| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/01/2013 01:46:16 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
EDIT-  Tanguera was considerably more concise than I. |
My thoughts are that you might be talking about slightly different elements of this, and it comes down to the definition of what a reverse voter is.
Is it when you vote low for all photos when you participate but vote high when you don't participate?
Or is it when it's believed that the participant has voted the assumed-to-place-better photos down while voting the assumed-to-place-worse photos up?
For what it's worth, I do find it a bit lame that a DQ can hang around your neck for eternity when you step forward and self-DQ because you failed to notice the rule set, but this person or persons have been handed a suspension by the SC for their perceived wrong-doing, have their images removed from challenges, and it'll be as if they've never done anything wrong.
I don't want to see anyone dragged through the mud, however. That's not my point. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 01:48:47 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think the confusion is not that you don't like the "conformist" shots, it is that you find them so lacking in any redeemable qualities that they deserve a 1, in your eyes. To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever given a 1, and if I did it was probably a combination of offensive/bad photography/off topic, all at once. I don't think any of us are suggesting that you aren't allowed to vote that way. I think we just don't get being so harsh. |
Hers is much more concise. |
That would make sense if you were arguing against 1s on all images, but this is an argument against 1s on blue ribbons. And btw, I don't know it's a blue ribbon when I put a 1 on it.
I would be more sympathetic to your argument if photos that are closer to museum standards didn't get 1s, but they do, plenty, as they should. And so should pointless clones of photos that were meaningless in the first place, which often get blue ribbons.
Shannon, in his inimitable dismissive nastiness, has got it right. My opinion, no matter how stupid it is, is just my opinion and not some attempt to subvert the voting process. The SC has never said anything different on this thread. It's other people chiming in that I felt the need to argue with. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:06:53 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
blues and blurs were all equally dissed |
concise indeed. love your wording. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:07:00 PM · #154 |
I remember a few years back when for some reason wine glasses with colored fluid gained in extreme popularity (slams head into desk just remembering it). I started out neutral on the photos giving a medium score, but as time went by and it seemed everyone needed to photo a wine glass. I quickly grew annoyed then to anger and started dropping 1’s every time a wineglass image popped up, it didn’t matter the color, the composition, the lighting it was just another damn wine glass shot, and I didn’t go look in challenges wine glasses where likely.
Have I ever placed a 1 on a ribbon winner or in this case a blue one? I would have to say yes if it was a wine glass!
|
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:12:18 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by see:
I remember a few years back when for some reason wine glasses with colored fluid gained in extreme popularity (slams head into desk just remembering it). I started out neutral on the photos giving a medium score, but as time went by and it seemed everyone needed to photo a wine glass. I quickly grew annoyed then to anger and started dropping 1’s every time a wineglass image popped up, it didn’t matter the color, the composition, the lighting it was just another damn wine glass shot, and I didn’t go look in challenges wine glasses where likely.
Have I ever placed a 1 on a ribbon winner or in this case a blue one? I would have to say yes if it was a wine glass! |
The only "problem" with this is that the submitter may have joined this week, never shot a wine glass before, and has no way of knowing that some of the voters are sick of seeing them. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:16:31 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by tnun:
I still don't like the mullet, the tattoo, the bum crack pants. |
Nor do most. That's the opposite of what I posted. If he came home in a Giorgio Armani suit with toned muscles and you gave him hell for being worse than a tattooed bum sporting a mullet and baggy pants, THEN you'd be on the right track. Even if you didn't like Armani, surely you could find something of merit above the hobo look? It's like rating People's Sexiest Man/Woman of the Year below Jabba the Hut. |
oh heck, poor taste can be sexy as hell, that is not the point. the point is how I, me, moi, relate to what's on offer. I can dislike something without being vitriolic about it. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:20:26 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
...it comes down to the definition of what a reverse voter is.
Is it when you vote low for all photos when you participate but vote high when you don't participate?
Or is it when it's believed that the participant has voted the assumed-to-place-better photos down while voting the assumed-to-place-worse photos up? |
Lots of people vote lower when they participate in a challenge, maybe because they've come to a particular (narrower) interpretation of the topic or because they have a more intimate appreciation for the thought and effort that went into a given photo. Some might use their own entry as a benchmark and think, "Well I'm getting a 6 and this one isn't as good as mine, so I'll give it a 4." The latter approach is ethically questionable, but wouldn't necessarily set off red flags and sirens.
Nobody knows how the exact placements will shake out, but it's not hard to estimate which photos will score well and which won't. So as a loose example, if you consistently place in the top 10 and manage to vote a 1 to the entire top 20 while rating the bottom 10 no less than a 7, it's fairly evident that you not only clearly recognize and appreciate the DPC standard of "good," but that you're making a concerted effort to give low votes to those images while voting up the lousy ones. If the challenges you don't enter show the opposite pattern, with high votes going exclusively to the top finishers and low votes to the bottom end, then you forfeit the excuse of a different aesthetic. Likewise, if you have a voting range of 1-3 when you enter and 8-10 when you don't, that's not a difference of artistic opinion, it's a blatant (though ineffective) attempt to influence the voting results.
Message edited by author 2013-09-01 14:28:26. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:24:14 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by tnun:
oh heck, poor taste can be sexy as hell, that is not the point. the point is how I, me, moi, relate to what's on offer. I can dislike something without being vitriolic about it. |
You're allowed to have poor taste, but magically developing poor taste only when you're competing and embracing conventional norms when you aren't might raise an eyebrow. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:33:30 PM · #159 |
| I agree, and now that the overwhelming popularity has died I would not be "as" critical. In my time here on DPC I have been given plenty of ones, some tens and every number between, all those numbers mean is how I stack up as DPC friendly. one 1 means nothing, nor does one 10 it's around the 3-8 scores that you will find your place here if thats what your looking for.IMO. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:34:45 PM · #160 |
| darn it, shannon, there is NO accounting for taste. it can be as promiscuous as it wants. UNLESS you pay attention to what turns you on and off you'll have at best a 5 life |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:38:47 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by tnun:
darn it, shannon, there is NO accounting for taste. it can be as promiscuous as it wants. UNLESS you pay attention to what turns you on and off you'll have at best a 5 life |
A wide variety of styles and opinions turns me on. Brazen cheating turns me off. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:50:42 PM · #162 |
| Thanks for the explanation and viewpoint, Shannon. Appreciated. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 02:51:48 PM · #163 |
| oh. well I wasn't talking about insincere one's; now I realize that you were. I WAS talking about the rudeness and so forth which you attributed to many or most of them. I thought that was rather excessive. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 03:23:17 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I WAS talking about the rudeness and so forth which you attributed to many or most of them. I thought that was rather excessive. |
I hold a similar opinion of 1 votes on top photos. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 03:45:48 PM · #165 |
| yes, well, that is excessive: you are impugning the motives of all the one voters (on what turn out to be challenge winners) as well as questioning the sincerity of their judgement. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 03:55:00 PM · #166 |
| there really isn't any argument here. On one side you have group that wants to keep the site as artistic and relevant as possible, a site that is simply not a stock photo and gear showroom, and on the other side you have people that don't like cheaters, including Site Council. I know the former group is on the side of the latter.it just seems that the former group is looking for validation that the opinions they have are warranted and are not to be grouped in with the cheaters. Thats simple enough. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 05:12:30 PM · #167 |
| I gave a 1 on a winner once, I felt it did not meet the challenge so I voted my conscious, so does that make me suspect? I think we all need to remember that not all 1's are attempts to be deceitful or dishonest. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 06:17:02 PM · #168 |
Just for clarity, we are not talking one vote of 1 on a winner every now and then, or even consistent 1's on challenge winners.
What we had issue with was what appears to be a very deliberate attempt to tweak the voting system to a user's advantage.
When entered, s/he voted those entries typically appealing to dpc voters, and thus scoring higher, with low votes and voted those not typically accepted with high votes. When s/he didn't enter, the opposite was found to be true. This did not happen in *one* challenge, but in several.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2013 06:36:01 PM · #169 |
| thank you. I think that has been clear all along. It is just that some very strong words were used against people who, without malice, choose to express their lack of turn-on by a high-scoring photo by giving it a one. That is all. It is a topic we have discussed before. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 06:56:25 PM · #170 |
| Art's tip of the day: Mediocrity is protection against being a victim of either low-votes on a great entry or high-votes on a crappy entry. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 06:59:02 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Art's tip of the day: Mediocrity is protection against being a victim of either low-votes on a great entry or high-votes on a crappy entry. |
It's a pretty good vaccination against comments and ribbons, too. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 07:00:17 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Art's tip of the day: Mediocrity is protection against being a victim of either low-votes on a great entry or high-votes on a crappy entry. |
It's a pretty good vaccination against comments and ribbons, too. |
See my profile ... ;-) |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 08:27:08 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A wide variety of styles and opinions turns me on. |
Nice, you said that with a straight face.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2013 09:34:59 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think the confusion is not that you don't like the "conformist" shots, it is that you find them so lacking in any redeemable qualities that they deserve a 1, in your eyes. To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever given a 1, and if I did it was probably a combination of offensive/bad photography/off topic, all at once. I don't think any of us are suggesting that you aren't allowed to vote that way. I think we just don't get being so harsh. |
Hers is much more concise. |
That would make sense if you were arguing against 1s on all images, but this is an argument against 1s on blue ribbons. And btw, I don't know it's a blue ribbon when I put a 1 on it.
I would be more sympathetic to your argument if photos that are closer to museum standards didn't get 1s, but they do, plenty, as they should. And so should pointless clones of photos that were meaningless in the first place, which often get blue ribbons. |
Nobody Anybody who thinks 1s are incomprehensible but 10s aren't will never get what you're saying. Might as well just answer with Navier-Stokes equations instead.
Edited by skewsme autocorrector 5000
Message edited by author 2013-09-01 23:21:22. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 11:10:33 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Art's tip of the day: Mediocrity is protection against being a victim of either low-votes on a great entry or high-votes on a crappy entry. |
This tip has not worked out for me so well thus far...
|
|
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: 04/18/2024 12:53:45 AM EDT.
