| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2005 03:09:33 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
while it's true that this site is a great resource for learning and i personally have benefitted more than i can imagine, the site name is dpchallenge, not dpcomment and i think many people forget that a lot of the time. |
As I've said, I think a great many people misunderstand the idea behind the site. I think the "challenge" is to the photographer to take the photo on-topic within the time limit, not the graded competition used as a vehicle for feedback. that's one reason so many of those lousy entries are mine -- my challenge for a long time was to find soemthing for every challenge. Why is that any less valid a method, and why is any one of my photos any less deserving of comment/grading than any other?
The paid/non-paid division is about as far as I'd like to see this site go in the direction of elitism ... it's a slippery slope we needn't approach. As someone else mentioned, there's an awful lot of people wanting to remold the site in their image instead of trying to blend in with what's worked well for quite a while.
From the "About" page (emphasis added):
DPChallenge was created in January 2002 by two friends, Drew Ungvarsky (drewmedia) and Langdon Oliver (langdon). The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 03:13:25. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:11:42 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by muckpond:
while it's true that this site is a great resource for learning and i personally have benefitted more than i can imagine, the site name is dpchallenge, not dpcomment and i think many people forget that a lot of the time. |
As I've said, I think a great many people misunderstand the idea behind the site. The "challenge" is to the photographer to take the photo on-topic within the time limit, not the graded competition used as a vehicle for feedback.
From the "About" page (emphasis added):
DPChallenge was created in January 2002 by two friends, Drew Ungvarsky (drewmedia) and Langdon Oliver (langdon). The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week. |
Yes, but what you don't seem to understand is that the site, like any good thing, is evolving.. and changes need to be seriously looked at to address this evolution.. as muckpond says.. *before* things get entirely out of hand.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:14:50 AM · #203 |
| And I've proposed a couple of simple remedies to that growth which involve no re-coding or other changes other than in the attitude of certain voters ... |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:17:39 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And I've proposed a couple of simple remedies to that growth which involve no re-coding or other changes other than in the attitude of certain voters ... |
Changes that I'd welcome with open arms.. btw. I'd love to see the elimination of accessible thumbnails while voting.. but, as I've said, it does no harm keeping the lines of communication and experimentation open.
Many suggestions in here wouldn't be *too* difficult to try out for a month.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:54:52 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And I've proposed a couple of simple remedies to that growth which involve no re-coding or other changes other than in the attitude of certain voters ... |
Changes that I'd welcome with open arms.. btw. I'd love to see the elimination of accessible thumbnails while voting.. but, as I've said, it does no harm keeping the lines of communication and experimentation open.
Many suggestions in here wouldn't be *too* difficult to try out for a month. |
And are being considered ... we don't/can't keep the general membership updated with every bit of our discussion--it doesn't mean we don't recognize the concerns are consider ways to approach it.
But everyone's always in such a hurry. The urgency and stridency expressed in this and similar threads serve only to increase the general air of tension, which makes arriving at a well-considered and planned-out solution even less likely--decisions made under pressure are rarely the best in the long term.
Even if we came up with the perfect solution tonight, there's no assurance that the site admins would have time to impliment the necessary coding for several weeks at least.
Please be patient, and try to work within the existing system with whatever constitutes maximum efficiency in your eyes, while we ponder the possibilities. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 04:04:20 AM · #206 |
this really seems to be coming down to deciding the site's purpose: is it a vehicle for learning about and sharing photography, or is it a vehicle for generating efficient statistical measurements?
talk about the collision of art and science, sheesh...
if d&l did absolutely nothing to this site, it would continue to grow. yes, there would be attrition (especially among those who continually clamor for change), but, all the same, it would continue to grow.
and those that join will guess that whatever they find when they join is the norm, whether it is 350+ entries, 500+, 600+, or 1000+. and they will stay as long as they feel they are getting something out of dpc as a whole, whether it is in participating in the challenges, or the forums, or in G2Gs, or whatever.
to assume something is 'broken' or 'getting out of hand' has more to do with how you want to participate. i've been here a year, and my participation has ranged from compulsive/extreme to hardly here. i'm part of the statistics, enjoy the numbers on my profile page, but i don't base my participation on numbers--i base it on whether or not i'm enjoying the photography, both mine and that that i find through the site. sure, i've felt compulsions to vote every entry, every challenge, to enter every challenge, to comment every entry--but those are my compulsions, not something that should be regulated or required. by the same token, i decide when to sit out, not enter, not vote, not comment.
i would have to say, if you want to judge this site based on numbers (numbers of votes, numbers of entries, amount of time, scores, ad naseum), this site is broken beyond repair. there is no way it could ever be programmed to handle all the variables that contribute to scores.
on the other hand, if you want to judge this site based on the photography, i don't think there is anything like it.
in fact, the only programmable change that i've seen that makes sense is to add a cap to the required number of votes: 20% or 100, whichever comes first (or whatever number is deemed sufficient). |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:04:42 AM · #207 |
Personally I think the solution to the 500+ entries is easy. It doesn't limit how many people can enter, it doesn't edit anything out before the voting, AND...it allows dpc to use a lot more of the challenge suggestions that are offered, and limits the repeat subjects.
Rather than having two challenges a week, one for members and one open, I would suggest having one challege a day. Let it run for a week like you do now to allow people the time to produce a quality image, but add a new challenge each day. No one, at least nearly no one will be able to enter all the challenges. This will cut down on the number of entries per challenge, and also allow people more options to the challenges they choose to enter.
I think it wonderful that this webpage has grown so fast. Its a great page. Put together very well, and well mananged. It's popular, and for good reasons. There is a lot of good work here, not just by the administrators of the page, but by the photographers that contribute to it. I strongly object to limits or editing of any kind by that administrators of the page in order to keep the number of images to vote on down. I truely think, allowing more options, will help a great deal.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:27:51 AM · #208 |
The only logical solution (IMO) to the issue of open challenges being to large is to drop it from a 14 day process to a 7 day process.
Currently the open challenge is the same as members challenge you get 7 days to take the picture and 7 days to vote. How about dropping to 4 days to take the picture and 3 days to vote.
What do people think about this idea?
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 05:34:44.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:30:58 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
The only logical solution (IMO) to the issue of open challenges being to large is to drop it from a 14 day process to a 7 day process.
Currently the open challenge is the same as members challenge you get 7 days to take the picture and 7 days to vote. How about dropping to 3 days to take the picture and 4 days to vote.
What do people think about this idea? |
I like this idea, 2 open challenges per week with a weekend/weekday split
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:34:14 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by colda:
Originally posted by SDW65:
The only logical solution (IMO) to the issue of open challenges being to large is to drop it from a 14 day process to a 7 day process.
Currently the open challenge is the same as members challenge you get 7 days to take the picture and 7 days to vote. How about dropping to 3 days to take the picture and 4 days to vote.
What do people think about this idea? |
I like this idea, 2 open challenges per week with a weekend/weekday split |
Yes, that's a good idea because some people may have more time at different time of the week because of there work, family, etc. - good suggestion colda.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:56:18 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
The only logical solution (IMO) to the issue of open challenges being to large is to drop it from a 14 day process to a 7 day process.
Currently the open challenge is the same as members challenge you get 7 days to take the picture and 7 days to vote. How about dropping to 4 days to take the picture and 3 days to vote.
What do people think about this idea? |
Tough on those who work long and hard, they either won't have time to take a pic OR won't have time to vote. Both detrimental to the site as a whole. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:57:55 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
The only logical solution (IMO) to the issue of open challenges being to large is to drop it from a 14 day process to a 7 day process.
Currently the open challenge is the same as members challenge you get 7 days to take the picture and 7 days to vote. How about dropping to 4 days to take the picture and 3 days to vote.
What do people think about this idea? |
on one hand, i'm open to more challenges, but on the other, i don't consider this a solution to anything...
the 'problem' seems to be one of handling compulsions and needs. if this dillutes the number of entries, that will make it easier for someone to satisfy the compulsion to vote every image, but what will that do for the person with the compulsion to enter every challenge, or the person with the compulsion to vote every challenge? what if someone 'really needs' comments, but they enter a challenge that doesn't generate much voting interest?
do you remember the forum comments made a few months ago when there happened to be four challenges running in the same week--there were something close to 1500 images to vote on?
i don't think it matters how many challenges you have, you are still going to wind up with a growing number of images to view, and a lucky/grateful handful will get the attention they deserve, and the rest will go begging. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 10:37:12 AM · #213 |
GeneralE, i just want to thank you for putting all your input into this thread.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 01:55:46 PM · #214 |
after following this thread and reading all the comments, and making my own, i've made a final decision about what i think :)
so, , more members need more challenges. no other changes.
thank you for reading this. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:04:15 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by nborton:
I don't want to sound like an old grump or anything, but I remember the days when people complained about voting on a 150 pics, because at the time we were only voting on 50 or so. Then it was 300 that became too much, and now it's 500. This topic comes up more often than anything so far over the life of the site.
It seems to me that it's more about people not liking their community growning beyond the level at which they first fell in love. |
Thank you for that post. It was valuable to me because it told me something about the site that I didn't know. Some of the things skiprow has said seem to pick up on the same theme. I hope people will think about this a bit. It should help them put the present "catastrophe" into perspective.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:18:55 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by amber:
You are assuming Dan that a person knows what depth of field (and all ther rest) is and how to use it to better their images. Only when someone takes the time to leave a comment on your photo saying WHY your DOF is wrong and HOW to change it, will you really learn. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is value to your point but you see I learn by looking. Let us say I see a wonderful image. I ask myself, how can I recreate this? I leave the image in my mind's eye until mystery resolved. There are enough hints in the image to build up a technical case in order to be able to recreate the image. Now, in looking at this superb images gives me a hint as to what quality I must aim for in my own images. If I try a similar entry and it foes not compare, then I need more work. If they did it, then I can do it. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:19:15 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... it's frustrating to me to see a challenge rollover and realize that even though i voted i've never seen any of the top 10 images. it's happened more than once and it IS irritating. it's like being a blue voter in a red state (or vice versa) -- you spent the time to do it but it doesn't count. ... |
I felt that same frustration the first few times it happened to me. But I try to realize that no matter how hard I try, and no matter how much time I am willing to put into voting/commenting, there are going to be times when the ribboners are new to me.
muckpond, I don't think you should feel like your vote doesn't count. It does to me, whether you got to all the entries, or just 20% of them. I appreciate what you, and every voter, puts into the challenge system. It would not work without the voters, and they all count once you reach 20%. The results would be a lot less valid if we were to throw out the votes of everyone who did not get to 100% of the entries.
So even if you don't get to vote on all of them, and even if you don't see the eventual ribboners, your votes are a valuable contribution to the site. We could not function without them.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:24:26 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... it's frustrating to me to see a challenge rollover and realize that even though i voted i've never seen any of the top 10 images. it's happened more than once and it IS irritating. it's like being a blue voter in a red state (or vice versa) -- you spent the time to do it but it doesn't count. ... |
I felt that same frustration the first few times it happened to me. But I try to realize that no matter how hard I try, and no matter how much time I am willing to put into voting/commenting, there are going to be times when the ribboners are new to me.
muckpond, I don't think you should feel like your vote doesn't count. It does to me, whether you got to all the entries, or just 20% of them. I appreciate what you, and every voter, puts into the challenge system. It would not work without the voters, and they all count once you reach 20%. The results would be a lot less valid if we were to throw out the votes of everyone who did not get to 100% of the entries.
So even if you don't get to vote on all of them, and even if you don't see the eventual ribboners, your votes are a valuable contribution to the site. We could not function without them. |
ditto, harvey. and i'll add to that it is a matter of one's perception.
if you vote because you want to be part of picking the winner, then yes, feel cheated. if you vote because you want to rank the images you get to look at, then it's not that big a deal--you'll get to see the tops ones in the end, anyways.
;-) |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:52:23 PM · #219 |
The challenges were intended to be a way for a group of friends to learn photography by having their abilities 'restrained to'/'stretched by' a single topic each week. This was implemented and an informal poll taken in each challenge to rank each entry. What a great idea, and it has grown and grown as any successful idea will.
But I think that is also the problem many are having here -- just how many friends can a person have, and still consider themselves to 'know' each one. Some people are comfortable only in small groups (even as small as 1 or 2) while others are not comfortable unless they are (seemingly) lost in a sea of individuals. As the site has grown, those that are comfortable in small groups have been overwhelmed with the number of people (and opinions) around them. There is a definite 'need' that should be addressed, but I feel arbitrarily dividing the community into random subgroups will only serve to fracture the feeling of community that exists here. It will not strengthen the membership and be detrimental to the site as a whole.
But, it is evident the 'need' has become a problem for several, and is only going to continue to become a problem for many more as the site continues to grow. For this reason it should be addressed, but it should be addressed in a way each individual still feels a part of the larger community, but more so a part of a smaller group. I don't think this can be addressed by focusing on the numbers -- number of entries, number of votes, number of comments -- they are simply too impersonal to provide any meaningful information. The division should come from the interests and intentions of those that are being divided.
A dynamic voluntary division along lines of interest can be accomplished if the focus is made more precise. As it is, there is no choice on what to enter based on intention and interest. There are two challenges, but the difference between them (other than the random topic) is strictly a matter of arbitrary editing restrictions. Presenting more challenges centered around the interest of those entering would encourage the community to split itself into subsections, but would not break the community up doing so.
In participating for over a year the main division I have seen is in the intention of the photographer. That is, there is a very strong camp that is interested in photography as a medium for art and don't care about (and in some cases openly rebel against) any focus on the act of photography itself. The other camp are (like me) still learning to use their camera and are from time to time at a loss to understand what the 'artists' are doing.
There are other divisions that could be made, many of the challenge topics are technique challenges (such as 'Black & White' or 'Emotive') and could be the focus of a neighborhood of our community. Each of the two camps I mentioned about the left and right neighborhoods (a play on the sides of the brain some belief influence each) could be devided again and again into many smaller catagories -- but I don't feel the need is great enought to warrant that yet -- and even when it is a general catagory should always remain.
To this end I will propose the adoption of a second members challenge each week, having one for each of these camps. The existing restrictions on voting and submitting are sufficient. Restricting participation to only one would not be beneficial as no one is strictly interested in only one or the other -- and even if they are, time changes things. Voting and commenting would be enhanced by knowing in general what the photographer is focused on.
Providing a means for the community to divide itself along lines of interest will allow the participants, both when submitting and when voting, to focus on what currently interests them and should diminish the feeling of overwhelm being expressed in this and similar threads.
The best part of this proposal is that it requires no coding change at all -- the many specialty challenges that we have had over the last year show the code is already in place. It's just a matter of focusing it's use to the interests of the site.
David
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 08:16:29 PM · #220 |
I've not read all of this thread, so I don't know if this has already been proposed, but here's an idea I'd like to throw in for good measure:
In browsing through the forums, I've seen quite a few informal challenges. The photos that are thrown into the 'challenge' are all referenced from the thread, and nowhere else. There are no stats on the photos about how people rated them - the info is all written (subjectively) within the thread, and not associated with the photos. If there were some way of linking and having ratings for the photos within the thread, but without making the challenge "global" or "top-level", it would restrict it to the community who are using the forums, reducing the sample of photos and the population of voters.
as it stands, people participating in the 'challenge' threads comment on photos either in thread, or in photo - I think there should be some way of amalgamating this so there is a consistent threading of conversation, but also a consistent commenting on photos (and voting on photos).
The only downside I can see to this is that the main challenges will get discarded by people doing ad-hoc challenges, which would be a bad thing as far as comments by seasoned prof's went, but might be better, because the number of people entering the main challenges would decrease.
Food for thought, anyway. It's too late in the morning for me think properly - I'll come back to this thread later, with a possible UI solution
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 20:19:43.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 10:01:24 AM · #221 |
I have enjoyed the brief period of time I have been visiting this site simply because of the opportunity to look at some excellent photography.
I once wrote:
Beauty is as near as the desire to find it
But often trampled in our rush to its counterfeit
I find it hard to understand how one, who truly loves good photography or strives to improve upon their own, can have a problem with looking through 100 photographs in one week. That is all that is required (20% of 500 entries) for your score evaluations to count. If you don't want to look at more than that .... don't. Seems pretty simple to me. Just the act of evaluating many photos will, in time, cause your own photographic habits to improve. That improvement can be measured by your recieved score on a weekly or even bi-weekly basis, if you apply your camera to the challenge. Brilliantly simple .... why trample this beauty?
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 11:24:45 AM · #222 |
here's the deal...plain and simple
STOP BITCH'N AND START SHOOT'N
|
|
