| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2008 03:42:09 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I believe eBay does allow negative feedback to be withdrawn, both parties are consulted and agree to mutually withdraw the feedback, and this is what is shown in feedback for sellers and buyers. |
Consultation is a far cry from allowing sellers to unilaterally delete anything they don't like. |
I agree wholeheartedly:) So, why not have a consultation process allowing comments to be withdrawn. It seems that everything hinges on SC's interpretation of what does or doesn't break ToS. |
That's what we have now. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:42:37 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from comments I would choose to delete, and I suspect you would learn next to nothing from comments those that support this idea in these threads would choose to delete. As I've said, my use of such a feature would be virtually nil. But I want the option. |
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from people who ceased commenting due to censorship, er... "owners protecting their images" far more aggressively than you would.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:43:35. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:46:37 PM · #303 |
You know... I wonder how many people in this tread are the same as the ones in the 'People don't comment enough' threads... can't have a delete button and expect that people will want to comment more...
not that i'm picking sides in anyway... but there has to be some sort of middle ground |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:46:58 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
See my last post. |
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from comments I would choose to delete, and I suspect you would learn next to nothing from comments those that support this idea in these threads would choose to delete. As I've said, my use of such a feature would be virtually nil. But I want the option. |
Actually this isn't true. I would learn what comments you did deem inappropriate which in turn would tell me a little more about you and you the artist, but whatever. You're not the person I would envision hitting the delete button over and over like it owed you money. As I said before, I think you're wrong if you think it will be used sparingly by the masses and for selfish reasons, I don't like it because I'd rather be approached first if someone had an issue with my work (i.e. my insight, my time, my art of the written word or lack there of). I just see this as a two way street and I fully support free speech even if I don't agree with what is being said at all. This is why I'm here.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:49:00.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:47:14 PM · #305 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
See my last post. |
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from comments I would choose to delete, and I suspect you would learn next to nothing from comments those that support this idea in these threads would choose to delete. As I've said, my use of such a feature would be virtually nil. But I want the option. |
I'm sure you wouldn't abuse the system, but there are many who would. So the site has a system set up that, imo, is more than fair to deal with comments. We can all type until we are blue in the fingers but, ultimatley, we don't callt he shots, ownership does and we agreed to play by their rules. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:50:25 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
The comment is the commenters intellectual property and you become the authority by removing it, that is censorship. If the commenter altered you picture then thats different, but he/she merely left a statement about your picture, your not protecting your property, your policing what is said about your property. |
You aren't the one to decide whether or not I'm protecting my property, however; only I can decide that. And by definition, this is simply not censorship. I believe that's using a loaded word to intentionally misconstrue the owner's intent. But I'll accept your definition for these purposes. I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
Because free reign would lead to abuse and deletion of valuable learing comments. These are not just valuable to the the photog and commenter but to other viewers of the photo. I look at photos and then comments and alot of times someone points out something that was bothering me in the photo but I couldn't put my finger on it. Having these deleted at will b/c the photog chooses would be a shame and a discredit to a valuable diservice of this site. That does effect me and does make a difference to me. IF you really want to police your comments, there are tons of sites that allow that, why come here and change the rules when you agreed to them in the first place? |
I'm not changing anything. I'm discussing this as a paid member of the site using the only means made available to me. Suggesting that I pack up and go may be the expedient way for you to deal with me for the moment, but there are others who feel the same way, and therefore there exists an issue that is worth talking about. And frankly, I have an absolute right to talk about this, or whatever other aspect of the site I would like to see changed, whatever you might think.
Regarding your other points about the collapse of the system, that's been discussed at length. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:54:40 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... there are others who feel the same way, and therefore there exists an issue that is worth talking about. ... |
Actually, it looks like you're in the extreme minority on this.
Pulled from a related thread ==> A Poll
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by karmat:
From the posts in this thread
2
1
1
1
1/7
4
2 (with limits)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1/6
1/3/5
3
Now, I want everyone to ask yourself a question, and answer it honestly. IF the totally unscientific/informal poll was showing a 2 everywhere there was a 1, would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
I don't understand the numbers you've written here. I think the informal poll won't work, because not everyone is going to see it. It seems to me more people respond to official polls than informal ones. |
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:58:56 PM · #308 |
40+ postings ago, around 11:30am - have we reached full circle yet? :-)
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... There was never any harm in discussing an issue that some may have with the site so long as it remains an issue, and however long the conversation takes. |
At some point the conversation just starts going in circles. I think that point has come in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:59:40 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
See my last post. |
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from comments I would choose to delete, and I suspect you would learn next to nothing from comments those that support this idea in these threads would choose to delete. As I've said, my use of such a feature would be virtually nil. But I want the option. |
Actually this isn't true. I would learn what comments you did deem inappropriate which in turn would tell me a little more about you and you the artist, but whatever. You're not the person I would envision hitting the delete button over and over like it owed you money. As I said before, I think you're wrong if you think it will be used sparingly by the masses and for selfish reasons, I don't like it because I'd rather be approached first if someone had an issue with my work (i.e. my insight, my time, my art of the written word or lack there of). I just see this as a two way street and I fully support free speech even if I don't agree with what is being said at all. This is why I'm here. |
Ok, but there's that whole tired "Free speech isn't yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theatre" thing. Even disregarding the fact that you may not necessarily have a right to say anything you want about something I own, you are not guaranteed the right to attack me, should I deem it an attack even when others don't.
I acknowledge that an "abuse" of such functionality is inevitable, as I have from the very first post here, and that in itself may be cause to reflect more on what the perfect solution is. But clearly some think the situation could at least be improved, enhanced, made more amenable to the photographer, etc. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:01:23 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... there are others who feel the same way, and therefore there exists an issue that is worth talking about. ... |
Actually, it looks like you're in the extreme minority on this. |
Maybe over in that thread. Have you read my post there? For example, I didn't "vote" in that extremely informal undertaking. Being in the minority never stopped me from having an opinion and wanting to have a conversation about it. Feel free to exclude yourself from the conversation if you think it's going nowhere.
If nothing else, this thread seems to have increased my profile's views by about 100. :-P
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 16:03:35. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:06:57 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... Feel free to exclude yourself from the conversation if you think it's going nowhere.... |
Nah, what would be the fun in that? :-P |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:08:45 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by Louis:
If nothing else, this thread seems to have increased my profile's views by about 100. :-P |
I keep checking to see if this is the same guy I usually agree with. ;-P |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:28:34 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
If nothing else, this thread seems to have increased my profile's views by about 100. :-P |
I keep checking to see if this is the same guy I usually agree with. ;-P |
Blargh... 8-]
Add to that that it appears  DrAchoo and I are in agreement on this one and the universe suddenly takes on a very weird and disturbing flavour...
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 16:31:39. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:29:27 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
The comment is the commenters intellectual property and you become the authority by removing it, that is censorship. If the commenter altered you picture then thats different, but he/she merely left a statement about your picture, your not protecting your property, your policing what is said about your property. |
You aren't the one to decide whether or not I'm protecting my property, however; only I can decide that. And by definition, this is simply not censorship. I believe that's using a loaded word to intentionally misconstrue the owner's intent. But I'll accept your definition for these purposes. I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
Because free reign would lead to abuse and deletion of valuable learing comments. These are not just valuable to the the photog and commenter but to other viewers of the photo. I look at photos and then comments and alot of times someone points out something that was bothering me in the photo but I couldn't put my finger on it. Having these deleted at will b/c the photog chooses would be a shame and a discredit to a valuable diservice of this site. That does effect me and does make a difference to me. IF you really want to police your comments, there are tons of sites that allow that, why come here and change the rules when you agreed to them in the first place? |
I'm not changing anything. I'm discussing this as a paid member of the site using the only means made available to me. Suggesting that I pack up and go may be the expedient way for you to deal with me for the moment, but there are others who feel the same way, and therefore there exists an issue that is worth talking about. And frankly, I have an absolute right to talk about this, or whatever other aspect of the site I would like to see changed, whatever you might think.
Regarding your other points about the collapse of the system, that's been discussed at length. |
Nowhere in my post did I suggest you pack up and go or that you don't have the right to talk about what you want. What I did was ask a question that you still haven't answered, why agree to the terms and pay for a service that you don't agree with. You have every right to express you veiw and try to change the site all you want, you paid, type away. You still haven't addressed the concern by me that good, valuable , learnging comments will be deleted just because someone doesn't want them. I feel that this is one of the stronger points to the site and to see it go would turn this into just about every other site out there, a pat me on the back community. JMO. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:36:54 PM · #315 |
Leroy says:
SC states (and according to the ToS) that a user should "assume good faith" yet, our SC assumes that such a feature would be abused. How are we to assume good faith when our leaders obviously don't? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:38:39 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
What I did was ask a question that you still haven't answered, why agree to the terms and pay for a service that you don't agree with. |
I never said I didn't agree with the terms, or didn't agree "with the service". I disagree with an implementation of a particular feature.
To answer differently: I pay because I like this place. And because I like it, I hope to see some good come from this conversation. It doesn't matter to me what the outcome is. I'm not going to storm off in a huff if this situtation doesn't resolve itself in the direction I'm hoping for.
Originally posted by trevytrev:
You still haven't addressed the concern by me that good, valuable , learnging comments will be deleted just because someone doesn't want them. |
Sure I have. I said that I recognize this will certainly happen, but I'm not of the opinion, as you and others seem to be, that it will be so rampant that the commenting system will collapse and all learning potential will be wiped out over time. That's just not going to happen, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:44:38 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
See my last post. |
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from comments I would choose to delete, and I suspect you would learn next to nothing from comments those that support this idea in these threads would choose to delete. As I've said, my use of such a feature would be virtually nil. But I want the option. |
Actually this isn't true. I would learn what comments you did deem inappropriate which in turn would tell me a little more about you and you the artist, but whatever. You're not the person I would envision hitting the delete button over and over like it owed you money. As I said before, I think you're wrong if you think it will be used sparingly by the masses and for selfish reasons, I don't like it because I'd rather be approached first if someone had an issue with my work (i.e. my insight, my time, my art of the written word or lack there of). I just see this as a two way street and I fully support free speech even if I don't agree with what is being said at all. This is why I'm here. |
Ok, but there's that whole tired "Free speech isn't yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theatre" thing. Even disregarding the fact that you may not necessarily have a right to say anything you want about something I own, you are not guaranteed the right to attack me, should I deem it an attack even when others don't.
I acknowledge that an "abuse" of such functionality is inevitable, as I have from the very first post here, and that in itself may be cause to reflect more on what the perfect solution is. But clearly some think the situation could at least be improved, enhanced, made more amenable to the photographer, etc. |
Fair enough. I don't believe the current system is perfect. I did suggest a compromise earlier about having the delete button but also having a mechanism in place that informs the commenter in some way so they can choose to not waste their time commenting on the photographer's work who chooses to delete your comments. So I'm not completely against the idea of editor control, I'm just trying to see this from both sides. If sensitivity is the issue fix it for both sides.
Just curious would you be in favor of having a delete button in the forums so that anybody can delete another person's post that is directed at them regardless of reason? Would you want to know who does that and when so you don't bother engaging in them in the future?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:45:18 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
What I did was ask a question that you still haven't answered, why agree to the terms and pay for a service that you don't agree with. |
I never said I didn't agree with the terms, or didn't agree "with the service". I disagree with an implementation of a particular feature.
To answer differently: I pay because I like this place. And because I like it, I hope to see some good come from this conversation. It doesn't matter to me what the outcome is. I'm not going to storm off in a huff if this situtation doesn't resolve itself in the direction I'm hoping for.
Originally posted by trevytrev:
You still haven't addressed the concern by me that good, valuable , learnging comments will be deleted just because someone doesn't want them. |
Sure I have. I said that I recognize this will certainly happen, but I'm not of the opinion, as you and others seem to be, that it will be so rampant that the commenting system will collapse and all learning potential will be wiped out over time. That's just not going to happen, in my opinion. |
Ok, I understand where your coming from. I will disagree about the commnet system but we can agree to disgree, that's ok:) |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:50:22 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How much effort goes into a comment that suggests taking the model for a Big Mac and Fries next time because she's thin? |
You miss the point. I have no problem with removing comments like that, but allowing photographers free rein to delete comments on their own does not limit them to even remotely offensive posts. Most of the comments we're asked to remove (I don't know the exact percentage) have nothing to do with models. They're usually polite, constructive criticism, and the photographer wants it removed because "this moron doesn't know what he's talking about." |
Those comments that are polite, constructive criticism should stand as written.
However, any personal comment about a model that the SC is asked to remove should be removed or edited accordingly, regardless of the SC's interpretation of that comment. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:53:31 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... there are others who feel the same way, and therefore there exists an issue that is worth talking about. ... |
Actually, it looks like you're in the extreme minority on this.
Pulled from a related thread ==> A Poll
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by karmat:
From the posts in this thread
2
1
1
1
1/7
4
2 (with limits)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1/6
1/3/5
3
Now, I want everyone to ask yourself a question, and answer it honestly. IF the totally unscientific/informal poll was showing a 2 everywhere there was a 1, would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
I don't understand the numbers you've written here. I think the informal poll won't work, because not everyone is going to see it. It seems to me more people respond to official polls than informal ones. |
|
If you want to follow the strict "majority rules" thing, we'd still have segregation. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:55:35 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Just curious would you be in favor of having a delete button in the forums so that anybody can delete another person's post that is directed at them regardless of reason? Would you want to know who does that and when so you don't bother engaging in them in the future? |
My immediate reaction is no, I wouldn't want to see that. For purposes of practicality and so on, it just doesn't seem reasonable. It also doesn't seem to equate with wanting to have some level of control over the comments on one's own photos.
If I participate in a forum thread, I'm engaging in a conversation and should expect all kinds of replies. I suppose you can reply that I should also expect all kinds of replies to my photography, and I agree - up to a point.
Hypothetically, if someone looks at this and comments, "Your lighting is bad because you've made her look like a hag," am I obligated to let that stand? Some would say, absolutely. Some would be appalled and would want to see it gone. What's my opinion? I don't know. I'm torn between the slight to my elderly mother, and the learning experience gained that might help me avoid lighting mistakes. It's not so cut-and-dry, but if at the end of the day I vote to spare my poor mother from comparison to a hag, only my vote should count, not SC's. This is an extreme example and I'm sure SC would also vote to spare my mom, but you get the point. I never suggested this was a cut-and-dry situation, but I'm not convinced it's settled to everyone's satisfaction. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:57:29 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How much effort goes into a comment that suggests taking the model for a Big Mac and Fries next time because she's thin? |
You miss the point. I have no problem with removing comments like that, but allowing photographers free rein to delete comments on their own does not limit them to even remotely offensive posts. Most of the comments we're asked to remove (I don't know the exact percentage) have nothing to do with models. They're usually polite, constructive criticism, and the photographer wants it removed because "this moron doesn't know what he's talking about." |
Those comments that are polite, constructive criticism should stand as written.
However, any personal comment about a model that the SC is asked to remove should be removed or edited accordingly, regardless of the SC's interpretation of that comment. |
And regardless of what the rules/guidelines are? So should we approach other facets of the site this way as well? Anything that the user wants should be allowed? User A wants picture 009287 dq'ed because they think it doesn't follow the rules. Can we just dq it, or do we still need to follow the guidelines that are in place?
Maybe approaching hyperbole. MAYBE>
But what I'm hearing is that the photographer should have the last say on what comments appear on his/her picture, and SC should have no business questioning it whatsoever?
Can we apply that to dqs as well? It would make life a lot simpler. A picture gets requested for dq because it offends someone. We dq it. No interpretation needed.
What about forum posts? I post that I think corn should have rights and never be harvested. Then, if someone posts something contradictory, and it offends me, so I can hide it. No SC interpretation needed again.
The ToS exist for a reason. A comment is requested, we look at it, evaluate it, if we see that yea, it could be construed to be offensive, we asked the commenter to change it. If it is blatant, we hide it.
A couple of you have had a couple of comments that we didn't agree with you with. I can think of 5. So, we create a function for those 5 pictures. :/
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 17:02:52. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 05:13:06 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by karmat:
But what I'm hearing is that the photographer should have the last say on what comments appear on his/her picture, and SC should have no business questioning it whatsoever? |
No. Only on comments that are directed at the model(s). At no time did I propose or support the "remove comment" function to address this. I don't oppose it either.
If someone is offended by a comment they interpret as saying the person in the photo is too fat, thin, ugly, or whatever, that comment should be edited or removed, regardless of how harmless the SC perceives it.
If you do not agree to that, do you really think that the SC has any way to know if someone is offended? Don't you think the SC should err on the side of compassion and caution?
I don't think such actions would really be outside the context of the Term of Service either.
Originally posted by DPC TOS:
4.1 Generally, you must use the DPChallenge.com Service in a manner that demonstrates good taste and respect for the rights of DPChallenge.com and third parties.
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity, (ii) is libelous, defamatory or slanderous, (iii) condones, promotes, contains or links to warez, cracks, hacks or similar utilities or programs, (iv) contains explicitly sexual content, (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise, (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste. |
I know these apply to images posted on DPC, do they not apply to comments as well?
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 17:15:12. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 06:34:52 PM · #324 |
What seems to be being currently ignored is that I can delete any and all comments on my portfolio images if I want to.
But only all of them at the same, not selectively.
So should that feature be removed too, to save all those valuable comments that I don't have any ownership over ?
That already implies we have more ownership and claim to the spaces with our images in them than the rest of the site - which seems to me to be reasonable. If it is reasonable, why not refine that level of control ?
If it isn't reasonable, then nobody should be allowed to remove their pictures once posted, after all, we don't own our pictures or the surroundings of them after they've been uploaded ?
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 18:37:07.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 06:38:26 PM · #325 |
Only directed at the models....?
Does that include self portraits?
Does it include my pet that I love and would hate for anyone to call unattractive?
What if I take a picture of my house, and someone calls it run-down and shabby looking? |
|
