| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2007 11:38:45 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
actually the dnmc check box is needed because of comment part. If you score it low and then comment, it very likely you will get a pm protesting it. |
So, tell me just exactly how having the photographer express their response to your opinion hurts you?
If it is rude to the point of violating the site's TOS, then report the PM, and we will evaluate the situation and take whatever action is necessary. But otherwise, what harm comes from someone disagreeing with your opinion? In the old days, they use to say don't dish it out if you can't take it. |
|
|
|
09/23/2007 11:42:25 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
At best it's a useless statistic, in the challenge that is questioned what would the DNMC button change? How many DNMC's does it take? How do you come up with what should be considered the right number before it affects a challenge? Would it just be the stat that shows with the image or photog, if so why do we need it?
I really think it makes no difference and has the potential to upset more people than it helps. IMHO |
No. "At best" it solves a problem. Or "at best" it cures cancer.
It would be fair for you to say that you believe it will do more harm than good. "At best" is best left to the optimists. |
|
|
|
09/23/2007 11:42:33 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
How do I get a dead horse icon? |
I went on google and found the original, put it in my workshop. You can copy it and get it on your machine, get in your own workshop. I'm not sure I'll keep it there in mine...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2007 11:46:16 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zxaar:
actually the dnmc check box is needed because of comment part. If you score it low and then comment, it very likely you will get a pm protesting it. |
So, tell me just exactly how having the photographer express their response to your opinion hurts you?
If it is rude to the point of violating the site's TOS, then report the PM, and we will evaluate the situation and take whatever action is necessary. But otherwise, what harm comes from someone disagreeing with your opinion? In the old days, they use to say don't dish it out if you can't take it. |
Part of what makes this site great is being able to interact and learn from others, if someone PM's you take the time to discuss the matter and possibly make a friend at the same time. |
|
|
|
09/23/2007 11:48:00 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by jonejess:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
At best it's a useless statistic, in the challenge that is questioned what would the DNMC button change? How many DNMC's does it take? How do you come up with what should be considered the right number before it affects a challenge? Would it just be the stat that shows with the image or photog, if so why do we need it?
I really think it makes no difference and has the potential to upset more people than it helps. IMHO |
No. "At best" it solves a problem. Or "at best" it cures cancer.
It would be fair for you to say that you believe it will do more harm than good. "At best" is best left to the optimists. |
I stand corrected.... |
|
|
|
09/23/2007 11:50:13 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
This whole thread started because someone felt an image did not meet thier opion on what the challenge was, apparently enough voters disagreed and they got a ribbon. What would the DNMC button do in this case? If a few people hit the button, what would that change?
If you try to put photographers who are artistic in a box some will just escape.... |
This was discussed in my linked to thread.
If one person were to check the box, then the photographer could reveal the DNMC tally. There, that person has their answer. DNMC was not felt by the majority.
Or if a few checked the box, same deal. Learning for all parties. No need for major discussion. What's done is done.
If a large number of people checked the box, then the photographer could either reveal or continue to hide and be incommunicado on the subject. Nothing different from the current state EXCEPT that in this case, the photographer would at least have an idea that they would have no leg to stand on if they wished to debate the point.
In the case of the images in this challenge, more people may have felt that the flower was more suitable than the rock. This could have been seen and displayed if the information had been gathered with some level of honesty/accuracy. Currently, who's to know?
ADDITIONALLY, having received a large number of check marks during the challenge, they would have had the issue of whether or not to keep the score they were already receiving.
PRESUMABLY they would have chosen to keep their scores. If not, then perhaps one of the images would have been removed from the front page, and a good score would have been received which would count towards their personal best.
My feeling however is that their scores would have been marginally lower, perhaps by 0.1 or 0.2, due to a handful more people who would have felt more comfortable using their vote. Just to pick BryanBrazil's photo, he only picked up 3 DNMC comments (in various forms) on his image. He also got 3 votes of 3 and 9 votes of 4. Assume that there were a few who were too nervous to say that, but used their vote anyhow, that's 13 people who anonymously said that the image was 'sub-par'. 33 People said that the shot was 5, but probably a good chunk of those were commenting on the pic itself. Probably that image would only have seen a rather small number of checks in the box.
By revealing this number, the shooter could give a context for those who were curious. On the other hand, maybe the number of such checked boxes was higher, perhaps more than 30. Then he could learn that DNMC was an issue for a significant portion of his 361 votes received.
From the POV of his voting group, perhaps they might not have felt that they needed to temper their low votes and let's assume that he received 13 1's instead the 9 4's and 3 3's. That lowers his score from 6.9749 to 6.8502. Of course, there are an unknown number of people who had some reservations about his image in this challenge, but didn't count it important enough to say, so there may have been a slightly stronger change, but it probably would just become more accurate rather than simply 'lower'.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2007 11:57:16 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Anonymity encourages honesty. This is supported with the voting system as evidence. However, people will still be uncomfortable with placing a low vote on a beautiful image. |
If only this was true.
One need only visit the various nudes images that have appeared on this site to witness the plethora of low scores that were doled out. Truth, not unlike many other things is contextual, and some earnestly find nudity offensive and vote it down accordingly.
Could it be argued that personal biases impact on the voting patterns of some individuals... I for one would wager good money on it.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by rayethier:
The proposals made to date do NOT even begin to address the issues at hand. This is NOT a fix... it is at best a placebo.
In order to truly correct a perceived problem, we as a collective have to identify exactly what it is that we find offensive, and to date that has not been done, nor is it apt to be determined any time soon. |
I disagree. I discussed most of the issues at hand at length and took in multiple perspectives. Follow the above link. In fact, there are even a handful of issues that haven't been brought up in this thread which are addressed in that thread. |
I do believe that the inclusion of the latter part of my comment should have also been included as it did address some of the more salient issues that need to be considered in this instance.
I refer to this:
The reasons why images are considered DNMC material is truly subjective, and as such cannot be clearly delineated, particularly in a venue such as this one where there exists a significant degree of variance is areas such as language, ethnicity, education and others, all of which factor into the perception of each individual.
Fine, have your box, but to suggest that factor X of DNMC votes should equate to a DQ is to suggest that the majority is truly knowledgeable as to the intent of the photographer or the medium that is being portrayed, and that in my personal perspective is indeed a quantum leap
I remain skeptical as to the validity of such an undertaking, primarily because I have serious reservations as to the value of the statistics that might be generated.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 00:03:20. |
|
|
|
09/23/2007 11:59:36 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
This whole thread started because someone felt an image did not meet thier opion on what the challenge was, apparently enough voters disagreed and they got a ribbon. What would the DNMC button do in this case? If a few people hit the button, what would that change?
If you try to put photographers who are artistic in a box some will just escape.... |
This was discussed in my linked to thread.
If one person were to check the box, then the photographer could reveal the DNMC tally. There, that person has their answer. DNMC was not felt by the majority.
Or if a few checked the box, same deal. Learning for all parties. No need for major discussion. What's done is done.
If a large number of people checked the box, then the photographer could either reveal or continue to hide and be incommunicado on the subject. Nothing different from the current state EXCEPT that in this case, the photographer would at least have an idea that they would have no leg to stand on if they wished to debate the point.
In the case of the images in this challenge, more people may have felt that the flower was more suitable than the rock. This could have been seen and displayed if the information had been gathered with some level of honesty/accuracy. Currently, who's to know?
ADDITIONALLY, having received a large number of check marks during the challenge, they would have had the issue of whether or not to keep the score they were already receiving.
PRESUMABLY they would have chosen to keep their scores. If not, then perhaps one of the images would have been removed from the front page, and a good score would have been received which would count towards their personal best.
My feeling however is that their scores would have been marginally lower, perhaps by 0.1 or 0.2, due to a handful more people who would have felt more comfortable using their vote. Just to pick BryanBrazil's photo, he only picked up 3 DNMC comments (in various forms) on his image. He also got 3 votes of 3 and 9 votes of 4. Assume that there were a few who were too nervous to say that, but used their vote anyhow, that's 13 people who anonymously said that the image was 'sub-par'. 33 People said that the shot was 5, but probably a good chunk of those were commenting on the pic itself. Probably that image would only have seen a rather small number of checks in the box.
By revealing this number, the shooter could give a context for those who were curious. On the other hand, maybe the number of such checked boxes was higher, perhaps more than 30. Then he could learn that DNMC was an issue for a significant portion of his 361 votes received.
From the POV of his voting group, perhaps they might not have felt that they needed to temper their low votes and let's assume that he received 13 1's instead the 9 4's and 3 3's. That lowers his score from 6.9749 to 6.8502. Of course, there are an unknown number of people who had some reservations about his image in this challenge, but didn't count it important enough to say, so there may have been a slightly stronger change, but it probably would just become more accurate rather than simply 'lower'. |
Cut to the chase how many DNMC's would it take to change the challenge results in the mentioned challenge? After the "shooter" replys does every one of the DNMC's need to respond? Is "they" DPC? |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:00:56 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zxaar:
actually the dnmc check box is needed because of comment part. If you score it low and then comment, it very likely you will get a pm protesting it. |
So, tell me just exactly how having the photographer express their response to your opinion hurts you?
If it is rude to the point of violating the site's TOS, then report the PM, and we will evaluate the situation and take whatever action is necessary. But otherwise, what harm comes from someone disagreeing with your opinion? In the old days, they use to say don't dish it out if you can't take it. |
Go read larus's thread. FWIW, I've handed out VERY few DNMC comments and I've received my fair number of flame PM's in response. There is a difference between a PM protesting or explaining an image and a PM that is trying to flame you.
It is unpleasant to receive flame PM's. If it is rude, do I really need to go tattle? What if I can 'take it' but it's still very rude? I have in the past sent PM's to commenters, but I also generally have a statement that includes something to the effect of 'I am not asking you to change your vote and I am not angry, I just wanted to explain so you could see a bit more clearly my intent.'
Regardless, comments that say simply DNMC are often taken by many as cause to respond. And there may be little else to say about the image. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:05:33 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Cut to the chase how many DNMC's would it take to change the challenge results in the mentioned challenge? After the "shooter" replys does every one of the DNMC's need to respond? Is "they" DPC? |
I'm sorry, I don't understand your questions. Perhaps you are assuming that I think that DNMC needs to change the challenge results in order to be effective. I make no such claim. If you want to see a more complete idea, please read my aforementioned thread and comment on it.
If the DNMC boxes are checked, this is anonymous. Why would they need to respond? Nobody has made such a claim with the existing system and nobody is making such a claim for any new idea...
? |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:06:16 AM · #261 |
| imo, you are making something that is simple way more difficult than it needs to be. You have a voting system in place that you can vote on the image quality, relevance to the challenge or both and then you have commenting for which you can choose to explain your vote if you choose. If enough people think a shot does not meet the challenge then it will be voted down. If there are people who vote photos high regardless of their DNMC status( which is subjective) then they don't care anyway and they will probably not check the box. 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. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:12:28 AM · #262 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Cut to the chase how many DNMC's would it take to change the challenge results in the mentioned challenge? After the "shooter" replys does every one of the DNMC's need to respond? Is "they" DPC? |
I'm sorry, I don't understand your questions. Perhaps you are assuming that I think that DNMC needs to change the challenge results in order to be effective. I make no such claim. If you want to see a more complete idea, please read my aforementioned thread and comment on it.
If the DNMC boxes are checked, this is anonymous. Why would they need to respond? Nobody has made such a claim with the existing system and nobody is making such a claim for any new idea...
? |
If nothing is going to change then I still content it is not worth adding, if I can make a vote to reflect how I feel then I would not use it anyway. As far a letting people know I will continue to comment with my name attached when I feel it is needed. I agree with  trevytrev this is not a real problem. If you want to give people more feedback talk to them.
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 00:13:02. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:13:30 AM · #263 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
imo, you are making something that is simple way more difficult than it needs to be. You have a voting system in place that you can vote on the image quality, relevance to the challenge or both and then you have commenting for which you can choose to explain your vote if you choose. If enough people think a shot does not meet the challenge then it will be voted down. If there are people who vote photos high regardless of their DNMC status( which is subjective) then they don't care anyway and they will probably not check the box. 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. |
could you please specify who the YOU is in the post?
Papabob. Please read the content in the post that I refer to in my linked thread and tell me when you have.
There is not only one single issue regarding "DNMC and the Check Box". You are only addressing one issue - that of absolute placement within the runnings. Some people don't care about this at all or do care, but just a very little. I believe that most people only care a very little about any particular image. This is because everyone has their own opinion and their own point of view. However, some of the other issues - such as the repeated rediscussion of the same topic, and people getting bent out of shape due to a single negative comment are also worthy of being addressed.
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 00:20:01. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:18:22 AM · #264 |
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 00:21:11.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:23:08 AM · #265 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:23:22 AM · #266 |
For the record (as was shown in the other thread), while I feel that my simpler variant is more appropriate to the general masses, I do agree that Bear's idea has more potential for learning than my own and I give equal support to both ideas.
Doing something is better than doing nothing. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:24:40 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Doing something is better than doing nothing. |
Not when nothing needs doing in the first place. :) |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:28:22 AM · #268 |
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. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 12:37:18 AM · #269 |
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. |
I'm all for enhancing the site, but I don't think that an anonymous check box stating the photo DNMC, to that perticular voter, is going to give any contructive feedback to the photographer. i actually think it's just going to get people hot and bothered. Now, Bear, your idea seems much more constructive and benificial, though I still think the system as it is can work. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 01:08:10 AM · #270 |
(I just hope another firestorm doesn't erupt over the Deja Vu winner)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:25:56 AM · #271 |
| Like several who have already posted, I still can't see the benefit of having DNMC button. This is an international site with many different cultures and backgrounds. Unless you are aware of every single way that an image can possibly meet a challenge, how can you know if it doesn't? |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:37:41 AM · #272 |
Originally posted by sher:
Like several who have already posted, I still can't see the benefit of having DNMC button. This is an international site with many different cultures and backgrounds. Unless you are aware of every single way that an image can possibly meet a challenge, how can you know if it doesn't? |
The point is, people DO vote that way, unaware of cultural differences that impact the topicality of many entries. So some very decent images that are in fact right on topic fall by the wayside with lower scores than they might actually "deserve". And many times there's no real indication of why the score is low, because DNMCs in the comments box are not that common unless an image is apparently wildly off-topic. Like my "Self Portrait" as a raindrop, for example, had a ton of them.
So since people ARE in the practice of voting down images they think are DNMC, and relatively few people leave DNMC comments, the end result is unhappy entrants who don't really know why their scores did not meet their expectations.
The proposed radio button is a painless way to provide this very useful information at little or no cost in either effort on the voters' part or developmental complexity on DPC's part.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:53:32 AM · #273 |
Many submissions meet challenge only by their title and not by the photo itself. Maybe it would be better if voters could not see the title of a photo while voting.
Take these photo for example.
 
Remove the titles and see just the photos, then please let me know where exactly is "the act of closing" in them. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 02:57:19 AM · #274 |
Originally posted by parallax:
Many submissions meet challenge only by their title and not by the photo itself. Maybe it would be better if voters could not see the title of a photo while voting.
Take these photo for example.
Remove the titles and see just the photos, then please let me know where exactly is "the act of closing" in them. |
To remove titles from images would be to even further dumb down DPC ribbons to the realm of the "obvious". Many perfectly valid takes on topics may not be obvious at first glance, and a carefully-worded title may open the voter's eyes to what is, in reality, a truly on-topic image.
I wouldn't even participate in challenges if the only possible way of winning was to recapitulate the obvious.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 03:06:33 AM · #275 |
| Brear you 're right, but sometimes titles are guiding voters to see something is just not there. |
|
