| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2008 03:37:35 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Please put your computer screens up against your ears. I'll type in all-caps so everyone can hear, since the rest of my posts on the subject are not being read, or they are mysteriously being translated into ancient Hebrew or something along the way:
ALLOWING PEOPLE TO REMOVE COMMENTS IS A BAD THING. IT IS A BAD THING BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS FROM THEIR PHOTOS, MUCH IN THE SAME WAY A LOT OF PEOPLE CURRENTLY ONLY CHOOSE TO MARK COMPLIMENTARY COMMENTS AS BEING "HELPFUL."
THIS IS A BAD THING BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO SUBMIT IMAGES ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO BENEFIT FROM READING THE COMMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, I ENJOY LOOKING AT OTHER PHOTOS ON THE SITE SUBMITTED BY OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS, AND LEARNING FROM THE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS OFFERED THERE. IF THERE ARE NO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS AND JUST A BUNCH OF COMPLIMENTS, I AND ANY OTHER PERSON WHO VIEWS THE SHOT CANNOT LEARN FROM THE CONSTRUCTIVE ADVICE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LEFT AND SUBSEQUENTLY DELETED FROM THE SHOT.
I am done. |
I don't disagree that photographers should not be able to cherry-pick the comments on their photos. What I do object to is comments that are about the model, not the photograph. Say what you will about the composition, lighting, focus, DOF or what-have-you, but leave insensitive criticism of the model's body/appearance out of it.
I'd expect shout 'n pout from my toddler, not from a member of the SC; disappointing.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:39:21 PM · #152 |
That comment that Leroy managed to remove, the one about the $20, was actually a comment that was something like "hurry up and pay her $20, she looks bored" which was a reference to the fact that you pay models, and the model DID look bored in the photo. Nowhere was sex, whore, hooker, or any other sort of seedy reference made. Lying and stirring up trouble to "make a point" will not be well received by anyone, including Site Council as it is against the forum rules.
Believe it or not, we respect Leroy, and though he's deserved it well before this thread, we haven't taken any sanctions YET against him for deliberately posting inflammatory comments "to get our attention." This is not the first time Leroy has done this, either, but of course that is so easily forgotten in the face of this "grave injustice".
We remove comments that can be interpreted to violate the terms of service and have no critical value. If there is critical value and there is more than one way to reasonable interpret a comment, we assume the "good faith" interpretation. We stand by our decisions and we know not everyone will always agree. But we strive to be fair, and we do balance the rights of the commenter with the rights of the photographer, and we DO give deference to photographers, but their thoughts are not the bottom line.
I think that is all I really have to say on this topic. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:42:18 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by frisca:
That comment that Leroy managed to remove, the one about the $20, was actually a comment that was something like "hurry up and pay her $20, she looks bored" which was a reference to the fact that you pay models, and the model DID look bored in the photo. Nowhere was sex, whore, hooker, or any other sort of seedy reference made. Lying and stirring up trouble to "make a point" will not be well received by anyone, including Site Council as it is against the forum rules.
|
That's the problem with interpretation isn't it?
Frisca, I guess I just misinterpreted that you openly called me a liar too.
Originally posted by frisca:
Believe it or not, we respect Leroy, and though he's deserved it well before this thread, we haven't taken any sanctions YET against him for deliberately posting inflammatory comments "to get our attention." This is not the first time Leroy has done this, either, but of course that is so easily forgotten in the face of this "grave injustice". |
Being suspended is non-action?
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 15:50:18.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:42:35 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
We;re talking about third parties here - people that have not asked to be judged. |
That's my point, when you publicly post a photo, especially nude, you are pretty much asking to be judged. Everyone that looks at the photo judges it. Some shar it, some don't.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:43:11 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by frisca:
That comment that Leroy managed to remove, the one about the $20, was actually a comment that was something like "hurry up and pay her $20, she looks bored" which was a reference to the fact that you pay models, and the model DID look bored in the photo. Nowhere was sex, whore, hooker, or any other sort of seedy reference made. Lying and stirring up trouble to "make a point" will not be well received by anyone, including Site Council as it is against the forum rules.
Believe it or not, we respect Leroy, and though he's deserved it well before this thread, we haven't taken any sanctions YET against him for deliberately posting inflammatory comments "to get our attention." This is not the first time Leroy has done this, either, but of course that is so easily forgotten in the face of this "grave injustice".
We remove comments that can be interpreted to violate the terms of service and have no critical value. If there is critical value and there is more than one way to reasonable interpret a comment, we assume the "good faith" interpretation. We stand by our decisions and we know not everyone will always agree. But we strive to be fair, and we do balance the rights of the commenter with the rights of the photographer, and we DO give deference to photographers, but their thoughts are not the bottom line.
I think that is all I really have to say on this topic. |
your response is to Leroy's specific instance though and while it has been used as an example and was a catalyst for this "Web site suggestion" I think it's been shown that there is a problem in general with the comment system and that there are some solutions that may work for everyone. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:47:33 PM · #156 |
The thing about this is, What if the person that left you the comment about the dancer looking like a 12 year old, assuming this is one that was deleted and if not just for the sake of example pretend it was. If this person comes back with a new comment that says, You sure made this professional dancer look like a 12 year old girl playing dress up etc... which directs the comment at you and not your model. How would you balance this out?
Originally posted by nomad469:
I have had comments removed by SC. One that comes into mind was a comment about one on my dancer images that commented that she "looked like a 12 year old playing dress up at goodwill" NOTHING about the image and the dancer is an accomplished professional performer.
So Yea ... there does need to be a mechanism for not only removing comments but BANNING users that make them ... You can call my images crap all day ... but don't insult my models. |
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:50:05 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by frisca:
That comment that Leroy managed to remove, the one about the $20, was actually a comment that was something like "hurry up and pay her $20, she looks bored" which was a reference to the fact that you pay models, and the model DID look bored in the photo. Nowhere was sex, whore, hooker, or any other sort of seedy reference made. Lying and stirring up trouble to "make a point" will not be well received by anyone, including Site Council as it is against the forum rules.
Believe it or not, we respect Leroy, and though he's deserved it well before this thread, we haven't taken any sanctions YET against him for deliberately posting inflammatory comments "to get our attention." This is not the first time Leroy has done this, either, but of course that is so easily forgotten in the face of this "grave injustice".
We remove comments that can be interpreted to violate the terms of service and have no critical value. If there is critical value and there is more than one way to reasonable interpret a comment, we assume the "good faith" interpretation. We stand by our decisions and we know not everyone will always agree. But we strive to be fair, and we do balance the rights of the commenter with the rights of the photographer, and we DO give deference to photographers, but their thoughts are not the bottom line.
I think that is all I really have to say on this topic. |
It's entirely possible that the specific comment about "pay her $20" could have been misinterpreted, that's an issue of poor communication on the part of the commenter. However, I've seen other instances of rude comments regarding a model's physical attributes that simply would not be tolerated elsewhere. Anyone remember this shot?  . That some of the comments on that image were allowed to stand is an embarrassment to DPC.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:53:53 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
What if they said "next time use a white model"? Where do you draw the line? |
Given the background and lighting that is a very valid comment. Just as suggesting a red head or a blond would be. Just as it would be okay to say you should have used green apples in that still life, or pink roses instead of white. |
It's not valid at all. "Use a rimlight to separate your model from the background" is constructive.
To be honest and open with you, you are definitely showing your inexperience with working with human subjects. |
So there is not a scene/backdrop/situation were a black model would look better then a white model, or vice-versa? Sure you can use lighting or whatever to make a model look their best in a situation, but honestly, have you never seen a photo where you thought, "in that situation, a different model would have just been so much better". You've never been on a shoot where you wished you had a model with different color hair or skin? think outside the studio where you can't make your background and lighting perfect for the model.
Yeah, I don't shoot people. However, everytime I go out shooting I say to myself, if only that door were green, if only those flowers were orange, if only the water was blue...
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:56:14 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Just have a button that says something like "Submit for Clarity"... |
That works for me. |
I second it.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:56:59 PM · #160 |
I don't understand why the commenter gets the same rights as me the photog. It's my image, if I find the comment rude, regardless of anyone else's opinion, it should be deleted plain and simple.
Even if I don't have a button I can click myself.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 15:57:40. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 03:58:36 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
The thing about this is, What if the person that left you the comment about the dancer looking like a 12 year old, assuming this is one that was deleted and if not just for the sake of example pretend it was. If this person comes back with a new comment that says, You sure made this professional dancer look like a 12 year old girl playing dress up etc... which directs the comment at you and not your model. How would you balance this out?
Originally posted by nomad469:
I have had comments removed by SC. One that comes into mind was a comment about one on my dancer images that commented that she "looked like a 12 year old playing dress up at goodwill" NOTHING about the image and the dancer is an accomplished professional performer.
So Yea ... there does need to be a mechanism for not only removing comments but BANNING users that make them ... You can call my images crap all day ... but don't insult my models. |
|
Funny that you should ask :)
In that case the person that made the comment was a person that was herself a dancer.
She IMHO taking a shot at the dancer and/or the form of dance. Lot of baggage with that issue so I will leave it at that ...
In your example I could have handled it much different ... because "I made her look like a 12 year old ...yak yak yack" suggests that I could have done something different to improve the image. A PM asking what could I have done different would have been my next action.
Just to make it clear. I do not mind harsh criticism I have been reduced to a "teenager with a X-15" my one of my Professors in college so steel sharpens steel in my mind. But I have never had a model attacked like I have seen happen here with me and others.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 16:00:39.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:07:02 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
DPC is in a minority in lack of photographer control of content related to his/her images. |
An excellent point... this is one of the few places on the internet where you can learn from critical viewer opinions. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:08:05 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I don't understand why the commenter gets the same rights as me the photog. It's my image, if I find the comment rude, regardless of anyone else's opinion, it should be deleted plain and simple.
Even if I don't have a button I can click myself. |
I do agree with you, but how many people here think "out of focus" or "does not meet the challenge" or "not sharp enough" or "should have used neat image" is rude?
How would you feel if you spent 15-20 minutes commenting on a photo and some thin skinned person deleted it because you suggested their lighting was a little off? Personally, it would make me not want to waste my time leaving comments anymore...
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:09:15 PM · #164 |
I don't know if SC remembers how quickly (or has a record of) a recent thread post of mine was hidden involving Slippy and a dutch oven. You quickly interpreted that as inappropriate ... and likely rightfully so, although I didn't and likely Slippy would not have.
Just because SC doesn't find a comment inappropriate doesn't mean, I or my model won't.
If I leave a comment that says "I don't like that your model's head is covered in a rag" might that not offend some? If I say, "Your model is blacker than the ace of spades." I think that would really piss off a few here (including me).
If I say, "unattractive stomach" it might not be so offensive to the general population of the site, but to me, it's offensive. I find those that comment in that way shallow and uneducated and against the way I think of people or how I want them to be treated.
I think I deserve the same rights to have a comment deleted. I don't have to do it myself, but if I push that report post button, I'm asking for customer service. Quite frankly, I and others would not complain if that customer service was being given.
Shall we outsource to India?
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 16:11:44.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:10:47 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I don't understand why the commenter gets the same rights as me the photog. It's my image, if I find the comment rude, regardless of anyone else's opinion, it should be deleted plain and simple.
Even if I don't have a button I can click myself. |
I do agree with you, but how many people here think "out of focus" or "does not meet the challenge" or "not sharp enough" or "should have used neat image" is rude?
How would you feel if you spent 15-20 minutes commenting on a photo and some thin skinned person deleted it because you suggested their lighting was a little off? Personally, it would make me not want to waste my time leaving comments anymore... |
Sure I hear ya and you are correct in that, but a comment like
"Gross - Before photographing her, you should have taken her to McDonald's and bought her a Big Mac and some Fries."
that was made on Toy's image below has got to be deleted. I think that is what we are talking about. Comments that rip on the model or are in poor taste should be removed even if they don't violate the TOS but offend the photog, they should be deleted.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 16:11:34. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:10:56 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
... I say backwards thinking, because DPC is in a minority in lack of photographer control of content related to his/her images. |
Perhaps a limited amount of control would work?
The following is from , a stock site I'm signed up with (check my profile). Users can remove ratings/feedback, but on a limited basis (you only have so many "credits" to use). I've used mine 5 times in 2 1/2 years to toss out an unusually low rating/feedback (scale is 1-10). Here, ratings can determine how high your image shows in the site search engine (buyer's use this).
***** Start info from the site *****
Remove Feedback
Ability to remove feedback is designed to make it easy to filter out offensive, rude or meaningless ratings or comments. You should not use it for comments or ratings that you simply disagree with. Please note that encourages everyone to share their opinions regardless of whether they are praise or criticism, and many times these opinions are different from what you may have expected, however that reason alone should not be the reason to remove any comments or ratings.
Every time you remove someone's comment or rating, you reduce the number of times you can use this feature in the future. When there are no more removals left on your account, it will be impossible to rid of any offensive feedback, so please use your it wisely. Note that the person whose feedback you are removing will lose 10 rating points.
The number of times you can remove someone's rating or comment is set as 10% of the total number of all individual anonymous numeric ratings you have received on current images in your account, less the number of removals you have already used.
Total number of times you could remove your rater's feedback: 22
Number of times you have removed your rater's feedback: 5
Available: 17
***** end info from the site ***** |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:13:40 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The comment I'm really pissed about is gone...I deleted the photo and the commenter deleted his comment after I retaliated.
However, it implied the model looked like a $20 whore. You want to defend that defamation suit?
Maybe, I should drop it. Let people say anything they want and instruct models to file suits against the publisher! |
Leroy, I believe this is what Frisca may be referring to. The comment said nothing about a $20 whore. Yet, by saying it implied that, and then the original comment gets "erased," it looks like SC wouldn't hide a comment stating that. If it had said, "Pay that $20 whore; she looks bored," it would have been hidden, quickly. BUT, it didn't say that. When I read it, I interpreted it the same way Frisca did above. "She looks bored, give her 20 bucks and let her go on her way; you're wasting her time."
This would be another classic example of pm'ing the commenter politely and saying, "I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't quite understand what you meant by your comment of "blah blah blah" on my picture "arrangement of pixels." could you please clarify on the shot what you meant. Thank you."
I know that takes a few more minutes, but it could be so much more helpful. Then, if the commenter replied back and said, "I meant that you needed to pay the whore $20" the whole scenario changes. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:14:41 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
DPC is in a minority in lack of photographer control of content related to his/her images. |
An excellent point... this is one of the few places on the internet where you can learn from critical viewer opinions. |
Oh please...blanket statement which could definitely be successfully debated.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:16:33 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
DPC is in a minority in lack of photographer control of content related to his/her images. |
An excellent point... this is one of the few places on the internet where you can learn from critical viewer opinions. |
Or people can have a free (or nearly so)reign to insult the models. There are plenty of other sties where it's possible to comment on other's photos and such behavior is not tolerated.
Message edited by author 2008-02-18 16:17:26.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:19:41 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The comment I'm really pissed about is gone...I deleted the photo and the commenter deleted his comment after I retaliated.
However, it implied the model looked like a $20 whore. You want to defend that defamation suit?
Maybe, I should drop it. Let people say anything they want and instruct models to file suits against the publisher! |
Leroy, I believe this is what Frisca may be referring to. The comment said nothing about a $20 whore. Yet, by saying it implied that, and then the original comment gets "erased," it looks like SC wouldn't hide a comment stating that. If it had said, "Pay that $20 whore; she looks bored," it would have been hidden, quickly. BUT, it didn't say that. When I read it, I interpreted it the same way Frisca did above. "She looks bored, give her 20 bucks and let her go on her way; you're wasting her time."
This would be another classic example of pm'ing the commenter politely and saying, "I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't quite understand what you meant by your comment of "blah blah blah" on my picture "arrangement of pixels." could you please clarify on the shot what you meant. Thank you."
I know that takes a few more minutes, but it could be so much more helpful. Then, if the commenter replied back and said, "I meant that you needed to pay the whore $20" the whole scenario changes. |
This is a great example of why we need a system in place - interpretation. You interpreted it one way, Leroy another. You are right, the commenter should have a chance to clarify. But if the photographer were to PM them and no response was received then it should be "no contest" and the comment removed. While waiting for a response (or lack there of) the comment should be hidden so no further harm can be done. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:21:32 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I don't understand why the commenter gets the same rights as me the photog. It's my image, if I find the comment rude, regardless of anyone else's opinion, it should be deleted plain and simple.
Even if I don't have a button I can click myself. |
I do agree with you, but how many people here think "out of focus" or "does not meet the challenge" or "not sharp enough" or "should have used neat image" is rude?
How would you feel if you spent 15-20 minutes commenting on a photo and some thin skinned person deleted it because you suggested their lighting was a little off? Personally, it would make me not want to waste my time leaving comments anymore... |
Sure I hear ya and you are correct in that, but a comment like
"Gross - Before photographing her, you should have taken her to McDonald's and bought her a Big Mac and some Fries."
that was made on Toy's image below has got to be deleted. I think that is what we are talking about. Comments that rip on the model or are in poor taste should be removed even if they don't violate the TOS but offend the photog, they should be deleted. |
My question is how do these types of comments NOT violate the TOS?
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 |
Especially the "good taste" part.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:23:37 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
... This is a great example of why we need a system in place - interpretation. You interpreted it one way... |
You mean like the rulesets and DQ's, forum rules, or the Terms of Service? If we let everything default to the photographer's judgement why even have SC in the first place? What a zoo that would be! |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:24:01 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Sure I hear ya and you are correct in that, but a comment like
"Gross - Before photographing her, you should have taken her to McDonald's and bought her a Big Mac and some Fries."
that was made on Toy's image below has got to be deleted. I think that is what we are talking about. Comments that rip on the model or are in poor taste should be removed even if they don't violate the TOS but offend the photog, they should be deleted. |
Agree 100%. If Toy requested deletion and SC refused, shame shame shame on SC!
Plus it's really bad advice! Big mac and fries would leave a little bulge in her belly (I've heard photogs suggest their models not eat the day of a shoot) and that other person would say "not an attractive belly"!!!
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:25:46 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Sure I hear ya and you are correct in that, but a comment like
"Gross - Before photographing her, you should have taken her to McDonald's and bought her a Big Mac and some Fries."
that was made on Toy's image below has got to be deleted. I think that is what we are talking about. Comments that rip on the model or are in poor taste should be removed even if they don't violate the TOS but offend the photog, they should be deleted. |
Agree 100%. If Toy requested deletion and SC refused, shame shame shame on SC!
Plus it's really bad advice! Big mac and fries would leave a little bulge in her belly (I've heard photogs suggest their models not eat the day of a shoot) and that other person would say "not an attractive belly"!!! |
:-)) LOL |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:27:03 PM · #175 |
Okay, I've got to have my say, for what it's worth.
Critique my photos, reaffirm the fact that I am completely useless, that's fine.
Suggest ways I could improve my photos. That is the concept of DPC.
Flame me if I claim my fatass mate is the latest male supermodel. Or a female friend is black, when she is plainly white!
But is there any real need to comment on a model who isn't quite the shape you prefer? Look at the technique used, the quality of the shot, but don't badmouth someone who has the balls to pose for a photo!
We need some kind of way of maintaining the principles of the site and commentators, whilst protecting the photog and his/her models. I agree that there should be an option to 'Submit For Clarification' on comments and a further options to remove any comments that offend the models used, not the photog.
The photog, by posting, leaves themselves open to any comments that are deemed appropriate. Personal insults are not a useful aspect of the right to comment.
That's my bit:) |
|
