| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2012 09:50:44 AM · #1 |
After noticing the most recent expert editing challenge are relatively devoid of entries, decided to take a look at the numbers since I've been a member here.
Starting from the beginning of February we have the following average number of participants excluding free studies:
The number in parentheses are the number of challenges.
(14) Expert - 57.1
(74) - Advanced - 88.5
(15) - Basic - 91.6
(2) - Minimal - 92.5
If we include free studies, the advanced average number of participants rises to 106.2.
There's a downward trend in participation in expert editing challenges over the last six months.
I guess my questions are the following:
1 - Why this downward trend?
2 - If participation is what the site needs, why have so many expert editing challenges when clearly they're the least popular in terms of participants (and number of voters)?
3 - Is this even a problem?
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 09:56:20. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:02:32 AM · #2 |
| I've often asked myself why we want this many Expert challenges. It's purely my personal opinion, but the Expert challenges are as much Photoshop challenges as they are photography challenges. For the most part I dislike voting them, and I probably won't shoot for them. I think they are fine once in a while, but not at anywhere near the frequency we are having them. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:03:01 AM · #3 |
Couple of observations:
In the past, the basic and minimal editing challenges seemed to arise on the open challenge Tuesdays -- so they'd have higher participation anyway, simply because of that.
Also, the expert editing challenges have been a little more difficult recently. The apocalypse challenge was difficult to shoot without expert editing, so there weren't as many advanced editing shots in it.
Is this a problem? I don't think so -- simply because it's good to stretch your wings. Everything should be offered.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:12:39 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
In the past, the basic and minimal editing challenges seemed to arise on the open challenge Tuesdays -- so they'd have higher participation anyway, simply because of that. |
Had to check this to make sure it wasn't skewing my numbers, and it definitely used to be that way before I joined, but this is no longer the trend. Checking the period I used for the numbers and this is non-existent for this period of time. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:15:46 AM · #5 |
judging by the number you gathers it appears there is a direct correlation to the perceived time one thinks it will take to process there image.
there is a perception that expert editing requires advanced Photoshopping to compete and its hard for people to dedicate that amount or time, i dont think its lack of interest.
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 10:17:37. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:18:36 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
In the past, the basic and minimal editing challenges seemed to arise on the open challenge Tuesdays -- so they'd have higher participation anyway, simply because of that. |
Had to check this to make sure it wasn't skewing my numbers, and it definitely used to be that way before I joined, but this is no longer the trend. Checking the period I used for the numbers and this is non-existent for this period of time. |
Good to know.
Then I submit that the sample sizes are too different to be able to tell. With only 15 basic, it's possible that those basic challenges were more the free study types, and it wouldn't show up in the numbers. We know the advanced editing challenges have had some clunkers -- like "autumn" in may with 33 entries (understandable why, and I applaud Langdon for doing something specific for the southern hemisphere) -- but a few of the weird, small challenges can skew the numbers. What's the mean, mode and standard deviation of these? plus max and mins?
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:19:50 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
judging by the number you gathers it appears there is a direct correlation to the perceived time one thinks it will take to process there image. |
Good catch.
There's already more entries in the minimal challenge than the relatively easy to shoot for expert rock challenge. Now I'm curious, does this have an effect on the participation level? |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:20:59 AM · #8 |
| I don't base my own participation on the editing rules (except I tend to avoid minimal unless it's a subject I really want to do). I base it on the subject of the challenge. The challenges lately just aren't exciting me. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:30:34 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
What's the mean, mode and standard deviation of these? plus max and mins? |
Just putting this in here the fastest way I can.
The numbers are in the following order:
Mean \ Median \ Mode \ Standard Deviation \ Skew \ Kurtosis \ Min \ Max
Expert - 57.1 \ 52 \ 41 \ 21.6 \ 1.7 \ 4.1 \ 33 \ 120
Advanced - 88.5 \ 88 \ 94 \ 28.2 \ 0.4 \ 0.1 \ 33 \ 171
Basic - 91.5 \ 82 \ 78 \ 29.8 \ 0.1 \ -1.4 \ 46 \ 139
Minimal - 92.5 \ 92.5 \ DNE \ 8.5 \ DNE \ DNE \ 84 \ 101
Where DNE == Does Not Exist.
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 10:54:06. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:31:02 AM · #10 |
I agree with  Kelli in not basing participating based on editing rules.
Think about it,  gyaban proved to everyone that even a magnificent image can be done in BASIC editing!
Just because it SAYS "expert" doesn't mean people have to photoshop over and over and over again...
My rock entry wasn't EXPERT editing, nor was my Post-apocalyptic. But they were still "expert" challenges.
I think people misconstrue the editing rules. Some people assume they won't be able to participate in the challenge because they can't use PS in the way others can.
Granted, I know I can't compete with half the "experts" here... heck... most of the members in general,
but I try. It's a great way to learn new things. And isn't that what we're here for? For the LEARNING experience? At least that's what I'm here for (well, when it comes to actual photography/editing)
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:38:39 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Denielle:
I agree with Kelli in not basing participating based on editing rules.
Think about it, gyaban proved to everyone that even a magnificent image can be done in BASIC editing!
Just because it SAYS "expert" doesn't mean people have to photoshop over and over and over again...
My rock entry wasn't EXPERT editing, nor was my Post-apocalyptic. But they were still "expert" challenges.
I think people misconstrue the editing rules. Some people assume they won't be able to participate in the challenge because they can't use PS in the way others can.
Granted, I know I can't compete with half the "experts" here... heck... most of the members in general,
but I try. It's a great way to learn new things. And isn't that what we're here for? For the LEARNING experience? At least that's what I'm here for (well, when it comes to actual photography/editing) |
absolutely 100% right.
I got a 7.1 score in an expert editing challenge with an advanced editing image. You don't need to do expert editing to enter an expert editing challenge.
I don't care for expert editing challenges -- they're definitely not my thing. Although I've had more fun in some of them than I ever would have imagined! However, each time I do them, I seem to learn something that helps in my day to day editing needs. Knowledge is power. Avoiding something because you don't think you can compete in that area just limits yourself even more.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:39:02 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
What's the mean, mode and standard deviation of these? plus max and mins? |
Just putting this in here the fastest way I can.
The numbers are in the following order:
Mean \ Median \ Mode \ Standard Deviation \ Skew \ Kurtosis \ Min \ Max
Expert - 57.1 \ 52 \ 41 \ 19.9 \ 1.7 \ 4.1 \ 33 \ 120
Advanced - 88.5 \ 88 \ 94 \ 46.9 \ 0.4 \ 0.1 \ 33 \ 171
Basic - 91.5 \ 82 \ 78 \ 32.2 \ 0.1 \ -1.4 \ 46 \ 139
Minimal - 92.5 \ 92.5 \ DNE \ 11.9 \ DNE \ DNE \ 84 \ 101
Where DNE == Does Not Exist. |
Are your standard deviations right? They look massively huge...
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:47:54 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Are your standard deviations right? They look massively huge... |
Now they're fixed.
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 10:54:26. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 10:55:25 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I don't care for expert editing challenges -- they're definitely not my thing. Although I've had more fun in some of them than I ever would have imagined! However, each time I do them, I seem to learn something that helps in my day to day editing needs. Knowledge is power. Avoiding something because you don't think you can compete in that area just limits yourself even more. |
I don't compete for different reasons. I don't think the majority of winning entries are photographs, so to show my disdain, I don't enter.
I know I can edit and render scenes with the best of them. I've won Pov-Ray competitions back in the day. My name is littered in the underlying code for both Pov-Ray and the GIMP for finding bugs and getting both pieces of software to work on the old Alpha Intel architecture.
I guess, how many people don't enter for fear of editing (whether it's the actual edits or the time involved)?
How many do it for the reasons I don't? |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:18:40 AM · #15 |
I think the biggest (and perhaps the lamest) reason that I tend to pass on many Expert Editing challenges is that that level of editing is out of my comfort zone. They are skills I would like to develop, and I know the best way for me to do that is to drive in and experiment. So, know I should try more Expert challenges. Knowing I only have a week to come up with a decent idea, shoot it, and then learn some new editing moves can be daunting (especially when I think it is likely to turn out looking cartoon bad). More time might help. Then again, I tend to procrastinate.
I'd say it might be worth extending the deadline from a week to maybe two to see if this boosts the number of entries. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:24:07 AM · #16 |
Couple of observations
1. I thought there'd be more expert challenges than 14. It feels like there's two a week almost. I think a lot of people feel this way. So when a minimal or basic challenge comes up it has a perceived feel of a rare treat. I think people see one of these "rare" challenges come up and they think they better enter it now because who knows when another one will come up.
2. There's a definite group of about 5 people who consistently dominate expert challenges which makes entering them feel like a lost cause to a lot of folks. That's not the fault of the dominate few BTW, they're not doing anything wrong, but their dominance definitely scares others away.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:29:39 AM · #17 |
| Unnecessarily rude interjection: Not only have Expert challenges reduced participation, the quality of said expert challenges has steadily declined, and one could easily say it has hit [pun here] bottom. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:30:31 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
I think the biggest (and perhaps the lamest) reason that I tend to pass on many Expert Editing challenges is that that level of editing is out of my comfort zone. They are skills I would like to develop, and I know the best way for me to do that is to drive in and experiment. So, know I should try more Expert challenges. Knowing I only have a week to come up with a decent idea, shoot it, and then learn some new editing moves can be daunting (especially when I think it is likely to turn out looking cartoon bad). More time might help. Then again, I tend to procrastinate.
I'd say it might be worth extending the deadline from a week to maybe two to see if this boosts the number of entries. |
its not the editing skills that win expert, back to Gyaban, the guy doesn't win becuase he's a master at Photoshop, look at his portfolio, he wins because he is a creative genius. Photoshop is just a means to his end.
i can Photoshop with the best of them, but my creativity sucks and i have a hard time visualizing what i want the final product to look like or coming up with a concept.
my entry in the is current challenge literally took me about 30mins of PS time. i spent more time driving to shoot the images. i left to shoot all the images i needed after 6pm last night and had it submitted before the debate started, there was giving the kids a bath and getting then to bed in the middle of that. but if you looked at it you probably thought i spent hours on it.
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 11:32:32. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:35:27 AM · #19 |
It may be opening a can of worms, but unfortunately the people who are purposely giving 1s to expert editing images that don't look photographic are making matters worse. For the people who are experimenting, who are doing their best to learn something new and have fun doing it, getting a large number of ones really lessens the interesting in trying again. We experiment with motion blur, long exposure, etc, but yet don't get hit that hard when we make a decent effort. We probably get a lot of 3s, 4s, etc, but don't get hit with ones simply for trying something different.
Unfortunately, the ones who are very good can create something photographic. The ones who are learning end up more cartoonish because we don't know how to do the lighting, perspective, etc. I've been hearing more about concern over the harsh votes and whether they want to even try because of it. Expert editing used to be more interesting. But the disdain that's been very publicly tossed around has made at least some people afraid to even try. It really is a shame.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:38:32 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It may be opening a can of worms, but unfortunately the people who are purposely giving 1s to expert editing images that don't look photographic are making matters worse. For the people who are experimenting, who are doing their best to learn something new and have fun doing it, getting a large number of ones really lessens the interesting in trying again. We experiment with motion blur, long exposure, etc, but yet don't get hit that hard when we make a decent effort. We probably get a lot of 3s, 4s, etc, but don't get hit with ones simply for trying something different.
Unfortunately, the ones who are very good can create something photographic. The ones who are learning end up more cartoonish because we don't know how to do the lighting, perspective, etc. I've been hearing more about concern over the harsh votes and whether they want to even try because of it. Expert editing used to be more interesting. But the disdain that's been very publicly tossed around has made at least some people afraid to even try. It really is a shame. |
one can argue that mercy voting helps no one. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:40:44 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It may be opening a can of worms, but unfortunately the people who are purposely giving 1s to expert editing images that don't look photographic are making matters worse. For the people who are experimenting, who are doing their best to learn something new and have fun doing it, getting a large number of ones really lessens the interesting in trying again. We experiment with motion blur, long exposure, etc, but yet don't get hit that hard when we make a decent effort. We probably get a lot of 3s, 4s, etc, but don't get hit with ones simply for trying something different.
Unfortunately, the ones who are very good can create something photographic. The ones who are learning end up more cartoonish because we don't know how to do the lighting, perspective, etc. I've been hearing more about concern over the harsh votes and whether they want to even try because of it. Expert editing used to be more interesting. But the disdain that's been very publicly tossed around has made at least some people afraid to even try. It really is a shame. |
one can argue that mercy voting helps no one. |
That's just it -- I don't think it's mercy voting. I think people have decided to have a bias and to automatically give those a 1 and don't particularly look at the picture any farther than that. But then again, I think the same on any of these types of bias. There's one guy here that will vote anything military a 1. I think there's more involved in fair voting than to have that strong of a bias.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:42:17 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It may be opening a can of worms, but unfortunately the people who are purposely giving 1s to expert editing images that don't look photographic are making matters worse. For the people who are experimenting, who are doing their best to learn something new and have fun doing it, getting a large number of ones really lessens the interesting in trying again. We experiment with motion blur, long exposure, etc, but yet don't get hit that hard when we make a decent effort. We probably get a lot of 3s, 4s, etc, but don't get hit with ones simply for trying something different.
Unfortunately, the ones who are very good can create something photographic. The ones who are learning end up more cartoonish because we don't know how to do the lighting, perspective, etc. I've been hearing more about concern over the harsh votes and whether they want to even try because of it. Expert editing used to be more interesting. But the disdain that's been very publicly tossed around has made at least some people afraid to even try. It really is a shame. |
one can argue that mercy voting helps no one. |
That's just it -- I don't think it's mercy voting. I think people have decided to have a bias and to automatically give those a 1 and don't particularly look at the picture any farther than that. But then again, I think the same on any of these types of bias. There's one guy here that will vote anything military a 1. I think there's more involved in fair voting than to have that strong of a bias. |
That's it...
Now we should have a "military" challenge!
:)
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:43:02 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It may be opening a can of worms, but unfortunately the people who are purposely giving 1s to expert editing images that don't look photographic are making matters worse. For the people who are experimenting, who are doing their best to learn something new and have fun doing it, getting a large number of ones really lessens the interesting in trying again. We experiment with motion blur, long exposure, etc, but yet don't get hit that hard when we make a decent effort. We probably get a lot of 3s, 4s, etc, but don't get hit with ones simply for trying something different.
Unfortunately, the ones who are very good can create something photographic. The ones who are learning end up more cartoonish because we don't know how to do the lighting, perspective, etc. I've been hearing more about concern over the harsh votes and whether they want to even try because of it. Expert editing used to be more interesting. But the disdain that's been very publicly tossed around has made at least some people afraid to even try. It really is a shame. |
one can argue that mercy voting helps no one. |
That's just it -- I don't think it's mercy voting. I think people have decided to have a bias and to automatically give those a 1 and don't particularly look at the picture any farther than that. But then again, I think the same on any of these types of bias. There's one guy here that will vote anything military a 1. I think there's more involved in fair voting than to have that strong of a bias. |
That's it...
Now we should have a "military" challenge!
:) |
We have had one. :)
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:43:30 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It may be opening a can of worms, but unfortunately the people who are purposely giving 1s to expert editing images that don't look photographic are making matters worse. For the people who are experimenting, who are doing their best to learn something new and have fun doing it, getting a large number of ones really lessens the interesting in trying again. We experiment with motion blur, long exposure, etc, but yet don't get hit that hard when we make a decent effort. We probably get a lot of 3s, 4s, etc, but don't get hit with ones simply for trying something different.
Unfortunately, the ones who are very good can create something photographic. The ones who are learning end up more cartoonish because we don't know how to do the lighting, perspective, etc. I've been hearing more about concern over the harsh votes and whether they want to even try because of it. Expert editing used to be more interesting. But the disdain that's been very publicly tossed around has made at least some people afraid to even try. It really is a shame. |
one can argue that mercy voting helps no one. |
That's just it -- I don't think it's mercy voting. I think people have decided to have a bias and to automatically give those a 1 and don't particularly look at the picture any farther than that. But then again, I think the same on any of these types of bias. There's one guy here that will vote anything military a 1. I think there's more involved in fair voting than to have that strong of a bias. |
That's it...
Now we should have a "military" challenge!
:) |
We have had one. :) |
Well we should have another. I wasn't here for that one.
And that's reason enough to have another go at it. lol
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 11:43:54.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 11:54:15 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It may be opening a can of worms, but unfortunately the people who are purposely giving 1s to expert editing images that don't look photographic are making matters worse. |
Are they?
It is part of the rule suggestions in expert.
You should: keep your entry photographic in nature.
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 11:54:59. |
|
