| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2004 10:54:37 PM · #126 |
Specifying relevant sub-dimensions that everybody has to judge on is a very good idea. When you think about it, judging on a unidimensional 'goodness' spectrum is kind of crude.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 09:42:11 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by lakritstroll:
Specifying relevant sub-dimensions that everybody has to judge on is a very good idea. When you think about it, judging on a unidimensional 'goodness' spectrum is kind of crude. |
An admirable thought, and very well put.
As I have been voting with my antiquated voting format and evaluating each picture in four separate categories, composition, technical, appeal and fitting the challenge, I find myself more and more compelled to comment in at least one of the categories. I think this is because of the constant reminder that I must look for qualities, or lacking qualities in each category. This I find to be an interesting offshoot to the format.
Dick |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 09:55:12 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by autool:
Originally posted by lakritstroll:
Specifying relevant sub-dimensions that everybody has to judge on is a very good idea. When you think about it, judging on a unidimensional 'goodness' spectrum is kind of crude. |
An admirable thought, and very well put.
As I have been voting with my antiquated voting format and evaluating each picture in four separate categories, composition, technical, appeal and fitting the challenge, I find myself more and more compelled to comment in at least one of the categories. I think this is because of the constant reminder that I must look for qualities, or lacking qualities in each category. This I find to be an interesting offshoot to the format.
Dick |
When an image scored particularly low in a given category I too endeavoured to give an explanation as to why. I didn't get all but I tried. Using Dick's method, I found it easier to pinpoint what was lacking in lower scoring shots.
To date I've received 8 PM/emails praising the multi-tiered approach. I received one negative but it wasn't specific enough to know if the person was refering to my voting or something else.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 10:11:39 AM · #129 |
Well, I've weighed in here on another thread, and I really like the new technique.
I alluded to an example of why this is needed before, but I couldn't explain myself fully since I was currently in the middle of that challenge.
I received 14 threes and 5 twos on my abstract entry. Several people have said it should have ribboned. With a small fix, I was told it would be well suited for an art "gallery". So why the low scores. The only real "negative" comment I received (I think) was a one word comment "blur". Of course, the abstract was achieved by movement blur (as opposed to a PS filter), so I am not sure if that was positive or negative.
Now with a multidimensional voting scheme, perhaps those three's would have been clearer. Perhaps they would have told me through one of those dimensions where I failed in their eyes. Right now, I can only guess.
I sure hope we can move forward with a more detailed voting scheme. |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 12:09:03 PM · #130 |
Just a check in to let you know how the format is working for me so far.
I have completed 240 or 54% of the “Rusted” challenge and received 10 positive Private Messages. In addition to that five people have been compelled to include me as one of their favorite photographers; something that doesn’t happen on a regular basis.
Thanks to all of you.
Dick
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 12:39:01 PM · #131 |
A completely different solution to the feedback problem:
Mini-Challenges |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 12:52:07 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by budokan:
A completely different solution to the feedback problem:
Mini-Challenges |
Thanks, I have been busy and didn't notice.
Dick |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 04:50:16 PM · #133 |
| To both orussell and autool who took the time to give a more indepth scoring summary of my photo in Rusted challenge ... A big thanks. I like your method of voting/scoring. |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 05:15:39 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Shakey:
To both orussell and autool who took the time to give a more indepth scoring summary of my photo in Rusted challenge ... A big thanks. I like your method of voting/scoring. |
Thanks for the positive feedback Tim. Hopefully Dick's multi-tiered voting system will catch on with more voters.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 09:02:32 PM · #135 |
| A short note or even a real word from someone is better than this idea. I am personally against the number clutter that this proposal introduces, but as a voter I might use it on occasion, if it could also be implemented selectively..... ie. using only one or two of the selections as part of the critique, and also with a on/off default to keep the thing out of my voting booth and off my final comment. Having used it or not, during the challenge or after, noted as an edit if necessary. Has any one suggested a "yes" = 10 / "no" = 1 choice for meets the challenge? |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 09:55:32 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Has any one suggested a "yes" = 10 / "no" = 1 choice for meets the challenge? |
I feel that subject matter can easily fall in a 1-10 category for meets the challenge. Why couldn't it be very weak in fitting the category, all the way up to matching it very strongly?
An example could be as in the "rusted" challenge. I have seen a number of images that the rusted item played a lessor part in making the picture than another item which became the strongest subject. In this case I don't believe it should recieve a 1 or a 10. Somewhere in between.
Dick |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 10:26:53 PM · #137 |
i have to say that i'm not fond of this voting method. i've received a couple of comments in this format for my rust photo and i haven't found them to be particularly helpful. without a comment, to me, they are just arbitrary numbers.
no offense intended, just my thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 10:45:09 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
i have to say that i'm not fond of this voting method. i've received a couple of comments in this format for my rust photo and i haven't found them to be particularly helpful. without a comment, to me, they are just arbitrary numbers.
no offense intended, just my thoughts on the subject. |
Personally, if I scored an image particularly low in one of the four areas, I tried to comment and explain why I did so. If any of your other images are any indication Sher, chances are I didn't give you a low score in any of the categories; FWIW I think you are very talented. If I did score you low in one of the areas and didn't explain why, then I apologize.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 12:48:43 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Originally posted by sher9204:
i have to say that i'm not fond of this voting method. i've received a couple of comments in this format for my rust photo and i haven't found them to be particularly helpful. without a comment, to me, they are just arbitrary numbers.
no offense intended, just my thoughts on the subject. |
Personally, if I scored an image particularly low in one of the four areas, I tried to comment and explain why I did so. If any of your other images are any indication Sher, chances are I didn't give you a low score in any of the categories; FWIW I think you are very talented. If I did score you low in one of the areas and didn't explain why, then I apologize. |
no need for an apology, owen, and thanks for the compliment. :) i really wasn't referring to my score just that i have no reference point for your scoring method and, without a comment, no way to know what needs to be improved.
i really don't judge the success of my work by the scores. my main concern is how my photos make people feel.
that being said...a high score is really cool, too! :D
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 06:41:37 PM · #140 |
I finally completed casting votes an all of the pictures in the “Rusted” challenge. You have outdone yourselves again with a lot of very good images. I left additional comments on a great many pictures that my format didn’t include. I know that the format is appreciated as I have received 11 positive feedbacks since I started, with no negatives, at least in the private messages.
Please remember that I have limited knowledge and am still trying to learn as I go. My last few entries will attest to that, but also remember that I like to display a sense of humor at times too.
Good luck to all of you!
Dick
|
|
|
|
05/14/2004 08:27:56 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by orussell:
So much for "heavy weights" and SC getting behind the idea I guess. But there are still the little people. One collective voice and all that drivel. Oh well. |
I have just seen this thread now, and have only gotten to this post which is on the first page. :)
I will read the whole thing and interject an opinion when I form one.
Just letting you know we are really here. ;) |
|
|
|
05/14/2004 09:04:14 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I think weighting voting elements differently is a good idea. |
I'm up to page 4 now.
I also think the weighting of the votes is skewed. Composition and Technical are similar aspects. By this voting method they would carry 2/4 of the average?
I am not done reading, nor am I done making an evaluation to form an opinion on this idea. |
|
|
|
05/14/2004 09:10:12 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by orussell:
BTW Heather, thanks for being one of the few SC members to voice an opinion on this issue. :)
Regards,
Owen |
No problem, I think I'm one of the few that are actually home this time of day. Stupid second shift job. lol I wonder if it would get more attention in the "web site suggestions thread"? Or if the title was proposed voting format? Honestly, There have been so many "how I vote" threads, that this one might just get looked over as "yet another repeat thread". I do think it should be in the web site suggestions section, so I'll try to move it there.
EDIT-I'm not going to move it unless the original author wants it moved. I was gonna, but then though that if he wanted it there, he would have put it there. So it will stay unless I hear otherwise. |
Ah.. this is why I didn't see it before (besides being sick this week).
Hm.. I think this was page 6.
Alot of "where is the SC and Admins" posts... Hmm.
Sorry to not be on your schedule. :) |
|
|
|
05/14/2004 09:20:56 AM · #144 |
well, I am finally caught up, but have to leave for work.
until later......... |
|
|
|
05/14/2004 09:54:28 AM · #145 |
I have to say that I didn't particularly care for this type of voting idea while reading this thread's progression. I didn't think it would be that useful and might be confusing. Now, after having received about 6 ratings from various people using this type of scale during the current two and the rust and abstract challenges, I kind of like the approach, as it gives me some information I might not have gotten otherwise. I don't think it should be mandatory, but the idea has grown on me.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2004 02:06:34 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
well, I am finally caught up, but have to leave for work.
until later......... |
We really appreciate you and other SC giving it a look Karen. Thanks. :)
|
|
|
|
05/15/2004 08:47:09 AM · #147 |
I wish to extend my gratitude to all of you that have participated in this thread. Your input has been appreciated. If you are a new reader or have had a picture evaluated with this method please feel free to leave a brief comment, either here or through a PM to the person that gave it to you.
Thank you,
Dick
|
|
|
|
05/15/2004 09:15:51 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by bill_hk2002:
Good morning everyone. This thread clearly got more intersting as I was sleeping over here in HK. As I read this thread, three very well thought out objections to the autocommenting/voting jumped out at me. They can be roughly paraphrased as:
1) The quality of a well thought out and individually drafted comment is better than anything we can do systemically (willem and mijak- Personally I agree with this, but feel there simply aren't enough people who can/will make the well reasoned and helpful comments in question.)
2) The number of auto comments would be overwhelming in terms of time commitment to vote. (laurielblack)
3) The equal weighting doesn't work for some people and that would need to be flexible. (the O-ster)
My question: do we agree that these are the major objections?
I believe that if this is implemented as an option, the first and second objection are reasonably well addressed, and those that are uncomfortable drafting comments have a useful tool available, with obvious benefits.
The third objection is one that coding gurus need to address. Anyone want to take a stab at that?
Bill M. |
Do you think the answer might be something of a compromise - like regular voting, but check boxes to say 'Overexposed' 'Poor Cropping', etc. Then if a person gets a 4 and tons of checks for one thing - they will certainly know what happened. This wouldn't take too long, it would be informative, and you'd only have to do it on photos that had a obvious weak quality. The rest you could just vote as we have been. |
|
|
|
05/15/2004 10:47:36 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by lettyb:
Do you think the answer might be something of a compromise - like regular voting, but check boxes to say 'Overexposed' 'Poor Cropping', etc. |
If you go back to the 7th post on this topic (back on 05/04/2004 02:18:22 PM), you'll see that this is my personal preference as to how more useful feedback could be provided to the user. Being able to (anonymously) check off various common "feedback attributes" and have them tallied is a great idea IMHO. |
|
|
|
05/15/2004 11:42:01 AM · #150 |
The more I think of it the more it seems like the best solution. Although I'm in awe of the coding talent here :)
|
|
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: 07/26/2025 01:15:31 AM EDT.
