| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2002 04:15:38 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by crisa58:
Do I understand that if neither of these requirements are met, the current submission is disqualified? Or are future submissions rejected? At what point in the voting is a photo removed from the current challenge?
Could it be that some busy/lazy/uncommunicative photographer shoots an phenomenal photo, but neither comments nor votes, so on Sunday evening the week's voting results are recalculated?
You cannot submit to the upcoming challenge until you have met either requirement for the current one.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 04:18:04 PM · #52 |
I disagree with this because I believe that commenting and critiquing photos helps a newbie photographer more than anything...
Originally posted by chariot:
Actually I would like to discourage people who are brand new to photography to comment and vote on a photo. I would honestly prefer a group of people who are in the top 10% of users to be the voters. I seem to be backwards from everyone else on this site but I feel there should be more photographers than voters/commentatotrs. But this might be the wrong place for that type of setup.
Originally posted by jkirkla1:
[i]If the intent of this new policy is to "encourage" users to provide feedback and criticisms to other users, I think it is flawed. Users that have something beneficial to add to a photo in the way of comments likely will do so without being encouraged (read "forced"). There are varying levels of photographers on the site, which is what makes it intriguing, but a total amateur photographer picking up a camera for the first time will likely have nothing more than "good photo" to add to a comment. A lot more of this will become prevalent. If someone took a good pic, they know it already and some lame comment just to meet the requirements will add no value.
Now about the voting alternative... I had absolutely no interest in voting in a recent challenge (several other users have expressed similar comments). However, this is forcing me to vote on pictures that I'm not interested in, just so that I have the opportunity of submitting next week in case it is a topic I am interested in.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 04:18:25 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Kimbly:
Could the requirement be that you have to vote on 95%/25% comments on the last challenge you submitted to? So people like Karen, who weren't that excited about the fear challenge, or people who go away on vacation for a week, wouldn't have to sit one out again just so that they could vote on it?
There's a major problem with this -- if someone fails to meet this requirement once, there's no way they can ever enter another challenge. That is, since they didn't vote/comment on enough photos on their last entry week, they can't enter again, so they will never be able to correct the situation.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 04:27:21 PM · #54 |
Drew, I think it might help if we understood the scope of the problem. I don''t know if there''s a way to query for this, but here goes:
How many photographers have voted on more than 95% of the images in fewer challenges than they have submitted to?
-Terry
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 4:27:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 04:38:28 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Originally posted by Kimbly:
[i]Could the requirement be that you have to vote on 95%/25% comments on the last challenge you submitted to? So people like Karen, who weren't that excited about the fear challenge, or people who go away on vacation for a week, wouldn't have to sit one out again just so that they could vote on it?
There's a major problem with this -- if someone fails to meet this requirement once, there's no way they can ever enter another challenge. That is, since they didn't vote/comment on enough photos on their last entry week, they can't enter again, so they will never be able to correct the situation.
[/i]
That isn't what I was suggesting. I was just trying to say that if someone didn't submit and didn't want to vote, they should still be able to enter as long as they voted on the last challenge they submitted to. If they didn't vote on the last challenge they submitted to, then they'd have to vote on the current one.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 04:52:33 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Kimbly:
There's a major problem with this -- if someone fails to meet this requirement once, there's no way they can ever enter another challenge. That is, since they didn't vote/comment on enough photos on their last entry week, they can't enter again, so they will never be able to correct the situation.
That isn't what I was suggesting. I was just trying to say that if someone didn't submit and didn't want to vote, they should still be able to enter as long as they voted on the last challenge they submitted to. If they didn't vote on the last challenge they submitted to, then they'd have to vote on the current one.
[/i]
That last part is what I missed... sorry about that.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 06:10:17 PM · #57 |
Drew/Langdon,
You are doing a great job with this site and if you feel photographers should vote 95%/comment 25% to be eligible to submit then so be it.
To be fair to all, I would like to recommend an accumulative system of “Submitting Credits”. One starts out with a certain number of credits (2) and gains credits (1.5) by voting on 95%, or commenting on 25% of entries per week, or some other contribution to the site. Then spends a credit to submit to a challenge.
With this method skipping a week because of travel, disinterest, or whatever would not be a problem.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 06:28:43 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by daysez:
You are doing a great job with this site and if you feel photographers should vote 95%/comment 25% to be eligible to submit then so be it.
To be fair to all, I would like to recommend an accumulative system of “Submitting Credits”. One starts out with a certain number of credits (2) and gains credits (1.5) by voting on 95%, or commenting on 25% of entries per week, or some other contribution to the site. Then spends a credit to submit to a challenge.
With this method skipping a week because of travel, disinterest, or whatever would not be a problem.
I think I could be in agreement with something like this as well. However, I think there may be ways to make it work better. Instead of getting credits based on voting for 95% in a challenge, how about a fractional credit for each vote issued. The requrement that you must vote on 20% could still be maintained. This way, people would be more likely to vote on things that interested them, yet if they didn''t vote on 20% in a single challenge they would lose those credits.
A similar system could be used for comments as well. I think a solution like this could encourage people to vote/comment and yet still allow the site to maintain a high level of quality.
I think the solution to keeping this a top-notch site would be coming up with a solution to encourage people to particpate rather than exclude them for not doing so.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 6:31:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 07:20:03 PM · #59 |
I agree that comments and critiques help a new photographer immensely. My point was that a new photograher likely won''t have much of value to offer someone more experienced which is what we''re gonna see a lot of with the new policy.
Suddenly it''s become an issue of quantity, not quality.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I disagree with this because I believe that commenting and critiquing photos helps a newbie photographer more than anything...
Originally posted by jkirkla1:
[i]If the intent of this new policy is to "encourage" users to provide feedback and criticisms to other users, I think it is flawed. Users that have something beneficial to add to a photo in the way of comments likely will do so without being encouraged (read "forced"). There are varying levels of photographers on the site, which is what makes it intriguing, but a total amateur photographer picking up a camera for the first time will likely have nothing more than "good photo" to add to a comment. A lot more of this will become prevalent. If someone took a good pic, they know it already and some lame comment just to meet the requirements will add no value.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 7:22:11 PM. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 07:47:42 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by jkirkla1:
I agree that comments and critiques help a new photographer [i]immensely. My point was that a new photograher likely won''t have much of value to offer someone more experienced which is what we''re gonna see a lot of with the new policy.
Suddenly it''s become an issue of quantity, not quality.
[/i]
I have to disagree here. Just because an individual doesn't have technical photography knowledge doesn't mean he/she can't offer constructive feedback. I'm a total amateur and was shocked to find that many of my scores and comments correlate with those of the cream of the crop in this community. People post here to find out how others see their work...whether or not they would put it on their own walls. The majority of people who see/purchase photos aren't skilled photographers. Their pov is at least if not more important than that of photo gurus. If you want to know how to take a technically sound photo you can check out a book. No book is going to give you the personal bias-free feedback and scores that you get on this and similar sites.
There is value to quantity as well. If 25 people tell you they they just hate your photo and offer no further commentary, you can be pretty sure that it probably will be hated by the masses...same goes for the 'I love it' comments.
There is also the option of voting on all of the photos. I think if you submit you should vote on all photos anyway. It's not like it's that difficult to go through the images to vote over a weeks time.
Anyway, I think this is a great idea. Once the bumps are worked out with the 'suspensions,' it'll do a lot of good for the challenge. :) |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 07:58:35 PM · #61 |
I agree with all those talking about credits. While it may be necessary to ensure those who enter do vote, there needs to be a bit more flexibility in the way this is handled.
I have voted on all entries since I joined and do not foresee myself having a problem with this in the near future, but I would hate to miss out on submitting my best photo because, for some reason, I was unable to fulfill my voting requirements in a given week. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:13:54 PM · #62 |
I agree with all those talking about credits. While it may be necessary to ensure those who enter do vote, there needs to be a bit more flexibility in the way this is handled.
I'd like to see this, too. I'm planning a trip to Europe for a month or two this fall. I will be accessing the internet through a cybercafes and my dad's laptop, which uses his mobile phone as a modem. (Let's just say that untrained snails can retrieve email faster.) I planned to keep skimming the forums and submitting photos as time permitted. Since I think most internet usage over there is still billed by the minute, and it takes me 2 - 4 hours just to vote (longer for comments), I wasn't planning on voting during that time.
I can live with the new rules meaning that I can't submit anything during my trip, but it would be nice to have the possibility under a credit system. Just my 2¢.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:23:32 PM · #63 |
Is off-line voting and/or commenting out of the realm of possibility?
(Vote/comment then upload)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 10:24:26 PM. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 11:32:14 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
[i]I agree with all those talking about credits. While it may be necessary to ensure those who enter do vote, there needs to be a bit more flexibility in the way this is handled.
I'd vote for this too. I go over seas a couple times a year for a month or so at a time, and the connections I've had would make me jealous of Amphian's untrained snails. Cut us a little slack:) |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 11:57:18 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Is off-line voting and/or commenting out of the realm of possibility?
(Vote/comment then upload
I really can't think of a way to do this without coding a stand-alone application. Ouch.
Drew |
|
|
|
07/11/2002 12:07:43 AM · #66 |
| Keep it simple Drew. Perhaps based on averages over a period of several challenges. |
|
|
|
07/11/2002 10:49:39 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by jkirkla1:
If the intent of this new policy is to "encourage" users to provide feedback and criticisms to other users, I think it is flawed. Users that have something beneficial to add to a photo in the way of comments likely will do so without being encouraged (read "forced"). There are varying levels of photographers on the site, which is what makes it intriguing, but a total amateur photographer picking up a camera for the first time will likely have nothing more than "good photo" to add to a comment. A lot more of this will become prevalent. If someone took a good pic, they know it already and some lame comment just to meet the requirements will add no value.
Now about the voting alternative... I had absolutely no interest in voting in a recent challenge (several other users have expressed similar comments). However, this is forcing me to vote on pictures that I'm not interested in, just so that I have the opportunity of submitting next week in case it is a topic I am interested in.
Awhile ago, there was a thread that talked about drop down windows that would let you 'pick' the commments - or something to this effect. I think if something like this was implemented it would 1)allow 25% or more votes with things other than "nice" or "wtf" - which I have received from newbies and the experienced and 2)It could help in giving us newbies some sort of guidline as to what 'it' is we're looking for to make comments (ie. DOF, background, cropping and other techniques I never even thought of or knew of before I found this site)
I like your idea Drew - If there is one thing humans can agree on, it's that we generally hate the idea of "change"!! Hey, if it doesn't work, try something else, or go back to the original plan - no harm.
I like the idea also about collecting credits. That way we can 'buy' in if we're gone or unable to submit to next challenge but able to submit when we return or have something worthy to submit.
Keep up the good work, the site is great!!
|
|
|
|
07/11/2002 10:59:37 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by David Ey:
[i]Is off-line voting and/or commenting out of the realm of possibility?
(Vote/comment then upload
I really can't think of a way to do this without coding a stand-alone application. Ouch.
Drew[/i]
I was able to download the entire voting section into a hyperlinked Acrobat PDF file, but it ended up over 16MB anyway, so it wouldn't help much for people with slow connections anyway...faster to overnight them a CD. And, I couldn't quite get the links back to the online files to work...It does, however, let me flip through all the entries locally (quickly), and even type the text into the comment boxes (could then be copied/pasted when back online). |
|
|
|
07/11/2002 12:19:21 PM · #69 |
Looks like I will be disqualified from participating in the site soon. I have only been averaging voting about every other week, and entering every third week. With the new rules, I think I will be disqualified more often than not! :(
The 25% comment rule saves me somewhat, but I always try to vote on all of them or not vote. There have been a few challenges where I simply have run out of time before voting on ALL photos. Some weeks I have failed to comment during the voting because of lack of time that week, and then gone back the next week to add a few comments.
One thing to consider: I am a serious voter who tries to comment whenever I think I have something constructive to say. However, I have a busy life and I sometimes cannot give 100% to the site. On those weeks, I have voluntarily chosen not to vote. I understand that the needs of the site are more important than the needs of one individual, but there must be quite a few people out there who fit my profile.
Anyway, it has been fun being part of the challenge, but with 2000 participants, I guess the site might need to weed out a few. I'm just sorry I will be one of the ones getting weeded.
I was a brand new photographer when I joined the site, (Still am!) and have learned a lot from participating, commenting, and receiving comments. Thanks for letting me play!
|
|
|
|
07/11/2002 01:12:45 PM · #70 |
| I fall into this category as well – I have managed to vote on a regular basis (often times from a laptop in a hotel room, Very slow) – I have submitted photos for the last two challenges within the last few critical minutes of the deadline. The photo for “Fear” was taken and submitted within 12 minutes – Just to stay a committed an active participant of the sight. There will be times when I can not allocate the time. |
|
|
|
07/11/2002 01:49:56 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by janfries:
Anyway, it has been fun being part of the challenge, but with 2000 participants, I guess the site might need to weed out a few. I'm just sorry I will be one of the ones getting weeded.
I don't believe that 'weeding' anyone out is the objective here at all. If you feel that way, then I would like to ask you to think again. If you read through these forums, you will see countless commets beggin for more feedback on the photos in the challenges. I think the objective of this change is NOT to weed anyone out... It's to get a higher level of participation from those who are not participating.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2002 03:27:46 PM · #72 |
Why do some still fail to see the flaws in logic in a system like this? Someone now has to vote on 95%. So they submit random votes. How will you statistically remove those? It is obvious there are people here who don''t participate as much as they should. I agree that it is a problem as much as anyone does. People, it is obvious that if someone wants to submit a photo they will do so without participating. You can make them vote but that does not mean they are participating.
So maybe the decision is made that that would not work. So we can fall back on the fact that they have to comment on 25%, right? So they start commenting photos with statements like "cool pic" or "sucks". These comments are nothing more than a verbal expression of a numeric vote. So are we going to start evaluating comments to determine whether or not it is really a "comment"? How could criteria for this be anything but subjective?
One of the reasons I like this site is that it is very objective--if someone is not interested in my photograph (or not interested in participating) then they will not vote or comment. I would rather get a comment or vote from an person who does not feel obligated to.
Drew, this is your site and I appreciate you starting it for those of us interested in photography. However, we shouldn''t assume that everyone who takes pictures has the skill or even interest in commenting or voting. People are free to comment without submitting a photograph. It could be said they are not participating by not submitting photos. Why don''t people gripe and moan about this?
What I am trying to say is that if people must comment/vote in order to submit photographs, whey are they not requred to submit photographs to be allowed to comment/vote? I can''t speak for everyone here, but I am much more interested in critique from other photographers.
Maybe people don''t comment because they are afraid of being identified with their critique. Maybe if there was an option to comment anonymously (from the view of regular users, not moderators) more people would.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/11/2002 3:37:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2002 04:38:42 PM · #73 |
I have to agree with aeverybody who is saying that mandatory voting/commenting will not get the results we want..more particiaption.
People who are helpful in their comments will be so on their own and people who are not helpful will not be. And then there will be those that figure some way to manipulate the system ala meaningless comments or voting without looking at the photo and that is worse than no vote.
I say just leave it as is. Suceess or failure here is only one yardstick to measure your growth as a photographer. If you are that starved for discussion...the forums are sitting right in front of you..make use of them. Post links to other photos..etc..etc.
But forcing uninterested parties to provide input is just going to create more frustration in my opinion. |
|
|
|
07/11/2002 04:50:17 PM · #74 |
I must be mistaken, but when I joined this site, I thought I read somewhere in the rules that photographers were required to vote on all photos. I went back and looked for it and can't find it. Am I imagining things again?
I know that the intentions on this change are good ones. Like I said earlier, before this change came about, all you heard about in the forums was complaints about how few or how lame the comments were. Now that something has been done in an attempt to improve, that, the complaining is much louder.
Maybe the future would hold a seperate challenge for those of us who want high participation from all contestants. I vote and comment on every photo every week. Some of my comments are useful and some are not.
I do know that if I did not want to comment and ther was a requirement for me to do so, I would be making a lot of 'nice pic' comments just to meet the requirement.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2002 05:37:44 PM · #75 |
i really didnt think the rationale of the new rule was to 'force' participation. i think it was the opposite of that: to reduce non-participation that comes at the expense of those who *do* participate.
It sounds like I'm saying the same thing in a different way, but the distinction is an important one.
here's a little story:
there is a boat, and it is powered by the oars of the passengers. it's an equitable and friendly boat, and people can ride, whether or not they row. that's because at this point, there arent' that many passengers and everyone wants to help out and row.
a little time passes. people realize what a good deal the boat is. there are other boats, but they all cost money. no one on those other boats have to row, because those boats bought an engine.
however, on the friendly boat, it's still free, so people flock to the boat, because they can actually get to where they want to go and not lift a finger.
a little more time passes. the enthusiastic rowers are still enthusiastic, but starting to get tired. it's getting harder and harder for them to move the boat. the number of riders has grown so that the boat is hard to move so that everyone gets there on time. the rowers ask the other riders: "please help us row :)" and some of those riders do, but many do not. The number of riders swells and swells. Now the boat is just sitting on the water.
Finally the boat captain has to make a decision. He says to himself "I can charge everyone and buy an engine. But I want this to be a boat for all. Hey how about if anyone who wants to ride, has to row?"
Most of the people on the boat cheer this idea. But some people fold their arms and frown: " I want to row if I want, but if I don't want to, I want to be carried. For free! "
Now here is a Question: What is the best course of action for these fictional boat people to take next? |
|
