| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2004 12:18:16 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by JEM:
Manic, Kavey, et al - as an aid to the uninitiated will you publish a glossary of symbols -- :), 0(:),
etc.... It will help us to understand your real intent in your comments. |
Just need to tilt your head 90 degrees to the left.
They are supposed to look like someone grinning, poking out a tongue, winking etc
:) smile
;) wink
:{ unhappy frown
:P Tongue poking out the side
alternates
:o) with a nose
hybrids
;oP winking, with a nose and sticking the tongue out
<]:o)~> Santa |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 05:55:52 PM · #127 |
I really hate missing a day of DPC, and then having to come in on an interesting thread that has grown quite long. Anyway, I have made a list a list of a number of items as I read the thread, and they will follow shortly. Please excuse the excessively tight cropping, but this post is long enough without full quotes. First though, I would like to add a couple of thoughts that didn't have a specific quote prompting them (meaning I want to add them in before you start skimming :p ).
Since the critiques are meant to be the best means of gaining the insite you want into how your image was received, would it be possible to add a text box for the requester to state what aspect of the phote they wish attention devoted to (ie. lighting, composition, emotiveness, etc).
I think a recognition of the value of the critiques from those who have proven themselves in critiquing by basing the price, on the status (color of star or rating) of the critiquer. Those of higher status would still be able to critique any photo, of course.
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think you may also want to consider an additional higher level of critique above 'priority'. ... |
... if you want more than one critique, wouldn't it be better to get one, then apply for another, etc etc? ... |
Definitely like the idea of 'buying' more than one, but the current system only allows for requesting of critiques during the submittal phase, but the critiques are not done until the award phase. There is no mechanism to allow asking for another critique after the first.
Originally posted by autool:
It might be an idea to consider that people could earn the status to make critigues without further SC approval. ... |
... with a symbol change, such as the afore mentioned sunglasses or perhaps a magnifying glass.
Originally posted by Manic:
... Hopefully, the photographer would have put their intentions into the 'details' field of their enty, thus giving you an idea of what they were trying to achieve. ... |
Any chance of finally making this mandatory for anyone wanting a critique? Pretty please! :D
Originally posted by autool:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... why shouldn't voters get partial credit (say 1/10 of a CC credit) for every comment they make during a challenge? |
Don't give credit until the photographer marks it helpful. ... |
I like the idea, but I don't think it should be automated. But I also don't think the 'helpful' checkbox is the way to go with it either. The 'helpful' checkbox is currently the only way to give the commenter any feedback on the comment (other than PMing, with has its own problems). Adding another checkbox, that is only visible to the photographer, such as 'review for critique credit', would work well. This allows the photographer to recognize a critique given during the voting, while avoiding the 'witch hunts' and 'brown nosing'.
Originally posted by Manic:
... the critiques are randomly allocated to the critiquers when they request one to do ... |
Originally posted by dr rick:
... I personally think a limited ability to "pass" on a critique would be desireable ... |
I think a mechanism needs to be in place, but having moderator approval for 'passing', with a time-out of 24hrs before automatically being returned to the pool. The moderator approval will keep the system legit, while the time-out allows for an automatic appeal process with a long enough delay to prevent abuse.
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Gordon:
... I'd like to see an element of follow-through and dialog on these. ... |
... For me, the dialogue that has often resulted from the more detailed critiques I have left, has been one of the very best parts of doing them. |
I agree with the benefit of dialog, but most often the comments left on images (particularly challenge entries) are lost to the void of anonymity. While it is easy enough for the photographer to reply to a comment left on a image, there is no mechanism to allow the commenter to know about it. This leads to dialogs happening through PMing or some of the system -- depriving the rest of us of the benefit of the dialog on the image. We can just see what started it. Many months back a suggested a potential solution to this, but it doesn't hurt to bump it again, 'Portfolio commnts" ;)
Cheers, and here's hoping at least some of you have made it this far. :D
David
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 06:59:45 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
... First though, I would like to add a couple of thoughts that didn't have a specific quote prompting them (meaning I want to add them in before you start skimming :p ). |
What??!! You skim responses to quotes??? ;)
Originally posted by Britannica:
I think a recognition of the value of the critiques from those who have proven themselves in critiquing by basing the price, on the status (color of star or rating) of the critiquer. Those of higher status would still be able to critique any photo, of course. |
I thought of this too. But implementation could get rather complex. I think we should keep this in mind for a future update, after we see how the whole thing works (and when people actually have ratings!).
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by Manic:
... Hopefully, the photographer would have put their intentions into the 'details' field of their enty, thus giving you an idea of what they were trying to achieve. ... |
Any chance of finally making this mandatory for anyone wanting a critique? Pretty please! :D |
[/quote]
Having a blank 'details' field doesn't bother me; I try to understand what a photo says to me, not what the photographer 'intended'. If such comments are present, I'll comment on how well I think the photograph met the goal. But a photograph doesn't have to convey the author's intent to be successful, and some photographers don't like to predispose viewers to a particular interpretation. Ansel Adams commented freely on the techniques he used and how particular photos were taken, but rarely stated what they were supposed to mean since that could be different for each viewer.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 07:26:36 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by dr rick:
Having a blank 'details' field doesn't bother me; I try to understand what a photo says to me, not what the photographer 'intended'....But a photograph doesn't have to convey the author's intent to be successful, and some photographers don't like to predispose viewers to a particular interpretation. Ansel Adams commented freely on the techniques he used and how particular photos were taken, but rarely stated what they were supposed to mean since that could be different for each viewer. |
Aye. Same binoculars.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 07:51:21 PM · #130 |
This is the template I set up for myself when I used to do CC critiques before. Given that it's using pretty much the same headings as Gordon's, above, I assume I either took it from him back then or it was one that was worked out mutually in some thread or other at the time.
Critique Club
Initial thoughts
blah blah
Composition/ Content
blah blah
Background
blah blah
Camera Work - Technical
blah blah
Digital Processing - Technical
blah blah
Fits The Challenge
blah blah
My Opinion On The Photo
blah blah
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 09:19:26 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by dr rick:
Originally posted by Britannica:
I think a recognition of the value of the critiques from those who have proven themselves in critiquing by basing the price, on the status (color of star or rating) of the critiquer. Those of higher status would still be able to critique any photo, of course. |
I thought of this too. But implementation could get rather complex. I think we should keep this in mind for a future update, after we see how the whole thing works (and when people actually have ratings!). |
Well, not that complex -- but I do agree that it is likely best left until there are some statistics to base the status of those that critique.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by dr rick:
Having a blank 'details' field doesn't bother me; I try to understand what a photo says to me, not what the photographer 'intended'....But a photograph doesn't have to convey the author's intent to be successful, and some photographers don't like to predispose viewers to a particular interpretation. Ansel Adams commented freely on the techniques he used and how particular photos were taken, but rarely stated what they were supposed to mean since that could be different for each viewer. |
Aye. Same binoculars. |
If the photo is successful, yes it will stand on its own merits as it should -- the voting and comments made during the voting phase will convey that. However, as the purpose of all this is to learn -- how are those that fail to convey their intent to know in what way they could have succeeded unless they state what their intent was.
David
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 10:26:13 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by dr rick:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
[quote=dr rick]Having a blank 'details' field doesn't bother me; I try to understand what a photo says to me, not what the photographer 'intended'....But a photograph doesn't have to convey the author's intent to be successful, and some photographers don't like to predispose viewers to a particular interpretation. Ansel Adams commented freely on the techniques he used and how particular photos were taken, but rarely stated what they were supposed to mean since that could be different for each viewer. |
Aye. Same binoculars. |
If the photo is successful, yes it will stand on its own merits as it should -- the voting and comments made during the voting phase will convey that. However, as the purpose of all this is to learn -- how are those that fail to convey their intent to know in what way they could have succeeded unless they state what their intent was... |
The hazard, IMO, lies not in the conveyance, David. It lies in the common belief that every good photo has an intent or a message and that its author, therefore, is the source. It gets worse even when the alleged message gets muddled up with a supposed meaning.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 05:20:51 AM · #133 |
OK, this could get a bit long... ;o)
Originally posted by Britannica:
Since the critiques are meant to be the best means of gaining the insite you want into how your image was received, would it be possible to add a text box for the requester to state what aspect of the phote they wish attention devoted to (ie. lighting, composition, emotiveness, etc). |
Surely the photographer would want a critique of all aspects of the photograph?
Originally posted by Britannica:
I think a recognition of the value of the critiques from those who have proven themselves in critiquing by basing the price, on the status (color of star or rating) of the critiquer. Those of higher status would still be able to critique any photo, of course. |
Interesting. You're basically proposing that the more critiques you do, the more expensive getting a critique from that user would be? The downside of this is that you'd probably end up with a small group of critiquers would could afford each other, but no-one else could. I think a flat rate (and the random allocation) would help ensure equality between the beginner critiquers and those with more experience.
Originally posted by Britannica:
Definitely like the idea of 'buying' more than one, but the current system only allows for requesting of critiques during the submittal phase, but the critiques are not done until the award phase. There is no mechanism to allow asking for another critique after the first. |
This is where the new CC system would be totally different. Critiques would (probably) only be requestable after challenges complete, since the idea is that any image that isn't being voted upon could be requested for critique (inc past challenge entries and portfolios etc).
Originally posted by Britannica:
I think a mechanism needs to be in place, but having moderator approval for 'passing', with a time-out of 24hrs before automatically being returned to the pool. The moderator approval will keep the system legit, while the time-out allows for an automatic appeal process with a long enough delay to prevent abuse. |
Good idea - have the critiquer be able to decline the critique, but give a reason for doing so, which is then approved or not.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 06:22:30 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Britannica:
Since the critiques are meant to be the best means of gaining the insite you want into how your image was received, would it be possible to add a text box for the requester to state what aspect of the phote they wish attention devoted to (ie. lighting, composition, emotiveness, etc). |
Surely the photographer would want a critique of all aspects of the photograph? |
Most of the time, but there are times when the photographer knows the "short-comings" that will tend to grab the attention of most viewers -- and would rather not dwell on them. The intentional use of shallow DOF has been mentioned as an example; and, from my own experience, my highest scoring entry, ".", had a number of technical "flaws" I was well aware of when I submitted it. By directing the attention of the critique the photographer would be able to ensure it did not get bogged down in the technical issues so many get hung up on. I know I get hung up entirely too much, sometimes. :D
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Britannica:
I think a recognition of the value of the critiques from those who have proven themselves in critiquing by basing the price, on the status (color of star or rating) of the critiquer. Those of higher status would still be able to critique any photo, of course. |
Interesting. You're basically proposing that the more critiques you do, the more expensive getting a critique from that user would be? The downside of this is that you'd probably end up with a small group of critiquers would could afford each other, but no-one else could. I think a flat rate (and the random allocation) would help ensure equality between the beginner critiquers and those with more experience. |
The basis behind this proposal is the more experienced critique writers are more likely to write a helpful critique for the more experienced photographers. That is not to say the less experienced are of no use to them, just a statement of who is more likely to be helpful. Likewise, the more experienced photographers have the knowledge most of us would love to tap in order to improve. This proposal provides a way for the more experienced photographers to ensure they get a critique that has the greatest likelihood of helping them improve -- the catch is they have to share their knowledge by writing critiques themselves to ensure they get such a quality critique. Thus, it is intended to become an incentive for the most skilled photographers to critique more and for the most experienced critique writers to continue doing so.
I also do not see it as a bad thing for a small group of prolific critique writers to exist -- after all, they do deserve to get as good as they give ... and they will have to critique many more outside that small group in order to continue to afford it.
Granted, the success of this idea does rely heavily on the procedures proposed to ensure the quality of the critiques; without that it would degenerate into an incentive to spam critiques. But as long as the quality assurance procedures are up to snuff, I believe it would work well toward accomplishing that intention.
---
It is good to hear the critique system will be opened up to all images posted; that was not clear to me from initial reading of the proposal -- but I see where I missed it now. ;)
David
/edit: preview didn't work (errors on page it said), so I had to format by editing.
Message edited by author 2004-11-15 06:34:44.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 07:04:11 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Most of the time, but there are times when the photographer knows the "short-comings" that will tend to grab the attention of most viewers -- and would rather not dwell on them. The intentional use of shallow DOF has been mentioned as an example; and, from my own experience, my highest scoring entry, ".", had a number of technical "flaws" I was well aware of when I submitted it. By directing the attention of the critique the photographer would be able to ensure it did not get bogged down in the technical issues so many get hung up on. I know I get hung up entirely too much, sometimes. :D |
Hmm... I see what you mean. However, it's simple enough for you to add a comment to your image, stating your intentional technical flaws etc, so that the critiquer will be able to read that while critiquing...
Originally posted by Britannica:
I also do not see it as a bad thing for a small group of prolific critique writers to exist -- after all, they do deserve to get as good as they give ... and they will have to critique many more outside that small group in order to continue to afford it. |
Thinking this over, I can't see it working - how would these higher tier critiquers be allocated these critiques? If you go for seperate queues per tier, won't that mean that the high teirs won't critique very often (if no-one can afford their critiques)? And how would you integrate it with the priority system?
The worst aspect of this is that a beginner photographer wouldn't be able to afford a critique from an experienced critiquer, and thus would only get help from beginner critiquers. Surely it'd be better all round for the beginner photographers to be equally likely to get a critique from an experienced critiquer as from a beginner critiquer? The original intention of the CC (and this site as a whole) is to help the less experienced gain experience, and I don't see how your critique pricing would achieve that aim.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 10:32:43 AM · #136 |
I had another idea which I personally would REALLY like.
Given that some CC members will likely do more critiques than they ever ask for on their own images, it would be really wonderful to have an ability to GIFT points to the CC accounts of others, should we wish.
Initially I was thinking it would be cool to have some kind of tangible reward for really high points balance such as 1000 points converts into $1 DPC Prints purchasing power but then realised that made it too monetary and also wasn't exactly fair on Drew and Langdon since that would have to come out of their profit margin.
But then I moved onto the idea of being able to gift points and I got really excited.
What do you all think?
PS Regarding photographers being the ones to feed back whether a critique was helpful or not I would definitely sound a caution - sorry if I'm repeating myself, I can't recall exactly what I said on this in my last posts - there are sooooo many photographers who only mark helpful those comments that are positive about their image or agree with their own views on the image - whereas the point of asking for a comment or critique from someone else is to look for another opinion, even when it's not in agreement with one's own. Even if one doesn't accept the points made in the critique, surely it's always helpful to find out what another person thinks of the image? But again and again recently I'm coming across photographers who carefully tick only those comments that confirm their own opinions or say nice things about the image.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 10:46:38 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Given that some CC members will likely do more critiques than they ever ask for on their own images, it would be really wonderful to have an ability to GIFT points to the CC accounts of others, should we wish. |
Excellent idea! We'd need a system of transfering credits between users, which shouldn't be too tricky. However, how would critiquers decide whom to gift credits to? And would we end up with people constantly appealing for free credits in the forums?
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 10:48:21 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Given that some CC members will likely do more critiques than they ever ask for on their own images, it would be really wonderful to have an ability to GIFT points to the CC accounts of others, should we wish. |
Excellent idea! We'd need a system of transfering credits between users, which shouldn't be too tricky. However, how would critiquers decide whom to gift credits to? And would we end up with people constantly appealing for free credits in the forums? |
Personally I'd gift them to friends, possibly the old man and maybe, if we could include a message with the transfer, to strangers because I'd just been blown away by one of their photos and wanted to say thanks... who knows?
I'm glad you like the idea - I think it'd be wonderful!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 10:51:17 AM · #139 |
| Or, someone previously mentioned getting credits for comments, not just critiques. With gifting, that could be done without admin intervention. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 06:17:43 PM · #140 |
Thanks, Gordon, for the aid to understanding.
If there are other cool, hip folk who would like to enlarge this typed symbols glossary...please do.
The Mexican children in our area who are learning computer usage will, no doubt, use this to enlarge the scope of internet communication in English. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 06:45:58 PM · #141 |
JEM, this is going off-topic slightly, but here's a page full of text smilies which should help :o)
Vontom, good point, some users could choose to gift their credits that way, but commenters should by no means expect to get credits for every comment.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 06:50:32 PM · #142 |
But people would start giving each other comments and then marking each other as helpful just to get points...
That won't happen with CC critiques as one can't choose which image to leave them on.
But how to stop it with regular comments?
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 06:56:33 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
But people would start giving each other comments and then marking each other as helpful just to get points... |
My understanding of your 'gifting' idea is that users could donate their credits to anyone they liked for any reason, but this would have to be a manual process - I think the earlier discussions pretty much ruled out using any automated system of linking comments / helpfulness ratings to credits.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 07:00:22 PM · #144 |
Sorry Manic
My last comment (about problems with people making comments to each other and then marking as helpful) was regarding the previous suggestion to have points awarded to regular comments by the act of being marked as helpful. Comments not critiques.
Back to talking about points (earned from CC critiques) I was thinking, for example, that if I'd been a good girl and commented lots and earned 100 points but had no images needing critiqueing but a friend (or even my darling dearest) needed some points that I could choose to transfer a self-chosen number of my points to their name so they could apply for a critique.
Given that accounts would need to be set up for these points it would basically require a little extra coding to allow points to be added to these accounts not only by earning them by doing critiques (or moderating other peoples' critiques) but by transfer too.
Does that make sense or should I go to bed and try again tomorrow? ;o)
Message edited by author 2004-11-15 19:02:32.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 07:09:05 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Does that make sense or should I go to bed and try again tomorrow? ;o) |
Makes perfect sense, and matches what I was invisioning from when you first proposed this.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 07:12:40 PM · #146 |
In some ways I feel relieved that incentives are being incorporated to give financial renumeration for critiques. This will stir more people to give of themselves. I, for one, do not want any part of such credits nor of this arrangement, not because it is wrong, but that there is no reason why the site should pay and create a bookkeeping obigation. I would have been happy with just a window showing critiques given.
I am sure we will see a lot of new talent. Here, I relinquish my obligation. Good luck to the new arrangement.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 07:12:58 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Makes perfect sense, and matches what I was invisioning from when you first proposed this. |
Good. Now don't forget the chicken suit you promised me tomorrow. Night night!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 07:24:13 PM · #148 |
| What about buying CC points with cash? That would make busy ppl that dont have time for making critiques get critiques, and support the site at the same time |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 05:52:10 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
In some ways I feel relieved that incentives are being incorporated to give financial renumeration for critiques. This will stir more people to give of themselves. I, for one, do not want any part of such credits nor of this arrangement, not because it is wrong, but that there is no reason why the site should pay and create a bookkeeping obigation. I would have been happy with just a window showing critiques given. |
Why does the idea of having a system that encourages users to critique seem such a bad thing to you? There isn't any money involved, and it doesn't reward an experienced critiquer any more than a beginner. Given that the current system is totally overwhelmed with requests, how else can we deal with the number of requested critiques?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 06:04:46 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by eugene:
What about buying CC points with cash? That would make busy ppl that dont have time for making critiques get critiques, and support the site at the same time |
Using real money was suggested when we initially put this before the SC, but I left it out for the reasons I mentioned at the end of my original post - namely, that it'd makes things a lot more complicated, excludes those without means of paying online, and decreases the number of people critiquing. With the current proposal, the only ways you can get credits are by registration, annual membership subscription, gifts, and critiquing, thus encouraging both membership signups and critiquing.
|
|
