Editorial control over comments - DPChallenge Forums

02/19/2008 11:17:28 AM · #201

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Louis:
... Everyone without exception who has posted in all these threads is asking for some sort of control over the comments on the photos we own because we have direct experience of what we consider abusive behaviour.

Hello!? Everyone without exception? That's a pipe dream. Thanks for speaking for ALL of us - NOT. I'm opposed to having a delete comment button, have stated so, and I'm not alone in that sentiment.

You misunderstood. "Everyone who is for this feature without exception" is not a raving nut, is what I meant. I obviously understand there's more than one opinion here.

Well, had you posted it the same way you just restated it with ("...who is for this feature...") it would had read entirely different. Sounded more like "Everyone...who has posted...". Many have posted - not all in favor.

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies for jumping (I hate it when people lump everyone together and speak for them as their agent unrequested). :-)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/19/2008 11:20:57 AM · #202

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by scalvert:
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!"

And if they refuse?

In the very unlikely case they refused, you'd have a much stronger argument for showing the comment was intended maliciously. If the response is abusive, you'd simply report it. However, I believe that the VAST majority of voters will gladly rephrase or remove a sensitive comment if approached politely and respectfully (thereby eliminating the need for any SC involvement). If you want control, it's already within your power to have a comment changed or removed.

Look, I really have no problem with deleting ANY comment aimed at the model if the photographer requests it (and I've said as much in earlier SC discussions). My objection is to allowing photographer complete control over posted comments. In the photo with the "not very attractive belly" comment, there was one other comment that wasn't marked helpful. It was a respectful, on-target critique that addressed the photo itself. Do you think it would still be there if the photographer could remove it? Would the commenter continue posting constructive criticism if he found that his posts were being deleted by the photographers?

Louis

Nikon D800

02/19/2008 11:22:36 AM · #203

Originally posted by jschro:

The point is that you're asking for a feature that WILL be abused by some people. That's the truth. I myself wouldn't, and you probably would not either. I'm not questioning anyone in particular's intelligence or integrity. Just because I'm "late to the discussion" doesn't mean that I haven't read it earlier, b/c I have and finally reached the point that I thought I'd add my thoughts.

Rules are in place. You surely have a right to question any rule you see as lacking. But after getting an answer from those that actually make the decisions here don't continue to drag it out. At this point it IS pointless. If your claim is that you spend good money here, then let your checkbook speak and don't renew if you feel so strongly about it.

Again, this is simply being dismissive. If the answer to every problem is to quit the site, don't you think the forums would be a lonely place, the galleries bare? That's just not reasonable. And the conversation will last as long as there are people to have it. 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.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/19/2008 11:30:30 AM · #204

One time someone thought my Grandma was a man and posted a comment reflecting that assumption. :( The good news is that she probably won't see it. :)

It seems a bit like a 'tempest in a tea pot' as Gordon so aptly stated. Let the truly rude/crude commenters make an a** out of themselves, then the SC will get them if public opinion doesn't draw and quarter them first. I"m sure common decency is too much to ask of a few people, regardless of the mechanisms put in place to rule them. But, the vast majority of people at DPC ARE decent people and act accordingly.

02/19/2008 11:31:22 AM · #205

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 11:32:56 AM · #206

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by scalvert:
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!"

And if they refuse?

In the very unlikely case they refused, you'd have a much stronger argument for showing the comment was intended maliciously. If the response is abusive, you'd simply report it. However, I believe that the VAST majority of voters will gladly rephrase or remove a sensitive comment if approached politely and respectfully (thereby eliminating the need for any SC involvement). If you want control, it's already within your power to have a comment changed or removed.

Look, I really have no problem with deleting ANY comment aimed at the model if the photographer requests it (and I've said as much in earlier SC discussions). My objection is to allowing photographer complete control over posted comments. In the photo with the "not very attractive belly" comment, there was one other comment that wasn't marked helpful. It was a respectful, on-target critique that addressed the photo itself. Do you think it would still be there if the photographer could remove it? Would the commenter continue posting constructive criticism if he found that his posts were being deleted by the photographers?

DAMMIT SHANNON ... stop being reasonable ! :)

The point is that the photographer did not find it respectful or on target.
You might ... heck ... I might also ... but that is not the point. The point is that the photographer wanted the comment to go away ... he doesn't need to go to you guys to make the determination.

a system that would allow a member to just make comments go away on a limited basis would not harm at all the commenting system but would allow the member to control to some extent what is publicly visible in relation to his or her work.

This is not a issue about constructive critique.

02/19/2008 11:34:55 AM · #207

Originally posted by mpeters:

I"m sure common decency is too much to ask of a few people, regardless of the mechanisms put in place to rule them. But, the vast majority of people at DPC ARE decent people and act accordingly.

Truest line of this whole series of threads

02/19/2008 11:36:13 AM · #208

Originally posted by Gordon:

So either everyone wants it, and the SC are protecting us from ourselves.
Or nobody really cares and the SC are just blowing smoke.

Those are the only possibilities? Couldn't some people want it while others don't? Perhaps we already took that position and it became clear from the requests that even the most innocuous comments would be subject to removal if they even mentioned the model? No matter where the line is drawn, it will be too far for some and not far enough for others.

02/19/2008 11:38:00 AM · #209

Originally posted by mpeters:

One time someone thought my Grandma was a man and posted a comment reflecting that assumption. :( The good news is that she probably won't see it. :)

It wasn't me, but I can see how that mistake was made with the profile shot done as it was with the side lighting. Nice shot BTW. :-)

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

02/19/2008 11:41:11 AM · #210

Originally posted by scalvert:

I also object to complete control over comments by photographers. However, I do think that any comment referring to the appearance model or models should be removed if there's the slightest hint of it being offensive. I say that if the model and/or photographer are worried about it, I feel it should be removed, even if SC doesn't feel the comment crosses the line. In such cases, it's obvious that someone does feel that way and I think it would reflect well on DPC and the SC to hide such comments and err on the side of being sensitive to those feelings rather than angering people.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/19/2008 11:43:35 AM · #211

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by mpeters:
One time someone thought my Grandma was a man and posted a comment reflecting that assumption. :( The good news is that she probably won't see it. :)

It wasn't me, but I can see how that mistake was made with the profile shot done as it was with the side lighting. Nice shot BTW. :-)

She is 91 and at some point in our lives we all kind of look the same... I really wasn't offended and totally understood why someone would think that. :)

02/19/2008 11:46:17 AM · #212

Originally posted by mpeters:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by mpeters:
One time someone thought my Grandma was a man and posted a comment reflecting that assumption. :( The good news is that she probably won't see it. :)

It wasn't me, but I can see how that mistake was made with the profile shot done as it was with the side lighting. Nice shot BTW. :-)

She is 91 and at some point in our lives we all kind of look the same... I really wasn't offended and totally understood why someone would think that. :)

91? That's a treasure! You and your family are blessed for sure.

02/19/2008 11:50:48 AM · #213

Originally posted by nomad469:

The point is that the photographer did not find it respectful or on target.
You might ... heck ... I might also ... but that is not the point. The point is that the photographer wanted the comment to go away ... he doesn't need to go to you guys to make the determination.

Yes, I understand that, but past reports have shown that even the most innocuous comments (sometimes even glowing praise) can be found offensive. Removing a perfectly valid comment that offends only you is an insult to the commenter. Some people just don't want to see criticism of any kind, and will simply delete anything less than direct praise... including the sort of constructive criticism that we can learn the most from. I'm sure you've seen people complain after what they thought was a harmless forum post was hidden and then storm off to delete their portfolio or account. Would you really expect comments to be any different?

02/19/2008 11:52:43 AM · #214

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

any comment referring to the appearance model or models should be removed if there's the slightest hint of it being offensive.

I wouldn't argue with that.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/19/2008 11:53:18 AM · #215

Originally posted by scalvert:

Perhaps we already took that position and it became clear from the requests that even the most innocuous comments would be subject to removal if they even mentioned the model?

So its clear from the requests that many people are offended by comments about their models ?

02/19/2008 12:13:01 PM · #216

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nomad469:
The point is that the photographer did not find it respectful or on target.
You might ... heck ... I might also ... but that is not the point. The point is that the photographer wanted the comment to go away ... he doesn't need to go to you guys to make the determination.

Yes, I understand that, but past reports have shown that even the most innocuous comments (sometimes even glowing praise) can be found offensive. Removing a perfectly valid comment that offends only you is an insult to the commenter. Some people just don't want to see criticism of any kind, and will simply delete anything less than direct praise... including the sort of constructive criticism that we can learn the most from. I'm sure you've seen people complain after what they thought was a harmless forum post was hidden and then storm off to delete their portfolio or account. Would you really expect comments to be any different?

Point well taken ...

We have all see the thin skin of some members that is simply the nature of DPC.

But I do believe that a limited... (4 times a year or something like that) would (1) put the focus on the photographer to determine if this is really a issue (2) take (some) nonsense off the plate of the SC (3) remove some of the forum storms about comments ...

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

02/19/2008 12:13:38 PM · #217

Originally posted by Gordon:

so its clear from the requests that many people are offended by comments about their models ?

Obviously malicious comments about the model are already deleted. It's the weakly critical ones that we debate. I'll give you a couple of examples from comments I've received:

"That's a woman?"
"Seems like the hand should be female..."

In both cases, it was a woman (one was my wife). Now, It's perfectly reasonable that I or the models could be offended by those comments, but how else is a voter supposed to express their opinion on this aspect of the photo? It's not that these ladies look manly, but the way I photographed them. This is exactly the type of criticism I need so I can learn to watch for such problems in the future. Should we be allowed to delete such a relatively harmless post? I dunno. If these comments were reported, I suspect our decision would be that it's a valid opinion and not overtly malicious or directed at the model, but if the comment was something like, "You should have used girls instead of these butt-ugly men," then it would be gone in a heartbeat.

Message edited by author 2008-02-19 12:16:24.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/19/2008 12:18:07 PM · #218

Originally posted by citymars:

... on the other hand, replies like "get over it", "live with it", "end of story", etc., have the veneer of sensibility but are actually antagonistic.

"End of story" was part of a comment made by a proponent of the "Delete Comment" button -- a statement to the effect that all SC reasoning on the matter was BS and that the rule "must" be changed ... antagonistic? -- yeah, I found "change this or else" to be faintly antagonistic ...

citymars

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

02/19/2008 12:25:52 PM · #219

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by citymars:
... on the other hand, replies like "get over it", "live with it", "end of story", etc., have the veneer of sensibility but are actually antagonistic.

"End of story" was part of a comment made by a proponent of the "Delete Comment" button ... etc.

Yes, it is rude and faux-reasonable, no matter who says it. And have you ever noticed that "Enough said" rarely is? :-)

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

02/19/2008 12:34:29 PM · #220

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Gordon:
so its clear from the requests that many people are offended by comments about their models ?

Obviously malicious comments about the model are already deleted. It's the weakly critical ones that we debate. I'll give you a couple of examples from comments I've received:

"That's a woman?"
"Seems like the hand should be female..."

In both cases, it was a woman (one was my wife). Now, It's perfectly reasonable that I or the models could be offended by those comments, but how else is a voter supposed to express their opinion on this aspect of the photo? It's not that these ladies look manly, but the way I photographed them. This is exactly the type of criticism I need so I can learn to watch for such problems in the future. Should we be allowed to delete such a relatively harmless post? I dunno. If these comments were reported, I suspect our decision would be that it's a valid opinion and not overtly malicious or directed at the model, but if the comment was something like, "You should have used girls instead of these butt-ugly men," then it would be gone in a heartbeat.

Compelling argument.

And I agree that I would take that a least the 2nd as a valid crit but neither would cause me to kill the comment

That ME ... others might go over the top with it ...

Scenario 1
Photographer comes to SC and says that the comment is over the top ... SC says not even close. Photographer takes it to forum. Forum storm erupts calling the photographer a whimpering wimp.
Photographer gets pissed and publicly embarrassed and storms off.

Scenario 2
Photographer is pissed about the comment... has 3 zaps left. zaps comment ... case closed

Which is better for the community?

Gotaka

Nikon D300

02/19/2008 12:43:59 PM · #221

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Gotaka:
How come there is no mechanism to vote on difficult issues such as this? I mean democracy works once in while, let's use it. Since members pay to be on this site, they should have some say in how it its run. Not a select few.

That would be this thread, where the poll was suggested. Though the thread is now about why the person who suggested the poll was suspended shortly afterwards.

I will not deviate from the topic then. Hopefully, we can implement something like that and get rid of heedless arguments on the forums. It only creates controversy and makes people want to leave the site.

02/19/2008 12:50:00 PM · #222

Originally posted by nomad469:

Scenario 1
Photographer comes to SC and says that the comment is over the top ... SC says not even close. Photographer takes it to forum. Forum storm erupts calling the photographer a whimpering wimp.
Photographer gets pissed and publicly embarrassed and storms off.

Scenario 2
Photographer is pissed about the comment... has 3 zaps left. zaps comment ... case closed

Which is better for the community?

Scenario 1
Commenter comes to SC and says that their comment has been deleted - why? ... SC says it was found to be offensive. Commenter takes it to forum. Forum storm erupts calling the commenter a whimpering wimp.
Commenter gets pissed and publicly embarrassed and storms off.

Scenario 2
Photographer is pissed about the comment... has 0 zaps left. Wants to zap comment - asks SC for another zap. SC says sorry, you're allotment is used up. Photographer takes it to forum. Forum storm erupts calling the photographer a whimpering wimp. Photographer gets pissed and publicly embarrassed and storms off.

:-D

02/19/2008 12:53:54 PM · #223

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by nomad469:

Scenario 1
Photographer comes to SC and says that the comment is over the top ... SC says not even close. Photographer takes it to forum. Forum storm erupts calling the photographer a whimpering wimp.
Photographer gets pissed and publicly embarrassed and storms off.

Scenario 2
Photographer is pissed about the comment... has 3 zaps left. zaps comment ... case closed

Which is better for the community?

Scenario 1
Commenter comes to SC and says that their comment has been deleted - why? ... SC says it was found to be offensive. Commenter takes it to forum. Forum storm erupts calling the commenter a whimpering wimp.
Commenter gets pissed and publicly embarrassed and storms off.

Scenario 2
Photographer is pissed about the comment... has 0 zaps left. Wants to zap comment - asks SC for another zap. SC says sorry, you're allotment is used up. Photographer takes it to forum. Forum storm erupts calling the photographer a whimpering wimp. Photographer gets pissed and publicly embarrassed and storms off.

:-D

Then based on my position stated eariler ... that member has more of a problem than the commenters and is likely too thin skinned to be here anyway ...simple. winniehutjr.com may be a better place