, we share our viewpoints, we engage in a little "teaching" now and then, and hope that a few of the many who encounter us may have their eye opened a bit. And this is a VERY "mainstream" tradition in DPC, I assure you.

4. How on earth you can get from these facts to a twisted worldview where your abrasive insistence that the voters are "wrong" is mainstream, and *our* insistence that everyone's entitled to their opinion is anti-DPC I do not know.

R.