| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/03/2004 11:04:48 PM · #1 |
As I was directly in on the conception of the idea and the creation of the Masters Challenge, I'm posting here in an attempt to answer some questions and possible misconceptions. Apologies for the new thread on an existing topic, but I think it important that all involved understand the events as they happened, and the rationale behind them.
1. The idea for this challenge came from blemt. If you look at her profile she has never finished in the top 10, and only twice in the top 50. She presented the idea to me, and I pitched it to Langdon. I mention this to underscore that the idea came from someone who will most likely be ineligible to compete in this challenge.
2. This is only an experment. Absolutely nothing about the Masters' Challenges, including their continues existence, has been decided. The only decision that has been made is to run an experimental challenge. I ask that everyone please allow that experiment to run to its completion before drawing any conclusions.
3. This challenge is NOT replacing the periodic month long and/or Free Study challenges for all members. The fact that no Free Study is happening in September was a simple oversight, and the timing of this new challenge nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence. This Masters' Challenge is not an idea we have been sitting on; in fact the challenge was posted within 24 hours of us receiving the suggestion from a member. Additionally, multiple Site Council members (including myself) are on record as saying we wanted to vary the schedule of Free Study challenges to discourage cheating. Free Studies will continue to happen, but the intervals may not be regular and predictible.
4. The number of ribbons is checked at the time of submission. If you win your second ribbon before the challenge deadline, you will be able to submit.
5. Top placements in the Masters' challenge will be denoted with ribbons and not a different icon. This may or may not change in the future.
6. The duration of the Masters' challenge (1 month) may or may not change in the future.
7. The number of ribbons necessary for challenge eligibility may or may not change in the future.
8. The frequency or regularity with which Masters' challenges might run has not been determined.
9. Voting is open to all members. This may or may not change in the future.
10. The earlier inability to view the challenge rules was due to a coding decision that has since been changed. As mentioned earlier, this was coded quickly (and temporarily) as a test, and this was an artifact of that. If this is implemented permanently, considerably more care will likely go into the final coding.
As to the reasons for this challenge: For the vast majority of us, we continue to challenge ourselves to stand out from the middle of the pack in the ordinary challenges. For a few, especially the most talented of the early users of the site, placing at or near the top of a challenge has become formulaic. These people have figured out the type of photograph that scores well here, and have proven they can create those photographs on a consistent basis. For many of these people, the "Challenge" aspect of DPChallenge is gone. I talk to many of these members on a regular basis, and more than a few have begun to question how much they can still learn and grow at DPChallenge.
The problem with this is that these are the photographers who inspire us the most, and from whom we stand to learn the most. Even though they represent a very small percentage of the total users of the site, the potential value they offer to the community is tremendous. DPChallenge's focus has been, and as far as I can see, will continue to be providing the average photographer the tools to share and improve their skills. Providing the top photographers an arena in which they can continue to do the same not only does not detract from this core mission, but also helps to ensure that these people stay around. By keeping them around, those of us who still have much to learn have the opportunity to benefit from their considerable skill and experience.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2004 11:10:13 PM · #2 |
Very well said Club. Thanks for clearing things up.
-danny |
|
|
|
09/03/2004 11:17:59 PM · #3 |
Great post.
It's kinda sad that this has to exist, the post that is, but in a community where we are free to express our opions & feelings, things like this are necessary.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Now, all I have to do is win one ribbon to compete! :]
Not sure that will drop in the category you specified of fotogs that inspire us but it would be fun to compete with the best!
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 12:36:43 AM · #4 |
As a point of clarification, since I have gotten a few questions on this:
The Masters Challenge is a members-only challenge (note the blue icon next to the challenge description). In addition to winning 2 ribbons you must be a paid member to enter the challenge. The ribbons can be from either free or members challenges, and don't need to have been a member when you won the ribbons.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 12:42:45 AM · #5 |
3. This challenge is NOT replacing the periodic month long and/or Free Study challenges for all members. The fact that no Free Study is happening in September was a simple oversight, and the timing of this new challenge nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence. This Masters' Challenge is not an idea we have been sitting on; in fact the challenge was posted within 24 hours of us receiving the suggestion from a member. Additionally, multiple Site Council members (including myself) are on record as saying we wanted to vary the schedule of Free Study challenges to discourage cheating. Free Studies will continue to happen, but the intervals may not be regular and predictible.
Just thought I would reiterate this as it seems to be a common complaint.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 04:29:05 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
For a few, especially the most talented of the early users of the site, placing at or near the top of a challenge has become formulaic. These people have figured out the type of photograph that scores well here, and have proven they can create those photographs on a consistent basis.
|
I believe that this is actually quite a problem, and I stated this as one of the reasons for being against the masters challenge in the other thread. If the site as a whole wants to grow, it must not reinforce the voting patterns, but try to find ways of changing them. If people get bored because it's so easy to create top-scoring photos, doesn't that mean that something is going wrong?
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:32:36 AM · #7 |
Who can vote on the entries for this challenge? ""Masters"" (please note quantity of inverted commas there), members, or everyone?
My reasons for asking this: if it is the case that certain photographers, who we want to keep around on the site, can routinely place at or near the top of a challenge, then if everyone is eligable to vote, they will routinely place at or near the top of this challenge too. It won't be any different, in terms of results, from any other challenge, there will just be fewer entries. The same kind of photograph will win, and those 'Masters' will enter the same kind of photograph.
Should there also be a qualification for voting? Should only 'Masters' be able to vote? Should everone vote but extra weight be given to 'Masters'' votes? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to ponder on what might happen if it were Masters' votes only.
Personally, I would prefer that. It would encourage those participating to enter shots that departed somewhat from the 'taken to win a ribbon' shots, and would, I think, produce a fascinating collection of entries.
How many people are eligable for this challenge? There have been just over 250 challenges, thus 750 ribbons, thus the maximun feasible entry is 375 ... allowing for those with more than two ribbons, and those no longer participating, I'd expect around 80 submissions. Sound about right?
Ed
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:41:30 AM · #8 |
I'm sorry but I fail to see what difference there is in this! I also object more than a little to the use of the word "Master" which sounds a little pompous.
That said, I feel there is not enough on the site to enable folks to participate outside of the normal challenges. Non of the challenge subjects have taken my interest, as yet, So i would welcome other sections of the site that could allow smaller levels of participation.
Message edited by author 2004-09-04 07:42:42. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:47:26 AM · #9 |
Why don't we all get out there and win some ribbons?! I couldn't care less if there is a "Master" challenge or not. It doesn't limit my opportunities to enter challenges and it gives me more examples to look at and learn from. I thought this is a photography site where people learn from each other. I am sick and tired of all the crying over stupid petty things all the time. Give me a break!
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:54:10 AM · #10 |
I've just seen (and read most of) the 'other' thread; most pertinently the post that says 'everyone will be able to vote'.
E
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 08:52:09 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by ghoti:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
For a few, especially the most talented of the early users of the site, placing at or near the top of a challenge has become formulaic. These people have figured out the type of photograph that scores well here, and have proven they can create those photographs on a consistent basis.
|
I believe that this is actually quite a problem, and I stated this as one of the reasons for being against the masters challenge in the other thread. If the site as a whole wants to grow, it must not reinforce the voting patterns, but try to find ways of changing them. If people get bored because it's so easy to create top-scoring photos, doesn't that mean that something is going wrong? |
This type of challenge may be part of the solution to the above problem. Whether and to what extent this is the case remains to be seen.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:06:20 AM · #12 |
I applaud the institution of this challenge.
I hate to be negative about this, as it is certainly a step in the right direction in terms of the range of abilities and experience on this site. But ...
If this challenge is to be voted on by everyone, then the criteria for producing a winning shot, as so well understood by Kiwiness, Heida, JJ, etc. etc., has not changed at all. Not one bit.
What I would, personally, be interested to see is what those mentioned would submit if they knew they were to be rated by the more experienced and/or talented and/or clever participants here.
Quite how we/you/the site can achieve that I don't know. I think, until I hear a contrary argument that convinces me, that only counting votes from those eligable to participate would be interesting.
E
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:10:45 AM · #13 |
Let me start by saying, I appreciate all the effort the SC puts into making this site work. Without you folks' dedication, & effort DPC wouldn't be the great site it is.
I'm not adverse to the 'Masters" challenge, but why not call it the Multiple Ribbon Winners challenge ? I am all for encouraging people to stay who have "mastered" the competition here, but quite frankly the presentation of this sucks.
Personal attacks on the critics, ie. whiners, of the idea show me an insecurity on the part of ideas proponents.
One other thing, free study cheating ? I am at a loss to how that would be going on. Its cheating to say wow this is a good photo, I think I'll come back & shoot it again for the free study ? Now lets see what Multiple Ribbon Winners can offer up. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:16:04 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Ironworker:
One other thing, free study cheating ? I am at a loss to how that would be going on. |
In our discussions we came up with several possible methods, which we don't intend to promulgate : ) |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:18:52 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by e301:
Who can vote on the entries for this challenge? ""Masters"" (please note quantity of inverted commas there), members, or everyone? |
Please reread my original post, in which I stated:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
9. Voting is open to all members. This may or may not change in the future. |
This was a decision mostly made out of expediency, as we did not want to spend a lot of time coding for a test challenge. Additionally, by allowing all members to vote we have the opportunity to break down the data, for example to compare the actual results what the results would have been if only those eligible to participate in the challenge were permitted to vote.
Originally posted by e301:
My reasons for asking this: if it is the case that certain photographers, who we want to keep around on the site, can routinely place at or near the top of a challenge, then if everyone is eligable to vote, they will routinely place at or near the top of this challenge too. It won't be any different, in terms of results, from any other challenge, there will just be fewer entries. The same kind of photograph will win, and those 'Masters' will enter the same kind of photograph. |
Ah, but it will be different. In fact, it MUST be different. The people who can repeatedly place at the top are now only competing against each other. Some of these photographers MUST now finish near the bottom. In each challenge, someone must end up "worst of the best."
As to whether the types of entries will change, that remains to be seen, as no one has even submitted to this challenge yet. Rather than speculate, why not reserve judgement until the challenge is complete?
[quote]Should there also be a qualification for voting? Should only 'Masters' be able to vote? Should everone vote but extra weight be given to 'Masters'' votes? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to ponder on what might happen if it were Masters' votes only.[/quote]
Agreed. We have many options here. By running this first Masters' challenge with all members voting, we will have the ability to test certain "what-if" scenarios and make a decision going forward. Personally I like your idea of weighting the votes of those eligible to participate. I'll be interested to see if and how the results calculated in that way differ from the results calculated normally.
Originally posted by e301:
Personally, I would prefer that. It would encourage those participating to enter shots that departed somewhat from the 'taken to win a ribbon' shots, and would, I think, produce a fascinating collection of entries. |
I agree. On the flip side, though, excluding most members from voting would remove them somewhat from the learning experience, and potentially creates the perception that we're isolating the 'Masters' off in an ivory tower, separating them from the rest of the community. The real value in this challenge is that the most succesful photographers on the site have a chance to compete head to head, and we as a community have the opportunity to learn from them. Everybody wins.
[quote]How many people are eligable for this challenge? There have been just over 250 challenges, thus 750 ribbons, thus the maximun feasible entry is 375 ... allowing for those with more than two ribbons, and those no longer participating, I'd expect around 80 submissions. Sound about right?[/quote]
There are 125 total registered users who have won at least 2 ribbons, and 77 who have won at least 3 ribbons. When non-members and those who have not logged on since August 1, 2004 are eliminated, that leaves 100 with at least 2 ribbons, and 64 with at least 3 ribbons. I'd expect your guess of 80 submissions will be about right.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:27:40 AM · #16 |
I am in full agreement with the opinion that, in order to make this a true "Masters' Challenge", it should only be voted upon by the entrants.
As E said, if everybody votes, then the Masters will simply aim to photograph the exact same dpc-type of photograph that has earned them the top spots in the past. This certainly doesn't seem like it will bring creativity to the site and it will be just like any other challenge, except with fewer entrants.
I really think voting should be left to the entrants only.
Edit: Your post made it up just before mine, Terry. I've read it and still stick with my opinion on this part of it. However, I support you guys on your experiment and I know there will be some great results!
Message edited by author 2004-09-04 09:31:34. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:29:10 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Article19:
I'm sorry but I fail to see what difference there is in this! |
Difference from what? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here (in fact, I'm sure I don't).
Originally posted by Article19:
I also object more than a little to the use of the word "Master" which sounds a little pompous. |
Master photographer is a term commonly used outside of this site to refer to very talented or skilled photographers, and indeed to people of high skill in many areas. There's no pompousness attached to the word in any dictionary I can find. It's also worth noting the name (as just about everything else) came from a member who has won exactly zero ribbons to date.
Originally posted by Article19:
That said, I feel there is not enough on the site to enable folks to participate outside of the normal challenges. Non of the challenge subjects have taken my interest, as yet, So i would welcome other sections of the site that could allow smaller levels of participation. |
In that case, I encourage you to post some inspiring challenge topics in our Challenge Suggestions folder. Most of our challenge topics come directly from there. Please be sure to include both a title and description for the challenges you would like to see.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:32:51 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by e301:
I applaud the institution of this challenge.
I hate to be negative about this, as it is certainly a step in the right direction in terms of the range of abilities and experience on this site. But ...
If this challenge is to be voted on by everyone, then the criteria for producing a winning shot, as so well understood by Kiwiness, Heida, JJ, etc. etc., has not changed at all. Not one bit.
What I would, personally, be interested to see is what those mentioned would submit if they knew they were to be rated by the more experienced and/or talented and/or clever participants here.
Quite how we/you/the site can achieve that I don't know. I think, until I hear a contrary argument that convinces me, that only counting votes from those eligable to participate would be interesting.
E |
I agree it will be interesting. I intend to ask Drew or Langdon to run a calculation of the results using a weighed method and by counting only the votes from those eligible to participate in the challenge. It won't be a perfect proxy, but it will allow some level of comparison.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:33:10 AM · #19 |
| To me, it makes as much/more sense that the participants not be allowed to vote (if you're going to restrict the voting pool at all). For this experiment it's fine as it is for the multiple reasons Terry stated previously. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:38:06 AM · #20 |
Maybe the SC and/or the critique club should only vote on the Master challenge. Maybe only the ribbon winners from the previous month can enter a week long "Star of the Month" challenge voted by all, then the ribbon winners for these challenges fight it out for "Star of the Year" at the end of the year. Maybe a segregated quarterly free study, "Masters" in one and the rest of the members in the other...
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:38:08 AM · #21 |
I agree with the premise of not allowing the entire membership to vote. I do believe it will discourage any additional creativity in techqnique and presentation from the participants in the challenge. The reasons for this have already been stated here...
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:38:34 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by e301:
I applaud the institution of this challenge.
I hate to be negative about this, as it is certainly a step in the right direction in terms of the range of abilities and experience on this site. But ...
If this challenge is to be voted on by everyone, then the criteria for producing a winning shot, as so well understood by Kiwiness, Heida, JJ, etc. etc., has not changed at all. Not one bit.
What I would, personally, be interested to see is what those mentioned would submit if they knew they were to be rated by the more experienced and/or talented and/or clever participants here.
Quite how we/you/the site can achieve that I don't know. I think, until I hear a contrary argument that convinces me, that only counting votes from those eligable to participate would be interesting.
E |
Since we already see an average breakdown of votes after a challenge (by those with a camera, without, commenters, etc.), I'd suggest an additional breakdown here by members, non-members, masters, non-masters. While the final score could (in this experiment) come from ALL voters, with this new breakdown, you could at least see how the participants voted.
(BTW, I intend to get two ribbons before month's end so I can participate :-) This is going to be fun!) |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:40:03 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Ironworker:
Let me start by saying, I appreciate all the effort the SC puts into making this site work. Without you folks' dedication, & effort DPC wouldn't be the great site it is.
I'm not adverse to the 'Masters" challenge, but why not call it the Multiple Ribbon Winners challenge ? I am all for encouraging people to stay who have "mastered" the competition here, but quite frankly the presentation of this sucks.
Personal attacks on the critics, ie. whiners, of the idea show me an insecurity on the part of ideas proponents. |
The proponents of the idea were blemt and myself. Neither of us have attacked anyone.
Personally, I think Masters Challenge fits better in the available space than Multipe Ribbon Winners' Challenge. "Master" is also a commonly used term in photography circles. Frankly, this is an art site, and I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time on coming up with a more politically correct way to refer to a skilled photographer than is used by photographers as a community. That said, if anyone has an idea that is short, catchy and appropriate, I'm willing to listen.
Originally posted by Ironworker:
One other thing, free study cheating ? I am at a loss to how that would be going on. Its cheating to say wow this is a good photo, I think I'll come back & shoot it again for the free study ? Now lets see what Multiple Ribbon Winners can offer up. |
Going back and reshooting later is not cheating, but in the situation you described there is a way to cheat if you know when the challenge will happen. I'm willing to discuss this via PM if you like.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:42:13 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I am in full agreement with the opinion that, in order to make this a true "Masters' Challenge", it should only be voted upon by the entrants.
As E said, if everybody votes, then the Masters will simply aim to photograph the exact same dpc-type of photograph that has earned them the top spots in the past. This certainly doesn't seem like it will bring creativity to the site and it will be just like any other challenge, except with fewer entrants.
I really think voting should be left to the entrants only.
Edit: Your post made it up just before mine, Terry. I've read it and still stick with my opinion on this part of it. However, I support you guys on your experiment and I know there will be some great results! |
I think you may be underestimating the desire of this subset of the community to change the "formula" for a winning DPC photograph. Then again, I may be overestimating it. This remains to be seen.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:42:37 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Master photographer is a term commonly used outside of this site to refer to very talented or skilled photographers, and indeed to people of high skill in many areas. There's no pompousness attached to the word in any dictionary I can find. |
Sorry, but "pompous" is a perfectly reasonable connotation to be drawn from the word "master" as used here, and it is used as a title precisely to differentiate the holders from the less-skilled "rabble."
That doesn't make it unreasonable to use in this context, but I believe it was introduced in such a way as to maximize the negative rhetorical effect, and I would have suggested other language had I been part of the development process.
DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work.
Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary |
|
