| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2015 03:17:14 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bvy:
Simple
N/A
I like. |
It's 'Simple' alright. Wide open door for DNMC votes I think. :-( |
How so?
Personally I love it...thanks SC. |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 03:25:16 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by atupdate:
......To me, the challenges are perceived more like a customer order for a stock photograph. You don't fulfill the customer's expectation for the order, you don't get paid (DNMC). .... |
There is a very diverse group of individuals on this site and this is evident in the way we view the challenges. I view the challenge topic as a suggested starting point. I find it easier to get started with a specific topic than a free study. While I am shooting for a particular topic I often wander so far away that the original topic is barely recognizable in the final photograph. Since I am not getting paid, this is my hobby, and I am trying to get the most out of the experience I don't see the need to rein myself in. I think the "wandering around" in an unconscious way gets me closer to making photographs that I think are meaningful to me. The inevitable DNMC's are a very small price to pay for the pleasure of enjoying my hobby. |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 03:25:21 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by RKT:
How so? ... |
Well, the interpretation of 'Simple' will now fall on the shoulders of the voters and if they don't think the entry represents 'Simple' it can be easily dinged as DNMC. |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 03:29:33 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by RKT:
How so? ... |
Well, the interpretation of 'Simple' will now fall on the shoulders of the voters and if they don't think the entry represents 'Simple' it can be easily dinged as DNMC. |
That's how it works for every challenge anyway.
I think the idea is to see whether the lack of descriptors beyond the title make people think more broadly or more narrowly about how an image might meet the challenge, and speculation without experimentation is not science ... |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 04:24:23 PM · #55 |
| I'm thrilled about this topic and lack of description. Whether my submission does it justice or not, I'm actually excited about voting and hope there is a wide range of interpretations. |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 10:14:31 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bvy:
Simple
N/A
I like. |
It's 'Simple' alright. Wide open door for DNMC votes I think. :-( |
I fail to see the logic in that. The description, like the challenge title, are simply restrictions on the challenge, no different then the editing rules. Really, the only difference between the two is that one is enforced by SC, the other is enforced by the voters, who have carte blanche to decide if the restriction has been violated and what the punishment is. Some consider that failing to meet the challenge is a 1, for others it is a -1, that is the voters prerogative. The more restrictive the challenge description, the more likely that someone will fail to meet them, and therefore get punished by the voter. Lower restrictions would mean it is less likely to violate them, and therefore less DNMC votes.
Your statement only holds true if voters are actively looking to punish the submitters and use the lack of restrictions to arbitrarily create their own, which I don't think most, if any, are. Different people will, of course, interpret the description, or even the title differently at times. Sometimes they are very clear with no room for interpretation, other times not so much. |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 10:54:01 PM · #57 |
Here's the deal:
1. If we give a very specific challenge description, then it's *relatively* easy for those so inclined to pin down what they consider to be DNMC entries and vote them accordingly.
2. If we give NO challenge description, then it's *relatively* easy for those so inclined to provide their own "preferred interpretation" of what constitutes a proper response to the challenge, and vote accordingly.
Whichever way, we're going to have DNMC entries, it's the nature of the beast. If we could find a way to *legislate* open-mindedness when viewing challenge entries, I'd be be all for that. So far, I've never seen a viable solution to the fact that allowing everyone to have their own mind (so to speak) means that we're gonna have both closed-minded and open-minded voters in every challenge.
And so it goes.
Message edited by author 2015-07-29 22:54:53. |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 02:34:40 PM · #58 |
| I'm gonna poke this 3 year old hive. We need more n/a. |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 04:03:48 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Simple
N/A
I like. |
That’s it! |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 06:28:42 PM · #60 |
If you want change , then come up with the challenges post them and then put n/a as description.
Let the other people that do put time and effort into thinking of a challenge and adding a description do that. |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 06:54:58 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
If you want change , then come up with the challenges post them and then put n/a as description.
Let the other people that do put time and effort into thinking of a challenge and adding a description do that. |
I don't think that's a fair characterization. Sometimes SC tacks on a description. |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 08:44:52 PM · #62 |
| I like some description for most challenges. There are a few that don't really require one. |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 09:23:45 PM · #63 |
*all* challenges and their descriptions should be vetted on the challenge suggestion thread.
tell us why not and solutions will be offered.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2018 10:22:46 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
If you want change , then come up with the challenges post them and then put n/a as description.
Let the other people that do put time and effort into thinking of a challenge and adding a description do that. |
I don't think that's a fair characterization. Sometimes SC tacks on a description. |
I have suggested challenges with n/a and with descriptions. I woke this old thread because of the " smoke " challenge. From what I could find, the last time it was suggested was 2006? It didn't have the description I see attached to it now. Smoke can mean and be many things. As described for this challenge, not so much. I really like skewsme's idea about vetting descriptions in the threads. Would we have a vetting thread? How would it work? |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 10:31:48 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by RKT:
... How would it work? |
Contentiously? :-) |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 10:37:16 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
If you want change , then come up with the challenges post them and then put n/a as description.
Let the other people that do put time and effort into thinking of a challenge and adding a description do that. |
I don't think that's a fair characterization. Sometimes SC tacks on a description. |
Not as often as you may think, actually. |
|
|
|
08/19/2018 10:40:42 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
*all* challenges and their descriptions should be vetted on the challenge suggestion thread.
tell us why not and solutions will be offered. |
I agree. Somehow a list of possible challenges with or without descriptions should be drawn up and agreed upon.
I also agree with Rachel about the description in the Smoke challenge. It seemingly limits what could be open to interpretation. Why? |
|
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: 04/25/2024 08:39:00 AM EDT.
