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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Do we need to find a way to limit entries?
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 89, (reverse)
11/09/2004 09:36:35 PM · #26
No limits for members. Limited number of slots for non-members.
maybe? extra non-member slots may be purchased as suggested by micknewton.

Or change the voting system completely.
11/09/2004 09:39:15 PM · #27
Originally posted by Gordon:

More byzantine rules ?

More DQs. Let the SC deal with the volume. Everyone (?) would be happy.

O, thanks for that Gordon, LOL
11/09/2004 09:45:29 PM · #28
Being a non-member who will quite likely become a member in the next month or two, I would like to say that I think open challenges generally don't need to be limited. The only reason the number is so high for the current macro challenge is because it's something fun and easy for everyone to do. The numbers for the previous open challenges of Bizarre Nature (226) and Poverty (171) were much lower; I suspect because they were more of a challenge.

I would like to add that it's the open challenges with critiques that get non-paying people (like me!) hooked on becoming members. :)
11/09/2004 09:48:15 PM · #29
Have say, 3 different challenges running concurrently with the restriction that you can only enter one of them. For example, have "Macro", "Landsape", and "Night Shot" challenges (or whatever, or course). They all start and end at the same time. If you enter one, then that's it, you can't enter another. It might work out that such an arrangement would be self-policing, too, in that as "Macro" gets lots of entries while "Night Shot" has few, participants would be more inclined to enter "Night Shot" where their chance of success would be greater. You might also set a limit (maybe 200 or 250) of entries into each category. If "Macro" filled up, later entries would be divided among the remaining two categories.
11/09/2004 09:55:36 PM · #30
I was first to submit to macro :p and plenty did so after
I think the best option is to eliminate the percentage of photos you need to vote on - either by making the minimum to be 0% or just replacing it with a set value of photos - say 50 and im sure people will vote over the amount but if they can't, there vote still will be counted

ps. can people plz leave there comments on the photos there voting for cause this is what improves us - I take every comment as helpful because i believe to win a ribbon you must make everyone happy with what you have submited anyway thanks for your time and yeh good luck
11/09/2004 10:00:32 PM · #31
I firmly believe that trying to vote on 200, let alone 400 or 500 submissions, cannot produce quality judgements. I'm for forcing the 20% rule; that is, give the voter a random 20%, don't let the voter choose which 20%, and don't let the voter choose any more than 20%.

I know this isn't popular, but I also don't believe anyone should vote in a challenge in which he/she participates as a submitter.

...There. I've said it. I feel better now. :-)
11/09/2004 10:09:24 PM · #32
So let's just go to the far end?
Create a select all pics option. Tag all at 5 (avg), 100% voting is in, but no results are listed for the submitter until 2 days into voting. By then, hopefully, you've revisited your votes and culled the lowbies and gems and are working on really examining the ones that interest you for critique, all the time, reselecting and upping or lowering the score you have given based on your second or third pass?

Just a radical thought.
11/09/2004 10:18:16 PM · #33
Originally posted by jrs915:

what about the following:

All entries are accepted, after the first two days, the lower 50% of images are eliminated and ranked as is. After the next two days, the next 50% (25% total) are eleminated and ranked as is.

Then the final 3 days are used to vote on the top 25% of the images

11/09/2004 10:22:50 PM · #34
I can't see a realistic way you can limit the actual number of entried fairly.

Have a challenge, say with a maz of 200 entries. What will a lot of people do? Instantly enter absolutely any photo on their HDD to secure their place, and then work on actually taking a photo for the challenge.

Only way round that would be if you vhanged your photo you lost your slot and joined again at the back .... unfair for those making a legitimate change to a photo.

I am sure there is a solution somewhere to the growing number of entries, if there needs to be one, but I do not think there is a simple one like limiting the number allowed for any given challenge.
11/09/2004 10:41:01 PM · #35
We just hit 500 submissions in the macro challenge. We will have to do SOMETHING, that's for sure!
11/09/2004 10:48:44 PM · #36
Why limit the submissions? Why stifle the participation? Sheer nonsense to limit submissions!
11/09/2004 10:52:22 PM · #37
What about a mixture. If you enter, you are given 50, 75 or 100 to vote. You have to vote all of them. If you didn't enter you can choose how many you will vote. Then after 4 days, the bottom 50% is dropped. You get another 50 to vote on. You don't get to pick the ones to vote on. That will ensure that all entries get about the same number of votes. The second pass will be random so it's possible you will not get the same ones that you got in the first round. The pictures will agin get about the same number of votes. People will only have to vote, at most, 150, so they will have more time to comment and look at the pictures.
11/09/2004 11:09:13 PM · #38
Any scheme that uses the score earned so far to thin the field is an open invitation to so-called troll voting. Vote early and vote very low on the entries that are good enough to beat out your shot in advancing to the next round.
If some people feel stressed trying to vote for a high number of entries perhaps they need to chill out and be content with voting for whatever number is comfortable for them. There is no dishonor in not voting on all entries in all challenges.
11/10/2004 12:11:02 AM · #39
I think 2 things (like it matters :P)

1. The photos are already randomized.
2. When you hit the link to vote it should skip the thumbnail page and go directly into the voting pages. You can't skip a photo that way. they could add the percentage counter to the voting page and make the thumbnail page completely obsolete.

Just my two thoughts.
11/10/2004 12:19:02 AM · #40
we have to remember that the site might actually (gasp!) be growing. We cant start setting firm numbers by trying to fix the problem temporarily.. the "largest number of entries" keeps growing and growing.. soon it'll reach 1000 entries on popular subjects...

now i dont have a solution myself, but we have to keep this in mind, instead of thinking of the 500-ish number of entries as a "static" number.
11/10/2004 12:29:23 AM · #41
Weighted voting time? The more entries, the longer the voting period?

Don't think entry caps is good for the site...

Don't think the scheme jrs915 suggested is fair... I recently had a shot start out a 5.2 after one day and end up at 5.75 at end of voting. I woulda got stuck in the basement before all voted on it...
11/10/2004 12:31:33 AM · #42
Originally posted by StevePax:

This was a major suggestion back in the day: A DPC Caste system.

Novice, Intermediate, and Master classes. You can only compete and vote in your class. There is some requirement to "graduate" to the next class.

I'd probably end up in the "untouchables" class, of course, but eventually I'd graduate.

I like this idea best, this would also allow people to figure out if they are improving.
11/10/2004 12:38:37 AM · #43
I offered a debate on this on 11/08/2004 but my thread got locked because they say this has been discussed before. You can click here to read what I proposed
11/10/2004 04:46:51 AM · #44
While limiting entries may sound good, great care will be needed for it to not cause more harm than good. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

Limiting the amount of time to enter doesn't seem like a viable option. This site is centered around the idea of learning photography, and as such there will always be a lot more beginners than anything else. But these beginners, by the nature of being a beginner, need more time to accomplish what they can accomplish.

Likewise, limiting the number of entries into a challenge will hurt the beginners far more than the more advanced users for the same reason. Furthermore, limiting the number of entries creates a pressure to get the photo in before anyone else does. I can't see how this will encourage anyone to take the time to ensure their entry is as good as they can make it. The race will be on to turn in the fastest entry possible, and the site will likely see a drastic reduction in image quality.

An influx of new blood is a must for any continued growth, so limiting the participation of the new and inexperienced would tend to cause the site to stagnate, not grow. So, any change in the environment of DPC would need to take that into consideration and encourage unhindered participation by anyone who happens to 'step in off the street' for a closer look at what they saw in the window as they passed by.

The next important aspect that must be kept under consideration is to encourage each participant to learn and improve. From experience I can tell you that I learn best by doing. Next to actually clicking the shutter myself, visualizing the scene I want and how to get there is the most important aspect of doing. Indeed there are many forum threads with the most advanced individuals on the site stating they visualize the shots before makint them. Practice at visualization is therefore very important for any participant to improve their photography. The best thing I have found to excersize my ability to visualize is to review and comment on the photographs of other. When I comment I am forced to look at a specific image, and 'step into the shoes' of another for a moment -- to look at a scene and an attempt to capture it that I may never have thought to attempt. Voting comes in second, but commenting is by far the best way I know to improve the ability to visualise. So, I feel any change in the environment of DPC needs to encourage all participants to vote and most importantly analyze and comment on as many images as they possibly can.

The next item on my mind are the goals of the participants. As each user participates more and more, and improve their photography, there will need to be a sequence of site goals to achieve. Currently the goals on the site are individual scores, ribbons, 'Master' status, etc. -- but there needs to be more and more recognition for those who have achieved them. So, I feel any change in the environment of DPC needs to provide for and encourage the setting, achieving and recognition of goals.

The best part of DPC is, in my opinion, not the challenges -- it is the community that has developed around them. While this community is in part seen in the voting and commenting, it really shines in the forums (and perhaps DPCfanatics chat as well, but I have not participated in that). There are currently the forums and DPCfanatics chat (run off-site), but it is my understanding there have been some mentoring done in the past, and the idea of 'study groups' has come up in descussion before. Also, recently, a new aspect of community has been seen -- calling your fellow memeber out for a public dual! :D So, I feel any change in the environment of DPC needs to provide for and encourage the community of DPC, particularly the dynamic creation of subgroups to meet the ever changing needs of select groups within the community.

This site requires financial support. From server space to bandwidth, from advertisment to legal expenses, nothing on this site comes without a cost to someone. Currently, this financial support is in the form of membership dues and print sales; but the needs of the site will only continue to grow as the site does. So, I feel any change in the environment of DPC needs to encourage the financial participation of its users.

So, to summurize the above, I feel the following items must be kept in mind while suggesting any changes to the environment of DPC:

- encourage participation from anyone.
- encourage voting and commenting from everyone.
- encourage setting and achieving goals and their recognition.
- encoruage a dynamic community.
- encourage financial support of the site.

While encouraging the site may seem all well and good, it doesn't really address the growing pains being felt as we the bulging community threaten to burst DPC at the seams. But, keeping DPC the same and limiting participation isn't the answer either; encouraging DPC to grow to accomidate us is the only viable answer I can see.

11/10/2004 07:17:38 AM · #45
Originally posted by dwoolridge:

No limits for members. Limited number of slots for non-members.
maybe? extra non-member slots may be purchased as suggested by micknewton.

Or change the voting system completely.

At the time that paid membership was introduced, Langdon and Drew made an on-the-record commitment that the open challenges would always remain free to all. I believe it is important that everyone be aware of this when offering suggestions.

Please keep them coming!

11/10/2004 07:22:17 AM · #46
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

open challenges would always remain free to all

no more open challenges :p
11/10/2004 07:42:08 AM · #47
Originally posted by hardwaybets:

Why limit the submissions? Why stifle the participation? Sheer nonsense to limit submissions!

I tend to agree with this statement however as a paying member I wouldn't mind seeing the Member only challenges increase relative to open challenges. Say 3 to 1 Member vs Open. This could induce more people to join.
11/10/2004 10:45:18 AM · #48
Is the number of submissions really a problem? Or is that we just feel overwhelmed by the thought of having to look at all of them at once? From the comments I've read, it seems that everyone wants the site to grow. What happens when all those new people who started out in the open challenges become paying members and then we see the member challenges with high submission numbers? No voting system will be perfect, but with the requirements to vote at 20% and the random generation of images it seems pretty fair. One more point - if you were the winner of this challenge would you feel better about beating out 200 other photos, or 400 other photos?

OK, now for the disclaimer: I've been a "free" member about a week. Since then, I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing submissions and forum postings and am eager to join as a "paying" member. I think it is the open challenges that encourage paying membership (the "hook", if you will - just my opinion based on my own experience) and I believe there is a direct relationship between paid members and site membership fees.
11/10/2004 11:33:09 AM · #49
Given the way these things grow, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that a popular challenge will top 1000 entries in 6 months time or so.

The sky isn't falling, but something needs to be changed to address these sorts of numbers.

Pre-screening by a select (rotating/ voluntary/ elected) group works on some sites.

More challenges might help, with limitations on entries across the challenges.
11/10/2004 11:39:51 AM · #50
The more I think about it, the more I think either a tiered system (like the one Eddy G has proposed previously) is a good idea. Either that, or multiple challenges with the restriction that you can only submit to one, and can't vote on the one you submitted to. You can comment, just not vote.

Current Server Time: 07/16/2019 12:27:15 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 © 2001-2019 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: 07/16/2019 12:27:15 PM EDT.