DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Do we need to find a way to limit entries?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 89, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/10/2004 11:49:40 AM · #51
For anybody who is curious, the "points system" that Clara refers to is in this post... (if you're using Firefox, just type "/Eddy" and it will highlight and jump to my name. The leading '/' is important unless you have the "Use find as you type" option enabled [Options Menu, Adanced Section, Accessibilty settings] in which case you can just start typing whatever you want to search for! Ctrl-G takes you to the next occurence. Firefox rocks!)

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 11:54:47.
 11/10/2004 11:49:55 AM · #52
Originally posted by louddog:
Shorten the submission period from one week to 4 days.


What he said. Less time = less entries. Simple.
 11/10/2004 11:51:20 AM · #53
Originally posted by scalvert:
What he said. Less time = less entries. Simple.

And some would say "less quality" because of the "rush" factor. Also, with a 4 day submission schedule, you would lose the weekends on a regular basis, which for a lot of people is the only chance they have to shoot.
 11/10/2004 12:00:46 PM · #54
you dont have to vote on all of them if you dont want to
 11/10/2004 12:11:17 PM · #55
I think there might be a other ways to reduce the number of submissions. I don't think I would even have a problem with a great number of submissions if they were honestly the best efforts of a group of photographers trying to improve their skills.

After voting on nearly all the entries in the Macro challenge, I'm getting frustrated. Too many images are very out of focus (I mean the whole image, not just shallow DOF). Too many images look like the photographer looked around the room for the first thing they could take a close-up shot of regardless of whether or not it actually made a good subject. Too many images aren't even close to using the max size (it's not required, but how can one really give good merit to a photo that appears to be 3x2 on the screen?).

Are there people out there who submit to every challenge regardless of whether or not they actually think they took a good photo? Why do you do this? Is it to waste everyone else's time? If you're not proud of the image you take and feel that it was the best you could do, why on earth would you enter it in a challenge?

Not everyone can take amazing photographs and I'm certainly not one of the ones that can. I'm using DPChallenge as a learning tool, to see what makes a great photograph and to get feedback on how to improve mine. Please don't take this as some pompous rant. If everyone truly challenged themselves in the Macro challenge and did the best they could, then I'm an ass and I'm sorry for saying this.

I just think that we could go a long way towards keeping submission sizes reasonable if people used some restraint and only entered challenges with the results of truly challenging themselves.

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 13:37:45.
 11/10/2004 12:15:55 PM · #56
Originally posted by EddyG:
...you would lose the weekends on a regular basis, which for a lot of people is the only chance they have to shoot.


Hence less entries. That is what we're talking about, right? This might only be for the open challenges. The last 24 hour Speed Challenge had some pretty high-quality entries.
 11/10/2004 12:17:37 PM · #57
Repost of an earlier idea:

In order to reduce the number of photos in any given challenge and possibly increase the overall quality of all challenges, I believe that multiple challenges each week is the solution. If there were 3 or 4 (or even more) challenges each week, with different topics, the photographer could choose one of those to participate in.

This would possibly create more total entries each week, but it would reduce the boredom of looking through 400+ images on the same theme where a majority of them are not so great. It would allow the photographer to choose a topic that suits him/her best. When a photographer is more interested in a given topic, chances are the photo produced for it will be stronger.
 11/10/2004 12:21:27 PM · #58
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Repost of an earlier idea:

In order to reduce the number of photos in any given challenge and possibly increase the overall quality of all challenges, I believe that multiple challenges each week is the solution. If there were 3 or 4 (or even more) challenges each week, with different topics, the photographer could choose one of those to participate in.

This would possibly create more total entries each week, but it would reduce the boredom of looking through 400+ images on the same theme where a majority of them are not so great. It would allow the photographer to choose a topic that suits him/her best. When a photographer is more interested in a given topic, chances are the photo produced for it will be stronger.


i thought about this too, if this idea was used it would be good that you cant vote in the one you are entered in, to prevent grudge voting, i know even myself sometimes feel like im doing this and tell myself to stop.
 11/10/2004 12:21:33 PM · #59
Start double or triple challenges with different subjects and allow photographers to only enter one challenge.
Perhaps this can even be done by qualifying each of those three challenges with rookie, advanced amateur and master/pro.

So you'd get for example:
1) Outdoors Macro (Rookie)
2) The Sky is the Limit (Advanced Amateur)
3) Studio Portraiture (Master/Pro)

Photographers will be allowed to enter either one of these three challenges. They must decide themselves if they are a Rookie, Adv Amat. or Pro. Anyone will be allowed to vote on each challenge, but you could design it in a way that you first need to have voted on the challenge you entered in.
For each gradation of challenges you could perhaps assign different ribbons.

Edit: I should read everythin before I say something, because this is not very original. :)
Edit again: No, Setz just typed it while I was typing this

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 12:23:56.
 11/10/2004 12:34:17 PM · #60
Originally posted by A1275:
... One more point - if you were the winner of this challenge would you feel better about beating out 200 other photos, or 400 other photos?


Welcome to dpc Laurie. You've raised a good point there. Can't remember it being raised before. It is more prestigious, more of an accomplishment, to do well in a larger field.
 11/10/2004 12:35:14 PM · #61
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Repost of an earlier idea:

In order to reduce the number of photos in any given challenge and possibly increase the overall quality of all challenges, I believe that multiple challenges each week is the solution. If there were 3 or 4 (or even more) challenges each week, with different topics, the photographer could choose one of those to participate in.


I agree. Simple, Simple, Simple
 11/10/2004 12:37:25 PM · #62
Originally posted by Gordon:
The sky isn't falling, but something needs to be changed to address these sorts of numbers.


Why?
 11/10/2004 12:49:04 PM · #63
I don't think the entries will continue spiralling out of control. People will get bored of entering a challenge which attracts few votes, few comments and a voting process which eats up all their spare time and either not enter, or pony up for a membership.

The whole thing should regulate itself quite nicely, and as long as we can provide a 'better' experience for members then we can say 'hey, it's free ... don't like it? pay up!'.

11/10/2004 12:51:54 PM · #64
My intention is not to reopen this discussion. Lets keep that discussion there.

But revising the editing rules to have 4 tiers (as graphicfunk suggested) instead of 2 would also have the effect of reducing the number of entries per challenge (Setz's point) and be a simple way for photographers to self select based on their experience, aptitude, and photographic objectives (Azrifel's point).
 11/10/2004 01:00:47 PM · #65
It is like DPC is in a pot of water and the flame has been turned on. The temperature is rising but many do not feel the heat as of yet nor realize that it may get hotter before it cools.

The entries are high and may get higher, but some of the conservative wise minds may wait until right before boiling time.

This appears to be a worthy thread because this problem is begging a solution. Even if we have more challenges, the total number of votes are growing to an alarming rate which may become unmanagable.

I offer this humble opinion to alleviate the congestion:

Break up DPC members into two units. Unit A and unit B. Run the challenge and unit A will only see and vote on unit B and like wise for B. This system not only reduces the voting per individual but gets rid of the vested interest.
 11/10/2004 01:36:01 PM · #66
Will someone please explain what's the big problem with larger fields in the challenges. The only thing that I can see is that fewer people would be voting on all the entries in a challenge because they choose not to devote the additional time involved. But the present structure will easily accomodate the anticipated numbers and probably much more.
 11/10/2004 01:40:53 PM · #67
Originally posted by coolhar:
Will someone please explain what's the big problem with larger fields in the challenges. The only thing that I can see is that fewer people would be voting on all the entries in a challenge because they choose not to devote the additional time involved. But the present structure will easily accomodate the anticipated numbers and probably much more.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sippose you log on next month and notice that challenge iron has 987 entries and challenge silver 1320. The open has 1740. How many people here will be able to solve this daunting task? No one dreamt of exceeding 537 several years ago.
 11/10/2004 02:04:28 PM · #68
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Will someone please explain what's the big problem with larger fields in the challenges. The only thing that I can see is that fewer people would be voting on all the entries in a challenge because they choose not to devote the additional time involved. But the present structure will easily accomodate the anticipated numbers and probably much more.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sippose you log on next month and notice that challenge iron has 987 entries and challenge silver 1320. The open has 1740. How many people here will be able to solve this daunting task? No one dreamt of exceeding 537 several years ago.


What daunting task? No one is required to vote on all of them. Many of us choose to do so. But many also never vote all of them. The only change that the numbers you put forward would require is that some individuals will have to invest more time or will have to lower there expectations of voting all entries. This has been going on a person by person basis for some time now without any detrimental effect on the site, the challenges, or the people involved. Do you think voting on 20% of a large field is a daunting task? Are there any other effects of the large fields?
 11/10/2004 02:10:50 PM · #69
Originally posted by riotspyne:
you dont have to vote on all of them if you dont want to


I think this is a dumb idea. I always try to vote on all the photos.

I think to submitt a photo you should have to earn a spot by voting on 100% of an open challlenge.
 11/10/2004 02:24:22 PM · #70
Originally posted by MrCaN:
I think this is a dumb idea. I always try to vote on all the photos.

I think to submitt a photo you should have to earn a spot by voting on 100% of an open challlenge.


Some of us don't have that much free time. :)
 11/10/2004 02:34:06 PM · #71
Originally posted by coolhar:
Do you think voting on 20% of a large field is a daunting task? Are there any other effects of the large fields?

Lest you forget dialups. If there were 1000+ entries, that is 200+ you would HAVE to vote on for them to count. Now for me on cable, I could whip through them all and give them a 2 second look, a 2 second score, no comment and be done within a half hour (for 200). Is this what people want? Dialup people it is going to take 3-4 times as long to do this same thing.
I would rather see people be able to take their time and comment also. Coming on and seeing 500 some pics entered and you thought, "I am going to vote on them all...." then you start getting into the "GitErDun" attitude and not take the time. (usually not consciously).
I would rather see quality for peoples time, than quantity. That is the comments!
 11/10/2004 02:40:44 PM · #72
If this sight were to get too large to be judge in the manner that it is at present, and it just well could, then a new way of judging should be implemented over limiting the number of photo's entired. Would it be possible to divide the memebers into groups based on an averge of their photo scores; say people who score on average an 8 or 7 with people who score a 5 or 4 to have and average score for each group being the same. Each group would be responcible for scoring a number of photo's and each groups top picks, say 10 each, would then be judged by all. This would come into play if the challenge exceded a certain number of entries.
 11/10/2004 02:58:15 PM · #73
Make 2 to 3 competitions within one challenge. Either do it by levels of expertise or do it by name A thru H, I thru R and S thru Z. I'm using this only as an example then the decision needs to be made as to which group you can vote on. For example you can vote on the other two groups but not yours or you can vote only in your group.


11/10/2004 03:03:18 PM · #74
I went outside and did some work in the yard, and it gave me time to think of another idea.

Let’s say there were three challenges at the same time all with the same topic, open for everyone.

When you submit your entry it automatically goes into the challenge with the least entries, this would keep them the same size.

When you vote you would be limited to the two challenges that you are not entered in.

After the challenge is over there could be three sub winners (not divulged at this time) in each one, and then the top 50 from each challenge would be lumped together and every one would be allowed to vote for the final winners. The length of time for voting could be adjusted to from a week each to something less for convenience and to appease those anxious ones.

I need to type faster, good idea OnesweetSin !
 11/10/2004 03:09:17 PM · #75
Shorten the time limit for entries in the basic editting challenges, but not the time to vote of course. ;)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:39:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:39:22 PM EDT.