|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2007 10:04:06 PM · #26 |
| Why worry so much about things you can't control. (ie, you can't control how people view your image, no matter how much you would like everyone to view it how you do.) |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:04:22 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Di:
Originally posted by Beetle:
[quote=zeuszen] ... the undue focus on DNMC. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...this rather anal obsession with "obvious" solutions to challenges. |
I agree with both of you about the undue focus! |
Not sure why you quoted ME in this, then! |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:04:49 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by jonejess:
... Its all about perspective. Talented photographers, such as yourself and others, who have been here a long time and have submitted hundreds of photographs and challenged for ribbons seem obsessed with "trolls" and the perception everyone else is out to screw you. ... |
I'm not sure I see it that way (surprise!). :)
The photographers that have been here for awhile have seen the topics of DNMC, "Trolls", etc...come up many, many times (did I say many?). There comes a point where you realize it's not that important and you just keep doing your thing and don't worry about it.
This community at DPChallenge grows and changes on a daily basis. So far today 42 new people have registered. In the last week nearly 300 new people have joined.
It's inevitable that many topics will repeat themselves because of the dynamic nature of the DPChallenge community.
As for the long-term members being "obsessed with trolls"...no disrespect, but I'm not buying it. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:16:28 PM · #29 |
Well I'm not obsessed with trolls at all. I think they are self-canceling and irrelevant, to whatever degree they exist :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:43:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by jonejess:
... Its all about perspective. Talented photographers, such as yourself and others, who have been here a long time and have submitted hundreds of photographs and challenged for ribbons seem obsessed with "trolls" and the perception everyone else is out to screw you. ... |
I'm not sure I see it that way (surprise!). :)
As for the long-term members being "obsessed with trolls"...no disrespect, but I'm not buying it. |
By saying "no disrespect" I assume that means you're not going to make me review the several thousand posts I've read in the last 6 months and provide a statistical breakdown.
Likewise, I will not assume that you are not "in favor" of starving children, war, or poverty but that it is merely inevitable.
I accept your premise. Bring on the popcorn.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:11:51 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by jonejess:
The proposal I envisioned would be more modest.
I would suggest initially that voters be instructed to vote primarily on the merits of the entry, regardless of the challenge topic.
Voters would then have the option,before submitting their vote, of clicking a radio button that says DNMC.
If a particular entry then exceeds a pre-determined percentage of, say, 20%, the entry will not be able to ribbon and will be DQ'd from the challenge. There would be no "penalty" for this DQ other than perhaps that the score for the DQ'd entry not being listed in order of finish at the end of a challenge. |
My idea adds the idea of a human control to veto that "20%" in the event of a photograph that is well outside the box, but still has met the challenge. It also has the addition of a 24 hour grace period to provide some explanation if it is not already provided in the image description.
I believe those are reasonable controls. The point of the explanation by the photographer is to simply acknowledge that the DNMC council is not capable of reading minds, so would therefore merely become an organizing party and a BS filter.
Remember, DNMC is rarely a FACT, and usually an opinion. It is by nature a comment based on a single POV. This should not be forgotten.
Additionally, by giving the photographer a bit of control in allowing them to opt themselves to move to the DNMC bag, they have a way of DISCARDING DNMC swayed votes and cleaning their slate of these low votes, allowing a slightly longer period of time to bring up the balance of votes.
Regardless of whether trolls exist or not, and whether the issue is important or not, this at least would help to stem the feelings associated with the term.
For most challenges, the DNMC button tally would remain merely a private stat for the photographer to view. It is NOT a replacement for voting, it is merely an attempt to help people understand it.
Originally posted by Robert:
Given the way things are now, people tend to get hurt when their images don't fare as well as they perhaps ought to on purely creative/photographic merits, and such a set of radio buttons might at least have the benefit of clearly informing the photographer why this happened. |
I believe this sums up the point quite neatly. EVEN IF those radio buttons were only required for 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 votes, and voluntary for anything higher, I still think we would see an improvement in general morale and in the education process that people appreciate.
My idea with a single radio box brings it to a simpler level, without trying to add anything to the already existing process of thought during voting. Most people currently don't think much beyond DNMC, and I believe that while it is a great idea to try to get people to think more, it is still something of a difficult task. How do I know this? Look at the threads. People use DNMC as a brand. I don't see people going around saying 'that was very near to the challenge description, but not quite, IMHO'. I say that kind of thing, but I am very wordy. Most people just go with the simple.
By keeping the radio buttons (whether they be four or one) SEPARATE from the voting process, it deflates the emotional value that people currently attach to the label DNMC. If the person understands that their score is heavily weighted by a general DNMC opinion, they can then choose to discard those votes or simply deal with them and leave them be. The votes would have been the same without the DNMC button, but now they would understand and have a choice. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:25:30 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Di:
I'd rather see 100% on the vote it gets... and ZERO% on peoples opinion on whether it meets the challenge or not.. |
Didn't want to miss this one.
I agree. Votes garnered should not be affected by any additional stats. People already use their vote to indicate their opinion of DNMC or not. That's no surprise and it's fair since they are the sole judges of their vote and their voting system. The voting system here is not broken.
By having a simple DNMC radio box, you would have the option of choosing to go to the DNMC bag and discard those DNMC votes.
Of course, we all know that challenge descriptions are fair and if an image truly IS DNMC, in many cases, it is only the photographer that can know this. But if the photographer knows that the image IS DNMC, and they enter it, then the question is raised, why not submit to the free study?
On the other hand, the photographer can know that their image truly DOES meet the challenge, but other people might not see it that way. If they choose to submit anyways, then one would hope that their score is not the most important thing to them to the point that they would get upset if it fared badly. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 12:10:46 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
... in the event of a photograph that is well outside the box, but still has met the challenge. It also has the addition of a 24 hour grace period to provide some explanation if it is not already provided in the image description. |
Why not just allow people to read the "Additional Information" provided by the photographer during the voting? As a pop-up if you want it optional?
If someone does somehing stupid like reveal who they are,you can vote them down for that, but at least you'll know why the photographer entered that picture in this challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 00:24:21. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 12:22:44 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by eschelar:
... in the event of a photograph that is well outside the box, but still has met the challenge. It also has the addition of a 24 hour grace period to provide some explanation if it is not already provided in the image description. |
Why not just allow people to read the "Additional Information" provided by the photographer during the voting? As a pop-up if you want it optional?
If someone does somehing stupid like reveal who they are,you can vote them down for that, but at least you'll know why the photographer entered that picture in this challenge. |
I've always thought that would be a good idea, actually. Very helpful in so many ways.
R.
Message edited by GeneralE - Corrected misformatted emphases in quote. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 12:27:30 AM · #35 |
Another excellent idea!
how about if when you click the radio box, it pops up the photograph's Additional Information with a choice of two buttons Still DNMC and Not DNMC.
The problem there is that A: many people don't fill this in, B: many people (myself included) don't feel a need to indicate compliance with challenge descriptions even when this is filled in and C: Most people include a fair bit of surrounding information that may complicate the anonymity of the voting.
Additionally, this adds time and inconvenience to clicking the radio box, which discourages open honesty. In fact, the goal here is to get people to be MORE open about DNMC comments, but de-emotionalizing them, so they are merely another number to look at. If you include too much inconvenience, people won't click the box because of time, and the primary benefit will be reduced.
This is why that info box is only privy to the SC currently and why I feel it should only be privy to a small DNMC council during voting.
Perhaps better if this wasn't tied to the DNMC box. So many people are so insistent that an image speaks for itself without accompanying words, that this might just get a bit cross-purposed.
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 00:29:21. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 12:28:47 AM · #36 |
If DNMC was harder to spell it would get used less...
Just vote you mind and let the images fall out where they fall out. Adding more buttons in my opinion will only confuse things, a DNMC is only letting you know that people are not seeing what you may have intended which is not always a bad thing. Having someone critique your work does not always feel good (or at least when you are as bad as I am, I am just here for my twice weekly beating). |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 12:35:26 AM · #37 |
An interesting conflict there Papabob.
On one hand, you are possibly suggesting that DNMC ought to be used less. On the other hand, you also state that receiving more information regarding how your image is received by the general public is a good thing.
have you considered that if DNMC was used more, people would get less excited about it?
look at all the one votes kicking around. If an image has 35 1 votes, people don't usually get too upset. If an image has 3 1 votes, people take note. and if an image has 0 1 votes, people are happy. and images get ribbons.
There is no direct emotional attachment to a 1 vote. Sadly, the 1 vote doesn't really mean anything. A single DNMC check box along with that single 1 vote would explain a lot. If there was no DNMC box checked and a single 1 vote, the person could conclude that the person was either a 'troll' or perhaps just plain didn't like the image for whatever reason. Nothing really changes. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 12:43:56 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
An interesting conflict there Papabob.
On one hand, you are possibly suggesting that DNMC ought to be used less. On the other hand, you also state that receiving more information regarding how your image is received by the general public is a good thing.
have you considered that if DNMC was used more, people would get less excited about it?
look at all the one votes kicking around. If an image has 35 1 votes, people don't usually get too upset. If an image has 3 1 votes, people take note. and if an image has 0 1 votes, people are happy. and images get ribbons.
There is no direct emotional attachment to a 1 vote. Sadly, the 1 vote doesn't really mean anything. A single DNMC check box along with that single 1 vote would explain a lot. If there was no DNMC box checked and a single 1 vote, the person could conclude that the person was either a 'troll' or perhaps just plain didn't like the image for whatever reason. Nothing really changes. |
I'd actually like it to be used less and people leave better comments, but being realistic I know a lot of people throw those DNMC's out rather than taking the time to leave a comment. I had an image this week that I left a comment on why I thought it missed the mark, the person that entered it left me a very good meassage letting me know what he was trying to convey which made some sense to me but did not sway my opinion I still thought it was a stretch. My point being I took some extra time to at least communicate my thoughts rather than pressing a DNMC button.
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 00:45:57. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 01:02:43 AM · #39 |
Yes, I agree, my comments are usually quite verbose, and I think it's the best way.
However, my suggestion is not trying to change the way people think and do things, it's just trying to get them to say a bit more about why they do things they already do in a simple and easy way.
Problem is, not everyone has the time. If I don't have the time, I don't vote. I usually try to comment on a good portion of the photos as well, but it really does take time!
In a perfect world, everyone would leave well-thought out and sincere comments on every image they voted on. Of course for me, this would mean 2 or 3 images per challenge for most challenges and so no votes would be tallied. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 01:06:29 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Problem is, not everyone has the time. |
Honestly, I don't care more or less if you simply type "DNMC" in the comment box if that's how you feel about it versus some kind of button or check-box -- it can't really take much longer. I might disagree but I am not offended. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 01:22:40 AM · #41 |
But many people here do care. Don't believe me? Read the forums. look at all the people talking about DQ and DNMC and such. look at all the people who respond with flames or talking behind someone's back just because of a DNMC comment. People SHOULDN'T care about one or two people pushing the box or even commenting DNMC. But many do.
The point is not to make it easier than the current voting system, the point is to de-emotionalize it and help people not to have such strong reactions to the idea of DNMC.
by typing DNMC as a comment, from the point of view of the commenter, you are opening yourself to response. By pushing the box, there is no response either way. Honesty is encouraged.
By typing DNMC as a comment, from the point of view of the photographer, there could be all sorts of reasons one might get bent out of shape, and then retaliate. In this way, it is from one person to another and has all sorts of added meaning. Voting is anonymous. DNMC opinions often affect voting. Additionally, DNMC is often commented as a single statement. Why not remove the emotional aspect of the DNMC? It doesn't discourage regular commenting.
Incidentally, I very rarely comment DNMC, and usually give a few minutes thought before I do. I am not campaigning here for the right to click DNMC.
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 05:59:32. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 05:26:24 AM · #42 |
This whole Courtroom is DNMC!
...carry on...
|
|
|
|
09/21/2007 10:10:40 AM · #43 |
So the issue apparently has not died. The horse was just taking a breather and would appreciate it if those who were working it over with the 'gentle relaxing massage' would cease and desist for a moment while discussion carries on briefly. If you feel the need to bring out some clever or kitschy GIFs, you might find the 'ignore' option easier.
I will recap the concepts of the idea with a couple of variations so folk don't have to go back and read all my long-windedness at the beginning.
the problems are defined nicely in this post from this thread
Originally posted by theGrandWazoo:
What problem?
Do you mean the problem of people creating these posts after every challenge?
Or the problem of some creative people thinking way out of the box and the narrow way some voters interpret the challenge and are so quick to DNMC an image?
Or the problem of shoehorning an image into a challenge with a very descriptive title so that the image meets the challenge?
And again if you search the forums you will see a Trillion threads like this. OK maybe not a Trillion but a bunch. |
I've given it some thought and have reworked a few of the ideas. the reasons are dicussed above.
The solution as offered by myself:
phase 1Add a DNMC check box. Allow voters to vote as they see fit. Instead of comments that read simply 'DNMC', people will be encouraged to keep the same commenting pattern as they do currently. The information would be available to the shooter only.
phase 2Add an option to have image moved to the 'DNMC bag'. In most challenges, this would be up to the discretion of the photographer. The DNMC Bag would be a place where all votes flagged 'DNMC' via the radio box would be discarded and the vote would be calculated based on the remaining votes, HOWEVER, the image would no longer be subject to receiving a placement. It COULD count towards the user's personal best, but would not be given a placement. If the person was shooting for score, this might be a better option. If the person was shooting for the challenge or for personal reasons and had chosen an image that might be a little unclear to some, but was still MC in their opinion, then they could still choose to let the cards fall where they may within the challenge.
I am no longer convinced that having the DNMC bag enforced would necessarily be a useful solution, however it may be useful to include an automatic email warning if the person's DNMC votes were more than a certain percentage, possibly a part of the user's preferences after two days had elapsed from the beginning of voting.
It has been suggested that if an image meets a certain number of DNMC box checks, a council might email requesting a MC description to be entered, similar to the image details text field that the council could review (for anonymity) then reveal along with the image in lieu of a 'validated' stamp which has seen abuse in the past. This could be a possibility for a Phase 3 that would leave the Council's decision making out of the 'DQ' field, leaving the onus and most of the work on the photographer. The council could either be the Site Council or an independent council. If the beginning part of this process (automatic email for images with more than 10 DNMC checks or something), and the only criteron was anonymity, then presumably this council could carry out its duties without even revealing the identity of the shooter to them, allowing them fair and unbiased voting. If the MC information was unclear, the photographer would have nobody to blame but him or herself.
I believe that this would:
- help quiet down threads regarding DNMC images
- help reduce the number of 'flame PMs' returned to DNMC commenters
- help reduce the stigma associated with 'DNMC' as a concept
- help users to learn more about how their images are perceived by the public
- increase the amount of honesty regarding 'DNMC'
- probably also increase the number of low votes for 'shoehorned' images
- help people to understand that DNMC is not a curse, but rather just another stat to help understand the voting numbers
- reduce the number of comments that state 'DNMC' and little else helpful
- by extension increase the amount of time people had for comments of real substance
- provide a bit more substance to those who felt their image WAS MC when a single person or small number of people choose to take up the DNMC position on a particular image.
- help with the conundrum of how to vote on an image that is beautiful and technically excellent, but does not fit the challenge in the voter's POV
- possibly help with reducing the number of images that have a very strong DNMC factor that sit on the front page advertising that people can 'shoehorn' around the challenge description and still get around it.
I believe it would NOT:
- solve everything
- stop people from abusing the system
but most importantly, I believe that it would not significantly increase the amount of time that people spent voting.
Some people have suggested that the person who wants to say DNMC ought to put it in the comment along with useful information about how to improve the image or something else positive to 'soften' the message. This would ask more time of the voter/commenter and this is probably the primary reason why this HAS NOT HAPPENED and likely will not in the future. Asking people to do more and change the way they comment is not easily accepted (see the thread posted by Larus recently).
The other problem with having DNMC retained within the realm of comments is that this is only looking at the problem from the point of view of the person who wants to say DNMC but feels uncomfortable actually saying it. People have encouraged the use of DNMC in commenting, but this isn't actually helping. Why? Largely because it does not address the other issues so succinctly phrased above by the grandwazoo.
I for one am not suggesting this with the purpose of giving more freedom to people who want to have their DNMC say but don't like getting flame PM's. I am suggesting this in response to the large amount of negative feeling that has been spreading through the site as a result of this real or perceived phenomenon which is DNMC. Too much time has already gone into debating it. And too much time has been siphoned away from other important parts of this site - namely strong positive commenting, learning environments and discussions of photography in all its facets.
time for action? I hope so. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:36:01 AM · #44 |
Since people are still refusing to respond to my idea in my thread, I will post some opinions here.
Originally posted by trevytrev:
sorry, I should have quoted before. [thumb]eschelar[/thumb] the "you" was to refer to you and your proposal. I stand by my opinon that everything you need to voice your opinion on an image is in place as it stands. Maybe some are not utilizing it to its full potential but adding another funtion in the voting process isn't going to change that, imho. |
Thanks for the clarification.
I am taking something which is already simple, and adding something which is also simple. (a check box) I am further adding something else which is quite simple (the option for the photographer to choose how important those DNMC flavored votes are to him/her rather than have that importance decided by others).
I also added an idea which might be less simple as optional to my idea (having a Meet Challenge information box which could be revealed during the challenge) in response to a good suggestion by GeneralE to have additional image information revealed during the challenge.
If you feel that this is making the issue too complicated, you are entitled to your own opinion. I don't believe that this is so.
Originally posted by glad2beadad:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Doing something is better than doing nothing. |
Not when nothing needs doing in the first place. :) |
Opinion noted.
Bear's opinion and his slightly different option can be found above, but I felt it appropriate to restate his alternative to my idea because I believe that it is worthy and good.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me see if I can approach this idea from a slightly different perspective.
Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument (I am NOT proposing this) that the voting system itself were changed so that voters had 2 numbers to submit: one number for photographic/artistic rating, and a second number for challenge relevance rating. Let's suppose that the votes were somehow combined in a formula to produce a weighted total score, on which the ribbons were based. And let's suppose, finally, that at close of voting the stats for each image which show both raw scores and the weighted, final score, complete with bar graphs for the first two.
I presume very few people would argue that this "enriched voting" would NOT give the photographer more accurate feedback than the current system does, as far as how the community as a whole viewed the image.
Now, as for what's been proposed here, it's a simple, radio-button addition to the voting process that, anywhere from 1 to 5 buttons, that would provide direct feedback as to how the community views the relevance of the image to the challenge. It would not change the score at all (people are not willing to accept any change to the voting system like, say, the more radical approach above), but it WOULD provide valid, anonymous feedback to the photographer that s/he currently does not receive.
I'm really at a loss to understand why so many people think this is such a terrible idea; I can't see a downside to it at all, I think people are imaging problems that will never evolve from it.
R.
ETA: Trevytrev said: "I would be curious to see a survey go out to the DPC community to see what % of the community thinks that this is a problem to be fixed."
I don't think the issue here is that we "have a problem that needs to be solved"; I think what we have is a valid proposal that will provide more concrete feedback to the photographers about their images. And do it anonymously, so there is likely to be more of it than the comment system is currently generating.
It's not a matter of 'fixing" anything, it's a matter of enhancing it. |
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 00:37:22. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:49:57 AM · #45 |
Although what Bear Music stated is a great idea... it is also just what we, as voters, are doing in our heads. The question is more of a 'what takes precedence... challenge topic or photographic principal. It is still a matter of judgment and if the voter is not already figuring this out when he/she votes, having another set of buttons isn't gonna change anything. Except maybe the number of people voting since it seems alot of people (myself included sometimes) have a hard time finding the time to click once on a number to vote. I can't see them jumping to click on even another button as well.
Sorry,man... I sincerely think that if this horse didn't die months or years ago... then there is a can of dogfood with it's name on it somewhere.
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 00:51:08.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 01:29:22 AM · #46 |
Thanks for your opinion. I agree that it is about what takes precedence challenge topic or photographic principal. But can you see how this makes for an uncomfortable compromise which leads to inaccurate vote casting? I certainly don't feel comfortable with the points that I hand out to images that I feel are DNMC.
I usually choose a vote and halve it for images where I cannot see a MC challenge. I give it some thought and I invariably feel uncomfortable about it. Sometimes to the point where I skip it outright. Is this accurate voting according to my own definitions. no.
Oh by the way, if the horse were truly dead, we wouldn't still have any active threads discussing it. We do. It lives.
Originally posted by mk:
Well, actually, yes, several people are touting it as a solution. But if I were dismissing it, I wouldn't have asked several times for explanation of how it would work, would I? I just fail to see how, when the complaint is that other people aren't voting DNMC when they should, implementing another way to vote DNMC is going to change anything. Is checking a box somehow more enticing than selecting a number or having an open text box? Perhaps. So maybe we should try it and buckle down for triple the number of complaints about narrow minded voters. It's going to be a lose-lose situation for as long as we feel the solution is to better control what others do until the result is more in line with our own opinions. So carry on... :) |
Issues I read:
1 - how would it work? See above three or four posts
2 - If the complaint is that other people aren't voting DNMC when they should, how would implementing another way to vote DNMC change anything? It would make it easier to say DNMC both for those who choose to vote low and for those who choose to vote without regard to the 'MC' quality. It would do this by adding anonymity, and keeping the decision process simple. it would lead to an increase in people EXPRESSING DNMC, but not in the actual SENTIMENT of DNMC. This isn't telling people to change what they feel, just trying to get them to say it clearly and honestly. or at least as much so as possible with little effort.
3 - Is checking a box somehow more enticing than selecting a number or having an open text box? Enticing? Not the word I would use, but it's certainly less stressful. The fear of people sending angry PM's is one powerful motivator that turns a lot of people off of using that comment box. See numerous other threads about it. My personal experience leads me to believe that this is not all that uncommon.
4 - Would we get triple the number of complaints about narrow minded voters? I'm not seeing this issue raised in the forums nearly as much as the DNMC images rating highly to be honest. Additionally, narrow minded voters is more of an issue with low votes rather than specifically DNMC. If people complain about a large number of low votes with the system changes that I proposed, they could at least be able to understand whether the votes come from DNMC flavored votes or content oriented votes (ie nudes, religious, patriotic...) If an image picked up a whole mess of DNMC votes and people complained about it, then they could take one of two explanations - either the image was too OOB for people to understand or they themselves erred on the interpretation of the challenge meaning. Either way, they get to learn. If they posted to complain and not learn, well isn't that a separate issue? and wouldn't they have complained anyways? at least there is a bit more information to give them an explanation.
5 - Do we need to control what others feel so they are in line with our own feelings in order to feel that we have found a reasonable 'solution'? I don't believe that this is entirely the case. true, there are a lot of threads that happen because of this, and right now, the same arguments are raised: "I think this is DNMC" meets "I think it's fine" or "I think it's close enough" from the various gentry... Of course none of this is really relevant or important. In reality what is happening is that Person A is telling Photographer B that they don't see eye to eye with them on this point of challenge description. Perhaps it's an issue of semantics and Photographer B actually did make a mistake or chose to ignore something. EITHER WAY, the Person A must eventually come to realize that their voice was either 'in line with others' or 'shared by no-one else' and that their opinion is either relevant to the Photograph or not. If it is relevant, then they have had their say. If it's a big deal, the comment box can be still be used. Photographer B must eventually realize that either 'their vision is different from Person A (and others who share the opinion), but still valid' or that they made a mistake in interpreting something - and possibly learn.
These 'complaint' threads would still happen, but they would run a rather different course.
Person A could complain that Image A was DNMC. Photographer B could either reveal or not reveal their DNMC tally. Hopefully, Photographer B could reveal the more important detail about how they felt their image related to the challenge. Ideally, this is much more important than how many people voted one way or another IMHO. If people voted honestly (and we have to leave that up to them), then we would see some minor changes in the way challenges ended up placing. I guess that it would be fairly minor for a while and minor to moderate after a while. This is only a guess though. If people voted honestly, one would hope that those who are deliberately shoe-horning would at least occasionally chose the DNMC bag and politely bow out, choosing to keep the remaining score value. In the long term, this might reduce deliberate shoe-horning and IMHO be good for the site overall.
As it is, DNMC is still rare enough that some people still feel a sting. If it were more common, sure there would be some 'growing pains' but by making it more common, and anonymous, it would have a stronger message while removing some of the sting. Adding the box may or may not make it actually more common.
Originally posted by mk:
The problem is that no one has a problem with the way they vote and comment...the problem is the way everyone else does it. So we add a DNMC checkbox...then the same group can keep complaining about the narrowminded twits who are so ignorant and the other group can keep complaining about how the pansies refuse to vote DNMC on shots that DNMC. And there we are right where we started. |
I don't think that this is specifically true. Some people have expressed a desire to have more freedom of expression for entries. I would like to have the option to say that an image is DNMC but is pretty close and is an excellent image (for example DNMC=Yes, vote 7) or to say that an image is poor (DNMC=no, vote 3) or perhaps that an image is DNMC and appears to be just another shoehorn (DNMC=Yes, vote=1).
I don't think that I would feel comfortable with either of the above DNMC votes cast without having the ability to add DNMC. On the other hand, having used DNMC in my comments only a very small handful of times, and having received a fair bit of flak for those few times, I wouldn't necessarily feel all that excited about using the comment for that. Therefore, I would be dissatisfied with the level of expression capable with the current voting system for those images. And I WOULD say that the problem is with my own vote/comment.
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 01:48:17. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:20:27 AM · #47 |
I can certainly respect your obvious passion for this idea. And I can respect how you listen to feedback and are open enough to evolve and modify the concept. Personally though, I think it feels like it is just making something very complex that I don't think can be handled in a complicated manner. I think challenge relevance is such a subjective thing, it can only be dealt with in the basest, simpleist fashion. (like the current way-let people put a value on it, vote and comment as they each individually see fit).
Also, I've heard you mention several times, with various wording, that a goal of this idea is to 'de-emotionalize', de-sensitize, to remove the stigma of a DNMC. To water it down, to make it all easier, turn it in to another stat. This just seems in my mind like it is not offering a solution at all, but actually it would promote the original 'problem'. In other words, it seems like it would start to remove, or lessen the ramifications of entering any old 'great image' in a challenge, wether it fits, or is pushing it, or shoe-horned, or whatever. After all, the stigma is gone, the low votes appear less, etc. and why not just go for a ribbon? don't worry about the dnmc, it is just a little stat to view, or not. In fact, it sounds like it provides a 'safety net. If I have an image I'm thinking of entering, but I think it might be, or I even know that it is pushing the challenge connection, well, I can go ahead and enter it, and 'test the waters'. If it is getting a low score, and dnmc checks, then no problem, right? I can just choose to pull it and go in the 'dnmc bag'. No worries, right? Just a personal stat, I can just try again the next challenge. So, I could see it actually increasing 'dnmc entries', and possibly allowing them to get higher scores. (that is one of your other stated goals, correct? to 'not feel bad about scoring a dnmc image highly', because you can check the box instead?)
Another thing, I don't think that people that are going to get upset, and go on rants, and send flaming pm's over dnmc comments, are suddenly going to have warm fuzzies over dnmc checks on their photos. What's the difference? That there are more of them? Just reason for those folks to get even madder, I would think :-) I think they would probably still feel that the voters are ignorant, obtuse, and just don't 'get them'. Or, as maybe sometimes happens, the photog just doesn't 'get it', and again, I don't think the check box will change that, either :-)
Lastly, I guess I'm just not sure that this is such a widespread, great problem that it is being made out to be. Sure, one has to concede that there are the frequent threads about this image scoring well, or why did this get higher than mine, or nobody got my shot, etc, etc. Some may have a meritable basis, some may not. I guess I would challenge you to show some solid, specific examples of high scoring shots that a majority of people would think are totally DNMC. You've already got the 3rd place Opening shot (although, let's not discuss it here, it already is a hot enough topic on it's own!). I can't give the Lily shot though, I don't think it's a solid expample, because although some people thought it didn't fit, I heard a lot with reasonable explanations on why they felt it did fit. Also, let's not include the 2 sec, and 2-4am challenge controversies, that is a whole 'nother issue :-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:23:53 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Bear's opinion and his slightly different option can be found above, but I felt it appropriate to restate his alternative to my idea because I believe that it is worthy and good.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me see if I can approach this idea from a slightly different perspective.
Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument (I am NOT proposing this) that the voting system itself were changed so that voters had 2 numbers to submit: one number for photographic/artistic rating, and a second number for challenge relevance rating. Let's suppose that the votes were somehow combined in a formula to produce a weighted total score, on which the ribbons were based. And let's suppose, finally, that at close of voting the stats for each image which show both raw scores and the weighted, final score, complete with bar graphs for the first two.
I presume very few people would argue that this "enriched voting" would NOT give the photographer more accurate feedback than the current system does, as far as how the community as a whole viewed the image.
|
|
Let me reiterate: I am not "proposing" the above. I proposed it a couple years ago and it was roundly denounced by nearly all respondents in that thread. Consensus was it was too complicated, would make voting even more of a chore (especially with a slow connection), and would invalidate historical score parallels.
My point was (and is) that if you IMAGINE such a system were in place, then surely you would agree that the system provides better, in-depth information tot he photographer than the current system does, by separating the photographic judging points from the topical judging points an evaluating them independently.
My point was (and is) that some variant of eschelar's radio-button proposal would provide a certain measure of increased feedback in the area of topicality, as separated from photographic merit, and this can only be a good thing for photographers who wish to understand why their images received the scores they did. It won't change the historical scoring parallels at all, it will take virtually no more time in the voting, and the feedback would be anonymous, real, and valid; or at least as valid as any vote is valid, anyway :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:31:37 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Lastly, I guess I'm just not sure that this is such a widespread, great problem that it is being made out to be. |
Again, let me suggest that this doesn't have to be a "problem" in order to justify addressing the issue, which is after all a real one as it pops up frequently. It wasn't a "problem" that we didn't have a buy/sell forum, but now we have one. It wasn't a "problem" that we didn't have a lot of things we now have; we could have lived without them, but they enhance the DPC experience for all.
Instead, look at the proposal as "value added" to the voting and evaluating process, from the point of view of entrants who have been voted upon.
DPC being to some measure a community for learning, any workable proposal that enhances the ability of challenge entrants to evaluate the votes they have received and learn from their challenge experiences has my vote of approval. In theory the "comments" box was to be that element, but in practice as challenges have gotten larger and more frequent, the number of useful comments has declined.
In practice, many people are reluctant, especially, to make DNMC comments, whether because they are afraid of looking silly if the image DOES prove to be on topic and they missed it, or because they have negative experiences with challenge entrants disputing their DNMC evaluation, sometimes very acrimoniously. To have a statistical, anonymous, DNMC feature could be a VERY useful piece of the puzzle for those who study their results in hopes of learning from them.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:40:11 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me reiterate: I am not "proposing" the above. I proposed it a couple years ago and it was roundly denounced by nearly all respondents in that thread. Consensus was it was too complicated, would make voting even more of a chore (especially with a slow connection), and would invalidate historical score parallels.
My point was (and is) that if you IMAGINE such a system were in place, then surely you would agree that the system provides better, in-depth information tot he photographer than the current system does, by separating the photographic judging points from the topical judging points an evaluating them independently.
My point was (and is) that some variant of eschelar's radio-button proposal would provide a certain measure of increased feedback in the area of topicality, as separated from photographic merit, and this can only be a good thing for photographers who wish to understand why their images received the scores they did. It won't change the historical scoring parallels at all, it will take virtually no more time in the voting, and the feedback would be anonymous, real, and valid; or at least as valid as any vote is valid, anyway :-)
R. |
Thank you for this clarification. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 10:05:57 AM  |
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: 03/13/2025 10:05:57 AM EDT.
|
