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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> “Recommend this photograph for disqualification”
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 91 of 91, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/18/2004 10:21:16 AM · #76
My apologies, I meant to reply to this several days ago.

I do agree that the wording of "Recommend this photograph for disqualification" is a bit harsh, but it does have one distinct advantage from a user-interface standpoint. A user who is new to the site and sees the link will immediately understand exactly what it is for. Replacing "disqualification" with "validation," while it does soften the wording, does make the link a bit ambiguous to new users not failiar with the feature. Such users are more likely to view the link as a good thing, something to be done with the best images in the challenge. They may also be unclear on how to address images they feel violate the rules, and opt instead to vote them a 1 because they don't see a way to report the rule violation.

I'm not opposed to changing the wording -- in fact, with the right wording I'm all for it. Basically, I'm looking for wording suggestions that meet the following requirements:

* It should be immediately clear to the reader what the link does.
* It should be immediatley clear to the reader what the link does not do.
* It should be concise enough to fit in the space available.
* It should not be so inviting as to generate a significant increase in DQ requests.

Suggestions?

-Terry
 12/18/2004 10:24:12 AM · #77
Originally posted by mycelium:
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.


The spot-editing and borders sections of the rules are two distinct sections. Actions are allowed in creating borders which are not allowed in editing the actual image.

-Terry
 12/18/2004 10:25:42 AM · #78
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Suggestions?

-Terry

If this photograph is questionably pertaining to the Challenge Rules, click here to notify the Site Council.

Message edited by author 2004-12-18 10:26:11.
 12/18/2004 10:34:47 AM · #79
Not bad... got anything shorter?

-Terry
 12/18/2004 10:39:37 AM · #80
Taking a cue from Tranquil, how about...

If you suspect this photograph violates the Challenge Rules, click here to notify the Site Council.

Message edited by author 2004-12-18 10:40:50.
 12/18/2004 10:41:57 AM · #81
Originally posted by kirbic:
Taking a cue from Tranquil, how about...

If you suspect this photograph violates the Challenge Rules, click here to notify the Site Council.


I like this
Simple, and unambiguous
 12/18/2004 12:19:39 PM · #82
Originally posted by Artan:
Originally posted by kirbic:

If you suspect this photograph violates the Challenge Rules, click here to notify the Site Council.


Uno problemo:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

* It should be immediately clear to the reader what the link does.
* It should be immediatley clear to the reader what the link does not do.
* It should be concise enough to fit in the space available.
* It should not be so inviting as to generate a significant increase in DQ requests.


This suggestion works well on points 1,2 and 3 but seems to be in trouble with #4.
Maybe a bit more work on the wording. I have no suggestions at them moment tho.

Message edited by author 2004-12-18 12:20:07.
 12/18/2004 12:24:17 PM · #83
Gauti --- alternatively something like this...
Please read the Challenge Rules before notifying the Site Council that this photograph is invalid here.

Lee
 12/18/2004 12:44:03 PM · #84
Or maybe this ...

If photo seems to violate Challenge Rules, then click to request validation.

Edit: I can name that tune in 12 words.

Message edited by author 2004-12-18 12:51:54.
 12/18/2004 12:53:42 PM · #85
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
My apologies, I meant to reply to this several days ago.

I do agree that the wording of "Recommend this photograph for disqualification" is a bit harsh, but it does have one distinct advantage from a user-interface standpoint. A user who is new to the site and sees the link will immediately understand exactly what it is for. Replacing "disqualification" with "validation," while it does soften the wording, does make the link a bit ambiguous to new users not failiar with the feature. Such users are more likely to view the link as a good thing, something to be done with the best images in the challenge. They may also be unclear on how to address images they feel violate the rules, and opt instead to vote them a 1 because they don't see a way to report the rule violation.

I'm not opposed to changing the wording -- in fact, with the right wording I'm all for it. Basically, I'm looking for wording suggestions that meet the following requirements:

* It should be immediately clear to the reader what the link does.
* It should be immediatley clear to the reader what the link does not do.
* It should be concise enough to fit in the space available.
* It should not be so inviting as to generate a significant increase in DQ requests.

Suggestions?

-Terry


I personally think we are perhaps talking about two different scenarios - or maybe should be:

a) You think an image clearly violates the rules by having added text or some other blatant and obvious chacteristic.

b) You think the image is "testing the water" or "pushing the envelope." And example of this would be BradP's entery into the October Free Study (with interior borders.) When I saw that, I immediately LOVED it but wondered, "Hey is that really legal?"

So I submitted a DQ request - but said in the request that I did not want it to be DQ'd. (Sorry Brad.)

So - to muddy the water, is it appropriate to have 2 buttons:

1) Recommendation for DQ - for case a) above.
2) Request Validation - for case b) above.

I would think DQ requests would be handled exactly as they are now, but validation requests could be handled by a smaller group of SC's - maybe even one or two. If appropriate the SC validators could elevate the request to a DQ if appropriate.

I would further suggested a thread be maintained that shows validation requests and the responses to same.

I have my flak vest on....

-T-

/e spell

Message edited by author 2004-12-18 12:57:03.
 12/18/2004 01:51:37 PM · #86
Are they not one and the same Tom, validation & DQ ? if the pic is not validated it must be DQ'd!
 12/18/2004 03:11:15 PM · #87
Originally posted by photom:
So I submitted a DQ request - but said in the request that I did not want it to be DQ'd. (Sorry Brad.)

No apology needed. I knew I was pushing the envelope and would come under heavy fire. Was worth it though...
:)
 12/18/2004 03:36:31 PM · #88
Originally posted by peecee:
Are they not one and the same Tom, validation & DQ ? if the pic is not validated it must be DQ'd!


Well yes ... and no, depending on what the SC members actually use as a workflow. My thoughts were to be able to ask to validate a technique without suggesting it be thrown out. Perhaps a fine line, but it sure would be nice to have a permanent thread about validation requests that are found to be "OK."

(I do NOT think the SC should automatically tell us (the general members) why a photo was DQ'd though. That should be between the submitter and the SC.)
 12/18/2004 03:45:52 PM · #89
Originally posted by photom:

Perhaps a fine line, but it sure would be nice to have a permanent thread about validation requests that are found to be "OK."



Good idea, it may even reduce the spurious validation requests and lessen the burden for SC.
 12/18/2004 04:01:10 PM · #90
Originally posted by photom:
Originally posted by peecee:
Are they not one and the same Tom, validation & DQ ? if the pic is not validated it must be DQ'd!


Well yes ... and no, depending on what the SC members actually use as a workflow. My thoughts were to be able to ask to validate a technique without suggesting it be thrown out. Perhaps a fine line, but it sure would be nice to have a permanent thread about validation requests that are found to be "OK."

(I do NOT think the SC should automatically tell us (the general members) why a photo was DQ'd though. That should be between the submitter and the SC.)


Currently, the workflow is exactly the same, whether the request is for a "clear" rules violation, or whether it's just a question of "where the envelope is". In fact it really must be the same, since the end result is the same; if you clearly violate the rules, or push the envelope too far, the result is DQ, since both are rules violations.
Proof is not always requested, since in many cases it's not needed to make a judgement. In these cases, no one outside the SC/admins (including the photographer) will ever be aware of a DQ review. This serves the purpose of a "quick review" but also has the benefit of giving the full SC a chance to look. More eyes are always better, since some of use may miss something that others will catch.
 12/25/2004 09:06:28 PM · #91
I'll throw my 2 cents in here. I'm not yet a frequent participant and only a member for a 7 weeks or so. As a new user, I found the current link perfectly intuitive. As one who believes not everything we do or say should be restricted or modified because of the perceived potential damage to someone's self esteem, I would say leave the link and the process as is.

...and as I learned in a past career maintaining and repairing on electronic equipment, if it aint broke, don't fix it. ;-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 05:53:05 AM

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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 05:53:05 AM EDT.