What happened to the 2nd place of Scent/aromas??

12/08/2003 11:56:52 PM · #1

What happened to Expresso something..., the 2nd place winner for scent and aromas? I go to that user profile and it says No challenges entered yet??? Been DQ'd?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2003 12:01:17 AM · #2

Yes, it was DQ'd.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

12/09/2003 12:01:59 AM · #3

what happened & why so long to figure it out?

Koriyama

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

12/09/2003 12:04:20 AM · #4

I'd like to see the reason why photographs are DQed.

We could see what kinds of errors to avoid.
We could be reminded of the rules from time to time.
We could have our thirsts quenched.

I, for one, am always intrigued when this happens. Why don't DPC just make it transparent and publish a thread each time?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2003 12:04:42 AM · #5

We extended the time allowed for a response and submission of the original file, but still got no response. By the rules we have to DQ that. Then we also have to wait for one of the two Admins to recode the front page.

Spanish_Grease

Olympus C-4000Z

12/09/2003 12:05:34 AM · #6

Do you guys ask to see the original files of all ribbon winners?

Lee

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/09/2003 12:08:12 AM · #7

By policy no. Right now, we only request originals if, for some reason, someone requests a dq. In this particular challenge, though, I think it ended up that the top three all had originals requested.

Message edited by author 2003-12-09 00:09:00.

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

12/09/2003 12:08:20 AM · #8

Did you ask him for the original? The guy is a good friend of mine and I can tell you he does not know he had to show his original... I see him every day and he reads his E-Mails. I really don't understand. I can tell you that he stayed within the rules on that one.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

12/09/2003 12:10:33 AM · #9

So what happens now? If the fotog can prove that he followed the rules will he be re-awarded the ribbon?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/09/2003 12:11:49 AM · #10

Yes, we requested the original several days ago, in an email sent to the email address he had registered with. I think a site council member sent him a second one, as well.

If he checks his email regularly, he may want to verify that the one he provided when he registered is the one he is checking.

Also, in this case, it was dq'ed because the original wasn't submitted, not because any wrongdoing was proven.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/09/2003 12:13:00 AM · #11

Ok, my curiosity's piqued: can someone describe the picture! I forgot what was in second!

Message edited by author 2003-12-09 00:13:19.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

12/09/2003 12:14:07 AM · #12

Coffee beans?

Pepette

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/09/2003 12:14:28 AM · #13

A cup of coffee sitting on coffee beans.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

12/09/2003 12:16:18 AM · #14

I think it was called Expresso Aromas or something

12/09/2003 12:17:07 AM · #15

Can this call be reversed? I'll tell him tomorrow morning. This stuns me because I know he reads his E-Mails on this address.

Also, I just read the rules and I did not see any references to the time allowed for an answer to be given for requesting an original... I understand that there has to be a time limit but in this case, I can't see any reference to that time limit...

Message edited by author 2003-12-09 00:31:06.

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

12/09/2003 12:51:00 AM · #16

The time limit is stated in the email which is sent to each user who needs to submit original. The first email to the user was the original request for proof, and the second was further describing actions we would take if proof was not recieved within such time limit. 24-48 hours I believe. It was clearly stated that if proof was not submitted within that time limit, we would DQ. We even extended that time limit further, and sent a second request, which is really more than we had to do, and still no response from the user.
We do take into consideration that he could have been out of town, however, he had logged on to DPC several times within the time frame.

Message edited by author 2003-12-09 00:52:41.

e301

12/09/2003 02:34:33 AM · #17

Originally posted by karmat:

Doesn't there have to be reasonable grounds for a dq request? I'd love to know what the suspicion was of the first place photo ... though I'd suspect sour grapes, myself. (Now, there was an idea for a scents and aromas photograph ...)

Ed

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2003 04:15:57 AM · #18

Originally posted by e301:

Originally posted by karmat:
By policy no. Right now, we only request originals if, for some reason, someone requests a dq. In this particular challenge, though, I think it ended up that the top three all had originals requested.

Doesn't there have to be reasonable grounds for a dq request? I'd love to know what the suspicion was of the first place photo ... though I'd suspect sour grapes, myself. (Now, there was an idea for a scents and aromas photograph ...)

Ed

These are Sour Grapes

There were "reasonable grounds" for requesting a DQ sufficient that several SC members felt it appropriate to request proof -- twice. We received no response, and therefore have no alternative but to DQ.

It is already bad enough when this drags over the closing deadline -- but if people request a DQ at the last minute the follow-up process carries over past the end of the challenge. It would be even worse if we went so long that the updated results were never displayed on the front page.

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/09/2003 04:49:27 AM · #19

I have to agree with General there.

It is really unfortunate that the shot got DQ'd, assuming it had not broken the rules, but there has to be some sort of realistic time limit, otherwise the replacement ribbon doesn't get a look in.

There is never going to be a system that suits everyone. Have one that suited this DQ and whoever never got their third place ribbon shown might be unhappy.

The SC do their best to make the right decisions, even if not everyone likes them, but I have yet to see a single decision made that was not made for valid reasons. They do the best job that anyone can reasonably expect people to do.

Natator
(Who reserves the right to retract all of that, and pretend it was never said, if he is ever on the wrong end of a decision ;)

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

12/09/2003 05:34:26 AM · #20

"There were "reasonable grounds" for requesting a DQ sufficient that several SC members felt it appropriate to request proof -- twice. We received no response, and therefore have no alternative but to DQ. "

So what was it? Why the big secret?

Also, if you don't check your email for 24-48 hrs, your DQ-ed? What ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' Shame on DPC.

I do hope this can be reveresed in light of a miss-DQ becasue someone didn't check their emails for the, oh so huge time-scale of 2 days.

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/09/2003 05:41:47 AM · #21

What would you consider a reasonable timescale then? Keep in mind the winners are only shown for a week and if a photo is DQ'd for a valid reason the original fourth person has a right to have their ribbon seen.

There has to be a time limit somewhere, or else what about the "I was away on vacation for the last 4 weeks, couldn;t you have waited for my return?

In this instance I think it was a reasonable decision (I loved the photo, have no idea why it even got the request, but the request was not responded to) because whoever took it has been online as they have visited here, so it is not unreasonable to assume they have also received e-mails.

Yes, mistakes happen, but give the SC some credit for trying to do the right thing by as many people as they can. They have to make judgement calls at times, and I see this one as a valid one.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2003 06:07:46 AM · #22

As mentioned before, the photographer has been LOGGED-IN to DPC several times during the period during which the validation was requested. If they are on the computer for that many days without checking their email, then perhaps it's shame on THEM. Everyone acknowledges that their photo could be subject to a DQ/verification request when they submit it; I'd think a ribbon-winner would be especially careful of these things.

Ground for DQ requests are generally not revealed. There is no point is having the SC review these things if you're going to try the case again in the forums.

We are not perfect, but in this case we are following the rules and the photographer didn't.

The photographer was considered innocent (remember the photo on the front page?) until they pleaded nolo contendré.

Message edited by author 2003-12-09 06:11:19.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

12/09/2003 06:32:06 AM · #23

You know what this sounds like? It sounds like a member submitting a picture under a secondary alias and not checking the email account linked to it since it's only an email account that was created for joining DPC "a second time". People don't check email accounts for which they think they'll not receive any emails.

I know this sounds like a far-fetched conspiracy theory, but hey... people are dishonest. I deal with dishonest people everyday at work. Like it or not, some people can be deceitful.

I'm not saying that this was the case here, but it should be considered.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/09/2003 06:35:26 AM · #24

Hmmmmm...

The DQed image is definitely deserving of its 2nd place finish and it would be a shame if a legal image were DQed solely because of a failure to respond on the part of the photographer.

This may be the latest ever after a challenge that an image has been DQed.

If the DQed image is legal it should be re-instated.

I have mixed emotions since my "Green" ribbon 4th place now moves up to 3rd and it would be my first ribbon after many tries.

However, I'd rather earn my ribbon rather than get one under a cloud of controversy.