| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2004 04:03:49 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by mykoleary:
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If it was gonna happen, it should have happened before the challenge ended. |
Yes John, you mentioned that. Thanks. I also stated that it was a mistake that it was happening at the same time switchover was happening and unfortunately switchover happened first. I apologized for this. Sorry if you can't accept it. |
That is a total cop out.
What I find impossible to accept is that it took 6 days to come to this decison. Several SC members have stated flat out that there was no choice due to the rules and lack of leniency.
If there's bad EXIF data, why is there still a vote? That means that there IS a chance that a photo will NOT be DQd with bad EXIF data, and that is just flat out wrong.
The SC has made a point to be strict on this, yet they aren't strict? What's with the inconsistency? If you are (as has been said) strict on bad EXIF data, this should have been a gimme vote.
Shame on you all. |
We do this on our own time, from all points around the world. We don't get together and meet every day like some corporation or government or something.
The site admin (owner) was involved in working on a site upgrade and missed hitting the DQ button, by one minute, changing the circumstances but not the facts.
Like I've said before, if you want to raise the membership fee to $2500, the SC can afford devote all of their attention to timely disqualifications. Otherwise, I'm afraid this is the best quality site management you're going to get.
In case you didn't notice, I'm not feeling very ashamed about this -- sorry I can't bring myself to be more accomodating. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 04:12:59 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Ahhhh. A happy ending! |
Ooops... spoke to soon.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 04:33:25 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Ahhhh. A happy ending! |
Ooops... spoke to soon. |
So I responded before reading the whole thread (come on it was 4 pages!) If mavrik is happy, then I guess this situation turned out alright.
I could care less about DQ before/after the ending, and missing timing by several minutes. What torques me is that the SC says here are the rules. We follow them to the T. Break them and you'll get DQ'd
Oh wait, I'm sorry, you want to submit more proof to fight your case? OK, we'll look at it and take 6 days to vote on it.
Look, SC, either you vote on THE RULES or you don't. You say you do, but your actions show you don't. Get your act together. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 06:07:04 AM · #104 |
I don't mean to be callous, but this wouldn't be such an issue if the shot hadn't ribboned or finished top-10. I do sympathize with Mavrick for the ribbon loss, but I have to say that I approve of the SC decision.
[runs for cover]
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 07:14:54 AM · #105 |
O.K. there has apparently been a honest mistake, people should not get too upset about it, but it does reveal also a more underlying fundamental SC issue.
Just looking at the discussions here in this thread (and some others over the recent past), it seems to me the workload on the SC has increased to a level where things start to go wrong, get delayed, cause frustration.
I would suggest the SC rethinks their activities and tries to minimise workload again. For example, in the new rules there are some very black and white criteria for DQ and there are some which require interpretation.
If it is a black and white one, such as EXIF date versus challenge period, just one person should be able to take action. Don't involve the whole SC.
If it is another, like the amount and type of editing, you involve the SC to do a voting round.
Be careful not to loose those great volunteers in the SC because it is not fun anymore, because it just becomes a burden. Keep up the good work, but make it simpler.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 09:07:05 AM · #106 |
Thank you, Willem. This is a thoughtful and proactive post.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 10:01:56 AM · #107 |
| Lost in the uproar over mavrik's DQ is the fact that three people won their first ribbon. Congrats to antimethod, toddhead and riley! |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 10:33:43 AM · #108 |
Sorry coolhar - I've already posted on each of their pics congratulating them for their ribbons and great shots. All are exceptional and deserving of a top 3 placement.
(it would have been my first ribbon too lol)
M |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 12:48:34 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by mykoleary:
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Ahhhh. A happy ending! |
Ooops... spoke to soon. |
So I responded before reading the whole thread (come on it was 4 pages!) If mavrik is happy, then I guess this situation turned out alright.
I could care less about DQ before/after the ending, and missing timing by several minutes. What torques me is that the SC says here are the rules. We follow them to the T. Break them and you'll get DQ'd
Oh wait, I'm sorry, you want to submit more proof to fight your case? OK, we'll look at it and take 6 days to vote on it.
Look, SC, either you vote on THE RULES or you don't. You say you do, but your actions show you don't. Get your act together. |
Get our act together? I work a part time job and have two small businesses to run. We do vote on the rules, and I am sorry the timeframe doesn't suit you.
As far as our actions, it is because the majority did vote on the rules that this entire thread even has to exist.
have a nice day. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:03:25 PM · #110 |
Why does everything on DPC as of late seem to be blown out of proportion? Whats the big deal really. The shot got DQed for legit reasons. So what? It's a great shot, everyone agrees but it violated the rules on a technical stand point.
I dont understand why the SC it being reamed for this. Who cares when it got DQed? Hey, at least most of us know that it won 2nd place. That's better than it being DQed before the results isn't it?
WHy are we so qyick to condemn the SC? Why are we using words like "shame" & "et your act together" crap? It has already been explain a BILLION more times than it needs to be as to why this happened! Can we PLEASE give it a freaking rest!!?!
I dont know what the tension is between certain people & the SC but I really dont care for it. Get over it already & let's please move on!
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:22:13 PM · #111 |
"Why does everything on DPC as of late seem to be blown out of proportion?"
Seems like this one got blowed up cuz mav and a couple of his groupies wanted to call attention to the pic. It's ok but I wouldn't call it great. Glad you guys decided to be nicey-nicey and kissed it all up here at the end because I'M ALL OUT OF CHEESE.
Maybe I oughta get a pic dqed so everybody can say how great it was and how I was robbed. Guess I cud screw with the date in my cam.
SC did the right thing, just goofed on the timing. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:27:41 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by willem:
O.K. there has apparently been a honest mistake, people should not get too upset about it, but it does reveal also a more underlying fundamental SC issue.
Just looking at the discussions here in this thread (and some others over the recent past), it seems to me the workload on the SC has increased to a level where things start to go wrong, get delayed, cause frustration.
I would suggest the SC rethinks their activities and tries to minimise workload again. For example, in the new rules there are some very black and white criteria for DQ and there are some which require interpretation.
If it is a black and white one, such as EXIF date versus challenge period, just one person should be able to take action. Don't involve the whole SC.
If it is another, like the amount and type of editing, you involve the SC to do a voting round.
Be careful not to loose those great volunteers in the SC because it is not fun anymore, because it just becomes a burden. Keep up the good work, but make it simpler. |
It's funny that of all the people here, you are the only one to suggest a change to prevent what happened. The SC has been too busy justifying themselves to be proactive into assuaging people that they ARE doing the right thing.
SC, you screwed up, you admitted it. That's admirable. Now stop being so defensive about it being volunteer, or running two businesses. Do something about the problem, and explain what is being done. That's how good management works.
In that vein:
Another idea might be to expand the SC to include more people and have the voting requirements change such that EVERY SC member does not have to vote on EVERY DQ request.
Perhaps add a system where more votes for DQ are required for a picture to be thrown into the DQ pile.
It would be nice to be able to DQ a picture, but still have it stick around in the system w/o being deleted. Many reasons: photographer gets to keep the comments, people get to see good work, they could be called out such that people can search for DQs and see what NOT to do.
Granted the third takes time w/o alleviating any, so I wouldn't see it as a priority; however, the first two alleviate time pressures on the SC so that there aren't times when votes that should take 30 seconds take 6 days. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:33:34 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by MinAlex:
Seems like this one got blowed up cuz mav and a couple of his groupies wanted to call attention to the pic. |
Not at all the case. I don't even know Mavrik, nor am I his groupie. In fact, besides being a good picture, it just doesn't strike me in that "must stir people up" kind of way.
If you'd take the time to look at my profile, you'd see I'm one of the original members of the site, and thus have seen a great deal of history here with DQs as well as the founding and subsequent operation of the SC. Granted, I haven't submitted in quite a while, but I've been watching the boards pretty well.
Right decison, wrong way, really wrong explanation. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:41:36 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by MinAlex:
Seems like this one got blowed up cuz mav and a couple of his groupies wanted to call attention to the pic. It's ok but I wouldn't call it great. Glad you guys decided to be nicey-nicey and kissed it all up here at the end because I'M ALL OUT OF CHEESE. |
I don't know you. That simple fact just made my day better. Thanks.
:)
M |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:49:37 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by mykoleary:
It's funny that of all the people here, you are the only one to suggest a change to prevent what happened. The SC has been too busy justifying themselves to be proactive into assuaging people that they ARE doing the right thing. |
If people would stop asking why, we would stop explaining. :-)And just because you don't see our action doesn't mean that action isn't taking place.
Originally posted by mykoleary:
SC, you screwed up, you admitted it. That's admirable. Now stop being so defensive about it being volunteer, or running two businesses. Do something about the problem, and explain what is being done. That's how good management works. |
Defensive? No, trying to explain why a situation that you asked about why it happened. The problem? The problem is that we have a rule about dates outside of EXIF, and a good pic was dq'ed because of it. Or the problem of taking 6 days? We are working on it. What specifically do you wnat in the way of updates of our progress?
Originally posted by mykoleary:
In that vein:
Another idea might be to expand the SC to include more people and have the voting requirements change such that EVERY SC member does not have to vote on EVERY DQ request.
Perhaps add a system where more votes for DQ are required for a picture to be thrown into the DQ pile. |
Not everyone has to vote. Majority rules. In this case, it was so close, it basically required all of them to vote. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but usually only 9 or 10 of the 14 (I think) vote on each picture. Adding more people might help in some ways, but I think we still need a majority vote, and it seems to me that might take more time.
Originally posted by mykoleary:
It would be nice to be able to DQ a picture, but still have it stick around in the system w/o being deleted. Many reasons: photographer gets to keep the comments, people get to see good work, they could be called out such that people can search for DQs and see what NOT to do. |
As you probably know, this has been discussed both in the public forums and within the SC quite a bit. The reasons you point out are valid. Not all dq's are good (in regards to quality) though, and in the end it would "reward" those who deliberatly and blatantly violate the rules. And it would seem that for a person who was dq'ed for an innocent mistake is lumped into the same shady category as someone who cheated to cheat. The arguments could go on.
Originally posted by mykoleary:
Granted the third takes time w/o alleviating any, so I wouldn't see it as a priority; however, the first two alleviate time pressures on the SC so that there aren't times when votes that should take 30 seconds take 6 days. |
30 seconds would be nice. I think a more realistic expectation would be 2 - 3 days, though.
Message edited by author 2004-05-05 13:55:19. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:52:40 PM · #116 |
| mykoleary, I didn't have you in the groupie group, sorry. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 01:53:15 PM · #117 |
At Worth1000 they have something called a suicide letter. When a client gets upset and threatens to quit, they take them for their word and close their account immediately. What a nice idea.
If your leaving mav,,,,,shut up and go. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 02:01:22 PM · #118 |
People were all in a tizzy before because the "Spirit" of the DPC rules were not being respected, allowing severe image-manipulated/rendered photos to be entered into challenges and win. So the SC stepped up and re-wrote the rules to be more specific, and now things are pretty clear and everyone seems content.
With the EXIF date rule, things are quite clear. Its actually the most black and white a rule could possibly be. So much so, that I don't see the point of the SC even having to vote on it. The last line on the rules page literally says "We will no longer accept this an excuse. You have been forewarned." So why the vote?
Personally, I think this is foolish. If the SC is already willing to devote their time and energy to putting such an issue to vote, then the "spirit" of the rule should be recognized. If people can provide compelling evidence that proves beyond what the EXIF data shows that their photo was taken during the proper dates, the SC should be able to weigh that evidence and consider it for themselves as they vote.
Otherwise, just don't vote. That way, you can avoid scenarios like the one that caused the preceding tirade.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 02:05:07 PM · #119 |
phew, I got through the full thread (eventually)
From a newbies point of view...
If I were out taking pictures to be entered in a challenge I'd rank checking the date almost as highly as taking off the lens cap!
Did somebody request a DQ on the pic? is that why evidence was given? if no request was made then it would have won a ribbon and been DQ'd when the original was requested (top 5 rule).
I think it was mentioned earlier that if this happened to 'me' I'd be mad, very mad - with myself.
I admire the SC and the work they do (I administer a forum and at times it can be a real pain). IMHO the only mistook made by SC members was entering into this 'discussion' Bad EXIF = DQ end of story??
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 02:05:39 PM · #120 |
Wow, it's been a long time I haven't posted here, nothing has changed.
Anyhow, the lawyer will speak here ;o)
EXIF is wrong, Mavrik's responsability. Rules are rules. BUT, to DQ outside the challenge especially when he replied 6 days before the end of voting, that is wrong to me. I understand that SC are human beings, act as SC on their free time (which is great from them BTW)but being DQ after you get the results is not fair. If there is a time limit to the challenge, same limit should apply for DQs. I remember a photo that had been submitted in a Challenge and long after the end of the challenge someone came with the proof this picture couldn't have been taken within challenge dates (because the weather was snow on that week and the photo showed no snow at all - it was a picture of a monument with names of soldiers or something like that), well in that case, if I'm correct SC consider it was too late to DQ because challenge was ended. There should be a consistency to the rules regarding DQ exactly as it is for EXIF information. What is exactly the time limit to DQ? one minute or one week or one year?
This is just my humble opinion.
CHEERS!
Nathalie |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 02:35:47 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by karmat:
We are working on it. What specifically do you wnat in the way of updates of our progress? |
I read the rules and followed them, and expected them to be applied to everybody. This sounds to not necessarily be the case, and that upsets me as being majorly unfair.
One update I'd like is to see what issues are open to interpretation, and which are not. In the case of bad EXIF data and dates, it seems from this thread alone that even the SC is not currently unanimous in this decison (which is scary BTW...)
There was something else, but I'm getting sleepy and forget exactly what, so I'll have to post if/when I remember it.
Originally posted by karmat:
In this case, it was so close, it basically required all of them to vote. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but usually only 9 or 10 of the 14 (I think) vote on each picture. Adding more people might help in some ways, but I think we still need a majority vote, and it seems to me that might take more time. |
This is w/o much thought, so there may be flaws. It sounds like right now it's 14 members, with a majority vote needed to make a call one way or the other (8 votes).
A possible change would be to have let's say 20 SC members with a picture being DQ'd or not once acheiving votes of a certain level, say 8 or 9.
If the SC "rules of engagment" are spelled out, then they should be easy to fairly apply, whether or not a particular SC member agrees with them.
Originally posted by karmat:
As you probably know, this has been discussed both in the public forums and within the SC quite a bit. The reasons you point out are valid. Not all dq's are good (in regards to quality) though, and in the end it would "reward" those who deliberatly and blatantly violate the rules. And it would seem that for a person who was dq'ed for an innocent mistake is lumped into the same shady category as someone who cheated to cheat. The arguments could go on. |
Hey, I was on a roll... :) I won't even try to argue the call made on this one.
Originally posted by karmat:
30 seconds would be nice. I think a more realistic expectation would be 2 - 3 days, though. |
Absolutley agreed. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 02:50:07 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Why does everything on DPC as of late seem to be blown out of proportion? Whats the big deal really. The shot got DQed for legit reasons. So what? It's a great shot, everyone agrees but it violated the rules on a technical stand point.
I dont understand why the SC it being reamed for this. Who cares when it got DQed? Hey, at least most of us know that it won 2nd place. That's better than it being DQed before the results isn't it?
WHy are we so qyick to condemn the SC? Why are we using words like "shame" & "et your act together" crap? It has already been explain a BILLION more times than it needs to be as to why this happened! Can we PLEASE give it a freaking rest!!?!
I dont know what the tension is between certain people & the SC but I really dont care for it. Get over it already & let's please move on! |
Completely agree.
I can't believe there's been a 5 page uproar over a DQ that was 1 minute past the rollover. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 03:10:15 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Why does everything on DPC as of late seem to be blown out of proportion? Whats the big deal really. The shot got DQed for legit reasons. So what? It's a great shot, everyone agrees but it violated the rules on a technical stand point.
I dont understand why the SC it being reamed for this. Who cares when it got DQed? Hey, at least most of us know that it won 2nd place. That's better than it being DQed before the results isn't it?
WHy are we so qyick to condemn the SC? Why are we using words like "shame" & "et your act together" crap? It has already been explain a BILLION more times than it needs to be as to why this happened! Can we PLEASE give it a freaking rest!!?!
I dont know what the tension is between certain people & the SC but I really dont care for it. Get over it already & let's please move on! |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Completely agree.
I can't believe there's been a 5 page uproar over a DQ that was 1 minute past the rollover. |
Amen. Maybe all the folks bickering back and forth can go vote on a rust picture or two...there's only 447 to choose from!!! :-P
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 03:27:44 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by mykoleary:
One update I'd like is to see what issues are open to interpretation, and which are not. In the case of bad EXIF data and dates, it seems from this thread alone that even the SC is not currently unanimous in this decison (which is scary BTW...)
|
Why is it scary? The members of the SC do not share one brain. The idea is that a range of opinions in the SC will accurately represent the range of opinions throughout the users of the site. That is why we vote. Otherwise, every decision could just be left up to one person.
What has been explained before and what I'll say again is that this is an issue that we are currently discussing, which is why it took so long to determine our final stance on Mavrik's photo. Will all photos with improper dates be automatically DQed or will we consider the submission of other evidence in making our final choice? The members of the SC have differing opinions on the issue, just as I'm sure many of the members of the site do.
It's unfortunate that we took too long to make a decision on this photo and members of the SC have apologized ad naseum in the forums, in chat and to Mavrik. It's also unfortunate that we do not have an immediate, absolutely correct answer for every situation that ever pops up. It's unfortunate that some people seem to think we really pay no attention to any of the issues and that we take too long to do everything, but the reality is that snap judgements help no one. We do the best we can. |
|
|
|
05/05/2004 03:40:24 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by mk:
Will all photos with improper dates be automatically DQed or will we consider the submission of other evidence in making our final choice? The members of the SC have differing opinions on the issue, just as I'm sure many of the members of the site do.
|
I'd have thought you guys were busy enough already? Just imagine if you 'relaxed' what should be a black and rule to allow 'other' evidence to prove the the image was taken within the submission rules. Every week people post images that would have met the current challenge so...
...just imagine the work that this will create with 300+ plus submissions where the camera date is (mistakenly)set to 01/01/2001 and 300 different 'reasons' as to why the picture should be allowed.
|
|
