| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2007 10:11:28 PM · #76 |
One fairly straightforward answer to this would be to make the challenge description more obvious.
Why couldn't the challenge description be on the front page where the challenge is listed for entering / voting? And highlighted on the main voting page, instead of little letters?
Twice (once with an entry, and once with voting), I didn't happen to read the description and made serious errors (in my own view). For those of us who are only intermittently active, it truly isn't obvious that the description is there at all. |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:11:33 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Wouldn't it be nice if instead of people creating pages and pages of threads about DNMC, they were allowed a voice on the photograph itself ... |
It's called a "comment." |
So you are encouraging the use of DNMC in comments?
many people have strong emotionality attached to giving and receiving DNMC comments.
Why? Probably because many people get very excited to receive even one comment. I myself have given out more than 4 times as many comments as received, and when I do receive a comment, I notice. Months can go by between comments for some people.
It's like unwrapping a gift-wrapped box and finding a bunch of packing bubbles for many.
Personally, I feel that if more people added DNMC comments, the potency of the DNMC stigma would be reduced. Sadly, the number of DNMC sentiments vs the number of comments given out over the duration of a challenge is so disproportionate that it is also likely to greatly deflate the value of comments in general, which wouldn't be a very positive move IMHO.
Separate DNMC and commenting and voting and you make it easier (and less emotional) to give and receive DNMC comments.
Incidentally, DNMC isn't actually 100% appropriate for the comment since it's not directly associated to the content of the picture itself. Comments should be about the picture. DNMC is about WHERE the picture has been placed.
If I put a picture of a butterfly in a train station, it might be a great picture of a butterfly, but to say that it's inappropriate because it's in a train station is a different type of statement isn't it? |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:17:19 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by JBHale:
Fine. I won't go any further. But I stick to my idea pf having people voice concerns to SC on a separate thread. |
I did not mean to offend you. Just giving you my opinion. I have barked up this tree before myself. Unfortunately too many folks here will just pee on your tree while you are barking on it. :) |
Nono, you didn't! I don't even feel strongly one way or another about the DNMC issue. I'm just trying to find a solution to the problem.
I never like to see people get upset about something that should be so positive. |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:17:50 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Incidentally, DNMC isn't actually 100% appropriate for the comment since it's not directly associated to the content of the picture itself. Comments should be about the picture. DNMC is about WHERE the picture has been placed.
If I put a picture of a butterfly in a train station, it might be a great picture of a butterfly, but to say that it's inappropriate because it's in a train station is a different type of statement isn't it? |
That is why I suggested making sure that the comment was something that included your thoughts on the picture based on it's merits, as well as the DNMC mention..so that they know why it was scored low.
ie: Great shot, nice use of backlighting, but unfortunately does not meet the challenge...1 |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:24:36 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Wouldn't it be nice if instead of people creating pages and pages of threads about DNMC, they were allowed a voice on the photograph itself ... |
It's called a "comment." |
Incidentally, DNMC isn't actually 100% appropriate for the comment since it's not directly associated to the content of the picture itself. Comments should be about the picture. DNMC is about WHERE the picture has been placed. |
But such a comment -- deserved or not in the mind of the photographer -- is completely "about the picture" and how it made you feel/react in the context of the picture. I may disagree with your interpretation (or lack thereof) about how/why a particular photo does or does not meet the challenge theme, but you are completely free to express your reaction.
I think one of my pictures was cited earlier -- it "met the challenge" dead-on, but in a way in which only select people (literary historians and watchers of PBS) would be likely to be aware. Many people could not see how it met the challenge, and that reaction was completely valid (and expected by me). That should, however, in no way diminish or invalidate that the photo in fact does meet the challenge, regardless of the belief of the masses. |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:25:28 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Wouldn't it be nice if instead of people creating pages and pages of threads about DNMC, they were allowed a voice on the photograph itself ... |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It's called a "comment." |
It does kind of amaze me with the tremendous amount of controversy surrounding the DNMC issue that something hasn't been done about it.
Voting a stellar image that doesn't meet the challenge a low vote doesn't send the right message......it's a reflection on the image, not whether or not it meets the challenge.
The third place entry is a truly spectaular image, but on *NO* level does it meet the description of the act of opening, and you have to be completely obtuse to stretch the erosion thing to do so.
So it is DNMC.
I'm not getting all psycho about it, but why is it that we can't discuss this and accept that the loose interpretation of some of the challenge entries really shouldn't do as well as they should?
I'll be the first to admit that my two best placing shots were total pandering to the voters.....one DNMC and the other a shoehorn, title-driven shot.
But I wanted the scores, so that's the way I went.
I don't necessarily think that it's right.
Don't get me wrong, I love it here, and Lord knows I certainly love it when I do well, but sometimes it is aggravating to give up on a challenge theme because I have no cogent thoughts on it and then turn around and see a ribbon winner that flouts the description and wins on the merits pof the shot and not its ability to meet the challenge.
Oh.....and BTW, that lily is only "clearly" in the act of opening as it fits your interpretation.....not necessarily mine. The voters may, or may NOT, have agreed, but the title and the shot were enough to carry it.
What's your interpretation on the rock "opening"?
Do you really feel that this is applicable to the erosion?
I know from my years of study, both formal and informal, how long that kind of formation takes......it's definitely not an "active" verb!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:29:01 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think one of my pictures was cited earlier -- it "met the challenge" dead-on, but in a way in which only select people (literary historians and watchers of PBS) would be likely to be aware. Many people could not see how it met the challenge, and that reaction was completely valid (and expected by me). That should, however, in no way diminish or invalidate that the photo in fact does meet the challenge, regardless of the belief of the masses. |
That is a perfect example on why we can never expect to have SC DQ an image because it DNMC. They cannot possibly be expected to know the circumstances or intentions of every shot.
Therefor vote with your....vote, it is all we have. However leaving a comment to let them know why you voted low is a given.
edit to mark down the date on the calendar that I agreed with Gen E. LOL
Message edited by author 2007-09-20 22:30:22. |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:29:56 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
ie: Great shot, nice use of backlighting, but unfortunately does not meet the challenge...1 |
It is this sense of absolutism which is so irksome to many photographers. You phrase it as an exposition of some grand truth engraved on stone tablets -- XI. THIS PHOTO DNMC! -- instead of an expression of your own possible ignorance or naiveté, such as "... nice use of backlighting. Unfortunately, I don't see how this image addresses the challenge topic." |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:35:42 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by basssman7:
ie: Great shot, nice use of backlighting, but unfortunately does not meet the challenge...1 |
It is this sense of absolutism which is so irksome to many photographers. You phrase it as an exposition of some grand truth engraved on stone tablets -- XI. THIS PHOTO DNMC! -- instead of an expression of your own possible ignorance or naiveté, such as "... nice use of backlighting. Unfortunately, I don't see how this image addresses the challenge topic." |
You just had to do that at the same time I was agreeing with you?? LOL
I thought this topic was about more than just semantics? I would much rather receive the comment I used as a suggestion instead of just a big capital letter DNMC, wouldn't you? I see no reason why I should have to apoligize for telling someone I do not think their pic meets the challenge. What I suggested was polite, to the point, and let them know that I liked the photo, but gave a reason why I voted it low. |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:45:29 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by basssman7:
ie: Great shot, nice use of backlighting, but unfortunately does not meet the challenge...1 |
It is this sense of absolutism which is so irksome to many photographers. You phrase it as an exposition of some grand truth engraved on stone tablets -- XI. THIS PHOTO DNMC! -- instead of an expression of your own possible ignorance or naiveté, such as "... nice use of backlighting. Unfortunately, I don't see how this image addresses the challenge topic." |
exactly.
DNMC is not a statement of truth but a statement of perspective.
Nobody comments DNMC on images that are not in challenges. That's ridiculous.
If the picture is not in a challenge, or in a free challenge, then DNMC becomes irrelevant.
This is why I feel that it would be useful to segregate DNMC from the voting AND from the commenting, and to allow the photographer the ultimate choice (in most cases) as to how much they want these "DNMC flavored" votes to affect their images (because people are still entitled to vote down for DNMC, but should not be forced to). |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:46:05 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What's your interpretation on the rock "opening"?
Do you really feel that this is applicable to the erosion?
I know from my years of study, both formal and informal, how long that kind of formation takes......it's definitely not an "active" verb!.....8>) |
I dig man and from that perspective you are correct. But lets for a moment look at it from the abstract or from a geek loving sci-fi perspective like me. In that sense I can see how it would meet the challenge. That is why I think the more gray the challenge description the better. It allows for more imagination to be used by both the viewer and the photog.
I remember when I was a kid watching PBS I was encouraged to use my imagination. In art class I was encouraged to use my imagination. As a creative person I encourage myself to use my imagination.
A strict interpretation of DNMC is to deny imagination...
|
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:54:35 PM · #87 |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:55:07 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
A strict interpretation of DNMC is to deny imagination... |
I think some people want the entries to be like catalog shots -- Display Products Challenge or something -- rather than creative or imaginative variations or re-interpretations of the challenge. |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 10:59:58 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I dig man and from that perspective you are correct. But lets for a moment look at it from the abstract or from a geek loving sci-fi perspective like me. In that sense I can see how it would meet the challenge. That is why I think the more gray the challenge description the better. It allows for more imagination to be used by both the viewer and the photog. |
And there is occasion to do that.......but the OOB aspect can get you spanked really hard, too......you must be prepared for that as well.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I remember when I was a kid watching PBS I was encouraged to use my imagination. In art class I was encouraged to use my imagination. As a creative person I encourage myself to use my imagination.
A strict interpretation of DNMC is to deny imagination... |
I agree......however, like a couple folks have mentioned, if you stray too far, youy should not necessarily be rewarded if there was some kind of a guideline.
BTW....I got a nickel says I have a more obtuse interpretation in a challenge in my history than you have in yours.....8>)
And I got the spanking to prove it.....4.4857 and 69 comments!!!!
Some of which were DNMC with a challenge description of.......N/A!!!!
|
|
|
|
09/20/2007 11:00:00 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
DNMC is not a statement of truth but a statement of perspective. |
Absolutely. I don't recall stating that it was an absolute truth. I said that you have a right to voice your opinion.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Nobody comments DNMC on images that are not in challenges. That's ridiculous. |
Obviously....
Originally posted by eschelar:
If the picture is not in a challenge, or in a free challenge, then DNMC becomes irrelevant. |
again, obviously.
Originally posted by eschelar:
This is why I feel that it would be useful to segregate DNMC from the voting AND from the commenting, and to allow the photographer the ultimate choice (in most cases) as to how much they want these "DNMC flavored" votes to affect their images (because people are still entitled to vote down for DNMC, but should not be forced to). |
Ok...so you are saything that every challenge should be voted on like it was a free study, except that you push a button to alert the SC that it DNMC? Then what? The SC will magically know if it really does meet the challenge even if it is an obscure reference to something that really is legit?
Forced to? Who said anything about forcing? I simply said that since the rules in regards to DNMC are not likely to be changed, you all you can do is use the tools you have now to voice your opinion, which is to vote it low so it does not ribbon and leave a comment telling the person why you voted that way. I am not suggesting forcing anyone to do anything. However if you do not use the tools at hand, and the methods are not going to be changed and you know it... why complain? |
|
|
|
09/20/2007 11:29:54 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I dig man and from that perspective you are correct. But lets for a moment look at it from the abstract or from a geek loving sci-fi perspective like me. In that sense I can see how it would meet the challenge. That is why I think the more gray the challenge description the better. It allows for more imagination to be used by both the viewer and the photog. |
And there is occasion to do that.......but the OOB aspect can get you spanked really hard, too......you must be prepared for that as well.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I remember when I was a kid watching PBS I was encouraged to use my imagination. In art class I was encouraged to use my imagination. As a creative person I encourage myself to use my imagination.
A strict interpretation of DNMC is to deny imagination... |
I agree......however, like a couple folks have mentioned, if you stray too far, youy should not necessarily be rewarded if there was some kind of a guideline.
BTW....I got a nickel says I have a more obtuse interpretation in a challenge in my history than you have in yours.....8>)
And I got the spanking to prove it.....4.4857 and 69 comments!!!!
Some of which were DNMC with a challenge description of.......N/A!!!! |
Yup & Yup :-P |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 12:18:47 AM · #92 |
It would be trivial to add one more bar on the graph indicating DNMC "votes" cast on an image and display it beneath the 1-10 votes that were cast on 'the photo'.
It would take a simple checkbox on the voting screen to allow this data to be gathered.
It would not require anyone to pass judgement on what is or is not DNMC, and would have no effect on the placement of images in the challenge.
It would let voters express their distaste for a supposed shoehorn.
It would be a publically viewable indication of exactly what 'the masses' thought about the relevance of a shot, rather than the never ending improvable edicts being issued by both camps about what 'the voter' thinks about images.
Easy to implement, easy to make the paying customers happy. Minimizes overall site angst and keeps people from being ridiculed in the forums for expressing an opinion (at least this particular opinion).
If a passing fad like 'blur' can result in a pretty quick addition of new gallery categories, surely something that has gotten as much traction over as much time as this issue could see some quick action as well.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2007 12:31:34 AM · #93 |
Has anybody bothered to point out that the average vote cast in Opening and Closing was very low? There wasn't a high score in either challenge. That tells me many of the entries were deemed DNMC to varying degrees but you know what? Someone still has to win and that's what happened.
ETA: Correction, Opening did have some high scores but the average vote cast overall was low.
Message edited by author 2007-09-21 00:34:27. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 03:58:40 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by eschelar:
|
Ok...so you are saything that every challenge should be voted on like it was a free study, except that you push a button to alert the SC that it DNMC? Then what? The SC will magically know if it really does meet the challenge even if it is an obscure reference to something that really is legit?
Forced to? Who said anything about forcing? I simply said that since the rules in regards to DNMC are not likely to be changed, you all you can do is use the tools you have now to voice your opinion, which is to vote it low so it does not ribbon and leave a comment telling the person why you voted that way. I am not suggesting forcing anyone to do anything. However if you do not use the tools at hand, and the methods are not going to be changed and you know it... why complain? |
I think you may have misread me Bass. I was responding primarily to GeneralE who is a member of the SC. Additionally, it was referencing content in the 'solution' idea that I presented and linked to earlier in this thread. You may understand what I meant better if you have a read there.
I feel that since there is no DNMC checkbox, writing a comment that says "DNMC, 1" is less productive and less beneficial than having a simple radio box with DNMC and letting people use comments for the content of the picture itself. The use of the word 'forcing' is not on the part of you Bassman, but on the fact that as of now, there is no other option.
The bit I wrote about the segregation of such entries was not referring to a decision that the SC would make, but rather to have a specific option for a photographer to move their pic to a 'DNMC Bag' which could be subject to votes, but have DNMC flavored votes discarded in the calculation of score, at the cost of being removed from the running as far as placement is concerned. For the bulk of the challenges, the choice would be left up to the photog, allowing them to judge for themselves how important the DNMC aspect of the votes they receive during the challenge is to them. By keeping the DNMC anonymous, it would also remove the emotionality from the stat which would encourage honesty, and reduce flare-ups either in forums or in PMs.
Anyhow, you can read more if you follow the link. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 04:18:48 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Has anybody bothered to point out that the average vote cast in Opening and Closing was very low? There wasn't a high score in either challenge. That tells me many of the entries were deemed DNMC to varying degrees but you know what? Someone still has to win and that's what happened.
ETA: Correction, Opening did have some high scores but the average vote cast overall was low. |
Don't think, the low scores have something to do with the number of DNMC entries. See, while DPL was running, everybody whined, it would harm the scores, but proof has never been made. Or, look at the "Children's Toy II" scores, the blue had 6.8333, the average was 5.27 - extremely low both, though the description was crystal clear and all top 10 shots were definitely meeting the challenge.
Edited for spelling.
Message edited by author 2007-09-21 04:19:09.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2007 07:52:58 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I feel that since there is no DNMC checkbox, writing a comment that says "DNMC, 1" is less productive and less beneficial than having a simple radio box with DNMC and letting people use comments for the content of the picture itself. The use of the word 'forcing' is not on the part of you Bassman, but on the fact that as of now, there is no other option.
The bit I wrote about the segregation of such entries was not referring to a decision that the SC would make, but rather to have a specific option for a photographer to move their pic to a 'DNMC Bag' which could be subject to votes, but have DNMC flavored votes discarded in the calculation of score, at the cost of being removed from the running as far as placement is concerned. For the bulk of the challenges, the choice would be left up to the photog, allowing them to judge for themselves how important the DNMC aspect of the votes they receive during the challenge is to them. By keeping the DNMC anonymous, it would also remove the emotionality from the stat which would encourage honesty, and reduce flare-ups either in forums or in PMs. |
This really sounds like an attractive and sensible option, certainly worth considering on a trial basis.
There could be further details added/subtracted, but I know I'd certainly like to have an index as to whether I'm able to hit the mark with *MY* interpretation of meeting the challenge versus the perspective on the three second run-through during voting.
Regardless of my intent, if I get 35 DNMC check blocks with my 5.2 score, then I know my image was okay, not great, but that I didn't manage to convey my interpretation to the voters of how my entry fit the challenge description.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2007 08:06:36 AM · #97 |
OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we do wind up with a DNMC checkbox...but that you still can't be disqualified for not meeting the challenge just like now.
Fast forward 12 challenges later, when a shot ribbons but also has a stat where x% of the voters didn't think it met challenge.
Question 1: If there was a DNMC checkbox, would you adjust your scoring in any way? (ie. still vote the shot a "1")
Question 2: How would you feel if a ribbon-winning shot had the DNMC shot box checked off by say, 50% of the voters, but still won? 25%? 10%? |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 08:11:23 AM · #98 |
In the case of the opening of a water lily or a supermarket or whatever, 'the opening' as in 'You are invited to the opening of...' is definitely getting the noun treatment, what with a definite article and all. Then again, it's an -ing- form of a verb which is often transcribable. If you had a lot of time and printer's ink to get shot of, you might write the invitation something like:
You are invited to witness a water lily and/or supermarket in the act of opening.
My lawyers will call your lawyers just as soon as they've sorted out the phone bill.
Oh, I see the conversation has wandered over to checkboxes. Would failure to understand subtle inflections of the English language lead to revocation of checkbox rights?
Message edited by author 2007-09-21 08:14:29. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 08:14:51 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by L2:
OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we do wind up with a DNMC checkbox...but that you still can't be disqualified for not meeting the challenge just like now.
|
what if your final score is affected by the dnmc votes.
mathematically final score = wt * original obtained score.
This wt is function of total or percent of dnmc votes one gets. so if you get 0 dnmc wt = 1, if you get 100 percent wt = 0. or very very low.
something like this.
Message edited by author 2007-09-21 08:15:04. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 08:20:49 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by L2:
OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we do wind up with a DNMC checkbox...but that you still can't be disqualified for not meeting the challenge just like now.
Fast forward 12 challenges later, when a shot ribbons but also has a stat where x% of the voters didn't think it met challenge.
Question 1: If there was a DNMC checkbox, would you adjust your scoring in any way? (ie. still vote the shot a "1")
Question 2: How would you feel if a ribbon-winning shot had the DNMC shot box checked off by say, 50% of the voters, but still won? 25%? 10%? |
Yes, good questions all of which the idea is meant to address.
Question 1, would you adjust your scoring in any way - peopleare still free to vote as they like, however the dnmc checkbox is provided as a mechanism to indicate your opinion on the relevance of the shot and, hopefully, it would be used to indicate this rather than dropping an insta-1 for dnmc.
Question 2, how would you feel if a ribbon shot also racked 50% dnmc checks - pretty damn good as a voter. Probably not so good as the ribboner, but at least well informed. |
|
