| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2004 01:20:57 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
By what criteria was this experiment a success? |
An overwhelmingly positive response equals success (there were several threads on this).
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 13:21:36. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 01:21:44 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I don't want to seem like I'm against the idea 'in principle'. I was excited about the first Master's Challenge. In a nutshell, here's my question:
The first Master's Challenge was deemed 'an experiment'. By what criteria was this experiment a success? |
cloud has raised a legitmate question. We've heard from ClubJuggle. But I'd like to see cloud's question addressed by some others of the people who were involved in making the decision. |
i have nothing to do with the decision, but the fist one was a success. 50 comments per picture, loads of wonderful pictures, threads saying how nice the pictures were... people just need somehting to complain about. when this second masters challenge came out, they jumped on the occasion.
just forget about it, go take some pictures. let there be a masters challenge. its not the end of the world for you... |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 01:34:52 PM · #128 |
My first reaction was a slight amount of annoyance at another master's challenge so soon.
With all due respect to TooCool and his hierarchical view of the world, it is still exclusionary. Yes, there is a path to "earn" your way into the Master's Challenge, but there is a subtext that it will tend to discriminate against newer members. My opinion is that they should be less frequent, maybe twice a year or at most once a quarter, so that it will be more of a treat for everybody than just an "executive washroom" for the "old boys club". |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 01:35:29 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I too wonder why you now need three ribbons instead of two. (cut away some text) |
The first challenge was three ribbons to enter. After many people saying "why not two?" they changed the requirement. I personally prefer three since it shows you've really mastered umm, something. One ribbon, you're a one hit wonder. Two ribbons you're on your way. Three, you've made it. If it was just two you'd go from one hit wonder to master. Not very logical. |
Hmm, yes, this is a good explanation.
Thanks for the "one hit wonder", now I have some work to do. :)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 01:45:21 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I too wonder why you now need three ribbons instead of two. (cut away some text) |
The first challenge was three ribbons to enter. After many people saying "why not two?" they changed the requirement. I personally prefer three since it shows you've really mastered umm, something. One ribbon, you're a one hit wonder. Two ribbons you're on your way. Three, you've made it. If it was just two you'd go from one hit wonder to master. Not very logical. |
Hmm, yes, this is a good explanation.
Thanks for the "one hit wonder", now I have some work to do. :) |
Some of my favorite songs were one hit wonders. ;)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 01:55:43 PM · #131 |
I am really pleased to see another Masters Challenge.
It means that those who need an ego boost can enter a second experimental challenge. But I also see a division in the ranks of the 'Masters'...now they need three ribbons to compete! A new superbreed of Masters.
I just can't recall seeing anything about Masters when I joined, only members and registered users.
Finally, I don't agree with a Losers Challenge...how do we qualify for it...by not having a ribbon? If this is the case, then members here are now classed as Masters and Losers? |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 01:58:30 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by peete:
...people just need somehting to complain about... |
I think thatcloudthere, myself and many others have raised honest and sincere concerns about the concept of the Masters challenges, both in this thread and in the earlier ones at the time the concept was introduced. They deserve more than to be brushed off as "people just need somehting to complain about". |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:02:38 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
One ribbon, you're a one hit wonder. |
If I'm going to be a One Hit Wonder, I want mine to be "Oh Mucky, you're so fine...you're so fine you blow my mind...Hey Mucky!" :)
Seriously, though, I don't know if one ribbon necessarily = one shot at greatness. Personally, I've had other shots that were close to a ribbon and still others that I love that bombed here. I guess the term "master" is relative to DPC.
edit -- fixed my quoting.
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 14:06:27. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:05:48 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by peete:
...people just need somehting to complain about... |
I think thatcloudthere, myself and many others have raised honest and sincere concerns about the concept of the Masters challenges, both in this thread and in the earlier ones at the time the concept was introduced. They deserve more than to be brushed off as "people just need somehting to complain about". |
I'm not saing you just need something to complain about. I just honestly cannot see what is so offensive to you guys about not being able to participate in this challenge.
Anyway, I would think you'd learn a lot more by voting and commenting. I think a challenge where you are NOT allowed to enter but are ENCOURAGED to participate in other ways might help you learn more.
I'm not saying anyone is "just bitching," but I really see no harm in not being allowed to participate in one single challenge. It's just ONE! |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:17:16 PM · #135 |
I'm not offended about not being able to participate. If you wish to make a more informed comment, please read my earlier posts as I'm done repeating myself as I defend my motives for questioning the second Master's Challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:26:10 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
I really see no harm in not being allowed to participate in one single challenge. It's just ONE! |
We thought it was going to be just one after the first one surprised us, LOL. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:28:11 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
cloud has raised a legitmate question. We've heard from ClubJuggle. But I'd like to see cloud's question addressed by some others of the people who were involved in making the decision. |
I also felt that the Masters Challenge was a success. I based this on the fact that there was decent participation in the challenge, that over 1,000 more comments were given than are usually given and that, in my opinion, there was a large number of high quality entries which, frankly, were fun to look at.
To be honest, I didn't feel like many of the complaints against the first round of the Masters challenge were all that strong. Not that there wasn't a lot of complaining, just that I didn't feel the reasoning was very valid. No one was being denied anything that they signed up for.
There have been a few reasons presented in this thread that I feel could hold more weight. Specifically, I am sypmathetic to the fact that nshapiro suggested this topic and is now unable to participate. Also, some of coolhar's complaints have the potential to be true (I am interested in whether or not it does dilute the votes and comments received in other challenges), although some of them are still untrue (it does not "take away" a chance for you to compete against the Masters if that chance was never present in the first place.)
That being said, I'm in favor of having this sort of challenge less frequently...perhaps once a quarter as someone suggested earlier in the thread.
I am also interested in what sort of criteria other people feel we should judge the succcess/failure of this challenge by. I posed the question earlier but no one answered it. I am specifically interested in criteria that help determine what would be best site-wide and not necessarily criteria that bases the decision on what each individual feels they are absolutely entitled to. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:31:53 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by mk:
...
I am also interested in what sort of criteria other people feel we should judge the succcess/failure of this challenge by. I posed the question earlier but no one answered it. I am specifically interested in criteria that help determine what would be best site-wide and not necessarily criteria that bases the decision on what each individual feels they are absolutely entitled to. |
It seems to me that looking at ratios of votes/submissions and comments/submissions would be a good indicator that the site or that challenges are working well. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:33:42 PM · #139 |
Obviously some people feel strongly about this. Why not settle this the old fashion way and have a vote? Like it, don't like it, don't care?
(PS don't vote in this thread, I'm just suggesting that a vote be initiated)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:33:46 PM · #140 |
To judge success:
% of users voting on this challenge versus % of users voting on normal challenges.
My guess would be there is actually more voters for the masters.. just because.
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 14:34:24.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:34:35 PM · #141 |
I think you mischaracterize that thread to call the response overwhelmingly positive. Take away the ubiquitous attaboys and the opinions expressed are a very mixed lot. I found EggyG's post especially interesting. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:37:21 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I posted this below and I'd love to hear from you, Jon (or anyone else):
I don't want to seem like I'm against the idea 'in principle'. I was excited about the first Master's Challenge. In a nutshell, here's my question:
The first Master's Challenge was deemed 'an experiment'. By what criteria was this experiment a success? |
By the fact that it weeded out 99% of awful photographs was a sucsess in my book. It was joy to vote on unlike the usual challenges.
Also, it made me want to enter so successful on that count too. (and haven't entered a challenge since)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:39:39 PM · #143 |
[/quote]
I am also interested in what sort of criteria other people feel we should judge the succcess/failure of this challenge by. I posed the question earlier but no one answered it. I am specifically interested in criteria that help determine what would be best site-wide and not necessarily criteria that bases the decision on what each individual feels they are absolutely entitled to.
[/quote]
To me it is not an entitlement issue. The challenge should be judged on how much it enhances the site goals. If those goals are, in part, to help us all improve and learn then I think it is a success so far. As you stated the quality of the photos were higher than normal and there were more comments than normal, which if read helped everyone learn what other perspectives are. I also learned from the descriptions some added explaining how they took the shot and edited the photo. So for me anyway, it was a success.
J.B. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:39:43 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by jadin:
To judge success:
% of users voting on this challenge versus % of users voting on normal challenges.
My guess would be there is actually more voters for the masters.. just because. |
Just because it was new and had stirred up a lot of controversy in the forums? Combine the newness effect with the concentration of comments/votes on a smaller than normal entry pool and is it that much different that another free study challenge? |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:41:55 PM · #145 |
mk in italics:
I also felt that the Masters Challenge was a success. I based this on the fact that there was decent participation in the challenge, that over 1,000 more comments were given than are usually given and that, in my opinion, there was a large number of high quality entries which, frankly, were fun to look at.
Thanks for clarifying.
To be honest, I didn't feel like many of the complaints against the first round of the Masters challenge were all that strong. Not that there wasn't a lot of complaining, just that I didn't feel the reasoning was very valid. No one was being denied anything that they signed up for.
I agree with you. I voiced my excitement about this challenge and I didn't understand the arguments against it before it even started.
There have been a few reasons presented in this thread that I feel could hold more weight. Specifically, I am sypmathetic to the fact that nshapiro suggested this topic and is now unable to participate. Also, some of coolhar's complaints have the potential to be true (I am interested in whether or not it does dilute the votes and comments received in other challenges), although some of them are still untrue (it does not "take away" a chance for you to compete against the Masters if that chance was never present in the first place.)
It is unfortunate that nshapiro can't participate in the challenge...There are probably many others that wish they could participate because of the 'new' type of challenge. I really wish I could be part of it, but I'm not offended...I simply wish I was able to enter. Oh well...
That being said, I'm in favor of having this sort of challenge less frequently...perhaps once a quarter as someone suggested earlier in the thread.
Amen...my point exactly. I didn't understand what was so incredibly wonderful about the Master's challenge that it had to be repeated so quickly.
I am also interested in what sort of criteria other people feel we should judge the succcess/failure of this challenge by. I posed the question earlier but no one answered it. I am specifically interested in criteria that help determine what would be best site-wide and not necessarily criteria that bases the decision on what each individual feels they are absolutely entitled to.
I agree, site-wide opinion is hard to come by. We forum users are a noisy minority, I think. I believe more should be done through the voting, but at the same time I don't want everything to be a referendum! I think the criteria that should be used to judge when making these decisions is:
Is there an overall benefit (site-wide) to the subscribers at dpc?
Thanks for your post, mk...
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 14:42:59.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:42:11 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by joebok:
It seems to me that looking at ratios of votes/submissions and comments/submissions would be a good indicator that the site or that challenges are working well. |
For the record, and I'm not taking one side or another, but someone offered free prints to people who commented on every photo in that challenge... I started to try to do this, but ran out of steam, but it did make me comment on more than I would have in a normal challenge... so I'm not sure this is an accurate indicator.
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 14:42:31.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:46:42 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by annasense:
Originally posted by joebok:
It seems to me that looking at ratios of votes/submissions and comments/submissions would be a good indicator that the site or that challenges are working well. |
For the record, and I'm not taking one side or another, but someone offered free prints to people who commented on every photo in that challenge... I started to try to do this, but ran out of steam, but it did make me comment on more than I would have in a normal challenge... so I'm not sure this is an accurate indicator. |
I still think it would be valid - if stats can be compiled against the large number of old challenges then the situtation you mention would not be statistically significant. (You could, however, compare the ratios for that challenge and see if the offer actually seemed to make a difference in participation.)
What, in my opinion, makes DPC work is the right balance of participation on both the submission and the voting/commenting sides and I don't know of a better, non-subjective, way to compare such things except for some ratios.
Message edited by author 2004-11-01 14:48:12. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:49:10 PM · #148 |
No one here is denied anything.
All members can enter at least 2 challenges/week in order to qualify for the Masters challenge.
Are all you whiners upset because you didn't make the cut this time? If you are upset or disappointed, you should be upset with yourself. You are the ones who took the pictures for ALL the challenges you entered and didn't get ribbons.
That's like entering a race where there are qualifying heats, losing in your qualifier and being mad at the race organizers because you don't get to race in the final. DUH! |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:49:56 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by joebok:
Originally posted by annasense:
Originally posted by joebok:
It seems to me that looking at ratios of votes/submissions and comments/submissions would be a good indicator that the site or that challenges are working well. |
For the record, and I'm not taking one side or another, but someone offered free prints to people who commented on every photo in that challenge... I started to try to do this, but ran out of steam, but it did make me comment on more than I would have in a normal challenge... so I'm not sure this is an accurate indicator. |
I still think it would be valid - if stats can be compiled against the large number of old challenges then the situtation you mention would not be statistically significant. (You could, however, compare the ratios for that challenge and see if the offer actually seemed to make a difference in participation.)
What, in my opinion, makes DPC work is the right balance of participation on both the submission and the voting/commenting sides and I don't know of a better, non-subjective, way to compare such things except for some ratios. |
Take a look at the threads where the offer was made, I'd say a significant number of voters commented much more than they would've normally. I agree with annasense that it severly taints that data.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:55:24 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
"Hey! WOW! Looky! If we get rid of all the best photographers on this site, I kick ass! WHOOOO HOOOO!" |
I don't think sarcasm is necesary yet. I just wanna know why rewarding the people that do well here entitles everyone else to more? |
I just wanna know why people who win 2-3 ribbons need to be rewarded further? Why not reward the people who vote a lot? or the people who comment a lot? |
|
