| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2008 05:47:12 PM · #1 |
| Ok, it seems like this has gone on quite long enough. I'm hiding the last few posts in this thread for being off-topic and generally worthless as relating to productive discussion, and locking the thread. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:27:54 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The comment in question is a good example of a comment that, while intended to be humorous, |
See, that is the crux of the biscuit. How do you know the intent of the person making the comment? And assuming you are correct and it was intended as humor then how can you discount the feelings of the photog and the fact that they were offended? To add to that , why does the commenter get more rights than the photog in getting to keep the comment as opposed to complying with the wish of the photog to have it removed?
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 17:30:30. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:26:28 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Katmystiry:
I let Leroy post this as an example because the comment did tick me off and in no way did I find it helpful. "Is he urinating?!!" is the exact comment on my image. After the debate I would appreciate it being removed from my photo. |
The "he looks pleased" comment should be deleted too. Clearly it is not helpful to the photographer and who is the commenter to judge if the man is pleased or not?
What if his mom just died and he's looking up to the sky and crying? Very offensive!
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:22:40 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
Originally posted by Katmystiry:
I let Leroy post this as an example because the comment did tick me off and in no way did I find it helpful. "Is he urinating?!!" is the exact comment on my image. After the debate I would appreciate it being removed from my photo.
|
In all fairness, this is a stance I've both witnessed and performed at the urinal.
ETA:  |
The comment in question is a good example of a comment that, while intended to be humorous, might be taken differently. If we're truly all adults here, as Leroy suggests, then we're supposedly intelligent enough to "assume good faith" and thus avoid interpreting a comment in the worst possible way. Leroy, however, seems to have a double standard. He can interpret a comment as he chooses, and rant when we don't immediately take his view and remove the comment. That, in my estimation, is not "adult behavior." |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:19:29 PM · #5 |
oh man ... in my almost 58 years of living ... I have never ever ever ever said the phrase "Grow up" ... but I am now ... sheesh and a half ...
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:14:09 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
Originally posted by Katmystiry:
I let Leroy post this as an example because the comment did tick me off and in no way did I find it helpful. "Is he urinating?!!" is the exact comment on my image. After the debate I would appreciate it being removed from my photo.
|
In all fairness, this is a stance I've both witnessed and performed at the urinal. |
It's true and all guys have, but did it need to be said? IS it non-offensive? Is it really helpful?
Kat clearly finds it offensive. I think it's amusing at best. |
I didn't claim that it was helpful. I'm not convinced it was meant to be offensive though. Seemed to me more like an observation/gut reaction to the photo.
ETA: I thought it was worth pointing out since the photographer was a lady (i.e. may not be privy to such information)
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 17:15:39. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:08:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
These disputes are nearly always resolved amicably. |
Then why does this thread and other exist and why do quite a few agree? I submit there are a number of posts here that disprove your hypothesis.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 17:09:00.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:07:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Matthew:
In case it is of interest, UK government guidance provides that it is best practice for comments to be capable of being hidden by recipients. Also, the law extends far beyond contract and the terms of service; relevant issues include libel and moral rights.
It would be sensible for the balance of power to be reversed and for comments to be hidden automatically, with the commenter given the power of appeal to the SC rather than the photographer.
Grown ups will not delete helpful critical comments. The number of hidden comments by a user could be limited or could be displayed on the user's home page in order to police the practice. |
Yes that is exactly where we should go. |
No, it really isn't.
To do so implies that I can simply eliminate comments that I don't agree with or that are not entirely positive. That would detract greatly from the usefulness of the comment system. |
You imply that the majority of users would do this, and those in favour of this solution dispute that. Matthew's last paragraph addresses this. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:03:29 PM · #9 |
I agree that clearly inappropirate comments (cussing, namecalling, completely off topic, etc.) should be removed by SC, but I don't think SC has the resources to mediate a hearing over every comment we may not like. And if someone's going to give me the power to delete my own comments, I should also like the power to write comments on behalf of anyone here. And maybe I can choose where I want my photo to rank too. Fact is that we're NOT all grown ups here.
Are we repeating ourselves? I'm not pretending to have read everything posted since this morning.
Having said all that, maybe a picture flagged as having adult content could also have comments hidden to all but members. Then the photographer can share whatever he wants with his models (providing they're not also members, in which case they probably know the rules of the game anyway). That may also deter people from making rude comments just to be... rude.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:03:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Matthew:
In case it is of interest, UK government guidance provides that it is best practice for comments to be capable of being hidden by recipients. Also, the law extends far beyond contract and the terms of service; relevant issues include libel and moral rights.
It would be sensible for the balance of power to be reversed and for comments to be hidden automatically, with the commenter given the power of appeal to the SC rather than the photographer.
Grown ups will not delete helpful critical comments. The number of hidden comments by a user could be limited or could be displayed on the user's home page in order to police the practice. |
Yes that is exactly where we should go. |
No, it really isn't.
To do so implies that I can simply eliminate comments that I don't agree with or that are not entirely positive. That would detract greatly from the usefulness of the comment system.
We *will* remove comments where they violate the TOS or the forum rules, and even in cases where we have not seen fit to remove them, we have in the past asked commenters to modify their comments based on reactions from the comment recipients. These disputes are nearly always resolved amicably. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:59:48 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
If it really is valuable, constructive criticism then maybe leave it but err on the side of supporting the photographers. |
Which photographers... the ones giving or receiving the comments? If you're concerned about a model's feelings, then PM the commenter and politely say so. Unless it's an obvious ToS violation, your first response to an offending comment should be talking to the person who wrote it, not running to mom and dad. Many people don't realize that their post could be offensive and will gladly rephrase their comment out of consideration.
While you might not see the harm in allowing an entrant to delete criticism on his or her own shot, the people posting actual critiques are the rarest kind of voter around here. When that voter's comments get deleted for failing to sufficiently idolize every photo, then the voter will likely decide not to bother and everyone one else who welcomes criticism loses. |
Your quotes are screwed up. I never said that. However, I agree with it, and if comment reporting is to be considered "running to mom and dad", what's it there for? Only terms violations? What's the point? If you don't know an individual and what their reactions are likely to be, doesn't it make more sense to use a facility offered by the site? What about when you do approach the person, and they insult you? (This is a real-world example.) Are we still considered to be a bunch of whiny kids? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:53:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
In case it is of interest, UK government guidance provides that it is best practice for comments to be capable of being hidden by recipients. Also, the law extends far beyond contract and the terms of service; relevant issues include libel and moral rights.
It would be sensible for the balance of power to be reversed and for comments to be hidden automatically, with the commenter given the power of appeal to the SC rather than the photographer.
Grown ups will not delete helpful critical comments. The number of hidden comments by a user could be limited or could be displayed on the user's home page in order to police the practice. |
Yes that is exactly where we should go.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:41:33 PM · #13 |
In case it is of interest, UK government guidance provides that it is best practice for comments to be capable of being hidden by recipients. Also, the law extends far beyond contract and the terms of service; relevant issues include libel and moral rights.
It would be sensible for the balance of power to be reversed and for comments to be hidden automatically, with the commenter given the power of appeal to the SC rather than the photographer.
Grown ups will not delete helpful critical comments. The number of hidden comments by a user could be limited or could be displayed on the user's home page in order to police the practice.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:31:47 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by karmat:
...However, there would still be no need for the first action to be taken be by SC... |
In my suggestion the process would be automated and wouldn't involve the SC at all for 2 days. The comment would be hidden automatically until either the commenter clarified it or 2 days was reached at which point THEN the SC would be asked to review the comment and determine if it is a constructive criticism about the photographers work. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:28:08 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Agree 100%. If Toy requested deletion and SC refused, shame shame shame on SC!
|
But guess what didn't happen (to the best of my knowledge)?
For that matter, if you look at the time this post was made, and subtract a couple of minutes, you will see the exact time I viewed the picture and comments for the very first time.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 16:29:30. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:27:37 PM · #16 |
There really need to be a "Photographer controlled" system like what was suggested above...
what may push some one into a foaming rage may not affect another.
It is not a matter of thin skinned as someone put it. But a matter of sensibility of the photographer (and by extension the model)
Example ...
With some of the models that I work with ... calling her "thick" would likely get a thank you. with some other photographers if you called their model thick ... they would be loading up the Remington.
So I really think that there needs to be a clean ... non confrontational mechanism to remove unappreciated comments. The "free token" setup suits me fine.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:27:07 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The comment I'm really pissed about is gone...I deleted the photo and the commenter deleted his comment after I retaliated.
However, it implied the model looked like a $20 whore. You want to defend that defamation suit?
Maybe, I should drop it. Let people say anything they want and instruct models to file suits against the publisher! |
Leroy, I believe this is what Frisca may be referring to. The comment said nothing about a $20 whore. Yet, by saying it implied that, and then the original comment gets "erased," it looks like SC wouldn't hide a comment stating that. If it had said, "Pay that $20 whore; she looks bored," it would have been hidden, quickly. BUT, it didn't say that. When I read it, I interpreted it the same way Frisca did above. "She looks bored, give her 20 bucks and let her go on her way; you're wasting her time."
This would be another classic example of pm'ing the commenter politely and saying, "I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't quite understand what you meant by your comment of "blah blah blah" on my picture "arrangement of pixels." could you please clarify on the shot what you meant. Thank you."
I know that takes a few more minutes, but it could be so much more helpful. Then, if the commenter replied back and said, "I meant that you needed to pay the whore $20" the whole scenario changes. |
This is a great example of why we need a system in place - interpretation. You interpreted it one way, Leroy another. You are right, the commenter should have a chance to clarify. But if the photographer were to PM them and no response was received then it should be "no contest" and the comment removed. While waiting for a response (or lack there of) the comment should be hidden so no further harm can be done. |
As was asked earlier, why does SC need to be involved? One of the forum rules is "assume good faith." IF you assume good faith, and you read something that makes your blood boil, would you not think, "Hey, wait a minute. This person is not posting this just to make me mad, so there must be another interpretation I'm not seeing." It would take a lot less time to shoot a pm to the commenter and ask them, than to report the post, wait for enough SC to see it, make a decision and act on it. Wouldn't it?
IF the photog asks for clarification (which by my reading of this thread, Leroy did NOT), and there is no response, then the SC could possibly hide something that may be construed as insulting until the matter is resolved. However, there would still be no need for the first action to be taken be by SC.
Had Leroy politely contacted the commenter to begin with, it may have been resolved that way.
I'm trying to look at it as a growing experience. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:27:03 PM · #18 |
Okay, I've got to have my say, for what it's worth.
Critique my photos, reaffirm the fact that I am completely useless, that's fine.
Suggest ways I could improve my photos. That is the concept of DPC.
Flame me if I claim my fatass mate is the latest male supermodel. Or a female friend is black, when she is plainly white!
But is there any real need to comment on a model who isn't quite the shape you prefer? Look at the technique used, the quality of the shot, but don't badmouth someone who has the balls to pose for a photo!
We need some kind of way of maintaining the principles of the site and commentators, whilst protecting the photog and his/her models. I agree that there should be an option to 'Submit For Clarification' on comments and a further options to remove any comments that offend the models used, not the photog.
The photog, by posting, leaves themselves open to any comments that are deemed appropriate. Personal insults are not a useful aspect of the right to comment.
That's my bit:) |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:25:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Sure I hear ya and you are correct in that, but a comment like
"Gross - Before photographing her, you should have taken her to McDonald's and bought her a Big Mac and some Fries."
that was made on Toy's image below has got to be deleted. I think that is what we are talking about. Comments that rip on the model or are in poor taste should be removed even if they don't violate the TOS but offend the photog, they should be deleted. |
Agree 100%. If Toy requested deletion and SC refused, shame shame shame on SC!
Plus it's really bad advice! Big mac and fries would leave a little bulge in her belly (I've heard photogs suggest their models not eat the day of a shoot) and that other person would say "not an attractive belly"!!! |
:-)) LOL |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:24:01 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Sure I hear ya and you are correct in that, but a comment like
"Gross - Before photographing her, you should have taken her to McDonald's and bought her a Big Mac and some Fries."
that was made on Toy's image below has got to be deleted. I think that is what we are talking about. Comments that rip on the model or are in poor taste should be removed even if they don't violate the TOS but offend the photog, they should be deleted. |
Agree 100%. If Toy requested deletion and SC refused, shame shame shame on SC!
Plus it's really bad advice! Big mac and fries would leave a little bulge in her belly (I've heard photogs suggest their models not eat the day of a shoot) and that other person would say "not an attractive belly"!!!
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:23:37 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
... This is a great example of why we need a system in place - interpretation. You interpreted it one way... |
You mean like the rulesets and DQ's, forum rules, or the Terms of Service? If we let everything default to the photographer's judgement why even have SC in the first place? What a zoo that would be! |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:21:32 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I don't understand why the commenter gets the same rights as me the photog. It's my image, if I find the comment rude, regardless of anyone else's opinion, it should be deleted plain and simple.
Even if I don't have a button I can click myself. |
I do agree with you, but how many people here think "out of focus" or "does not meet the challenge" or "not sharp enough" or "should have used neat image" is rude?
How would you feel if you spent 15-20 minutes commenting on a photo and some thin skinned person deleted it because you suggested their lighting was a little off? Personally, it would make me not want to waste my time leaving comments anymore... |
Sure I hear ya and you are correct in that, but a comment like
"Gross - Before photographing her, you should have taken her to McDonald's and bought her a Big Mac and some Fries."
that was made on Toy's image below has got to be deleted. I think that is what we are talking about. Comments that rip on the model or are in poor taste should be removed even if they don't violate the TOS but offend the photog, they should be deleted. |
My question is how do these types of comments NOT violate the TOS?
Originally posted by DPC ToS:
4.1 Generally, you must use the DPChallenge.com Service in a manner that demonstrates good taste and respect for the rights of DPChallenge.com and third parties |
Especially the "good taste" part.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:19:41 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The comment I'm really pissed about is gone...I deleted the photo and the commenter deleted his comment after I retaliated.
However, it implied the model looked like a $20 whore. You want to defend that defamation suit?
Maybe, I should drop it. Let people say anything they want and instruct models to file suits against the publisher! |
Leroy, I believe this is what Frisca may be referring to. The comment said nothing about a $20 whore. Yet, by saying it implied that, and then the original comment gets "erased," it looks like SC wouldn't hide a comment stating that. If it had said, "Pay that $20 whore; she looks bored," it would have been hidden, quickly. BUT, it didn't say that. When I read it, I interpreted it the same way Frisca did above. "She looks bored, give her 20 bucks and let her go on her way; you're wasting her time."
This would be another classic example of pm'ing the commenter politely and saying, "I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't quite understand what you meant by your comment of "blah blah blah" on my picture "arrangement of pixels." could you please clarify on the shot what you meant. Thank you."
I know that takes a few more minutes, but it could be so much more helpful. Then, if the commenter replied back and said, "I meant that you needed to pay the whore $20" the whole scenario changes. |
This is a great example of why we need a system in place - interpretation. You interpreted it one way, Leroy another. You are right, the commenter should have a chance to clarify. But if the photographer were to PM them and no response was received then it should be "no contest" and the comment removed. While waiting for a response (or lack there of) the comment should be hidden so no further harm can be done. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:16:33 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
DPC is in a minority in lack of photographer control of content related to his/her images. |
An excellent point... this is one of the few places on the internet where you can learn from critical viewer opinions. |
Or people can have a free (or nearly so)reign to insult the models. There are plenty of other sties where it's possible to comment on other's photos and such behavior is not tolerated.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 16:17:26.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:14:41 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
DPC is in a minority in lack of photographer control of content related to his/her images. |
An excellent point... this is one of the few places on the internet where you can learn from critical viewer opinions. |
Oh please...blanket statement which could definitely be successfully debated.
|
|
