| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2004 12:29:29 PM · #26 |
My comment about one person making a DQ decision was in response to this comment you made:
Originally posted by KDO:
I do agree that it takes the administration toooo loooong to make a decision on a photo |
I explained (as did Manic) why our validation process is not "immediate", and offered a possible solution as to how we could make it faster. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:30:01 PM · #27 |
| The point is that we really don't need validation to settle a lot of the DQ requests. It just seems a bit excessive to have 20 people automatically upload validation because someone went through and requested DQ on photos they didn't feel met the challenge, which isn't even a valid reason for disqualification. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:32:30 PM · #28 |
With all due respect, that is not what you quoted in your post.
Originally posted by KDO:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manic, why don't you streamline your workflow and simply validate any image that is questioned?
Again, with all due respect, I offer this humble advice: take some time to align your thoughts and answers to what you are addressing.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:36:16 PM · #29 |
I have to say I am a bit shocked by Eddy G and mk.
I made a simple suggestion to steamline workflow. You do not have to take the suggestion.
I just thought it was the policy of the site to listen to ALL members. I feel a tad attacked at the moment.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:47:47 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by KDO:
Manic, why don't you streamline your workflow and simply validate any image that is questioned? |
What exactly do you mean by "validate" in this case? Do you mean requesting the original from the photographer, or adding an admin note to an image?
Message edited by author 2004-12-08 12:48:03.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:50:34 PM · #31 |
I'm not quite sure why you would feel attacked by what I said. I was merely explaining why it may not work. It isn't rare, especially with the number of new members we are constantly getting, for someone to go through and request DQ on a ton of images for things like not meeting the challenge. By filtering these out ourselves, we save some of the unneccessary extra work for users. I'm not sure the benefits of automatic requests for validation would outweigh the fact that you have to wait a day longer.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:52:03 PM · #32 |
I meant requesting the original file from the photographer.
Actually, I would like to see the orginal file uploaded at the time of submission with the image that is being entered. It would save a lot of time communicating back and forth, and it might deter cheating.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:54:07 PM · #33 |
Again, mk, I respectfully disagree. I would like to upload my original and be done with it. If I can take the time to enter, it is not very much more work to simply upload my original at the same time.
I would rather do that then wait an extra day, quite honestly.
Again, this is simply my OPINION, nothing more, but also, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:58:14 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by KDO:
I meant requesting the original file from the photographer. |
Like MK mentioned, there are instances where we don't need to request proof, either due to a blatant rules violation (eg adding text), or if the request isn't valid.
Originally posted by KDO:
Actually, I would like to see the orginal file uploaded at the time of submission with the image that is being entered. It would save a lot of time communicating back and forth, and it might deter cheating. |
I think we covered this a while back, but the main downsides of this are that it would take up vast amounts of server storage space, and would be prohibitive for users on dialup (approx 10-15%) or those having to pay for bandwidth (eg Icelanders).
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:00:21 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by KDO:
Again, mk, I respectfully disagree. I would like to upload my original and be done with it. If I can take the time to enter, it is not very much more work to simply upload my original at the same time.
I would rather do that then wait an extra day, quite honestly.
Again, this is simply my OPINION, nothing more, but also, nothing less. |
Another thing to think about with every one uploading their originals at the start. Some of our camera's make large raw files. The site would need lots and lots of space for uploading all originals at full size. And with a challenge like black and white with 600+ entries, it would be almost impossible to have space for all of those unaltered original images.
Message edited by author 2004-12-08 13:01:43. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:00:41 PM · #36 |
interesting thread. When are originals requested? Only after site council determines the need? If so, then the real recommendation is for validation anyway. Button should read as such.
Message edited by author 2004-12-08 13:02:16. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:01:06 PM · #37 |
oops manic beat me to it.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:04:18 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
I was wondering if DPC could change this to say, 'Recommend this photograph for validation'. ... |
Scott, see what you have started!
Back to the normally scheduled program already in progress...
To change the wording or not....? hmmm
Oh, I did say yes to that ... Yup, I did.
Originally posted by KDO:
... I would like to upload my original and be done with it. If I can take the time to enter, it is not very much more work to simply upload my original at the same time... |
Hey, KDO... maybe you have a good idea and this should be in a new Website Suggestions Forum by itself. I'm sure it's not very hard to upload the original file however...
Bandwidth and storage (average 200 entries x average file size 2MB = 400MB x 2 Challenges = 800MB...)
Great idea but in the big scheme of things, what's an extra day or two?
Note: Not picking any sides here ... FYI
Anyway
SDW65 ... yes, once again I say change the text to 'Recommend this photograph for validation' |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:06:36 PM · #39 |
Ah, I see.
It is seems that the users and members are not really the concern. So, then, just say that. If the timeline works best for the administration and the site, then just say that and don't diguise as a concern for your members. Other sites can do it. It is okay to say you can't.
Fair enough. Space is more valuable than time. I can buy that.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:15:08 PM · #40 |
| IMHO, it seems pointless to request that 400+ people to take the time and effort to upload their originals when the SC would only ever need to look at 15-20 of them. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:16:16 PM · #41 |
| I agree that the wording change would be a Good Thing®. Suggestion for the SC- when clicking on the Report Post button, a dialog box asks you to list the reason. Why not have a similar qualifying dialog for validation requests, but list a few reasons as radio buttons (doesn't meet challenge, illegal editing, taken outside challenge dates, etc.). Leave space below for details. Any validation request marked "doesn't meet challenge" could be discarded with a filter, and you'd never have to bother with them. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:21:32 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
IMHO, it seems pointless to request that 400+ people to take the time and effort to upload their originals when the SC would only ever need to look at 15-20 of them. |
I totally agree. This would be adding alot of unnessessary work for us and the site both. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:21:48 PM · #43 |
| I for one think that validation requests are remarkably fast considering the need to coordinate the opinions and votes of 12 people in different countries and timezones who may have lives outside of DPC (shudder). Many of my clients can't reach an agreement in two days among 12 people sitting in the same room. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:23:19 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by KDO:
Ah, I see.
It is seems that the users and members are not really the concern. So, then, just say that. If the timeline works best for the administration and the site, then just say that and don't diguise as a concern for your members. Other sites can do it. It is okay to say you can't.
Fair enough. Space is more valuable than time. I can buy that. |
Can't and isn't the best option are two separate things. You referenced fujimugs so I took a look at the site. The average number of entries in the last ten challenges was 62. The average number of entries in the last ten here was 237. Quite a difference. I couldn't exactly determine the period of time that the challenges last there but it seems a good deal longer than our simultaneous 1 week challenges (please correct me if I am wrong.) It's grea that the owner there has found a method that works for him and that you approve of. We also try to work out what is best for this site. This isn't the first time this issue has been brought up, either in the public forums or in SC discussion so it's not as if it's just immediately being written off.
I understand that for you, uploading the original right away would be the easiest thing. That doesn't make it best case for everyone. As Manic said, there are a number of users here still using dial-up. As he also said, our members in Iceland (and there are quite a few) must pay for their bandwidth. This, in addition to the tremendous amount of space it would require, is why, so far, we haven't felt this was the best option. To say that we don't listen or aren't concerned with the members really isn't fair. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:30:03 PM · #45 |
I normally don't get involved in discussions like this where people are disrespectful to others. Not my style. But I couldn't help but think about another post I had just read from KDO and wondering if maybe it's not be you having a bad day and taking it out here on the SC.
Orignally posted in another thread by KDO:
Thanks for the support. I am feeling a bit attacked in the other forum I am participating in...YIKES
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:31:57 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by KDO:
Another site has photos validated at the time of entry: www.fujimugs.com
A great site fuji owners!
Very cool, especially since I just got third place in the Trasport Challenge, which happened at the same time I was being D.Q.ed here. The site administrator has the patience of Job and his response time to any question is approximately .5 seconds! :-)
I have met some amazingly helpful people there, too! (meaning many wonderful people here, too!)
I do agree that it takes the administration toooo loooong to make a decision on a photo, and the communication feels a bit "form letterish" and impersonal here.
I whole-heartedly agree with the change to "recommend this photo for validation." What a difference a word makes.
Warning...a blatant bit of self-promotion alert.
Check out my photo: //www.fujimugs.com/challenge/show_entry.php?entry=2797&challenge=32#entry |
COngrats on 3rd! I got 40 something...was tempted to enter it here for low tech (sailboats are low tech, relative to power boats). Over at Fuji ALL editing is legal, so they are only checking for Exif dates, file size in pixels and Kb.
I got a Top Ten there once, in the Small challenge.
PS the comments are better there. I like the voting methodology there too - no 1s!
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:53:55 PM · #47 |
BrenB,
I stand corrected. If having an opinion and defending it is having a bad day, then, indeed that is the case.
Actually, I have been using this as a teaching tool with my students. We are learning how to state an opinion, back it up, and defend it without making personal attacks. Alas, as voted by my students, you stooped.
I didn't mention the thread of this forum when I simply stated that I was feeling attacked, and I was. That wouldn't have been fair.
Message edited by author 2004-12-08 14:07:40.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:57:51 PM · #48 |
bestagents,
Thank you. I appreciate postive comments. It is a very cool site. The administration there somehow finds time to validate each and every photo. The original is required along with the submission. Seems to work for them.
Best of luck!
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 11:44:48 PM · #49 |
I'll take the dissenting view on this -- leave it as it is. A validation of the image as being good enough or appropriate or whatever for the challenges is what a validation would imply to me; but that is not what this site does and would go against the spirit that all skill levels are welcome, IMO.
When a photo is being recommended for disqualifitaion, that is exactly what is happening. If the wording makes someone think twice about, perhaps even taking another look and thinking about how it could have been done, so much the better.
But there is one point raised in this thread that I would like clarification on if you don't mind this slight tangent:
Originally posted by Manic:
... first, the SC votes on whether to DQ, No DQ, or Request Proof. ... |
This seems to indicate there is a possibility of someone having an image DQed without the benefit of being able to defend it. In the case of TOS violations that is fine, but surely this isn't the case for DQs based on editing violations -- is it?
David
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 11:50:52 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by Manic:
... first, the SC votes on whether to DQ, No DQ, or Request Proof. ... |
This seems to indicate there is a possibility of someone having an image DQed without the benefit of being able to defend it. In the case of TOS violations that is fine, but surely this isn't the case for DQs based on editing violations -- is it?
David |
If there's any question about the editing steps taken, we request proof. Photos that end up DQed with no proof requested are for things like text on the photo or other obvious, no-questions-about-it violations. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 11:07:45 AM EDT.
