DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Get rid of BROWN?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 42, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/23/2004 08:42:27 AM · #1
How would you all react to a scheme whereby only the top 90% (or some other percentage)of the images actually had scores? That is, the bottom 10% would not have their actual votes averaged, but would instead all be given an average vote of say 2.500 (or another number). That way all the bottom ten percent would be "tied" for last - and no one would actully get the "brown."

This is very much like a juried art show where only the images selected for the show are displayed.

Perhaps a comment should be placed on them "Did not make the cut" - or "failed to qualify" - (although that may be confused with disqualified..)

I persoanlly think it may work (if it's feasible) - it dilutes the stigma of being last and removes the incentive to deliberately "go for the brown."
09/23/2004 08:45:15 AM · #2
In such a scenario how should we calculate a photographer's "average vote received" in their profile?

-Terry
09/23/2004 08:45:41 AM · #3
What about people who get in the bottom 10% each time, but are consistently improving? They've got no feedback that they're getting better, and may get more disappointed than if they have their score.
09/23/2004 08:48:23 AM · #4
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

In such a scenario how should we calculate a photographer's "average vote received" in their profile?

-Terry


Use the "real" vote received in their profileo - just display the "phony" one in the challenge results. (So it would take a ton of work to find out who really was last.)

Or just don't display any score in the challenge results. Just "Did not make the cut."
09/23/2004 09:20:14 AM · #5
My first issue with this is how would you calculate the vote that the bottom 10% gets? A static number (such as 2.5) wouldn't work, because the score range on each challenge differs. I've been in the bottom 10% with a 4.1...

Secondly, the site is dp Challenge, not dp art show. In a challenge, there are winners and there are losers. It's nice to be a winner, and it should be ok to be a loser, because if it's not, then you're disregarding the purpose of the site, which is to improve your own photography, and to help others do the same.

Thirdly, about removing the incentive to purposely post "brown" challengers, so what if someone does this once in a while? While I agree that it could become a problem for the site if the majority of users suddenly decide to try for it, I don't see that ever happening. I expect that people, like me, generally join the site because the concept is fun and interesting, and it provides a means to improve their photography skills. If someone wants to post a brown challenger once in a while, it just provides some entertaining reading in the challenge comments and subsequent threads for the rest of us.

... my 2 cents.
09/23/2004 09:34:57 AM · #6
I want a brown ribbon.

Hope they make gold,silver and brownze in Masters :-)


09/23/2004 10:15:56 AM · #7
Originally posted by PaulMdx:

What about people who get in the bottom 10% each time, but are consistently improving? They've got no feedback that they're getting better, and may get more disappointed than if they have their score.


If you stay long in the bottom 10% I think you are not improving. Besides then it may be a challenge to get above that. Not sure though about the idea. Think the rating system is pretty good as it is (and if it isnt broke, dont fix it).
09/23/2004 10:18:14 AM · #8
Well, if we are going this way, could we just ditch all the crappy middle of the road images as well please ? You know, the ones that are on topic but boring to look at ? Maybe anything that doesn't score over a 6 in the first couple of days should be thrown out.

Oh - I'm sorry - do you find that offensive ? Rude ? Unfair ?
09/23/2004 10:23:53 AM · #9
Originally posted by garlic:

If you stay long in the bottom 10% I think you are not improving. Besides then it may be a challenge to get above that. Not sure though about the idea. Think the rating system is pretty good as it is (and if it isnt broke, dont fix it).


If you stay in the bottom 10% perhaps it's the voting that isn't improving rather than the photographer...

09/23/2004 10:26:22 AM · #10
Originally posted by Gordon:

Well, if we are going this way, could we just ditch all the crappy middle of the road images as well please ? You know, the ones that are on topic but boring to look at ? Maybe anything that doesn't score over a 6 in the first couple of days should be thrown out.

Oh - I'm sorry - do you find that offensive ? Rude ? Unfair ?


No Gordon, I never suggested we "throw out" any pictures at all. My suggestion was merely to remove the actual scores from the bottom "x" number of images. Whether it's a percentage or a hard number doesn't matter. It would do a couple things: a) reduce the "pain" of coming in last, next to last, etc. It just wasn't good enough to make the score "cut". b) pretty much eliminate the urge to "go for brown."

As to ditching (not showing) any images - I totally disagree. We should show them all so we can see what was below the acceptable mass appeal line.
09/23/2004 10:26:44 AM · #11
Originally posted by jonpink:

Originally posted by garlic:

If you stay long in the bottom 10% I think you are not improving. Besides then it may be a challenge to get above that. Not sure though about the idea. Think the rating system is pretty good as it is (and if it isnt broke, dont fix it).


If you stay in the bottom 10% perhaps it's the voting that isn't improving rather than the photographer...


hmmmmmmmm? Y, maybe?
09/23/2004 10:27:47 AM · #12
Surely you will then create a 'last' place for the last person before the cut off point..

09/23/2004 10:28:11 AM · #13
Originally posted by photom:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Well, if we are going this way, could we just ditch all the crappy middle of the road images as well please ? You know, the ones that are on topic but boring to look at ? Maybe anything that doesn't score over a 6 in the first couple of days should be thrown out.

Oh - I'm sorry - do you find that offensive ? Rude ? Unfair ?


No Gordon, I never suggested we "throw out" any pictures at all. My suggestion was merely to remove the actual scores from the bottom "x" number of images. Whether it's a percentage or a hard number doesn't matter. It would do a couple things: a) reduce the "pain" of coming in last, next to last, etc. It just wasn't good enough to make the score "cut". b) pretty much eliminate the urge to "go for brown."

As to ditching (not showing) any images - I totally disagree. We should show them all so we can see what was below the acceptable mass appeal line.


Okay - lets make the cut at 7 then. Save the pain of not winning or knowing how bad your result was. After all, the assumption in your post seems to be there's no useful information in knowing where you placed. In fact, why not have the bottom 99% tie for last ?

yes I am making silly suggestions. But it is the same suggestion that started this thread.

Message edited by author 2004-09-23 10:30:26.
09/23/2004 10:29:18 AM · #14
and pain? Is that the pain for coming last in a cyber virtual Internet super highway neatimage competition extravaganza?

For the 2 people a week to feel better that really would be a lot of effort.

:D

09/23/2004 10:39:17 AM · #15
Originally posted by Gordon:

After all, the assumption in your post seems to be there's no useful information in knowing where you placed.


No - my assumption is that there is not much useful information to be gained after knowing my image was somewhere in the bottom few. It makes little difference whether it's last or 5th from last. The message is then clear enough.

But since many of you are "making fun" of the basic idea, or saying it would "be too hard" (without really knowing that), or by suggesting exaggerated examples, or just showing reluctance to think even slightly outside the box, I withdraw the stupid, ignorant, dumb and silly idea.

Message edited by author 2004-09-23 10:39:39.
09/23/2004 10:46:58 AM · #16
Originally posted by photom:

Originally posted by Gordon:

After all, the assumption in your post seems to be there's no useful information in knowing where you placed.


No - my assumption is that there is not much useful information to be gained after knowing my image was somewhere in the bottom few. It makes little difference whether it's last or 5th from last. The message is then clear enough.


and my assumption was that there is not much useful information to be gained after knowing my image wasn't good enough to win a ribbon. It makes little difference whether it's fourth or last. The message is then clear enough too.

09/23/2004 11:09:04 AM · #17
Originally posted by jonpink:

cyber virtual Internet super highway neatimage competition extravaganza?

DPCVISHNICEChallenge is a bit long, Jon..
09/23/2004 11:12:25 AM · #18
Originally posted by Gordon:

yes I am making silly suggestions. But it is the same suggestion that started this thread.


Gordon, it's a reasonable suggestion. If you wish to debate it, please do so on its merits, rather than flippantly ridiculing the suggestion and the poster.

Thanks,

-Terry
09/23/2004 11:12:57 AM · #19
Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by jonpink:

cyber virtual Internet super highway neatimage competition extravaganza?

DPCVISHNICEChallenge is a bit long, Jon..


hehe, now that put a smile on my face :D

09/23/2004 11:19:02 AM · #20
As an owner of a brown, and a silver-brown ribbon (in only 6 entries!) I feel I have some expertise in this area...

Anyway, I would vote not to change the way the results are posted. I'm very interested as to why all the crappy photos beat mine, and by how much! ;0)

Message edited by author 2004-09-23 11:19:30.
09/23/2004 11:25:38 AM · #21
Originally posted by photom:

How would you all react to a scheme whereby only the top 90% (or some other percentage)of the images actually had scores? That is, the bottom 10% would not have their actual votes averaged, but would instead all be given an average vote of say 2.500 (or another number). That way all the bottom ten percent would be "tied" for last - and no one would actully get the "brown."

This is very much like a juried art show where only the images selected for the show are displayed.

Perhaps a comment should be placed on them "Did not make the cut" - or "failed to qualify" - (although that may be confused with disqualified..)

I persoanlly think it may work (if it's feasible) - it dilutes the stigma of being last and removes the incentive to deliberately "go for the brown."


I don't really think it's worth the effort. I'd much rather know exactly where I placed, rather than, "Well, I just finished somewhere down there."

I was not aware that there was a stigma associated with finishing last. Are those photographers somehow branded with a scarlet letter "L"?

If someone wants to "go for the brown", why is that even an issue?
09/23/2004 11:37:29 AM · #22
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Gordon:

yes I am making silly suggestions. But it is the same suggestion that started this thread.


Gordon, it's a reasonable suggestion. If you wish to debate it, please do so on its merits, rather than flippantly ridiculing the suggestion and the poster.

Thanks,

-Terry


I was debating it on the merits. I wasn't ridiculing the poster.
Reductio ad absurdum is a well established approach for debate, since oh, about the time of Aristotle. Now there was someone who knew how to debate....

Message edited by author 2004-09-23 11:38:44.
09/23/2004 11:47:09 AM · #23
Originally posted by Gordon:

I was debating it on the merits. I wasn't ridiculing the poster.
Reductio ad absurdum is a well established approach for debate, since oh, about the time of Aristotle. Now there was someone who knew how to debate....


I take back my comment about ridiculing the poster. I stand by the remainder of my post.

Sorry for accusing you of something you didn't do.

-Terry
09/23/2004 11:52:43 AM · #24
Originally posted by Gordon:


I was debating it on the merits. I wasn't ridiculing the poster.
Reductio ad absurdum is a well established approach for debate, since oh, about the time of Aristotle. Now there was someone who knew how to debate....


Which of the three principal forms does this 'reductio' refutation claim that the original suggestion makes?

1. a self-contradiction (ad absurdum)
2. a falsehood (ad falsum or even ad impossibile)
3. an implausibility or anomaly (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum)
09/23/2004 11:55:54 AM · #25
Originally posted by Gordon:

I was debating it on the merits. I wasn't ridiculing the poster.
Reductio ad absurdum is a well established approach for debate, since oh, about the time of Aristotle. Now there was someone who knew how to debate....

As Qunitillian pertinently advised, one of the first rules of classical rhetorical debate is to know your adversary. Before adopting any particular technique, it is advisable to consider how it might be understood first. In this case, you might have been better off if you'd prefaced your argument's presentation with a brief preamble.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/26/2020 09:45:28 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/26/2020 09:45:28 PM EDT.