| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2004 04:58:43 PM · #151 |
I think real money makes it more complicated too and sullies it slightly as well.
So anyway... when does this move from a proposal to being under development and then going live? :o)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:06:47 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
So anyway... when does this move from a proposal to being under development and then going live? :o) |
I'm trying to persuade D&L to put this next in line after the DPCP upgrades, but I can't promise anything...
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:25:47 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Manic:
I'm trying to persuade D&L to put this next in line after the DPCP upgrades, but I can't promise anything... |
:o)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 05:35:09 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by Manic:
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? |
Sorry it took so long to get back to this -- but I think I have not been understood. I was thinking of seperate queues for each tier, each with their own prioritization. A member of a higher critique tier would empty their own tier first, but then qould be free to move on to the lower tiers when theirs was empty. The idea is not to limit the number of critiques they do, but to recognize those with more experience writing critiques will generally give better critiques. They will still want to give as many as they did to get to the upper tier, but this provides those with a desire for the better critiques to not have to treat the critique system as a game of chance. Those wanting to spend their credits on the upper tiers would, IMO, be those more accomplished at photography. I see this as a way for them to be encouraged to critique more -- to be able to afford a much improved chance of a critique they will count as helpful.
Originally posted by Manic:
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. |
This in no way limits the members of the higher critique tiers from critiquing 'below their status', and in fact they will want to do so for the very reason you stated -- they will not be able to afford a critique of similar caliber to their own if they do not.
I may not have made this clear yet, and you are of course free to ask for more clarification, but let's table it for a bit. Even if I can convince you it is a good idea, the critique system needs some history, to base some stats on, to be able to fit sub-divisions like this in intelligently.
---
I have a come upon a potential problem with the system as proposed in your original post. A matter that if left unhandled, could make it so no one can afford to have an image critiqued.
I realize there are some 30,000 users of DPC and that not all of them are active and that not all of those will give or want critiques, but at any given time there will be a finite number of users that give and receive critiques. As I see it, that leaves 4 possible types of users
(1) Those that don't critique and don't post images to be critiqued.
(2) Those that don't critique but do post images to be critiqued.
(3) Those that don't post images to be critiqued but do critique.
and, (4) those that critique and post images to be critiqued.
Of those; (1) does not matter as they are not a part of the system, (2) will quickly run out of credits and be forced to become one of the other three possiblities (self limiting), (3) these are the problem but I'll get to them in a moment and (4) which is what we all want (and I believe the point of the proposed system.
I said that those that critique and don't post images to be critiqued are the problem; and even though they are helping, they will make it impossible for anyone to afford a critique before too long. The reason for this is the current proposal gives only two methods to earn credits with; one is the initial bestowment of 3/6 critiques worth (for registered users/members) and the other is by doing critiques. But the cost of a critique is the same as what is gained, so the photographer asking for the critique is essentially paying another user to critique their images -- and exchange of critique credit. The initial allotment is the only method currently available for the system to gain critique credits. But (3) above, does not spend credits (or at least not as much as they earn), so they are a constant drain on the system. New users, and users buying memberships (is that by the month or by the year?) will refresh the system, but eventually the (3)'s of the site will drain enough to prevent the system from working at all.
The solution is simple to state -- there must be an obtainable way to gain critique credits outside of actually doing critiques, or to state it another way, there must be a way to earn critique credits without someone else having to spend their critique credits.
Things like writing tutorials, how-to's and interviews would help, but that is not really all that accessable to all -- and in fact limits the gaining of critique credits to those with knowledge to share, leaving those without knowledge to share (the inexperienced) without a way to earn credits.
Being able to buy more credit with real money would introduce new credits into the system, but brings far too many complications to be worth-while. It also limits the system to those with cash to burn -- not to mention adds the potential of hard-feelings from those giving large numbers of critiques who may feel they deserve a cut.
Giving some small portion of a critique credit for normal comments is an option, but is prone to abuse if not moderated. If moderated by a select few, it would become unmanagable quickly and if moderated by the one receiving the comments is prone to hard feelings unless kept anonymous.
Giving critique credits to the ribbon winners is an idea, but not all that accessable to those who need them the most.
Giving a partial critique credit for each challenge entered might work, but would have to be thought out clearly, of course.
On the other side of the equation, the critique credits could 'time-out' and go back to into circulation. But I couldn't come up with a way to reintroduce them that would be made be better by taking old critique credits away, as opposed to creating new ones. The same goes for giving the (3)'s of the site something else to spend their credits on (prints, cool icons, etc.), it does not provide a way to reintegrate the credits -- just tax those contributing the most.
I don't really have anything I consider to be a good solution to this, but felt it needed brought up for discussion.
Sorry this got so long again (and for my rambling).
David
Message edited by author 2004-11-18 05:36:38.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 05:42:46 AM · #155 |
David, that's an interesting point. It might be partially addressed by my idea for critiquers in that situation (I'd likely be one myself) to be able to gift points to others.
I don't know if it will get to the point where there aren't enough images requiring a critique left for all those to be able to do one and earn the points they need BUT if it does happen, at that point perhaps there could be limits imposed on how many critiques can be done by one person or the payment/cost ratio of critiquing could be reviewed?
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 05:55:16 AM · #156 |
Woah, that's an essay and a half! :o) I'll reply without quoting...
Re: Tiered costs
I'm still not keen on this idea, since I don't think we should try to seperate the tiers out like this. IMO, everyone should be equally likely to receive a critique from an expert as from a beginner, so that you are unlikely to get a critique from someone with the same experience as yourself.
Re: Credit economics
I think I see what you're getting at, in that we could get into a situation where more critiquers wanting to critique than there are critique requests. However, the injection of new users (and annual membership renewals) should help offset this, as should the idea of gifting credits - ie someone who critiques frequently but enters infrequently could gift credits to others, thus keeping the system going.
TBH, given the huge number of active users, and the ever-increasing new users, I don't think that we will get into thuis situation for a very long time... and should it ever happen, we could always find other ways of injecting credits, eg free credits for ribbon winning etc.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 07:03:04 AM · #157 |
Maybe I am just seeing a bigger problem than there will be, but I dislike having a system in place with the potential for problems -- and a potential that increases with the success of the system.
In any event, I think it would be worth the effort for D&L to ensure the capability to monitor the over-all health of the system by keeping a stat of unused critique credits and how long they have been held unused -- perhaps as a percentage of critique credits active over a given period of time (a week sounds good).
If something like this is to be left in the system, it warrants watching to be forewarned of problems.
cheers
David
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 08:02:09 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
In any event, I think it would be worth the effort for D&L to ensure the capability to monitor the over-all health of the system by keeping a stat of unused critique credits and how long they have been held unused -- perhaps as a percentage of critique credits active over a given period of time (a week sounds good). |
Agreed, it's probably a good idea that that'll be one of the bits of info the CC admins will be able to monitor, so that we can pre-empt any problems (along with stats on request number, critiques numbers, etc).
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 01:22:23 PM · #159 |
I have read many posts in this thread, but cannot claim to have read all 150+, so i apologize if i am repeating an idea...
My wife participates ina writing site - to get reviews there you offer 'credits' and prizes. you earn them by giving reviews. When you buy in to the site, you get X number of credits, and can buy more if needed.
You place an entry in the que for review, and offer credits/prizes to be reviewed. The more you offer, the higher up the que you are placed, but a reviewer can pick fromfarther down the list (when you go to the review que page you get the top 20 in the que...so if you offer little reward you may be on page 20 and less likely to get reviewed).
if no one reviews, you pay nothing. It sits on the que for 2 weeks, and you can increse your offer at any time, or reduce it.
This method if implemeted here might help the economics theory - a non-balanced method of exchanging credits, a tier system of sorts as well, a way to earn more, etc. May not be perfect, but it is working elsewhere for a similar purpose. |
|
|
|
12/02/2004 04:07:35 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by techtraum:
1. I would guess that the ability to effectively critique is highly correlated to one's photographic ability in general. The better a photographer you are, the easier it will be to earn credits from effective critiques |
I have to dissagree here. I learned more about photography by actively critiqueing than by photographing... I mean, I learned more about what makes an effective shot by looking at shots that were or weren't and figureing out why. Looking at some of my current entries, I guess I need to start critiqueing actively again.
Reason I stopped critiqueing? I got tired of looking at top 10 percentile shots and trying to figure out what to add to all the comments already there -or- how can you say nicely to someone who entered a totally crap shot that it's a totally crap shot? -and- I don't have the time lately to do it justice...
It's also the same reason I quit asking for critique. I can't justify asking others to take time to look at my shots when I can't afford the time to critique theirs... |
|
|
|
12/07/2004 04:05:57 PM · #161 |
Ok now that I made it through the 2000000 posts I felt I had to add to this one. I'm not going to quote so sorry for the toe stomping.
Perhaps another option added to the the level of critues should be at 50 you no longer are required to use a template.
An option to spend credits to defer an assigned critue.
I like the gifting but feel there should be some sort of cap on this.
1/20 of a point for regular comments would be good. I also feel that setting up a new account just to receive the initial piddly be a lot more wor than filling out a few critiques and leaving a couple of comments.
Critiques from higher rated critiquers should cost more. Say maybe 5 10 and 15 points. the critiquer does not recieve more or less points for his critique and it is still unknown how much the photographer paid for it.To keep there critiques score high perhaps top 10 get kudo of some type. the higher rated ones would have to continue giving critiques. If I paid for a mid rate critiquer and there were not but there were no pending 15's then I might be bumped up to get a 15 point higher rated critique for only 10.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 06:38:35 PM · #162 |
Hey Manic, any news on this fabulous idea?
|
|
|
|
12/22/2004 07:27:27 AM · #163 |
| If someone earns credits, can they donate them to someone else? |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 08:07:28 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Hey Manic, any news on this fabulous idea? |
As with many pending improvements, they're on hold while the DPCP upgrades are being work upon.
Originally posted by damelzakelly:
If someone earns credits, can they donate them to someone else? |
Yes, it should be possible to donate credits (it's mentioned somewhere around post 80 I think).
|
|
|
|
12/22/2004 09:12:18 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Hey Manic, any news on this fabulous idea? |
As with many pending improvements, they're on hold while the DPCP upgrades are being work upon. |
'K!
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
12/22/2004 10:30:07 AM · #166 |
An idea I had during the course of reading this thread...
If a critic (I think that's actually the word, instead of "critiquer" :)) is assigned a photo but wants to "pass" for some reason, or does not complete the critique within a reasonable time frame (a week???), he should be "penalized" a small number of points in order to discourage this practice. Perhaps the one "freebie" every 24 hours would still be acceptable, or something like that.
The biggest goal, here, is making as much additional work for Drew and Langdon as we can :) |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 10:38:52 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by nards656:
If a critic (I think that's actually the word, instead of "critiquer" :)) is assigned a photo but wants to "pass" for some reason, or does not complete the critique within a reasonable time frame (a week???), he should be "penalized" a small number of points in order to discourage this practice. Perhaps the one "freebie" every 24 hours would still be acceptable, or something like that. |
I'm pretty sure we covered this somewhere back in the older posts on this thread, and it's basically the same as you mentioned - one pass per 24 hr period, with penalisation for multiple passes or delaying.
Originally posted by nards656:
The biggest goal, here, is making as much additional work for Drew and Langdon as we can :) |
Absolutely ;o)
|
|
|
|
12/22/2004 10:40:48 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by nards656:
An idea I had during the course of reading this thread...
If a critic (I think that's actually the word, instead of "critiquer" :)) |
As long as you're going to get into that, you don't "critique" a photo, you criticize it (preferrably in a constructive, helpful manner).
Critique is a noun, as is criticism; the product or result of the action.
Critic is a noun; the person who performs the action.
Criticize is a verb; the action.
Critical is an adjective; a way of describing something.
Critically is an adverb; a way of doing something.
"To critique" something is an old "PC" term used because of everyones knee-jerk negativity to the term criticize, which most people take in a wholly negative way. If you look at its roots though, I think it means careful and urgent attention, as in "the patient is in critical condition" or "this is a critical putt if she's to get back into the tournament."
If people would connote the term as "carefully analyze and report" instead of "say what's wrong with" we could speak English again : )
Message edited by author 2004-12-22 10:41:55. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:20:20 AM · #169 |
Before I say anything of substance I'll preface my remarks by saying that I read only the four-point summary at the end of the main post and none of the replies.
A thought I had was that it might be worth considering to limit the requests for critiques to paid members. After all, a good critique is a very valuable thing, and those who provide them are essentially giving advice that photographers might otherwise get from, say, a class at an art school with substantial tuition.
The idea of credits would be kind of tough to work out, I think, because there would either be no way to assure that a given critique is actually *worth* the credits earned, or there would have to be a rather large bureaucratic implementation that would review critiques and make sure they were more than a cursory overview (e.g., "This is a great picture, but try to make it sharper next time. Happy shooting!").
I recognize that there would be a certain amount of elitism in making critiques only available to paid members, but it would be simple to implement, and provide yet another benefit to paid registration. Also, in the current system (as far as I know), there is no prioritizing in the critique queue for paid members. It would seem to make sense that, at the least, paid members should get the first dibs at having their pictures critiqued; then, if all the paid members get those critiques, non-paid members would get a shot. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 06:14:03 AM · #170 |
Regarding limiting critiques to members only, I personally don't think we should do this. Critiques are if anything more valuable to beginners than to more experienced photographers, and a much higher percentage of users are beginners, therefore we wouldn't be helping those in most need of help.
As for the quality of the critiques, the idea was for the more experienced critiquers to moderate the critiques of others (and earn a small amount of credit by doing so), with new critiquers having to be moderated, and experienced critiquers getting moderated at random intervals. This would hopefully ensure that people aren't just leaving short comments, and are actually studying the images in question and writing in depth.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 08:37:16 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Regarding limiting critiques to members only, I personally don't think we should do this. Critiques are if anything more valuable to beginners than to more experienced photographers, and a much higher percentage of users are beginners, therefore we wouldn't be helping those in most need of help. |
I acknowledge your divergent view, but I think that there are also similar points to be made about the value of critiques with regard to photographers with greater experience. Since almost no photograph is beyond criticism, there nearly always exists the possibility for useful critical feedback. (It's true that the level of expertise of the critic may not be up to providing such feedback, but the possibility still exists.) A case could be made for there being a lot of value in helping one who is already good to become better--perhaps even, sometimes, more value than in helping a beginner to become better.
It would also, very likely, be more interesting to the person doing the critique if the image under consideration shows a good deal of skill. That allows the reviewer to bring up points he may not get to very often, keeps him from writing the same sorts of critiques over and over, and avoids the problem of trying to give basic advice in a way that doesn't sound condescending.
With regard to paid members themselves, I'm curious about the relationship between paid membership and skill level. Presumably the ones who pay for membership are the ones who are serious. I'm not sure that necessarily implies that they are also the ones with experience. For example, there's me: I went to art school for a year and have taken pictures for a couple of years, but as of the time I became a paid member, I had no experience with this sort of forum and competition. There may be others out there in my position.
Also, I think it's worth emphasizing the simplicity of this solution. I would think it would take very little coding to make the change. Given that, it could be adopted easily and also easily reversed or modified. It would also be possible to make critiques members-only for a trial period of, say, a month.
Originally posted by Manic:
As for the quality of the critiques, the idea was for the more experienced critiquers to moderate the critiques of others (and earn a small amount of credit by doing so), with new critiquers having to be moderated, and experienced critiquers getting moderated at random intervals. This would hopefully ensure that people aren't just leaving short comments, and are actually studying the images in question and writing in depth. |
Sounds great, I just worry about the amount of time it would take to go over everything. Since, as you mention in your original post, people do have a finite amount of time to spend with DPC, it seems like spending time going over critiques would take time away from issuing further critiques.
My whole thinking behind this is that what we're trying to do is grant as many critiques as possible to those that most deserve them, while keeping complication to a minimum. |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 06:53:11 PM · #172 |
hmm
Message edited by author 2005-06-12 19:00:42. |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 07:29:58 PM · #173 |
Very interesting and complicated debate over a relatively simple proposal. Don't get me wrong, I think that most of the points raised in opposition certainly hold some validation. However, I think we're posed with a situation not unsimilar to the votes in Congress (or other governmental bodies outside the USA). It comes down to whether or not the proposed revampment is a better solution than what exists already. I for one believe that the proposed adjustments are overall beneficial to everyone. Sure there will be problems (that's inherent in almost any system), but I think this will allow more viewpoints, reward those commenters who take their responsibility seriously, and ultimately increase the sponsorship & subscription to the service. You have to look at it from a business perspective (not that many in this thread haven't already done so). I'm all for the revisions, but will continue to comment & provide feedback whichever way it goes.
Just my 2 cents... :-)
|
|
|
|
10/20/2005 10:34:32 PM · #174 |
Guess I'll be the one to pull this back up again after a 4 month hiatus... I think it's a great idea and see much benefit to people like myself who are self taught photogs and editors. You tend to learn a lot more when teaching than just studying on your own, so this would be a great help if I were to critique images. Of course having my image critiqued would also teach me loads. This would also solve the issue of me not getting any helpful comments on my photo when it gets a 4...
One question that may have been addressed (I didn't read all 7 pages - I know I'm a slacker...) Could this have any adverse effect on comments made? If people are making critiques, are we more likely to not bother with comments (because we assume the critiquer will talk about what we would in a comment)? Could we receive Critique Credits for making X number of helpful comments (say 1cc for ever 5 helpful comments) - thus encouraging better comments by us?
So... when's this pig gonna fly?
|
|
