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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> revealing current challenge entries
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 75, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/13/2005 01:40:07 PM · #26
There is no rule against posting current entries in the forums, nor does there need to be IMO. Anonymity is a common courtesy that keeps the challenges fun. Similarly, you are asked to comment if you vote a 3 or less, but there's no rule that says you HAVE to, and we're not going to force you. It's just a matter of courtesy and respect. Some photos are simply going to be recognizable in every challenge whether people post in the forums or not, so we can't really REQUIRE it (if we did, you would never be able to enter a photo from a GTG or shoot in the presence of friends or family who are registered here).

If you post a photo during the voting, we'll simply ask you to remove it (or maybe remove it ourselves if there's no response), but there is no official penalty incurred. If anything, posting during the challenge will only hurt your score, because there are PLENTY of people who will lower their vote for a breach of anonymity.
 09/13/2005 01:40:39 PM · #27
But it's getting to the point in many cases where the 'recognizable styles' aren't the originator anymore. People like Heida, librodo, Pedro, Geewhy...their styles are being imitated - and quite successfully in many cases. So the style thing is getting a bit washed out.

However, posting an image directly in a forum just prior to or during a challenge - there's no mistaking who it is then.

Originally posted by vonautsch:
If all the 'recognizable styles' end up on top, then there may be something to the idea that voters are voting on more than just the entry itself.

 09/13/2005 01:44:22 PM · #28
Originally posted by vonautsch:
...we can judge wheter or not knowing who took the photo really does affect the results.


How would you determine whether a high score for Librodo or Heida was for recognizing the photographer or for taking a great photo? Each of them have also received low scores despite recognizable styles.
 09/13/2005 01:50:39 PM · #29
I admit that it would be nearly impossible to enforce anonymity in an absolute manner. As skip says, the internet is just too big. But I still think that some breachs could be enforced by SC using the DQ process, while other aspects are best left to the voters. We really don't know how much of it is going on but I hope we can all agree on how much of it is desirable. The goal should be zero.

It could be stated in the rules that submitters are expected to make an effort to maintain anonymity. I think some people, including some of our leaders and more successful photographers, don't feel any obligation to do so. And all this talk about how hard it might be to enforce only fuels them. The rules could be amended to instruct voters that a perceived breach of anonymity is grounds to lower a vote, same as failure to meet the topic is now.

Almost everything in the rules is subjective in it's enforcement, with date violations being the most obvious exception. Difficulty of catching a violator, and the perhaps subjective nature of the enforcement decision wouldn't be any different than many things that are currently enforced.

Some aspects of enforcing anonymity would be as objective as the date rule is, such as-- if you post the image somewhere else on the internet before voting is finished you are DQ'ed. If a voter sees an image in a challenge that they have seen elsewhere, they would send the image's other URL to SC in the request for DQ. If the SC checks that URL and finds the challenge shot, it's out. That would be as simple to enforce as the date rule. The spirit of this rule would be simply that the voters get the first view of the submitted image.


09/13/2005 01:56:06 PM · #30
Winning because of a bias isn't really winning in my book. If that's what it would take, I'd rather not.
 09/13/2005 01:56:14 PM · #31
let me make this more clear. I would like a rule that says, you may not post your entry in the forums. I am not trying to make it impossible to identify entries, i know it's not possible. I never said that, I didn't want it interpreted that way. Because of this there was a lot of good examples (bear) that are very worthless because they're not on topic what what i'm saying.
 09/13/2005 02:03:35 PM · #32
The whole thing should be blind to the end. No postings, no interim scores or comments shown
 09/13/2005 02:06:54 PM · #33
I would not be against posting something on the site that makes everyone aware that posting a current entry or discussing a current entry in the forums is taboo. Making it a rule however, would then call for the photos discussed or posted to be DQed, and I do not feel that is appropriate.
09/13/2005 02:14:58 PM · #34
to take what hbunch said a step further, enough photos get dq'ed as it is. This would just allow for more (thought admittedly a small number, probably), and I promise, the SC, as a whole, does not enjoy seeing how many photos we could dq.

Right now there is not a "rule" that says you may not post a challenge entry in the forums. If you do, a couple of things will happen. A user will tell you not to (most of the time gently, sometime more abrasively) or a SC member will ask you not to. If you are asked, and the shot remains, a SC may remove it in order for your vote to be as accurate as possible (again, remember there are those that vote low if they know you pre-posted in the forums).

The "self-policing" really does work. Why do we want more rules?
 09/13/2005 02:15:00 PM · #35
Breaking anonymity is a taboo, not a rule. There is nothing in the rules about revealing your entry because it's NOT ILLEGAL, however it would be virtual suicide to do so because you would suffer the wrath of voters who don't appreciate the exposure. We'll politely ask you to remove a posted entry during voting (or remove it ourselves), but if you're determined to shoot yourself in the foot we won't stop you.
 09/13/2005 02:35:36 PM · #36
so this is not illegal, only taboo?

09/13/2005 02:41:05 PM · #37
This is getting insane. lol
 09/13/2005 02:41:44 PM · #38
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
so this is not illegal, only taboo?


Correct, and since you knew what you were doing when you posted it, I've removed the image. If you insist on posting it and then enter the shot, you'll probably get clobbered in the voting for breach of that taboo.
 09/13/2005 02:41:57 PM · #39
omg.. scalvert - you actually removed the link? If you'd read the description, it was obviously a joke
09/13/2005 02:42:43 PM · #40
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
omg.. scalvert - you actually removed the link? If you'd read the description, it was obviously a joke


Just being consistent with how we treat these things. Note that I didn't hide the thread (which now makes no sense without the image) for the benefit of those who were following the joke. ;-P

Message edited by author 2005-09-13 14:45:29.
 09/13/2005 02:44:17 PM · #41
I'm confused??? If it's not illegal, why was vfwlkr's photo removed by SC?
 09/13/2005 02:48:26 PM · #42
Originally posted by louddog:
I'm confused??? If it's not illegal, why was vfwlkr's photo removed by SC?


Because they can. Not that using one own discretion is bad, mind you.
 09/13/2005 02:50:04 PM · #43
because it's common courtesy!!!!!!!

when we remove images, or ask people to do that, it's because people who MIGHT NOT WANT to know whose image is whose shouldn't have to be exposed to potential challenge entries.

this entire thing is getting blown out of proportion. this site would be absolutely ZERO fun if everyone knew whose photos were whose in the challenge. then it would become DigitalPopularityContest.
 09/13/2005 02:50:49 PM · #44
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
omg.. scalvert - you actually removed the link? If you'd read the description, it was obviously a joke


Just being consistent with how we treat these things. Note that I didn't hide the thread (which now makes no sense without the image) for the benefit of those who were following the joke. ;-P

I've added a link again for their benefit, with the disclaimer that i'm not entering it - so you dont have to be consistent again :P
09/13/2005 02:51:00 PM · #45
Originally posted by louddog:
If it's not illegal, why was vfwlkr's photo removed by SC?


...because he KNEW it was taboo before he posted. If he re-posted, then I'd leave it. I might take away the rock you're throwing at a hornet's nest or ask you to stop, but it's not illegal and I'm not going to stand in your way if you insist.
 09/13/2005 02:56:24 PM · #46
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
omg.. scalvert - you actually removed the link? If you'd read the description, it was obviously a joke


Just being consistent with how we treat these things. Note that I didn't hide the thread (which now makes no sense without the image) for the benefit of those who were following the joke. ;-P


bold is mine
 09/13/2005 03:04:26 PM · #47
Originally posted by bear_music:
There's a HUGE gray area there, though. It can't realistically be covered "objectively".

Certainly the entire "HUGE gray area" can't be covered with absolute objectivity. But isn't it possible, and desirable, to address the parts that can be? And maybe go just a bit beyond that and try to tackle some of the slightly subjective parts?

Originally posted by bear_music:
For example, member "X" begins experimenting with a completely new technique and shares his/her experiments with the community off-and-on for months. Along comes a challenge that this new approach fits to a "T", so member "X" submits a brand-new image using this unusual technique. Is anonymity breached? Would our members stop sharing the experiments out of fear of doing so?

If there were a rule/suggestion in place requiring submitters to make an effort to maintain anonymity, and instructing voters to use a breach of such as a reason to lower their votes, then the experimenter would enter that brand-new, but nonetheless identifiable, shot at his/her own risk. This would yield an improvement in the level of anonymity without burdening the SC with any subjective decisions. This may be a slight impedement to the experimenters, but it would also prevent them from flying many trial baloons and then entering one in a challenge only after it had gained a loyal following of forum-following sycophants and bandwagoneers.

Originally posted by bear_music:
For another example, member "Y" does easily half his/her shooting using a certain child as a subject. S/he shares these images with the community. Any challenge entry using this model can be "identified" by those who reads the forums regularly. Are we to disallow entries using identifiable models.

A third example: member "Z" shoots landscapes in his/her backyard. Over time the location becomes recognizable to the part of the community that frequents the forums. Does use of this location automatically DQ a challenge entry based on anonymity issues? How would you feel about that if, say, the member were wheelchair-bound and limited to this small area for shooting?


Nope, no restrictions on who uses which models or which locations, but a rule set that encourages more diversity in selecting your subjects and shooting locations. And a clear direction from the rules that breaching anonymity is not a desirable thing to do would discourage voters from rewarding entries from their friends when identified. Just pay the price in your score if you want to take the risk.

Originally posted by bear_music:
Is there a valid distinction to be made between breach of anonymity through familiarity and breach of anonymity that comes from revealing the actual challenge photo during (or just prior to) the voting stage? And if so, how far does the breach extend? Do similar-but-not-identical images count? If so, how similar?

Emphatic YES to the first two questions. For the third we can trust the judgement of SC, and perhaps give them some written guidelines to follow.

Originally posted by bear_music:
Can you imagine SC having to judge, on an individual basis, the validity of certain entries based on prior postings of "similar" images? The resultant uproar on these judgment calls would be insane, I think.

Nothing new there except your impression of the degree. SC makes judgement calls all the time, that is a major part of their reason for being.

Originally posted by bear_music:
And let's not even try to contemplate what would happen if we started saying that challenge entries which were deemed "too recognizable" based on previous challenge entries by that photographer were not acceptable and would be DQ'd. As an extreme example, it would mean that if YOU, current-reader-of-this-post, were to travel to Cape Cod and remake one of my challenge entries precisely, this would be a valid entry: but if I were to go back to the same location and do a similar-but-different shot, it would NOT be...

I think SC is quite correct in asserting that this sort of stuff should be left up to the voters. Any attempt to legislate it would lead us into a quagmire of complaints of favoritism or arbitrary judgments...

Robt.

Has SC made that assertion which you ascribe to them officially, or is that just the personal opinion of some of them? Are there any measures toward improving the level of anonymity that you could support?


09/13/2005 04:42:14 PM · #48
Originally posted by coolhar:
Are there any measures toward improving the level of anonymity that you could support?


I'd support prominent wording in the challenge submission field regarding anonymity and its benefits to the community. I would not be in favor of DQs for breach of anonymity. I would not be in favor of any "rules" that consider recognizable styles or locations to be actionable breaches of anonymity even IF the rule-makers decided to make prior or concurrent "publication" of a challenge entry a DQable offense.

Of course, I'm just one voice here :-)

Robt.
 09/13/2005 04:48:50 PM · #49
Originally posted by scalvert:
... If you insist on posting it and then enter the shot, you'll probably get clobbered in the voting for breach of that taboo.


Okay - why is any more incentive/rules/discussion/whatever necessary beyond just that? If you don't like people breaking anonymity, slam them with your vote - if you don't care then you can vote on the merit of the photograph alone.

If people do get slammed, then that will tend to keep people from posting pictures from challenges that are being voted on. Problem solves itself without regulation!
 09/13/2005 04:53:56 PM · #50
Originally posted by joebok:
...why is any more incentive/rules/discussion/whatever necessary beyond just that? ...If people do get slammed, then that will tend to keep people from posting pictures from challenges that are being voted on.


Most of the time, it's newbies who post entries in the forums before the voting has ended. It's an innocent mistake, and we just ask them not to. It's really not a big deal.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/16/2025 01:16:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/16/2025 01:16:25 AM EDT.