DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Editorial control over comments
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 442, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/20/2007 02:59:28 PM · #1
I think users should have the ability to exercise editorial control over comments made on their photographs, i.e, they should be able to delete any comment made on their photos by a third party. I believe this is the case with photo.net.

The pros: photographers can graft out comments that have nothing to do with the photograph, comments that belittle one's model, or comments that are borderline libellous. (This isn't to suggest that such comments are commonplace here; in fact, there are refreshingly few, compared to other sites. The worthless obscene noise on YouTube has rendered "commenting" over there completely useless, for example.)

The cons: those with less integrity may use this feature to remove perfectly fair and legitimate comments critical of their skills or work, or other fair comments inappropriately misconstrued as bad.
08/20/2007 03:18:20 PM · #2
I believe users do have (limited) editorial control over comments made on their photographs. That's why we have the button.

Pros: Photographers can ask SC to review a comment for appropriateness. This more impartial review can result in the post being edited or amended or deleted. SC is made aware of a possible problem user.

Cons: It takes slightly longer for a comment to "go away" if it goes at all?

From my point of view the current system is sufficient. I fail to see a dearth of belittling or libelous comments on images posted to this site. As you mention, "such comments are...refreshingly few, compared to other sites." So what's the worry?
08/20/2007 04:11:38 PM · #3
Originally posted by KaDi:

So what's the worry?

Sometimes one is overruled. :) As well, and I didn't mention it in my initial post, but "report post" and so on puts the site administration in the role of "comment police". In my view, a conscientious member is a better judge of what is a wildly inappropriate comment and what is not, more than anyone else.
08/20/2007 04:22:31 PM · #4
Originally posted by Louis:

I think users should have the ability to exercise editorial control over comments made on their photographs, i.e, they should be able to delete any comment made on their photos by a third party. I believe this is the case with photo.net.

The pros: photographers can graft out comments that have nothing to do with the photograph, comments that belittle one's model, or comments that are borderline libellous. (This isn't to suggest that such comments are commonplace here; in fact, there are refreshingly few, compared to other sites. The worthless obscene noise on YouTube has rendered "commenting" over there completely useless, for example.)

The cons: those with less integrity may use this feature to remove perfectly fair and legitimate comments critical of their skills or work, or other fair comments inappropriately misconstrued as bad.


Interesting...the cons really aren't cons IMO...what do I care if someone wants to erase a comment I made?
I don't think I would bother using this feature but it might help some people feel better, and so I am for it.
08/20/2007 04:28:10 PM · #5
Originally posted by bucket:

<snip>...what do I care if someone wants to erase a comment I made? <snip>

Meh. Why even bother making comments anymore?

Hey, theres an idea. Just take away the ability to make any comments at all and then this thread wouldn't be needed either. :|
08/20/2007 04:30:43 PM · #6
Think being able to mark comments as unhelpful (or useless, or demented, or irrelevant, or editorial masturbation that does nothing but make the commentor feel important) would be a better approach. Another stat on people's bios that could be tossed around like boiling oil in the forums.

Message edited by author 2007-08-20 16:30:58.
02/18/2008 05:59:58 PM · #7
Since the other thread was locked. And post hidden (Which is BS in my opinion and just the SC flexing it's muscle) I would like to have my questions answered.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by kirbic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comment in question is a good example of a comment that, while intended to be humorous,


See, that is the crux of the biscuit. How do you know the intent of the person making the comment? And assuming you are correct and it was intended as humor then how can you discount the feelings of the photog and the fact that they were offended? To add to that , why does the commenter get more rights than the photog in getting to keep the comment as opposed to complying with the wish of the photog to have it removed?

Message edited by author 2008-02-18 18:00:56.
02/18/2008 06:03:04 PM · #8
I don't comment anymore. I had too many people PM'ing me to state their case.

I used to be in the Critique Club and was happy to do my bit, but once PM's came in, I decided that enough was enough.

Since we can't discuss other threads, SC locked them. What is the point bothering anymore.

I will stay til my membership runs out.
02/18/2008 06:06:28 PM · #9
feel free to honestly discuss the topic at hand, including referencing locked threads. That other thread was locked (and some posts hidden) because it had gone offtopic into mostly blind rage accusations.
02/18/2008 06:08:31 PM · #10
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Since the other thread was locked. And post hidden (Which is BS in my opinion and just the SC flexing it's muscle) I would like to have my questions answered.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by kirbic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comment in question is a good example of a comment that, while intended to be humorous,


See, that is the crux of the biscuit. How do you know the intent of the person making the comment? And assuming you are correct and it was intended as humor then how can you discount the feelings of the photog and the fact that they were offended? To add to that , why does the commenter get more rights than the photog in getting to keep the comment as opposed to complying with the wish of the photog to have it removed?


I believe I answered quite a bit of this in one of my posts on the other thread. The photographer's thoughts are not secondary to the commenter. They are weighed MORE heavily than the commenter, but they are not the only thing we take into consideration. You should always assume good faith (ie. if it could be rude and it coule be funny, assume its meant to be funny) then you don't have these dilemmas.
02/18/2008 06:09:06 PM · #11
Originally posted by frisca:

feel free to honestly discuss the topic at hand, including referencing locked threads. That other thread was locked (and some posts hidden) because it had gone offtopic into mostly blind rage accusations.


Yes and they should have stayed because they showed the human side of the SC and the fallibility of the power structure. Hiding them and locking the thread only leads to more discontent.

However I am, will and do want to discuss this topic as it holds a great deal of merit and I await my answers...

Message edited by author 2008-02-18 18:12:20.
02/18/2008 06:09:52 PM · #12
waz.. did I not just answer them in that same response you just quoted?
02/18/2008 06:10:24 PM · #13
Originally posted by frisca:



I believe I answered quite a bit of this in one of my posts on the other thread. The photographer's thoughts are not secondary to the commenter. They are weighed MORE heavily than the commenter, but they are not the only thing we take into consideration. You should always assume good faith (ie. if it could be rude and it coule be funny, assume its meant to be funny) then you don't have these dilemmas.


If I assume it to be in good faith or I take it at face value and still I am offended why not comply with my wishes as the owner of the image?
02/18/2008 06:10:55 PM · #14
Simply put, the point that this and several other threads exist clearly show the commenting and report comment structure does not work as is.
02/18/2008 06:20:06 PM · #15
From this thread:

Originally posted by frisca:


Well, after consideration, including the opinions posted in this thread, the option to allow users to delete comments on their own images is not going to be implemented at this time. There are mechanisms in place to deal with the issues raised here, and the negative aspects of this feature far outweigh the positive.


Originally posted by karmat:


...We heard your suggestion. We read arguments for and against. We talked about it. We decided, "No."

You can discuss it till you are blue in the face (or would that be fingers), but at this point in time, for this website, and for the immediate future, it is not a feature that will be implemented.


Just reiterating frisca and karmat for clarity and history.

02/18/2008 06:21:40 PM · #16
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by frisca:



I believe I answered quite a bit of this in one of my posts on the other thread. The photographer's thoughts are not secondary to the commenter. They are weighed MORE heavily than the commenter, but they are not the only thing we take into consideration. You should always assume good faith (ie. if it could be rude and it coule be funny, assume its meant to be funny) then you don't have these dilemmas.


If I assume it to be in good faith or I take it at face value and still I am offended why not comply with my wishes as the owner of the image?


I quoted the above because I am not asking for a button. I am, however asking why you will not comply with the wishes of the owner of the image if he or she is offended by the comment even after considering good faith.
02/18/2008 06:23:32 PM · #17
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by frisca:



I believe I answered quite a bit of this in one of my posts on the other thread. The photographer's thoughts are not secondary to the commenter. They are weighed MORE heavily than the commenter, but they are not the only thing we take into consideration. You should always assume good faith (ie. if it could be rude and it coule be funny, assume its meant to be funny) then you don't have these dilemmas.


If I assume it to be in good faith or I take it at face value and still I am offended why not comply with my wishes as the owner of the image?


I quoted the above because I am not asking for a button. I am, however asking why you will not comply with the wishes of the owner of the image if he or she is offended by the comment even after considering good faith.


Because its not about "complying" with what the photographer wants. Its a weighing of the photographer's wishes vs the ToS, the comment itself and assuming good faith. If all that comes out in favour of keeping the comment, we do that. We have deleted comments when requested, its just not a matter of "ask and it will be done".
02/18/2008 06:28:06 PM · #18
Originally posted by frisca:


Because its not about "complying" with what the photographer wants. Its a weighing of the photographer's wishes vs the ToS, the comment itself and assuming good faith. If all that comes out in favour of keeping the comment, we do that. We have deleted comments when requested, its just not a matter of "ask and it will be done".


I am suggesting, using the example from the other thread "looks like he is urinating", that since she is offended and the comment offers no critique and has no value, that you comply with her wish to remove it. That keeps a member happy and feeling valued. Why would you opt to leave that comment and upset a member for a comment that has no redeeming value?

Message edited by author 2008-02-18 18:29:36.
02/18/2008 06:33:07 PM · #19
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by frisca:


Because its not about "complying" with what the photographer wants. Its a weighing of the photographer's wishes vs the ToS, the comment itself and assuming good faith. If all that comes out in favour of keeping the comment, we do that. We have deleted comments when requested, its just not a matter of "ask and it will be done".


I am suggesting, using the example from the other thread "looks like he is urinating", that since she is offended and the comment offers no critique and has no value, that you comply with her wish to remove it. That keeps a member happy and feeling valued. Why would you opt to leave that comment and upset a member for a comment that has no redeeming value?


I can only speak for myself when I say that I never saw that if she did report it, and I don't know what was discussed about it if it was reported.
02/18/2008 06:34:20 PM · #20
Originally posted by frisca:


I can only speak for myself when I say that I never saw that if she did report it, and I don't know what was discussed about it if it was reported.


Fair enough but lets use the example as a hypothetical.
02/18/2008 06:36:19 PM · #21
Originally posted by frisca:



I can only speak for myself when I say that I never saw that if she did report it, and I don't know what was discussed about it if it was reported.


Ditto. If, and only if, she asks us, we will decide how to deal with it. If it was ever discussed (other than in the public thread) I'm not aware of it.
02/18/2008 06:40:01 PM · #22
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by frisca:



I can only speak for myself when I say that I never saw that if she did report it, and I don't know what was discussed about it if it was reported.


Ditto. If, and only if, she asks us, we will decide how to deal with it. If it was ever discussed (other than in the public thread) I'm not aware of it.


This goes for my understanding of the situation as well.
02/18/2008 06:41:00 PM · #23
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:



Fair enough but lets use the example as a hypothetical.
02/18/2008 06:44:09 PM · #24
sorry, Erik. I feel a little exposed and unprotected to answer your hypothetical. I like to think of each report post as unique and a dialogue, not a one sided "What would you do" sort of situation.
02/18/2008 06:44:47 PM · #25
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by frisca:


I can only speak for myself when I say that I never saw that if she did report it, and I don't know what was discussed about it if it was reported.


Fair enough but lets use the example as a hypothetical.


Also fair enough.
Speaking only or myself, my opinion would be as follows:

It seems to me that the commenter was attempting humor, and it was lost on the photographer. IMO, the comment, though not informative on the photography, does not violate the TOS either. I therefore feel it should stay. I would not be opposed, however, to asking the commenter politely to edit it based on the photographer's feelings.

Should the photog request removal of the comment, the above italicized text would be the opinion I would register on the matter.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:11:38 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 08:11:38 AM EDT.