| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2008 10:09:36 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Louis:
But my view, which is not being addressed at all (presumably because it is so diametrically opposed to the view of the majority of SC) is that most people would not use a delete function to excise negative comments that are constructive. Some people would, sure. But who cares? What difference does it make? I don't accept the view that the commenting system would collapse or become meaningless because a minority would choose to use it for the shallowest of reasons. |
I'm not sure you can say one way or the other what would happen until it's actually an option. When the "mark as helpful" checkbox was first introduce did people think it would be use the way it is now, which is basically used as a "mark as read" checkbox more than anything else.
Honestly, I don't like having a delete button because the moment someone goes and deletes one of my comments without first asking me about it I'm going to be upset about wasting my time. At the very least it won't be encouraging me to leave more comments, quite the opposite. I think if you're going to have a delete button then you also need to do something for the commenter. Either notify them that a comment was deleted for each instance or make it obvious who is deleting your comments (perhaps an icon on the photographer's profile page and their photos) so that I know not to bother leaving any more comments for that photographer.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:10:16 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
Originally posted by nomad469:
And eschaelar attitude and comment is exactly why the system needs to be implemented.
Thank you for proving my point so very clearly |
Added comment to image's page to add my 2 cents and interpretation of the comment.
 |
Thanks .. And your comments were well received :)
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:16:58 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
But my view, which is not being addressed at all (presumably because it is so diametrically opposed to the view of the majority of SC) is that most people would not use a delete function to excise negative comments that are constructive. Some people would, sure. But who cares? What difference does it make? I don't accept the view that the commenting system would collapse or become meaningless because a minority would choose to use it for the shallowest of reasons. |
I'm not sure you can say one way or the other what would happen until it's actually an option. When the "mark as helpful" checkbox was first introduce did people think it would be use the way it is now, which is basically used as a "mark as read" checkbox more than anything else.
Honestly, I don't like having a delete button because the moment someone goes and deletes one of my comments without first asking me about it I'm going to be upset about wasting my time. At the very least it won't be encouraging me to leave more comments, quite the opposite. I think if you're going to have a delete button then you also need to do something for the commenter. Either notify them that a comment was deleted for each instance or make it obvious who is deleting your comments (perhaps an icon on the photographer's profile page and their photos) so that I know not to bother leaving any more comments for that photographer. |
You said one thing correct that if my comment was deleted I would be little annoyed. But if I feel that my comment was not offensive, I would steer clear of commenting further on that person's photo. This is his loss in the end not mine.
Still if I make a comment I do not think is offensive and a person does not mark that particular comment helpful, I simply go back and delete my comment. After that I would make it a point not to make any comment on that person's photo. Why wasting our time when we could be communicating with other photographers you listen to what we have to say.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 22:17:50. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:30:36 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
You said one thing correct that if my comment was deleted I would be little annoyed. But if I feel that my comment was not offensive, I would steer clear of commenting further on that person's photo. This is his loss in the end not mine.
Still if I make a comment I do not think is offensive and a person does not mark that particular comment helpful, I simply go back and delete my comment. After that I would make it a point not to make any comment on that person's photo. Why wasting our time when we could be communicating with other photographers you listen to what we have to say. |
One minor problem with this scenario...you have no idea whose photo you are commenting on during challenge voting. You can't choose to comment/not comment on a particular user in this case.
Edit to expound on two points.
Originally posted by zxaar:
...if my comment was deleted...his loss in the end not mine. |
Actually, this IS a loss to you. Your time spent commenting.
Originally posted by zxaar:
...a person does not mark that particular comment helpful, I simply go back and delete my comment. |
Here again, you're spending time that could be better used elsewhere.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 22:34:38. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:33:47 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
One minor problem with this scenario...you have no idea whose photo you are commenting on during challenge voting. You can't choose to comment/not comment on a particular user in this case. |
that's not always true. just in looking at comments of a few photos discussed today, it was obvious that some people either knew or thought they knew whose photo they were commenting on. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:36:40 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
One minor problem with this scenario...you have no idea whose photo you are commenting on during challenge voting. You can't choose to comment/not comment on a particular user in this case. |
that's not always true. just in looking at comments of a few photos discussed today, it was obvious that some people either knew or thought they knew whose photo they were commenting on. |
Yeah, but I think the overall general theme is "Editorial control over comments" for everyone, and in most cases the identity of the photographer would not be known initially. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:45:02 PM · #132 |
I most of all do not want to take the commenting about the photograph away. Harsh or not it is a critique of the photograph. What started this thread was comments that were attacks on the models themselves that had no relevance to the photograph or were not in context of the photograph.
Please separate the 2 issues for sake of this discussion.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:45:54 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I suppose if you've actually had insightful, detailed comments reported and asked to have those removed then that's certainly a different concern. |
Yeah we get lots of those. You'd be amazed what some people find offensive. Here's an example (changed a bit to protect the identities):
"Great photo, with nice composition. Although bluish in color, it doesn't have the feel of a duotone. Maybe converting this to B&W first and then adding the blue tone would have helped. I for sure don't think its DNMC, but believe you will get those people that feel it is. 8"
That's a pretty darn helpful and insightful comment in my book (and there was no model to offend), but it was reported as offensive, not marked as helpful and prompted retaliatory negative comments. Go figure. If the photographer had the ability to remove that comment, it would certainly be gone, and it might only take a handful of such actions to make the commenter question the value of his time spent leaving such critiques. Again, you'd be amazed how many of reports we get on comments as innocuous as this! :-/
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 22:48:22. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:53:21 PM · #134 |
Well the person that reported that is a screwball...
and if they used one of their 4 zaps under the proposed system on that comment they are even more of a screwball.
So how does that compare to "you model looks like a sow"...
I am not getting it
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:57:17 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
So how does that compare to "you model looks like a sow"... |
The difference is that we'd remove a "sow" comment. The photographer would make no such distinction. ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 23:03:22. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 11:44:35 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
I most of all do not want to take the commenting about the photograph away. Harsh or not it is a critique of the photograph. What started this thread was comments that were attacks on the models themselves that had no relevance to the photograph or were not in context of the photograph.
Please separate the 2 issues for sake of this discussion. |
Correction, what started this whole series of events was a photographers thinking that two comments were attacks on the models in the photographs. In both cases, as I see it, the comments could simply be a language issue or simply someone who doesn't do such a good job of putting ideas into words. This IS a multi-cultural, world wide site. If you had a tooth ache would you pull out all your teeth? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 11:58:59 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
Originally posted by nomad469:
And eschaelar attitude and comment is exactly why the system needs to be implemented.
Thank you for proving my point so very clearly |
Added comment to image's page to add my 2 cents and interpretation of the comment.
|
Perhaps you are not familiar with the difference between intent and interpretation.
My point was that the commenters intent was not clear enough to see their intent with 100% certainty that it was loaded with malice. no point getting all worked up until that is ascertained.
The SC has been trying to show that it is quite common for people to interpret just about anything as containing malice. But this is not in line with the true intent of the same set of comments.
I'm glad that you found the time to interpret Lance's comment as mean-spirited. It's certainly the easy way to look at it. And we all know how that the obvious explanation is always correct. that's why jumping to conclusions is so effective.
What's really funny is that the comment does actually stand a pretty good chance of being deleted or modified whenever it gets handled by the SC, so your comment will naturally follow or else look pretty silly. Good use of time.
Remember that the real key to that comment is that most people actually are clever enough to figure out that such a comment doesn't actually require a response since it speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:05:59 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by nomad469:
I most of all do not want to take the commenting about the photograph away. Harsh or not it is a critique of the photograph. What started this thread was comments that were attacks on the models themselves that had no relevance to the photograph or were not in context of the photograph.
Please separate the 2 issues for sake of this discussion. |
Correction, what started this whole series of events was a photographers thinking that two comments were attacks on the models in the photographs. In both cases, as I see it, the comments could simply be a language issue or simply someone who doesn't do such a good job of putting ideas into words. This IS a multi-cultural, world wide site. If you had a tooth ache would you pull out all your teeth? |
I was going to say something along these lines too. i just wanted to further point out that the griping about a specific comment on the rapper (which had apparently not been reported through the proper channels) does not appear to have started until the second page.
The discussion of "editorial control over comments regarding the models" isn't terribly well separated from "the SC doesn't police comments that haven't been reported well enough for my personal sensitivities and interpretations" in the initial post. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:24:21 AM · #139 |
hummmm...
Even with giving wide wide berth on intent ... to me that is not the central point ... interpretation is the the issue. Again, I make the point calling one model "thick" would get you a thank you ... calling another model the same thing will get you into a fight.
Yes this is a multi-cultural world wide site and what would patently offend one would not even phase another. This is why I am saying a method to remove comments on a limited basis ... without intervention of the SC is is a good thing. It removes that judgment call from the SC. It removes the need to go through the whole fact-finding exercise. It removes back door PM controversy.
I still do not see why anyone would have such a strong objection...
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 00:25:02.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:25:30 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I'm glad that you found the time to interpret Lance's comment as mean-spirited.
|
And you have misinterpreted my interpretation. I didn't think it was mean spirited. I thought LanceW was commenting on the poor choice of aspiring to be a criminal type. Obviously, no one except LanceW can truly know what LanceW intended to say. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt in my interpretation.
And the comment wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to nomad469
Edit to remove unnecessary quoted material
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 00:27:44. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:27:49 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by nomad469:
I most of all do not want to take the commenting about the photograph away. Harsh or not it is a critique of the photograph. What started this thread was comments that were attacks on the models themselves that had no relevance to the photograph or were not in context of the photograph.
Please separate the 2 issues for sake of this discussion. |
Correction, what started this whole series of events was a photographers thinking that two comments were attacks on the models in the photographs. In both cases, as I see it, the comments could simply be a language issue or simply someone who doesn't do such a good job of putting ideas into words. This IS a multi-cultural, world wide site. If you had a tooth ache would you pull out all your teeth? |
I was going to say something along these lines too. i just wanted to further point out that the griping about a specific comment on the rapper (which had apparently not been reported through the proper channels) does not appear to have started until the second page. |
FYI it was mentioned in the original thread and was brought up in this thread because someone (YOU) asked for a specific example. I was not the OP but I feel that the OP had a valid point ...
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:30:53 AM · #142 |
why isn't anyone upset about the comment that the model needed to do some bodybuilding? isn't that insinuating that his body needs work? seems rather similar to one of the comments that started all this mess today.
all this oversensitivity about comments is making me uneasy about making any (except in side challenges where they really are encouraged). |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:35:29 AM · #143 |
Because he does :) that I don't find that offensive nor would he ...
But making the assumption that this person is some kinda criminal does.
As stated above many times offensive is subjective.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 00:36:21.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:42:46 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
But making the assumption that this person is some kinda criminal does. |
Perhaps entitling it "Artist" rather than "gangsta" would have been wiser? The title does have a negative connotation for some. My $0.02 |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:42:50 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Because he does :) that I don't find that offensive nor would he ...
But making the assumption that this person is some kinda criminal does.
As stated above many times offensive is subjective. |
But that is the image that the MODEL was trying to convey... It's imbedded in the rap community. Criminal is good. Making money is good. It doesn't matter where that money comes from it's good. As long as you're getting outa the hood, it's good. Don't matter how. That is the image that the model is trying to convey. You said it yourself. He insisted on the money in the pockets. What's more bling than cash? To comment against that message is wrong?
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 00:43:49. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:43:09 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
This is why I am saying a method to remove comments on a limited basis ... without intervention of the SC is is a good thing. |
A method already exists. Send a polite PM- "I appreciate the time you took to post a comment (maybe a different camera angle or lighting could have worked), but my model is rather sensitive. Would you mind editing your comment to prevent an embarrassing situation? Thanks!"
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:43:27 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by desertoddity:
...all this oversensitivity about comments is making me uneasy about making any .... |
And this is really the shame in the whole kerfuffle, that someone else will be robbed of a comment you'd make but for this situation. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:46:53 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Because he does :) that I don't find that offensive nor would he ...
But making the assumption that this person is some kinda criminal does.
As stated above many times offensive is subjective. |
it's just that a comment that some guy needs body building doesn't seem much different than someone saying the thin model needed to eat at mcdonald's. one seemed to set off a lot of people while the other didn't get mentioned at all. i find that curious.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:48:58 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nomad469:
This is why I am saying a method to remove comments on a limited basis ... without intervention of the SC is is a good thing. |
A method already exists. Send a polite PM- "I appreciate the time you took to post a comment (maybe a different camera angle or lighting could have worked), but my model is rather sensitive. Would you mind editing your comment to prevent an embarrassing situation? Thanks!" |
Nope EDIT Not gonna go where I was thinking ... JUST SAY NO
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:51:56 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by desertoddity:
...all this oversensitivity about comments is making me uneasy about making any .... |
And this is really the shame in the whole kerfuffle, that someone else will be robbed of a comment you'd make but for this situation. |
So you are endorsing making comments that are abusive to models ... because those are the only ones that I am discussing .
|
|
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: 04/28/2024 02:12:34 PM EDT.
