| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2007 09:18:19 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by rider:
if this is such a problem why not just hide a commenters names till after the challenge is over? |
Well, we were hoping people could just be grown-ups and simply refrain from trying to game the system? :)
You have a good point, and this (as well as other options) are currently on the table.
As of right now, it's not a super huge problem, but it's coming up often enough that we felt it needed to be addressed. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 09:13:56 PM · #2 |
| if this is such a problem why not just hide a commenters names till after the challenge is over? |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 08:58:11 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by L2:
...it is not appropriate to use the PM system to identify your entry to a commenter and also ask them to change their vote. |
So, if a photographer PMs a voter to explain, or even ask for something (other than a request to change their vote), it is okay/legal? |
Scenario 1: Commenter makes comment, obviously missed something or asked a specific (non-rhetorical) question, photog PM's commenter with explanation, this is fine as long as voting or the vote cast isn't mentioned.
Scenario 2: Commenter makes comment, photog disagrees with comment, PM's commenter with explanation AND ALSO a request to re-evaluate the vote -- this is not cool. Photog can be DQ'd for this under the Voting Rules.
Two things to remember: 1) even if you are using a vote tracking spreadsheet, there is no guarantee that it's not simply coincidence that you got a vote of X and a comment. It does not necessarily follow that the comment and the vote are from the same person. Many people go back to comment once they have finished voting. 2) Any attempt to sway a vote on an entry, no matter how politely worded, is an invitation to have your own entry be DQ'd if you get reported for it. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 08:55:35 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
So, if a photographer PMs a voter to explain, or even ask for something (other than a request to change their vote), it is okay/legal? |
It's not illegal, but it's also not encouraged and some people will immediately smack you with a 1 for doing so. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 08:47:53 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by L2:
...it is not appropriate to use the PM system to identify your entry to a commenter and also ask them to change their vote. |
So, if a photographer PMs a voter to explain, or even ask for something (other than a request to change their vote), it is okay/legal?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 06:35:22 PM · #6 |
This is a reminder about our Voting Rules.
Specifically, it is not appropriate to use the PM system to identify your entry to a commenter and also ask them to change their vote.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
01/20/2007 10:59:52 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Coley:
Question regarding removal of Dust specs, sensor dust, hot pixels, in Basic editing. Has there been any discussion regarding a limit as to how many dust specs can be removed from a shot ? Further, is there a brush size restriction on the tool to clone out the unwanted particles?
Thanks in advance |
Surely if you are allowed to cloan out dust then you're allowed to cloan out as much dust as is present. What I would say though is that, if you're having to cloan out a whole load of dust, the resultant image probably isn't going to look that great. |
|
|
|
01/20/2007 10:58:07 AM · #8 |
Question regarding removal of Dust specs, sensor dust, hot pixels, in Basic editing. Has there been any discussion regarding a limit as to how many dust specs can be removed from a shot ? Further, is there a brush size restriction on the tool to clone out the unwanted particles?
Thanks in advance |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:03:40 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
could someone please tell me what date, shutter speed and exposure I should enter in expert challenges if I combine several images?
thank you! |
I just state "various". |
oh, and it is fine? they won't DQ me if I enter the date and exposure of the main photo? :) |
Date, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, none of these fields produce a DQ if filled out inaccurately. In fact, only "date" is a required field. And it is only required as a statement that you produced your image within the challenge time frame. If validation is required, the EXIF data will determine the acceptability of the date anyway.
With composited images I have followed the habit of listing shutter speed as 1/60/30/15/8/4 if I had 5 original HDRI exposures, for what that's worth. I shoot HDRI at a fixed aperture and vary the shutter speeds.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 07:27:27 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
could someone please tell me what date, shutter speed and exposure I should enter in expert challenges if I combine several images?
thank you! |
I just state "various". |
oh, and it is fine? they won't DQ me if I enter the date and exposure of the main photo? :) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 07:26:17 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
could someone please tell me what date, shutter speed and exposure I should enter in expert challenges if I combine several images?
thank you! |
I just state "various".
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 07:25:11 AM · #12 |
could someone please tell me what date, shutter speed and exposure I should enter in expert challenges if I combine several images?
thank you! |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 04:21:08 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We can't possibly -- nor would we want to -- monitor all communications between members. |
Exactly. That's what we pay our governments for. :) |
OH..maybe that's the problem...I do actually work for the government |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:29:46 PM · #14 |
i always thought the government just took money from me - i never realized i was paying them !
Originally posted by Art_Roflmao:
Exactly. That's what we pay our governments for. :) |
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:22:04 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We can't possibly -- nor would we want to -- monitor all communications between members. |
Exactly. That's what we pay our governments for. :) |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:17:57 PM · #16 |
This topic (PM during voting) has been discussed to death for years, and the solution we implimented is giving you the ability to set your preferences such that you can't receive them.
We can't possibly -- nor would we want to -- monitor all communications between members. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:41:28 PM · #17 |
Actually not all rules are cause for suspension or DQ. If you look there is a section of what you should do. Do you DQ someone for not having an open mind during voting? Do you DQ someone who doesn't recommend a photo they believe violates the rules be DQed. Those rules aren't there for the cause of DQ people who don't follow them, but are instead there to encourage people to do them.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 14:42:25. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 06:13:30 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by albc28:
Now you are just putting words in my mouth. My first post stated what I would like to be done. Add something to the rules in regards to PMing during voting. |
I don't think he put words in your mouth at all, which will be explained by the following:
Originally posted by albc28:
Putting something in the rules would be enough to discourage during voting PMing... |
What exactly is the penalty for breaking the rules on either voting or editing? Oh, wait, I know! Disqualification or suspension!
That aside, how exactly would you regulate this. There are people on this site that I'm sure get tens of PMs a day. If they get PMs from people who also happen to be voting on a challenge there should be a penalty? But aren't challenges running constantly? Does that mean we should just disable the PM functionality entirely?
If you don't want people responding to you, and you don't want the temptation to respond to someone else, go bag-head during voting. That's what it's there for. Anonymity. Normal commenting is only a single-blind process. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:39:10 AM · #19 |
Now you are just putting words in my mouth. My first post stated what I would like to be done. Add something to the rules in regards to PMing during voting. I know that it will be ludicrous to DQ every one who PMs during voting because you don't fully know why they are PMing someone. At the same time you can't prevent people from PMing during voting. But you can discourage it. Putting something in the rules would be enough to discourage during voting PMing...
I also stated that points can go either way as a reaction to the PM. But that just goes to prove that it defeats the purpose of voting. The purpose of voting is based off the photography not what you think of the Photographer. Again, you can't prevent it, but you can discourage it. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:12:56 AM · #20 |
So what do you want us to DO? Start DQing people who PM commenters during voting? How Draconian! Let each recipient of a PM make up his/her own mind what, if anything, to do about it. I am sure some people actually PENALIZE respondents by lowering the vote given.
Speaking for myself, I don't mind receiving responses to my comments; I've already done the voting, I'm not inclined to change. I think maybe ONE time a respondent pointed out something that had gone right over my head and made me realize what I thought was DNMC was actually spot-on, and got a 4 raised to a 6. That's about it. And I have received quite a few PMs during voting in my time here. Sent quite a few too, albeit usually to people I know and "trust" who I don't think will mind the response.
I can't offhand recall ever having sent a during-voting PM trying to influence the vote.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:04:37 AM · #21 |
| Guess I should say it could go the other way too. Someone PM's during a challenge, telling you which photo is theres. That person has been overly critical of you work in past challenges...so now you become overly critical of that photo (whether on purpose or not). |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:00:24 AM · #22 |
| Well how do you prove an intent to disrupt the voting system? Why would there be a need to PM a commentor during the voting period? It doesn't even have to be intent to disrupt the system. The PM has your name and the title of your photo....simply could just make you look at the photo differently...but it makes a difference. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:51:10 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by albc28:
It's not about being bothered...I wasn't bothered by what was said...it's a matter of principle. The reasons your names aren't attached to your photo during voting is so that it's all anonymous. So if I comment on your photo (and lets just say for example we are friends) and you PM me back just mentioning the comment...now I know that is your photo...and if I wanted to I could go back and change the vote to make it higher....especially for those on the same WPL team.
I'm not saying that anyone on this site wouldn't be fair...but it can be awefully tempting. PMing about comments should only be done after the voting period. |
I don't follow this logic. The rules already say "You may not vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system." What more is needed? Just because by chance you find out who's photo it belongs to doesn't exempt you from voting according to the rules, which is to vote on the photo's merits and how it relates to the challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 01:52:11. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:30:16 AM · #24 |
It's not about being bothered...I wasn't bothered by what was said...it's a matter of principle. The reasons your names aren't attached to your photo during voting is so that it's all anonymous. So if I comment on your photo (and lets just say for example we are friends) and you PM me back just mentioning the comment...now I know that is your photo...and if I wanted to I could go back and change the vote to make it higher....especially for those on the same WPL team.
I'm not saying that anyone on this site wouldn't be fair...but it can be awefully tempting. PMing about comments should only be done after the voting period. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:20:00 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by albc28:
I think there is a rule that is missing from the voting rules...
It should state in there that "you may not PM a commentor about a comment made on your photo during the challenge voting dates."
I've had people PM me during a challenge and violates the whole spirit of being anonymous. |
If you don't want to be bothered by PM's during a voting period, you can leave a comment anonymously. Just set that feature in your preferences.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 01:20:20.
|
|
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: 04/28/2024 04:24:58 AM EDT.
