| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2004 01:07:54 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by KDO:
I hope you examine images more carefully than you read posts. |
Kathy,
I read Eddy's post three times and I fail to see where he was getting defensive. He simply explained the process and offered an alternative.
I don't see where that warrants the above personal attack in reply.
As to your suggestion of automatic proof requests, please consider the following statistics from a recent challenge:
A total of 21 images were reviewed under the disqualification/validation process.
9 images were disqualified for the following reasons:
1 scanned print (original requested).
1 use of selection tool/mask (original requested)
1 dates (original requested)
1 spot-editing and dates (original requested)
1 artwork rule (original requested)
1 artwork rule (original NOT requested)
1 same image submitted to multiple challenges (original NOT requested)
2 user did not submit original (original requested).
-Terry
3 entries were validated on an automatic review for finishing in the top 5
3 images were requested by users on suspicion of editing violations and validated
1 image had an admin-note request and was validated
And now the arguments against automatic proof requests. Proof was not requested on any of these:
1 image was nominated for suspicion that the manufacturers of Absolut Vodka were entering images for advertising purposes.
1 image was nominated for its border
1 image was nominated for selective desaturation
2 images were nominated because the requestors thought they were in bad taste
In all, 17 images were nominated for DQ review by at least 1 user during the challenge, plus an additional 4 requested after the challenge for top-5 finishes, for a total of 21 images. Of those, 7 images (1/3 of the total) never required proof to be submitted.
This was actually not a bad challenge in that regard... in a few cases, we have had situations where a user who is disqualified will go through the challenge entries and request DQ on various entries for very marginal reasons. While it is bad enough that this creates entra work for the Site Council to vote on and filter out, it would be that much worse if this activity automatically generated dozens of proof requests, wasting the time (and in some cases, money) of users who would now have to upload their originals for no good reason. It would put the entire site at the mercy of anyone who wanted to create a dummy account and request DQ on every entry in the challenge.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that while a decision to disqualify or to validate requires a majority, a decision to request proof requires only three votes. This is based on the idea that proof requests, when necessary, should be made quickly, and on the idea that if three people believe proof is required then that will most likely be enough to sway the decision one way or the other. This also helps ensure that we err on the side of safety and request proof whenver there is a reasonable doubt.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-12-09 01:13:15.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:41:24 AM · #52 |
This is what Eddy wrote that I felt was defensive and inaccurate:
"I think the system we have now is quite efficient. If you would prefer that the decision to DQ an image be made by just one member of the SC instead of a majority vote, then I'm sure we could speed the process along..."
The above comment is where Eddy was defensive and suggested that I felt you should disqualify based on one member only. I never suggested that at any point, ever.
I felt, and still do, that the tone of his response was inappropriate and condescending, and his inference inaccurate.
I have often praised your site to my students, and we were shocked by that statement. That is why I said he should read the posts more carefully. Certainly, you would agree that it was unfair for him to put words in my mouth. Of course I would never suggest that one person make that decision when I have praised the process and this site repeatedly in these forums.
I find it upsetting and disheartening that all this happened over a simple suggestion and my opinion that the DQ process took a long time.
Earlier, I received an e-mail from a member warning me about some things and didn't understand what that member meant. Now I know.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:44:47 AM · #53 |
It is your site. Do as you will. I have been properly put in my place.
I will refrain from any criticisms or suggestions in further forums and will limit myself to submitting and voting on images. That is my purpose for being here anyway.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:34:08 AM · #54 |
Having just picked up on this thread I believe we all know what the wording means... Just a request for the photograph to be validated.
nothing malicious or vengeful, simply ensure it is legal!
Eddy has been and is one of the most useful contributers to these forums, lets not make the life of SC members any harder than it already is, after all it is a voluntary and unpaid task they perform.
Just my sentiments of course,
Paul.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:07:17 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by KDO:
This is what Eddy wrote that I felt was defensive and inaccurate:
"I think the system we have now is quite efficient. If you would prefer that the decision to DQ an image be made by just one member of the SC instead of a majority vote, then I'm sure we could speed the process along..."
The above comment is where Eddy was defensive and suggested that I felt you should disqualify based on one member only. I never suggested that at any point, ever.
I felt, and still do, that the tone of his response was inappropriate and condescending, and his inference inaccurate.
I have often praised your site to my students, and we were shocked by that statement. That is why I said he should read the posts more carefully. Certainly, you would agree that it was unfair for him to put words in my mouth. Of course I would never suggest that one person make that decision when I have praised the process and this site repeatedly in these forums.
I find it upsetting and disheartening that all this happened over a simple suggestion and my opinion that the DQ process took a long time.
Earlier, I received an e-mail from a member warning me about some things and didn't understand what that member meant. Now I know. |
Where we differ I don't see where he put words into your mouth. He suggested an alternative. He did not attribute that suggestion to you. The suggestion was his own.
Kathy, we are not unwilling to consider improvements to the DQ review process -- in fact the process has been refined countless times over the 2½ years I have been on Site Council. The responses you received simply stem from the fact that we have discussed both these suggestions (mandatory proof submission and automatic proof requests) several times before, and each time decided not to implement it, because we believe the drawbacks listed above outweigh any potential benefits.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-12-09 06:32:07.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 07:53:17 AM · #56 |
I feel this thread has turned 180 degrees from my original suggestion. I was NOT suggesting a change in the process of how the SC DQ’s a photograph; I was simply suggesting the rewording of the phrase at the bottom of each photograph on the voting screen. Please see my original post:
Originally posted by SDW65:
I was wondering if DPC could change this to say, “Recommend this photograph for validation”. I know that sounds trivial but I have only click that button one time out of all the photographs I have voted on because to me it feels like I’m accusing the photographer of being guilty [knowingly or unknowingly] before he or she is proven innocent. So by feeling this way I don’t click it when I would like to have the photograph validated. Is it just I, or does anyone else feel this way? |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 09:57:59 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by KDO:
The above comment is where Eddy was defensive and suggested that I felt you should disqualify based on one member only. I never suggested that at any point, ever. |
I never said that you suggested it. I simply said that if you would prefer that a single member of the SC make a DQ ruling on an image, that it would speed the process along, and followed it up by saying that I liked the existing system where a DQ is determined by more than one person. So yes, I guess I was being "defensive" of the current system, because I think it is a better solution to the alternative that I suggested, even though that method would likely be quicker.
Originally posted by KDO:
I felt, and still do, that the tone of his response was inappropriate and condescending, and his inference inaccurate. |
I apologize if you feel that way. Being that these are only characters on a screen, you don't get the normal verbal and tonal cues you normally do when having a conversation with somebody. I assure you that no asperity was intended.
Originally posted by KDO:
I find it upsetting and disheartening that all this happened over a simple suggestion and my opinion that the DQ process took a long time. |
Unfortunately, I don't agree that it takes a long time, but I'm biased. Given that voting lasts for a week and the results of the challenge are on the front page for another week, "a long time" to me would be "2 or 3 weeks". Photos are usually validated, from requesting proof to the final validation, in less than 72 hours! And in many cases, 36-48 hours. Only in extreme cases where there is a debate about ruling interpretation or where we don't get the original from the submitter does it take longer.
In terms of re-wording the link, my personal opinion is 100% in agreement with Britannica's sentiments on the matter.
Message edited by author 2004-12-09 10:04:22. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:02:40 PM · #58 |
EddyG,
You are right. I often come across much stronger than intended when I use e-mail or post in a forum. I am a blonde female and, believe it or not, it takes strong words to get my point across in person. People often talk down to me until I start to talk. My forceful language is softened by my appearance (my boss reminds me of this often when I am called into the office for an offending e-mail...this has yet to sink in, apparently). I forget that fact, and that only 7% of a face to face interpretation is actual language, the rest is tone and posture.
Alas, to soften my words in print is a lesson I still need to master.
I also have a killer instinct (my tasmanian devil if you know Jean Shepherd's work - of A Christmas Story fame) once I start. A brother-in-law once left the seminary because of me. I am displeased with my behavior, as a pre-law student, it served me well; however, it wasn't then and isn't now, a quality I am proud of...
I owe you an apology. I felt attacked and fought back. Looking over the thread, I did my share of attacking.
(I humbly offer a hand in hopes of a handshake to make the peace...)
KDO |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:13:40 PM · #59 |
I agree that requesting a photo be validated is a much kinder, gentler way than recommending it be disqualified.
Can't believe how this thread degenerated, btw. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 05:57:23 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by KDO:
EddyG,
You are right. I often come across much stronger than intended when I use e-mail or post in a forum. I am a blonde female and, believe it or not, it takes strong words to get my point across in person. People often talk down to me until I start to talk. My forceful language is softened by my appearance (my boss reminds me of this often when I am called into the office for an offending e-mail...this has yet to sink in, apparently). I forget that fact, and that only 7% of a face to face interpretation is actual language, the rest is tone and posture.
Alas, to soften my words in print is a lesson I still need to master.
I also have a killer instinct (my tasmanian devil if you know Jean Shepherd's work - of A Christmas Story fame) once I start. A brother-in-law once left the seminary because of me. I am displeased with my behavior, as a pre-law student, it served me well; however, it wasn't then and isn't now, a quality I am proud of...
I owe you an apology. I felt attacked and fought back. Looking over the thread, I did my share of attacking.
(I humbly offer a hand in hopes of a handshake to make the peace...)
KDO |
I have watched this thread with interest, with the thoughts - there for but the grace of God.
I am as ever in awe of someone that can make such a gracious appology in print. I am not sure I can be that magnanamous. In my case being strong minded and pig headed tends to be a bit of a hurdle.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:13:43 PM · #61 |
| That's two graceful endings for Kathy in a week, both among the most eloquent and humble I have seen in these forums. To anyone I may have offended on this site... pretend I wrote KDO's peace offering below (except for the part about being female, and blonde, and a pre-law student, and the killer instinct, and any hope of my appearance softening a debate...). Dang! There went all of my best explanations! |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:18:17 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by KDO:
This is what Eddy wrote that I felt was defensive and inaccurate:
"I think the system we have now is quite efficient. If you would prefer that the decision to DQ an image be made by just one member of the SC instead of a majority vote, then I'm sure we could speed the process along..." |
He simply stated that he thinks the system now is efficient...and if you would prefer that the decision to dq an image be made my one member of the SC then you could get what you asked for (which is a speedier DQ process).
No one jumped down your throat or said anything remotely rude to you...Step away from the computer and take a break for a while, whatever you need to do, just get off your high-horse -- how do you handle real-life situations if you get this bent out of shape over one person's opinions?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:20:52 PM · #63 |
| yo, deapee, i think you need to read the whole thread before sounding off...kathy has already dealt with this. time to move on. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:38:07 PM · #64 |
Nah...she still feels she was attacked -- just trying to let her know that I don't think she was attacked. :-D
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:39:10 PM · #65 |
It's getting to the point that the splitting hairs and nitpicking is making it feel like one needs legal representation around these parts anymore.
Time for a hiadous. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:43:34 PM · #66 |
Whatever BradP says, I agree with...from this point forward...I'm going to think, sound, talk, and someday become him!!! muahahaha
Oh well nothing like beating a dead horse on the subject though -- I guess I might have come across a little harsh, and probably should have read the thread all the way through. My apologies.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:53:16 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by BradP:
It's getting to the point that the splitting hairs and nitpicking is making it feel like one needs legal representation around these parts anymore.
Time for a hiadous. |
Maybe Drew and Langdon are really in law school and are using DPC as their breeding for for business once they pass their bar exams! LOL
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:54:57 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Whatever BradP says, I agree with...from this point forward...I'm going to think, sound, talk, and someday become him!!! muahahaha |
You are strangely disturbed for even thinking that way! LOL
I was reflecting on the general state of the site over the last few months, in that all too often, the spirit of good clean fun has been clouded by competitive nit-picking and almost legalese set of rules that have ensued because of it. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 06:58:32 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by deapee:
Whatever BradP says, I agree with...from this point forward...I'm going to think, sound, talk, and someday become him!!! muahahaha |
You are strangely disturbed for even thinking that way! LOL
I was reflecting on the general state of the site over the last few months, in that all too often, the spirit of good clean fun has been clouded by competitive nit-picking and almost legalese set of rules that have ensued because of it. |
I agree for the most part, but I would also say that it has always been there to some degree. I have to make a conscious decision to only pay attention to and interact with the more positive side of the site, and try my damndest to stay out of the more negative. I get pissed off like everyone else, but try to keep that part private and enjoy myself when I am "here".
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 11:44:33 AM · #70 |
Kylie,
What brilliant advice. After letting this settle for a day or two, I came back and re-read the thread in an effort to examine my behavior and try to understand my over-reaction.
The idea to change the "Recommend this photo for disqualification" to "Recommend this photo for validation" was the initial query. I diverted attention from that, and I owe my first and foremost apology to SDW65 for destroying the conversation regarding that request. So, SDW65, I apologize. I hope, somehow, that discussion can eventually be resurrected.
Edit: Kudos to Kylie, who has it figured out. This is a place of photography, not my petty politics. My humble apologies to all
Message edited by author 2004-12-11 12:42:50. |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 02:03:01 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by KDO:
Kylie,
What brilliant advice. After letting this settle for a day or two, I came back and re-read the thread in an effort to examine my behavior and try to understand my over-reaction.
The idea to change the "Recommend this photo for disqualification" to "Recommend this photo for validation" was the initial query. I diverted attention from that, and I owe my first and foremost apology to SDW65 for destroying the conversation regarding that request. So, SDW65, I apologize. I hope, somehow, that discussion can eventually be resurrected.
Edit: Kudos to Kylie, who has it figured out. This is a place of photography, not my petty politics. My humble apologies to all |
Hey, thanks, and I think we would all agree that you have it pretty well figured out yourself. You appear to be an intelligent, thoughtful and concerned person with grace and dignity - my kudos to you.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 03:55:04 PM · #72 |
| Sounds like time for a group hug |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 04:30:19 PM · #73 |
Changing the wording seems a reasonable request, however I dont believe the SC need to change the way they carry out the validations. Lets all remember this - the SC are all volunteers and give up a great deal of time to run this site.
Message edited by author 2004-12-11 16:33:35.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 05:21:48 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
[or not understanding that yes, faded-edge borders are legal |
Is it?
From the rules: Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.
If there's a difference between faded-edge borders and feathered borders, please tell me. |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 05:25:51 PM · #75 |
| I believe, in another topic, the SC said that borders were soemwhat exempt from the regular rules, as long as they are borders and not image manipulations. |
|
