| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 10:22:01 AM · #351 |
| For anyone wanting a good entry for "waiting" you may meet up with me as I am still in limbo here...22 hours now |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:24:14 AM · #352 |
Originally posted by hopper:
While not the popular thing to say in this thread ... I don't know how anyone can look at these numbers and NOT think there's a problem.
Originally posted by scalvert:
 |
|
Actually I can look at those numbers and see more than one possibility and one that's completely innocent, at that. I understand what the SC see's but to assume only one possibility might not be a 100% accurate conclusion. Data doesn't always make a pure case and I believe this is an instance where the numbers look to tell a story but in fact don't. IMHO a perfect case study where the numbers here, do not tell the true story and that is my honest belief.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 10:26:15. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:24:40 AM · #353 |
Originally posted by hopper:
While not the popular thing to say in this thread ... I don't know how anyone can look at these numbers and NOT think there's a problem. |
Yes, there is, indeed, a problem. You will never be able to give your favorite style of photo high marks without the knowledge that you might be establishing a trend that risks suspension. Not a healthy voting atmosphere. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:25:54 AM · #354 |
I, really have not a lot to say about this whole debacle, to be honest, besides one thing:
It really, really, REALLY, highlights the massive schism that exists on this website, in many places, amongst many people, in so many areas.
Good or bad, for the community or for individuals, this announcement and subsequent fall-out will be, in the end, important. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:26:54 AM · #355 |
I haven't been active lately here, but received a note from Langdon. My scores are too low! Well, they are. I hate HDR, out-of-focus, not meeting the challenge, just ugly shots, helping obvious "brown" seekers, etc. and vote the way they make me feel. I am consistent though and have been for many years. I hate every bodies shots:) The only 10s I get are from Posthumerous, so don't even think about leaving Don. happy fools day
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 10:27:55. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:26:54 AM · #356 |
| By the way I think the people who have been banned are entitled to some proof of their cheating!! |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:33:12 AM · #357 |
I highly recommend that anyone interested in this disaster call up  pointandshoot's profile page. Set the default on challenge entries to "show all" and click the arrow at top left to display the thumbnails of his entries.
There, see that? A very distinct "look" to all these images, don't you think? Is it so hard to imagine that some of us just LOVE this work, find it refreshingly outstanding in its own right? I know I give him consistently high scores, myself... But he sure as hell has never shared his entries with me before voting, or at any time for that matter; we've never exchanged a single communication.
I do respect SC and the job they do, but I have this nagging feeling that this situation with Don isn't what they make it out to be; or at least, not unless their point is that it's not acceptable in DPC to consistently score very high images that *most* of the voters don't think are very good.
Which gives me pause, 'cuz I do that all the time... As far as I can see, the real difference between me and, say, Don, is that I ALSO give high scores to more mainstream images, because I tend to spread my appreciation across a variety of styles...
But maybe I don't really understand the issues here? I'm confused.
R. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:38:25 AM · #358 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But maybe I don't really understand the issues here? I'm confused.
R. |
Yeh, me to, join the club (maybe I should'nt say that!)
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:40:25 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I haven't been active lately here, but received a note from Langdon. My scores are too low! Well, they are. I hate HDR, out-of-focus, not meeting the challenge, just ugly shots, helping obvious "brown" seekers, etc. and vote the way they make me feel. I am consistent though and have been for many years. I hate every bodies shots:) The only 10s I get are from Posthumerous, so don't even think about leaving Don. happy fools day |
At least you are in the "in" group to have received some feedback on your scores. :) I have gone out of my way to vote high for the images I like and low for the images I don't like. Alas, my email inbox is empty. Of course, in situations like this, it is very beneficial to have no friends. No buddies & no foes.... it's a sad state of affairs for me.... hard to target those votes where they'd help me out. :) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:45:13 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I have gone out of my way to vote high for the images I like and low for the images I don't like. |
I don't mean to be difficult, but I find this statement curious; how is this "going out of your way"? Isn't that the way we are SUPPOSED to vote?
Maybe you're being ironic? Wouldn't be the first time a bit of irony has passed right over my head with a whoosh :-)
R. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:47:53 AM · #361 |
SC, thank you for publicly airing the data that led you to your conclusion. Please keep that image available. I'm keeping it on my profile page, so if anyone is curious about what happened to posthumous, they can find it there.
I'm suprised that the idea of a particular artist creating work that appeals to a particular critic defies your imagination to such an extent that you would suspend me without even talking to me first.
I'm proud of this data. It always warms the heart (and stokes the ego) of a critic to know that he consistently recognizes genius.
And thank you for openly stating that part of this decision was based on the fact that my opinion deviates from the norm. You saved me from having to make that argument.
Now I can have my party. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:53:15 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hahn23:
I have gone out of my way to vote high for the images I like and low for the images I don't like. |
I don't mean to be difficult, but I find this statement curious; how is this "going out of your way"? Isn't that the way we are SUPPOSED to vote?
Maybe you're being ironic? Wouldn't be the first time a bit of irony has passed right over my head with a whoosh :-)
R. |
You extracted a portion of my post without using ellipses. In that action, you forgot to include the little smile things. :) Yes, I was being ironic. Geez, it's not the first time you've missed the intent and purpose of my words. Bear_Music, don't you think you are taking this thread too seriously. Seems like you are either perpetuating the hoax, or you've swallowed the hoax "hook, line and sinker". So, if an SC member says, "This is not an April Fool's prank." But, later says, "April Fools!", what will you think?
As an aside, did you see any other AF joke on this site today? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:57:26 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Now I can have my party. |
Am I invited, or do I have to pay you for that, too?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:59:09 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Bear_Music, don't you think you are taking this thread too seriously. Seems like you are either perpetuating the hoax, or you've swallowed the hoax "hook, line and sinker". So, if an SC member says, "This is not an April Fool's prank." But, later says, "April Fools!", what will you think? |
Well, I think it IS serious stuff, actually. IF they announce that it was all a prank, then of course I can be counted among the "fooled", but I think it's gone way beyond that.
As an aside, ellipsis is not required when quoting full sentences, and there was no smiley at the end of that sentence. But anyway, I wasn't busting your chops, I was interested in your response, it wasn't entirely clear to me.
R. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:02:36 AM · #365 |
I think what this boils down to is that Post has voted an 8 and higher 35 times from 2009.
Point has entered 43 challenges, so he has voted 35 times out of 43 at an 8+.
If you look at it that way, it really does look odd.
I like Don and what he brings to this table of DPC, and I hope he carries on doing it
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:05:28 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm suprised that the idea of a particular artist creating work that appeals to a particular critic defies your imagination to such an extent that you would suspend me without even talking to me first. |
Yeah, no shit. That is a very serious problem here. Dumping people (who pay!) with no warning over infractions they have no idea they have committed is balls, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that even one member calls it quits over this kind of thing should keep them up at night, for corn sakes. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:06:31 AM · #367 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ahmadbaara:
Did anyone of the SC confirm that this is not an April fools prank? cant be asked to read the 14 pages ;o |
It's NOT a joke. Confirmed by  Frisca |
No offense to Frisca, but this is the last thing that would convince me this is not an AF joke.
p.s. I picked Kansas. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:08:40 AM · #368 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I, really have not a lot to say about this whole debacle, to be honest, besides one thing:
It really, really, REALLY, highlights the massive schism that exists on this website, in many places, amongst many people, in so many areas.
Good or bad, for the community or for individuals, this announcement and subsequent fall-out will be, in the end, important. |
Too many freakin' commas, dude. :-) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:10:45 AM · #369 |
| Hard data is always a good starting point but some times numbers do not tell the whole story. When I look at the images posthumous has voted high I can see a style we all know he likes so he would naturally vote them accordingly. I believe the images he gave high marks truly are images he enjoys but he is the only person who will ever truly know if he was somewhat swayed by knowing or believing an image to be a friends. Overall I applaud what the SC has done by being as consistent as possible in trying to deal with the issue. It would be far easier to say well that person is popular maybe we should avoid taking action on that person. Right or wrong on each particular decision they had the interest of all participants in trying to maintain a fair playing field. In every case where the person disputes the decision or the action taken I would hope they have the opportunity to have their side of the story heard. I think what we all want is to have the confidence the voting is fair and we get to have some friendly competition. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:11:40 AM · #370 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ahmadbaara:
Did anyone of the SC confirm that this is not an April fools prank? cant be asked to read the 14 pages ;o |
It's NOT a joke. Confirmed by Frisca |
No offense to Frisca, but this is the last thing that would convince me this is not an AF joke.
p.s. I picked Kansas. |
Well  karmat chimed in earlier with the same thing...saying it's NOT an AF joke.
Originally posted by karmat:
This is not, I repeat, this is NOT an April Fool's Joke.
Today is not April 1st (in the server's part of the country). It is NOT an AF joke.
Not. |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:13:23 AM · #371 |
| Post deleted in its entirety. Maybe later... |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:14:59 AM · #372 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Maybe you're being ironic? Wouldn't be the first time a bit of irony has passed right over my head with a whoosh :-)
R. |
I see the irony there, Bear. How do you hear a whoosh? Or do you just feel it ruffling your hair? ;-Þ |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:21:35 AM · #373 |
| Joke or not? At least it has everyone looking inwards at their own "voting integrity"...and that's a good thing for the site, isn't it? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:22:20 AM · #374 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
If you look at it that way, it really does look odd. |
I thought the "manual" part of this weeding-out process was intended to go beyond stats and eliminate the "false positives". What happened?  langdon could have written a script that reached these conclusions, why bother with the "extremely time consuming endeavor". . |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 11:25:25 AM · #375 |
| it should be fairly easy to find another person with a similar style and see how Don voted on that guys stuff ... the same pattern should appear, no? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 12:11:03 PM EDT.
