| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/24/2003 12:59:27 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Here's my voting sytem:
1 - if I don't like it
10 - if i like it
and somewhere in between if the first thought in my head was "whatever" :) |
So, are we to understand that you base all of your votes on personal subjectivity, and do not make an evaluation of the photo as it might be valued in general, or even for a specific use, etc? |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 01:36:02 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by paganini:
Here's my voting sytem:
1 - if I don't like it
10 - if i like it
and somewhere in between if the first thought in my head was "whatever" :) |
So, are we to understand that you base all of your votes on personal subjectivity, and do not make an evaluation of the photo as it might be valued in general, or even for a specific use, etc? |
I believe there was an element of sarcasm in the original post, but even if not, there is no rule prohibiting people from voting solely on whether or not they "like" the photo.
This rule is one of the features which makes this site what it is, and I wish we could quit discussing it weekly. If you (generic -DPC-user) must comment on voting styles/patterns, PLEASE go back and re-read/add to the numerous previous threads on the topic first, so you can base your comments on a common history and not start over from the beginning every time.
If you have a particular concern about a vote on a specific photo, post a link to the photo and invite anyone who gave it a 1-3 vote to explain, but be prepared to simply acknlowledge and not argue with their opinion; you should be seeking an explanation and not a debate. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 01:39:57 PM · #28 |
We should compile a link list of these discussions that start up regularly so we can post the 'links' each time a new one starts up.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 01:52:07 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
We should compile a link list of these discussions that start up regularly so we can post the 'links' each time a new one starts up. |
it's fun to rehash |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 02:03:18 PM · #30 |
ok , am i getting this right, i have to conform to the norm.
if i don't like a photo which comes first, i for the sake of anonymity and to avoid bieng pillaried, and probably tarred and feathered too (or should we go straight to being hung , drawn and quartered,) must pretend i like it, whether it induces me to vomit or not?
ok my language maybe strong, but i thought we lived in a democratic society , and not Orwell's 1984, and i should vote the way i like, not how everyone else did. or maybe how some people would like me to.
i will end with a quote from the TV prog "the prisoner"- "i am not a number , I am a free man"
i have the choice to vote 1 - 10 , and i will. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 02:04:55 PM · #31 |
Isn't most voting based on subjectivity? I think some of DrJone's photos can attest to that, some of the best shots i have seen on this site came from him and his scores are generally graded DOWN due to subjective means.
Also, if the subject itself doesn't get anything out of the viewer, no matter how good the execution is, it'll still be rated down.
So, rather than trying to pretend i am grading this objectively, i'll use my own subjective grading system. And like Gordon pointed out in his post, 70-80% of the shots he'd grade as "bad", and for me, that's about the same number i'd rate as "not interested" or "don't like it".
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by paganini:
Here's my voting sytem:
1 - if I don't like it
10 - if i like it
and somewhere in between if the first thought in my head was "whatever" :) |
So, are we to understand that you base all of your votes on personal subjectivity, and do not make an evaluation of the photo as it might be valued in general, or even for a specific use, etc? |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 02:11:39 PM · #32 |
would some peoples egos actually be able to handle the reasons why they got a one.?
i hardly ever give 1's, but if i had to explain why, i don't think there would be a nice way to tell someone why i didn't like the picture.
apart from "0 wasn't on the scale , so i have to give you a 1 !"
and then cue the thread that appears at least once a month, "why do some people have to be so rude"
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 02:22:15 PM · #33 |
Would a 2 makes you feel better? :-)
Originally posted by aurora:
would some peoples egos actually be able to handle the reasons why they got a one.?
i hardly ever give 1's, but if i had to explain why, i don't think there would be a nice way to tell someone why i didn't like the picture.
apart from "0 wasn't on the scale , so i have to give you a 1 !"
and then cue the thread that appears at least once a month, "why do some people have to be so rude" |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 02:23:31 PM · #34 |
| Can't really say which voting method is the best. And there's nothing wrong with one voting method or another as long as the person is consistent while voting. That means most everyone is subjected to the same critiques then. And still, we get so defensive, as if those low scores are going to destroy us. But we all know a good photo is going to get the high score, even with those trolls out there. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 02:54:06 PM · #35 |
devil's advocate - but we better also look at the last place photo and make sure no one gave it a 10!
I think it is funny that no one complains about the high scores but every week there is another post on giving 1's in a challenge.
The scale is 1-10 last time I checked - and there is nothing wrong with using the full scale. Not everyone likes every photo - even if technically very good - subject matter and personal preference will always play a part in people's voting.
Look at the Self Portrait challenge - many voters said they were not giving below a 5 - and no one complained about that!
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 02:56:55 PM · #36 |
no matter how you look at it, each photogrpaher believes their own photo is worth more than a vote of 1. When they get the vote of 1, they get offended. There's not much that will change that.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:03:39 PM · #37 |
Whilst I would agree with removing somebody's account who votes 5 for every single photo, it is very subjective.
In the magazine cover challenge, the top three were by no means my top three (why didn't //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=24402 get in the top three?) And whilst that may explain my low scores, I know what I like - if other people don't like it, then that's there problem.
Oh, and I'd be one of those people who don't like giving photos lower than three - but I do do it if I feel it's particularly bad. And I also give very few photos a score of nine or ten.
Message edited by author 2003-06-24 15:07:49. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:23:54 PM · #38 |
If we were all assimilated into the borg collective then we would all think the same and would only need one person to vote.
Fortunately everyone is different and votes differently but as long as the best photos finish at the top there`s no problem.
A few 1`s won`t keep a good photo winning.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:29:54 PM · #39 |
Yes. This thread is ridiculous. I've given 3's to ribbon winners in the past and I've given high scores to pretty low rating photos. We are allowed to like different things, are we not? Let me take a minute to try to explain how I vote. I don't care if you like the way I do it, because it's how I do it, but at least I stay consistent, unmalicious, and it means something to me.
10 -- High Excellent. Not only technically excellent, but also appealing to me. I would purchase this, now or in some other life where I had money for such things, to put on my wall as a poster.
9 -- Excellent. Technically well executed, but not quite appealing or different enough for me to pay for to put on my wall. Still poster material though, and I would take it for free if someone wanted to give it to me.
8 -- Low Excellent. Still poster material, but not quite a 9 or 10. I think of this as something I would make into a poster if it was mine.
7 -- Really Really Good. I like to think of this as something that, if it were mine, I would spend the time and money printing out and sending to a friend. We're not talking photo-contest material, but still print and sharing worthy. Sharing with friends means that it has something extra that the other photos don't have that makes it appealing to a larger audience.
6 -- Really Good. A photo that I would consider printing out for my own purposes. That's basically how I think of it. It might not be an excellent photo, but the best of the bunch and something I would spend the money making a hard copy of to put in a small frame or maybe just to see how it looks and hold it in my hands.
5 -- Good/Average. Just about an average photo. This is one that I would keep in the folder of good pictures from a shoot. Maybe not the best of the bunch, but defintely still a keeper.
4 -- Below Average. This is the photo that is alright, but didn't quite make it into that "good" folder due to the fact that there are, or should be, many photos better than it. It still isn't bad and the original image should still be kept in case there is something to do with it oneday.
3 -- Bad. I would delete this photo from my hardrive after reviewing it and possibly making sure that I couldn't fix it up with a little bit of work. I can tell what the photo is of, it just doesn't work. It can be technically well done and in focus but there are, or should be, tons of better photos to pick from the shoot.
2 -- Really Bad. Delete this immediately if it even made it to my computer. Don't open in photoshop, probablly don't even take the time to rotate it correctly. Just see it, think nope, and move on.
1 -- Terrible. Never made it to the computer in the first place. Got rightly deleted in the camera. Should have just taken a photo with the lens on.
Of course, this doesn't explain why I feel the way I do about a particular photo. That's a really hard thing to do, but I try to do it in my comments to each photo when I have the time. This is just how I lay it out in my head. I give mostly scores around 5, very few 1 2 9 10. Thought people might like seeing it.
Message edited by author 2003-06-24 15:37:51. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:41:00 PM · #40 |
I think an interesting discussion would be 'what is technical excellence?'
Jason's list requires it for a high score.
I tried making a list like this but found very quickly that I couldn't use it consistently across all photos.
I can't define 'technical excellence'. I suppose that most have some sort of definition that probably says something like 'i don't see anything wrong with it' as a definition.
I believe that 'technical excellence' requirements are part of what stifles creativity with the camera and post processing. Since a lot of people seem to like 'technical excellence', I believe that is one of the reasons that stock type photos continually do well here when some of the more emotive and creatively executed shots fall in the ranks.
Just my opinion...
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:45:22 PM · #41 |
now, you took me wrong. By technically excellent I don't necessarily mean crip clear stock images. I just mean that it looks visually excellent to me. It can be soft or have a small DOF, etc, as long as it works. I have no way of defining this excellence. And keep in mind that my list doesn't work across all photos either, but I tried to think of it in a way that pretty much got rid of most techical aspects. It's based on what I would do with the pictures, if you understand what I mean. Of course, you'll also notice that I haven't included anything about meeting the challenge in my list. :)
while i was thinking about this, i decided to look at my 4 highest rated photos and figure out what I'd give them.
My highest photo, Almost Gone, I would have given an 9. There is something about it that seems low quality to me so I wouldn't pay to have it on my wall, but I like it a lot so I would take it for free and I do intend to pay to print it out big for myself, so that would be an 8 for sure, and since I'm spending a little money, it's a 9.
My second is Clark Park, my first submission on here for the square challenge. I would give that a 5, honestly. I was very surprised that it did so well.
My third is my most recent, Me and My Monopod, which I would give a 7. It's not poster or purchase worthy, but it is humorous and I have already printed it out to give to send to some friends.
My fourth is Urban Youth. I would give that an 7 as well. I was very pleased with it and thought it was one of my best submissions. It would be poster material to me if it was of some other subject matter, but it is still something I deemed worthy of sharing in printed form.
Message edited by author 2003-06-24 15:55:59. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:52:42 PM · #42 |
For me there are two issues with any rating system:
1. Photography is art, and part of that is hard to "define" as "good" or "bad", as it is subjective. 100 years ago people thought Van Gogh was crap, look at the prices for them now :)
2. So let's say you get rid of the art factor and judge on technical merits. Well, that's difficult too. For example, someone uses very shallow DOF and forces nearly everything into OOF, creatinging a impressionistic canvas. I'll bet lots of people thought this was a crappy photo and gave it a 1-3 because it's "OOF", but some might think it's awesome because they get the artist' intent, and give it a 10. So in the end, even the technical side of things have artistic merits, and thus, it's subjective.
So in the end, it's whether the viewer likes the photo or not (subjectively based) And that's based on his/her opinion on technical merits (subjectively based for the reason i listed above) and artistic merits (subjectively based). So it might as well be a subjective rating system, at least it seems to me.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think an interesting discussion would be 'what is technical excellence?'
Jason's list requires it for a high score.
I tried making a list like this but found very quickly that I couldn't use it consistently across all photos.
I can't define 'technical excellence'. I suppose that most have some sort of definition that probably says something like 'i don't see anything wrong with it' as a definition.
I believe that 'technical excellence' requirements are part of what stifles creativity with the camera and post processing. Since a lot of people seem to like 'technical excellence', I believe that is one of the reasons that stock type photos continually do well here when some of the more emotive and creatively executed shots fall in the ranks.
Just my opinion... |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:53:18 PM · #43 |
And visually "excellent" to you, is a subjective term :) it's just that you "like" the photo.... others might not, and thus it's subjective.
Originally posted by JasonPR:
now, you took me wrong. By technically excellent I don't necessarily mean crip clear stock images. I just mean that it looks visually excellent to me. It can be soft or have a small DOF, etc, as long as it works. I have no way of defining this excellence. And keep in mind that my list doesn't work across all photos either, but I tried to think of it in a way that pretty much got rid of most techical aspects. It's based on what I would do with the pictures, if you understand what I mean. Of course, you'll also notice that I haven't included anything about meeting the challenge in my list. :) |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:57:56 PM · #44 |
| paganini: exactly! I guess I was just trying to further explain what my subjective scores meant. I am in no way implying that voting isn't subjective or that other people should be giving the same photos the same scores as me, or vice versa. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:10:00 PM · #45 |
Continuing 'technical excellence' in another thread....
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:11:10 PM · #46 |
| What I really think needs to be done is the numbers across the top of the photo need to disappear cause it is to easy just to click on a number and move on, probably how some people can vote in 10 minutes on 100 plus images. Get rid of the numbers across the top for voting and make the voter scroll down over the photo to vote, then at least the person isn't seeing a title and the very top of a photo and scoring a 1 or a 2 without seeing the whole photo! |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:20:33 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
What I really think needs to be done is the numbers across the top of the photo need to disappear cause it is to easy just to click on a number and move on, probably how some people can vote in 10 minutes on 100 plus images. Get rid of the numbers across the top for voting and make the voter scroll down over the photo to vote, then at least the person isn't seeing a title and the very top of a photo and scoring a 1 or a 2 without seeing the whole photo! |
agreed. I never use the top ones and I'm a little confused by why they are even there. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:20:44 PM · #48 |
My voting system:
The nth photo I see gets a vote of "(n mod 10) plus 1"
It's objective, impersonal, and fast. The way voting ought to be. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:24:02 PM · #49 |
| If someone does use only half the scale, 1-5 for example (of which I am not one) who cares!! They will use this thoughout the challenge and the best shot will still place first.. What this is really about (I think) is people dont like seeing 1-4 given to the shot they think is great, I dont like it either, but I will live it, it is a part of life, that everyone has a different opinion. And for me, I think that makes an interesting world.. When we start to value the differences in people we start to understand ourselves!!! |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 06:29:00 PM · #50 |
It looks like this thread turned into "how do you vote" instead of the original topic, which was the possibility that some voters give low scores to good images to affect the placement of that photo in the final rankings. THere is a great deal of good discussion here about subjectivity and voting methods, but the original question was about 'unethical' voting.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
|
|
