| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2006 08:31:39 AM · #151 |
| i thought it was time to give this thread a little bump. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:46:44 AM · #152 |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:55:02 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
And sometimes we find ourselves defending the site no matter how harsh our replies sound, and that's a result of us feeling passionate about something we really enjoy. And once in a while we pinch each other a little bit to remind ourselves that we need to watch our own tones.
|
Hey, no worries, I think we all do that occasionally. "Only Human" |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:57:05 AM · #154 |
Is there a litmus test set of questions for new nominations to the SC ? Are previous forum posts brought up in this discussion for pending SC nominations ? I think for full disclosure these should all be reviewed for every SC nominee.
Why does Bush get so many SC picks anyway ? Are D&L republicans ? |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:58:52 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Are previous forum posts brought up in this discussion for pending SC nominations? |
Yikes! You'd never fill another SC vacancy again! |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 11:05:22 AM · #156 |
Great thread BTW...
Thoughts:
I too agree that I think there should be a little tribute to former SC who retire in good standing. Perhaps a little icon with a long beard.... ;-) [Well for the males at least. Also, maybe they should retain the 100MB portolio space.]
Critique Club, I also agree that this is an extremely beneficial group but that the system doesn't leverage well. I think the simplest resolution is to place a flag of some sort on said critique club comment.
Okay, Kirbic just answered my questions about icons... *lol*
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 11:19:24 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Great thread BTW...
Thoughts:
I too agree that I think there should be a little tribute to former SC who retire in good standing. Perhaps a little icon with a long beard.... ;-) [Well for the males at least. Also, maybe they should retain the 100MB portolio space.]
|
Lifetime membership woulda been nice ;) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 11:24:50 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Lifetime membership woulda been nice ;) |
I'm certain you could get a membership free. lol
(there are about 15 going around in other threads and we gave 8 away for Christmas)
And I haven't said this since you entered a couple times in Sept and came back to the forums more regularly, but it's good to have you around more again. :)
M
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 12:51:42 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by wavelength:
My only question: Boxers or briefs. |
Depends... |
Adult diapers? |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 12:57:35 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by wavelength:
My only question: Boxers or briefs. |
Depends... |
Adult diapers? |
Are you a retired SC member? |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 06:47:52 PM · #161 |
Bump. And a request to make this thread sticky. I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but what I've seen is EXTREMELY useful. At least as useful as how to post thumbnails or how the DQ process works.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 08:31:59 PM · #162 |
| consider it stuck. thank you for your continued interest. :) |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:01:05 AM · #163 |
Having had various reasons to interact with various members of the SC over the past few days, I once again am amazed at their dedication.
So here's my question: how much time do each of you typically spend each week on SC business? If you ever need to recruit for an opening, that'll be useful info to provide.
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:03:25 AM · #164 |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:39:32 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
So here's my question: how much time do each of you typically spend each week on SC business? |
they are sentinel programs created to govern the site. Their AI is programmed as such that they have human-like qualities, which is highly important when interacting with human-users in the forums, etc. :p |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:46:38 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Their AI is programmed as such that they have human-like qualities, which is highly important when interacting with human-users in the forums, etc. :p |
You're assuming the members are human.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:48:57 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by crayon:
Their AI is programmed as such that they have human-like qualities, which is highly important when interacting with human-users in the forums, etc. :p |
You're assuming the members are human. |
did I just blew my own cover? ok, so the majority of members here are AI scripts too. They are scripted to occasional post in the Rants section and create some realistic drama to entertain the visitors :) |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 01:58:18 AM · #168 |
Is the SC actively investigating voting irregularities with "Team Voting"?
I am not sure how widespread the problem is but it is probably better to put checks in place before it becomes a problem. To address it you are going to need some stats gurus to spot any statistical significance in voting patterns of Team members vs others. To do that you would need to load the Team members into a database for analysis.
Maybe put those AI bots to work on this one Crayon...?
Imagine a future of the DPC site where, to get above 3 for an entry, you would have to join a Team, do all the right things etc. This smacks of tribalism and also perhaps of American politics (hehe). |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 02:05:58 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by craigester:
Is the SC actively investigating voting irregularities with "Team Voting"?
|
Yeah they just did that for the entire season for every member of WPL2, there were 4 or 5 people found to vote high for there team, out of the hundred or so?(I don't know exactly how many people are in the league). no other irregularities were found to worry about.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 02:07:27 AM · #170 |
Crayon...what the....????
"Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera"???? |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 02:09:48 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by craigester:
Is the SC actively investigating voting irregularities with "Team Voting"?
|
Yeah they just did that for the entire season for every member of WPL2, there were 4 or 5 people found to vote high for there team, out of the hundred or so?(I don't know exactly how many people are in the league). no other irregularities were found to worry about. |
That's cool. At least that would prevent "buddy voting" from happening within the WPL groups (I know, I know, maybe only a few minority does it, giving the WPL a bad name) |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 05:18:58 AM · #172 |
Yes, as soon as people get the idea that your score is no longer based on the pic's merit alone, they will simply stop contributing. I think the perception of fairness (or otherwise) should be carefully managed, otherwise it could severely undermine the whole site in future, not just the WPL.
Message edited by author 2006-11-30 05:20:12. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 08:02:25 AM · #173 |
Please don't expect any reassurances here as to the exact methods in place to prevent this kind of problem. Obviously they cannot be announced in such a fashion to allow someone to "invent" a new way to defeat them. This site is a business that has nothing to do with WPL. Site Council enforces the rules equally regardless of whether an individual is involved in WPL. Rest assured that cheaters can and will be caught.
There are MANY members of the site who do not contribute. However, there still seems to be a LOT of images to vote on every week, so I don't think we have to be paranoid about anyone trusting the site.
Remember - DPC is a business. The admins are gonna protect their business - don't worry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 08:19:02 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by nards656:
There are MANY members of the site who do not contribute. However, there still seems to be a LOT of images to vote on every week, so I don't think we have to be paranoid about anyone trusting the site. |
On that point, what is the SC's opinion on the large entry challenges where there are typically 300-400 entries? Is there any plan to provide more challenges to thin down the entries per challenge? There seem to be enough members to vote on them but the more images there are, the fewer get useful comments. People like me tend to want to vote on 100% of the images to get an overview and then come back and bump up/down accordingly. But this is perhaps not feasible these days as even 20% of entries can take a voter some time. In future the SC may have to revisit the 20% voting rule as this requires quite a time commitment every week. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 08:36:35 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by craigester:
Originally posted by nards656:
There are MANY members of the site who do not contribute. However, there still seems to be a LOT of images to vote on every week, so I don't think we have to be paranoid about anyone trusting the site. |
On that point, what is the SC's opinion on the large entry challenges where there are typically 300-400 entries? Is there any plan to provide more challenges to thin down the entries per challenge... |
The current system of two Open Challenges per week is a direct response to the large numbe of photos we were seeing for the then single Open Challenge. It has cut down the total submissions for the most part, but some challenges are just so popular that they will draw big no matter what we do.
It is the kind of problem you don't mind having :-)
|
|
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: 04/27/2024 09:04:00 AM EDT.
