| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2005 01:38:40 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by james_so:
Originally posted by Riggs:
Your title should be the year that you are trying to capture for future generations |
should
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.
I'd go for number 1.. |
To be a "language lawyer", there's a difference between "should" and "shall" (or "must"). In this case, "Should" is a strong suggestion that the year be the title, but implies that it need not be if you have good enough reason. If the requirement was stated as "Your title must be the year that you are trying to capture for future generations" then there would be no choice.
Perhaps the SC can better define the use of "should", "shall", "must", "may", "will", etc for those who are not native English speakers. |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:11:31 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by JayWalk:
I just want to say that my score has dropped by .2 over the past 2 days since this post went up. Looks like the dark side is winning. |
I watch my score like a hawk, especially when it is doing as well as this one is. Yesterday I watched in horror as I received, in order, 1, 9, 9, 1, 10, 1, 1. I have a year, short description as my title.
Message edited by author 2005-08-16 14:11:59.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:22:52 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by hankk:
Perhaps the SC can better define the use of "should", "shall", "must", "may", "will", etc for those who are not native English speakers. |
Perhaps voters should quit looking for excuses to lower the vote for obviously on-topic photos.
BTW: How does this discussion jibe the the philosophy held by so many that "the title shouldn't even matter -- the photo should stand on its own." |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:23:50 PM · #54 |
| I don't have as much of a problem with the titles of the entries as I do with people shoehorning their photos into the challenge with the title. It seems some people have taken their best photo of the week and titled it 2005. It may be a fine photo but it doesn't necessarily represent 2005 to the audience. If the photo does not effectively convey the period of time I will deduct accordingly. My $.02 |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:34:26 PM · #55 |
Paul - I think where the conflict lies is where some entered the challenge following the suggested rules (challenge description of year for title) and only used the year for their entry. Using the year only forces the image to speak for itself primarily.
Those that followed the rules I think are perceiving it as an unfair advantage/disadvantage (depending on how you look at it) that many submitted challenge entries with a title. Whether you want to use a title or not in voting, it is still there, and can impact how a user "gets" the image, possible impacting how they vote. If the voter can more readily make a connection to the image it stands to gain a higher score. Perhaps not even consciously.
The playing field isn't even for those that played by the suggested rules. That's the beef I think.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: How does this discussion jibe the the philosophy held by so many that "the title shouldn't even matter -- the photo should stand on its own." |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:38:23 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The playing field isn't even for those that played by the suggested rules. That's the beef I think. |
Well, fortunately you are free to apply a compensating factor. I just don't think it needs to be carried to extremes. |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:40:18 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps voters should quit looking for excuses to lower the vote for obviously on-topic photos.
|
GeneralE hits the nail on the head!!!
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:46:36 PM · #58 |
Where's Ken (kpriest) and his torch when you need him? ;^) Just KIDDING!!!
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The playing field isn't even for those that played by the suggested rules. That's the beef I think. |
Well, fortunately you are free to apply a compensating factor. I just don't think it needs to be carried to extremes. |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:47:44 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps voters should quit looking for excuses to lower the vote for obviously on-topic photos.
|
That'll happen about the same time entrants quit looking for excuses as to why their off-topic photo got low votes.
:-p |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:52:52 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps voters should quit looking for excuses to lower the vote for obviously on-topic photos.
|
That'll happen about the same time entrants quit looking for excuses as to why their off-topic photo got low votes.
:-p |
Hey now!!! I knew it wasn't a circle when I entered into the circle challenge! :D
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:03:52 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by hankk:
Originally posted by james_so:
Originally posted by Riggs:
Your title should be the year that you are trying to capture for future generations |
should
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.
I'd go for number 1.. |
To be a "language lawyer", there's a difference between "should" and "shall" (or "must"). In this case, "Should" is a strong suggestion that the year be the title, but implies that it need not be if you have good enough reason. If the requirement was stated as "Your title must be the year that you are trying to capture for future generations" then there would be no choice.
Perhaps the SC can better define the use of "should", "shall", "must", "may", "will", etc for those who are not native English speakers. |
'must' has nothing to do with this, it was not the word used.. 'Should' is a tense of 'shall' and literally means 'ought to' so if you wish to argue semantics the challenge discription more correctly implies that the title 'ought to be the year', not 'can be the year if you like but doesn't have to be'. See here if you aren't a native english speaker.
TBH I don't really see that it makes a great deal of difference, it is just another trend that will get averaged out by the number of voters.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:11:20 PM · #62 |
I think Hank was using it ("must") as how it should have been worded to make the title a specific requirement. Hank said If the requirement was stated as "Your title must be..."
Originally posted by james_so:
...'must' has nothing to do with this, it was not the word used.. |
Message edited by author 2005-08-16 15:11:53.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:28:56 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: How does this discussion jibe the the philosophy held by so many that "the title shouldn't even matter -- the photo should stand on its own." |
I think that philosophy does not apply to this particular challenge, Time Capsule, because of the way titles were mentioned in the details. Of course, this presumes that entering photogs and voters have read the details. It that too wild of a presumption for us to use in discussing how the site should work? I hope not.
Whether you call it a rule, a guideline, a suggestion, or an instruction, it appears that about two thirds, more or less, of the entrants have ignored it. If I were running this site, and 2/3 were ignoring my guidance, I would try to find a way to re-assert the authority of my guidance.
I think it is clear that the people who read the details and followed the (rule, guideline, suggestion or instruction) are at some disadvantage in this challenge. Feel free to disagree.
Perhaps our SC (and I am not addressing any particular individual here) should quit looking for excuses to ignore that a majority of the entries in Time Capsule did not comply with the (rule, guideline, suggestion or instruction) given in the challenge details; and pretending that this does not cause an unlevel playing field for those who did comply.
Still just my 2 cents; and I still don't have an entry in Time Capsule.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:32:19 PM · #64 |
One of the few instances i can recall when Coolhar and I are in complete agreement. That's gotta be worth something, eh? I think it's ridiculous, frankly, when they give us a hard-and-fast guideline for some portion of our entry and well over half the entries flat-out ignore it. I'd have loved to "title" my shot, frankly.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:37:27 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
One of the few instances i can recall when Coolhar and I are in complete agreement. That's gotta be worth something, eh? I think it's ridiculous, frankly, when they give us a hard-and-fast guideline for some portion of our entry and well over half the entries flat-out ignore it. I'd have loved to "title" my shot, frankly.
Robt. |
I did take note of that Robert, and actually quite enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:41:19 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by james_so:
Originally posted by blemt:
We don't DQ for failure to meet the challenge. Those of the ultra literal voters out there might want to keep that in mind. :)
|
Why? (the literal voters not the lack of DQs...) are you suggesting that I should ignore the challenge and just vote on the pictures qualities? If we dont take the challenge description literally there is little point in having one in the first place surely.. |
By "literal" most people mean "narrowest, most obvious interpretation" of the challenge. There is an equally-strong(?) school of people here who feel the challenge is there to inspire creative interpretations, not restrict photographers to all shooting exactly the same shot, and evaluating only whose hand was steadiest and light most even.
Just because you don't see how the photo meets the challenge doesn't mean it doesn't -- only that you don't see the connection. |
I completely agree. My submission is from a place in time. I've received plenty of good comments but I'm still in the 4 region. I've also received comments stating that I did not meet the challenge because I didn't have a year in the title. I didn't put the year because it would have been relegated to being just another pretty picture so instead, I decided to put something more significant, but people still "don't see the connection" If I would have put the year would you really have scored me higher or just placed it in the category of "could've been any year" and still scored me low?
Message edited by frisca - removing identifying factors to challenge photo. |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:56:47 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think Hank was using it ("must") as how it should have been worded to make the title a specific requirement. Hank said If the requirement was stated as "Your title must be..."
Originally posted by james_so:
...'must' has nothing to do with this, it was not the word used.. |
|
I was refering to where Hank said,
"there's a difference between "should" and "shall" (or "must")."
as it seemed to me that he was mistakenly linking the meaning of shall to must rather than more correctly to should. Hope that made sense ;)
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 04:01:58 PM · #68 |
Yep yep...gotcha covered. ;^)
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 10:24:25 PM · #69 |
| Okay, I just commented on about 20 more entries in the Time Capsule challenge and another 20 in the rain challenge. I hope someone that reads this got a comment. I really pushed myself tonight! Ha. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:34:39 PM EDT.
