| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2007 11:35:18 PM · #301 |
All arguments about 'stifling creativity' fall flat when challenges continue to have descriptions attached which, while selectively ignored, are worded to restrict the nature of the images being created in the first place.
Arguments about people going on a flame fest in reaction to people checking a dnmc box are apparently being forwarded by folks who haven't peeked inside a scores thread. Every week the same posts appear - 'bastards don't understand my genius', 'god damned trolls', etc, etc.
I would like a dnmc checkbox that allows me to vote on the technical and creative merits of an entry while offering a way to express my opinion on its relevance in a way that doesn't involve my vote. The final stats should be public, same as average vote cast. Don't be hypocritical about it - you know damn well avg vote cast is the basis of endless flames yet it persists to be a public stat.
I don't see leaving a comment as being this sort of mechanism. It's a hassle due to the pm's that result from it. There is value in voters being able to anonymously comment on relevance without becoming targets. Same as there is value in votes being cast without the name of who cast them being public.
Anyway, if me checking a box stifles someones creativity and changes their style then they're obviously shooting for scores and creative expression is a secondary concern.
Besides, adverse circumstances promotes great art. Bring it on!
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 23:39:10. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 11:37:20 PM · #302 |
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend
Come inside! Come inside!
ELP lyric from "Karn Evil 9 First Impression" |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 01:04:07 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Anyway, if me checking a box stifles someones creativity and changes their style then they're obviously shooting for scores and creative expression is a secondary concern.
Besides, adverse circumstances promotes great art. Bring it on! |
Great thoughts. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 04:08:19 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I don't see leaving a comment as being this sort of mechanism. It's a hassle due to the pm's that result from it. There is value in voters being able to anonymously comment on relevance without becoming targets. Same as there is value in votes being cast without the name of who cast them being public. |
Perhaps if everyone spent as much time and effort on crafting thoughtful and insightful comments as they do trying to figure out ways to get out of commenting, the problem of abusive PM's wouldn't exist. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 04:24:21 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by sher:
Perhaps if everyone spent as much time and effort on crafting thoughtful and insightful comments ...... |
The question is why???
Why we do want to spend time writing a comment for 5 minutes and then later find that the reader of the comment does not even bother to click the 'helpful' checkbox.
There are many people on this site, who only want to hear something that please their ears. Believe me it is true. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 04:42:53 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by sher:
Perhaps if everyone spent as much time and effort on crafting thoughtful and insightful comments ...... |
The question is why??? |
To help you formulate and obtain objective criteria that may help in analysis and improvement of your own work? |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 04:48:41 AM · #307 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by sher:
Perhaps if everyone spent as much time and effort on crafting thoughtful and insightful comments ...... |
The question is why???
Why we do want to spend time writing a comment for 5 minutes and then later find that the reader of the comment does not even bother to click the 'helpful' checkbox.
There are many people on this site, who only want to hear something that please their ears. Believe me it is true. |
Because you are getting far more from commenting on that photo than the photog will ever get from recieving it. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:18:39 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
But don't harp on ME being STRICT, when I simply took the time to READ the challenge theme and not jump on the one word title of the challenge. |
YOU are a HERO and the voters are all ASSHOLES that are either UNABLE to READ or just too LAZY. YOU are WAY BEYOND the level of DPC. I suggest you LEAVE this place and found a NEW community with other BRILLIANT people like YOU, then you can hang togeher and LAUGH at our IGNORANCE.
The STUPID DPC-crowd is simply NOT WORTHY of your INTELLIGENCE.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:36:39 AM · #309 |
There seems to be a problem with your shiftkey ;-)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:44:43 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
There seems to be a problem with your shiftkey ;-) |
Along with another problem.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:45:08 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by sher:
Perhaps if everyone spent as much time and effort on crafting thoughtful and insightful comments ...... |
The question is why???
Why we do want to spend time writing a comment for 5 minutes and then later find that the reader of the comment does not even bother to click the 'helpful' checkbox.
There are many people on this site, who only want to hear something that please their ears. Believe me it is true. |
Because you are getting far more from commenting on that photo than the photog will ever get from recieving it. |
AMEN!!! |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 07:53:35 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by sher:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I don't see leaving a comment as being this sort of mechanism. It's a hassle due to the pm's that result from it. There is value in voters being able to anonymously comment on relevance without becoming targets. Same as there is value in votes being cast without the name of who cast them being public. |
Perhaps if everyone spent as much time and effort on crafting thoughtful and insightful comments as they do trying to figure out ways to get out of commenting, the problem of abusive PM's wouldn't exist. |
I wish this were so as well. I put a lot of thought into my comments. But that's all I can do to shape the way other people comment. The bottom line is that a thoughtful comment takes time.
If there were a box for DNMC, then comments would be free to comment on the picture rather than the relevance to the challenge. Think about it. If you got 6 comments, 3 of which were 'DNMC', two of which were 'nice' and one of which was in-depth and insightful, how many comments would you feel you got on your image itself?
So wouldn't having a DNMC box allow for more thoughtful commenting on the images? I believe it would not, but it might help slowly change the percentage of useful comments compared with the hollow.
Will it increase the amount of time that people in general spend in commenting? Nope. Nothing will.
ETA: think about how much time it takes you to leave a thoughtful comment. I usually take from 2-5 minutes for mine. How many "DNMC" comments could I write in the same time if I were so inclined? Such a factor will always continue to skew commenting until it is removed from the commenting factor. Oh and FWIW, many of my 'abusive PM's' have been received from comments which I gave plenty of thought to.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 07:56:30. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 08:30:58 AM · #313 |
I keep seeing references to "abusive" or "scathing" PM's. Perhaps the answer is to report your PM's to the Site Council and, if there is a TOS violation we can handle it.
As far as it taking too much time to say DNMC, I'll again reiterate that if you are handing those out like candy -- it's probably you that needs to adjust your interpretation of the challenge.
I've read this thread through again, and it seems to me that the main problem is that people want to say a shot is DNMC, vote it a 1, have it count even if they give 1's to everyone, and also have each photog agree with their assessment of DNMC or at least shut up about it. Since that is not currently happening, the DNMC checkbox is supposed to be a way to anonymously ding the shots even faster, so the voter can have more time to leave the "better" comments that they currently don't have time for, because it takes too long to type DNMC and/or they are too busy responding to people who think it's them that doesn't "get it."
Now, I'm all for doing something to solve an actual problem, but there is no way to make everyone agree with everyone else. If you truly are getting abusive PM's that violate the TOS in some way, please Contact Us so that we can address it.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 08:51:05 AM · #314 |
Well, I defer to wiser minds seemingly bent on inaction. I find it amazing that such pushback occurs on an idea which doesn't effect scores or the nature of the site or anything tangible. It's not like someone was suggesting expert editing.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 09:46:23 AM · #315 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I find it amazing that such pushback occurs on an idea which doesn't effect scores or the nature of the site or anything tangible. It's not like someone was suggesting expert editing. |
Don't think so? I believe there are three reasons for entering DNMC images:
1. The photographer entered in good faith, believing it DID meet the challenge
2. The photographer knew it was DNMC and entered anyway
3. The photographer accidentally entered the wrong image or challenge
Now think about the reaction to a "DNMC score" or count for each of those scenarios... In the first case, the photographer disagrees with YOUR opinion of DNMC (and if it places high, then so do most of the voters), and this can only lead to arguments. In the second case, the photographer doesn't care whether you think it met the challenge. In the third case, the photographer already knows, and this just rubs salt in the wound.
People who misunderstood the challenge figure out their mistake soon enough, either through the score, current comments or discussion threads. Whether a checkbox affects the score or not, I don't see any benefit for the site or the photographers. We'd probably have to create a whole new forum section dedicated to rants about how many DNMC's a particular image got (whether it placed "too high" or "too low"), and IMO it just seems like a way for the self-righteous to feel better about themselves when they don't agree with the placement of an image. No thanks!
If you feel strongly about a DNMC, then say so in the comments. The recipients won't always agree with you, and neither will the voters, but you're entitled to your opinion. Sometimes you'll get flamed, and you can either report those PMs or laugh at the ravings of a lunatic. If you can't be bothered leaving a comment, then that's your problem... not a site-wide issue.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 09:57:28. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 09:56:00 AM · #316 |
Every single one of your reaction scenarios are the same as what happens when you leave a comment saying the shot is dnmc, so what the hell difference does it make if the checkbox is put there? In between SC and others calling people who like this idea 'narrow minded', 'ignorant' and 'self righteous' there are about 25 posts giving clear reasons why people feel there are benefits to the concept - not the least of which is anonymity due to exactly the type of responses exhibited in this thread.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 10:13:16 AM · #317 |
followed by 25 posts giving clear reasons why people feel there are NO benefits to the concept
this thread's going nowhere - both sides have been argued fully
The people (vast majority of DPC) that have remained silent are obviously going to continue to remain silent, so determining if they agree or disagree with whomever isn't going to work ... so besides starting a new thread calling for a formal vote, what's left here?
Originally posted by routerguy666:
... there are about 25 posts giving clear reasons why people feel there are benefits to the concept |
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 10:19:04 AM · #318 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Every single one of your reaction scenarios are the same as what happens when you leave a comment saying the shot is dnmc, so what the hell difference does it make if the checkbox is put there? |
The difference is that a DNMC count on any image (especially a ribbon winner) is a new excuse for public argument over what is currently a private difference of opinion.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 10:26:26. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 10:23:30 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by L2:
1I keep seeing references to "abusive" or "scathing" PM's. Perhaps the answer is to report your PM's to the Site Council and, if there is a TOS violation we can handle it.
2As far as it taking too much time to say DNMC, I'll again reiterate that if you are handing those out like candy -- it's probably you that needs to adjust your interpretation of the challenge.
3I've read this thread through again, and it seems to me that the main problem is that people want to say a shot is DNMC, vote it a 1, have it count even if they give 1's to everyone, and also have each photog agree with their assessment of DNMC or at least shut up about it. Since that is not currently happening, the DNMC checkbox is supposed to be a way to anonymously ding the shots even faster, so the voter can have more time to leave the "better" comments that they currently don't have time for, because it takes too long to type DNMC and/or they are too busy responding to people who think it's them that doesn't "get it." |
1- I have done when I felt it appropriate. I actually had to do it twice for a couple of them because I received no response. Doesn't bother me as I know SC is busy, but I've received a LOT of negative energy from other people over various things in my life and I can tell you that just because you 'told the teacher', it does NOT negate the negative feelings that do come from when someone sends you a half-page of bile when you were just trying to speak your opinion on their pic. Reducing the phenomenon is a much better solution than simply 'tattling'. Also, where do you draw the line at someone being rude that needs SC attention and that which does not need SC attention. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Incidentally, that saying does not mean that an ounce of prevention completely avoids the negative consequence that may occur.
2- who said anything about handing DNMC out like candy? Have fun trying to find more than ten in my last 1000 comments. This has never been about being able to hand out DNMC comments like candy. What is it about? please refer to some of the issues that I brought up in my lengthy post #43 in the related thread "DNMC Bag for Challenges" If you can't be bothered to read the suggestion, at least read the list of 'problems' that it is intended to address and at the bottom where I list some of the likely effects of such an idea.
3- I can honestly say that you would be dead wrong if you wanted to apply any of these definitions to me. a big part of this third point is the removal of the vote scrubbing. I think that only a couple people have mentioned this. I think they misunderstand the function of the vote scrubber myself. If your votes are being scrubbed then you must be voting low on a very large percentage of the photos. I strongly doubt that voting 10 1's with a minimum of 50 votes is going to get scrubbed. And 1 image out of 5 DNMC is pretty unlikely.
Actually, I think that your entire paragraph under point three is a wild overreaction and is based on some pretty exaggerated interpretations of what is visible in this thread and the associated one. I see a lot of interepretations that ought to be applied to individuals that are applied to groups. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts, but maybe you could have another look with a calmer frame of mind? I'm scratching my head as to how you could have come to those understandings. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 10:26:13 AM · #320 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Every single one of your reaction scenarios are the same as what happens when you leave a comment saying the shot is dnmc, so what the hell difference does it make if the checkbox is put there? |
The difference is that a DNMC count on any image (especially a ribbon winner) is a new excuse for public argument over what is currently a private disagreement. |
only if the DNMC tally is a public stat.
easy solution. Keep it private. It is information by which the actual votes can be interpreted. it is of no relevance to anyone other than the photographer. If there is discussion on the MC relevancy of an image, then perhaps they could reveal the information privately to individuals. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 10:53:51 AM · #321 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
easy solution. Keep it private. It is information by which the actual votes can be interpreted. it is of no relevance to anyone other than the photographer. If there is discussion on the MC relevancy of an image, then perhaps they could reveal the information privately to individuals. |
Fair enough, BUT... does it even matter? First, there's potential abuse- I get quite a few "This is fantastic! 10!" comments accompanied by a vote that drops my score, and I think people will hand out DNMC checks far more freely if they know they don't count. Second, the checkboxes are open to just as much interpretation as the score. If I get a 7.3 and a dozen DNMC checks, does that mean a dozen people didn't understand my image or they didn't understand the challenge? It's not much different from the complaint that started this thread.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, meeting the challenge is usually not a "yes or no" prospect. There are images that nail every part of the description as "expected," those that meet an alternate interpretation in a creative way, those that do meet the challenge, but require a little extra thought... and then strong or weak connections to each. In order for a MC indicator to be really useful, you'd have to vote on a scale- essentially doubling the task. It would be equally useful to have check boxes for technical prowess, composition, color, visual appeal, and so on, but personally I prefer the simplicity of one vote and an overall score. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 10:58:34 AM · #322 |
Here's the "score".
This thread stayed on track for 46 posts, discussing how "voters reward DNMCs -- why do we even bother with challenge themes?".
Post #47, by  eschelar, directs users to another thread and a "solution" to DNMC.
The remaining 270+ posts have been on/off of the OP, mostly discussing the good/bad of a DNMC "checkbox" proposal (some DQ discussion of entries with too many DNMC's).
Of those voicing an opinion, one way or the other, on the "checkbox" the tally is 9 for a checkbox, 17 opposed. Not really that many in total when you consider there have been well over 300 posts in this thread.
Those in favor of a DNMC "checkbox":
eschelar
JBHale
[user]routerguy666[/user]
NikonJeb
 zxaar
jonejess
 Techo
yanko
Bear_Music
Those opposed to a DNMC "checkbox":
hopper
thegrandwazoo
 GeneralE
glad2badad
 hipychik
 Emma_Rose
trevytrev
mk
 karmat
cpanaioti
RayEthier
doctornick
taterbug
PapaBob
 scalvert
pawdrix
 sher
'Opposed' outnumber 'For' almost 2 to 1.
edit - typo.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 11:11:00. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 11:20:48 AM · #323 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here's the "score". |
For what it's worth, 5 of the 17 coming down against checkboxes are SC. I'm not sure what, if anything, that proves, but...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 11:47:34 AM · #324 |
A DNMC check box is meaningless.
It assumes that there is an absolute value of meeting or not meeting the challenge.
In reality, there are many reasons a challenge image might be considered DNMC...and those reasons will vary in intensity.
Imagine an entry in a "Bokeh" challenge.
The DNMC check box is checked because...
a) The image has out of focus parts but that's not "bokeh"
b) It's got "bokeh" but it's not "good" bokeh
c) It's got bokeh but it doesn't enhance the subject
d) I don't like bokeh
e) I don't know what bokeh is
f) I know what bokeh is but you, obviously, don't
g) The image contains a ____ (woody, cross, American flag, etc.) and DNMC is a great way to tell you that I'm offended by your subject
h) I hate your image and since the lowest vote I can give you is "1" I will also check this DNMC box so that maybe you'll realize it's time to return your camera phone to WallyMart and never use it to try to communicate anything to anyone ever again!
i) I'm having a bad day and you deserve one too!
glad2badad, you can now remove me from the silent list to the "is opposed to" list. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 11:59:22 AM · #325 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here's the "score". |
For what it's worth, 5 of the 17 coming down against checkboxes are SC. I'm not sure what, if anything, that proves, but...
R. |
... about 35% of people opposed to the idea are actually on the SC. On the flip side it means that 65% of those opposed do not have any influence in the decision to add the box or not.
|
|
