| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2007 12:10:59 PM · #326 |
Cool, this is a democracy now?
I move to have a poll initiated to see who wants a Girls Kissing Girls challenge.
Let the people speak! |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 12:23:00 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Cool, this is a democracy now?
I move to have a poll initiated to see who wants a Girls Kissing Girls challenge.
Let the people speak! |
Nah. It's much more amusing to let the passionate few speak for everyone else. ;)
As for GKG, go right ahead...but don't you dare enter two men in drag almost kissing or I'll wield my DNMC laser and blast your OOB thinking into submission! |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 12:55:51 PM · #328 |
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. |
it proves that we are also members here and have opinions, just like everyone else, about the challenges we enter, vote and comment on. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 01:46:41 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by sher:
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. |
it proves that we are also members here and have opinions, just like everyone else, about the challenges we enter, vote and comment on. |
Right, of course :-) Proves nothing at all basically. Except, possibly, that SC tend to think alike on a lot of issues, which of course is no surprise, since SC is a group that selects its own members.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 01:50:43 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC tend to think alike on a lot of issues... |
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA[breath}HAHAHAHAHAA!!! (wipes tear)
We're as varied in opinion as any other members. SC tends to pick people who are active, stay calm in the forums and aren't troublemakers or loons. Somehow, I slipped through security. ;-P
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 13:53:35. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:13:31 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC tend to think alike on a lot of issues... |
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA[breath}HAHAHAHAHAA!!! (wipes tear)
We're as varied in opinion as any other members. SC tends to pick people who are active, stay calm in the forums and aren't troublemakers or loons. Somehow, I slipped through security. ;-P |
Aww, c'mon... You know I know you're all individuals, but when it comes to basics y'all DO present a pretty unified front, as indeed you OUGHT to, for the welfare of the site.
It's not like I was impugning anybody, ya know?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:35:25 PM · #332 |
Perhaps, on this issue, it could be that the SC has a combined 93 or so years experience on dpc.
Seriously, 15 of us have been here since 2002, 8 of us since the site was only 4 months old, or before. What that probably means is that a) we've seen a lot of challenges and a lot of entries that *looked* like they didn't meet the challenge, but really did, and b) we remember the chaos that insued because a shot could be dq'ed for not meeting the challenge.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:44:04 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC tend to think alike on a lot of issues... |
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA[breath}HAHAHAHAHAA!!! (wipes tear)
We're as varied in opinion as any other members. SC tends to pick people who are active, stay calm in the forums and aren't troublemakers or loons. Somehow, I slipped through security. ;-P |
Um yeah...what Scalvert said. Just because we don't bring our arguments public and bicker in the forums doesn't mean we have a central mind. We disagree plenty but part of the job requires sometimes backing majority decisions that we don't agree with and we do that. We do our best to explain publicly what decision was made and how it works. Until you have access to our private conversations, you really can't know how we all think.
Btw, we haven't even discussed this issue as a group. I think it's bad all on my own. ;)
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 16:11:23. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:44:49 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC tend to think alike on a lot of issues... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA[breath}HAHAHAHAHAA!!! (wipes tear
We're as varied in opinion as any other members. SC tends to pick people who are active, stay calm in the forums and aren't troublemakers or loons. Somehow, I slipped through security. ;-P |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Aww, c'mon... You know I know you're all individuals, but when it comes to basics y'all DO present a pretty unified front, as indeed you OUGHT to, for the welfare of the site.
It's not like I was impugning anybody, ya know?
R. |
Except for that part where you imply that the rest are like Shannon!......8>)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:50:05 PM · #335 |
FWIW.....I have pretty much seen that there is enough resources in play for me to express my opinion to a photog with comment and posted score during voting that I can give up on this idea.
I guess I don't need the DNMC box.
I do get very few comments in general, though, and the checkbox may have been able to tell me whether my images suck, my interpretation isn't the greatest, or I can just assume that my work is unremarkable across the board.
I'm actually worn out and can't believe this is still going.
It seems pretty obvious that there will be no official DNMC policy, and maybe that's the way it should be as to each voter, the interpretation will be slightly different.
So.....all you have to do is please the most voters and you win, right?
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:54:08 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It seems pretty obvious that there will be no official DNMC policy, and maybe that's the way it should be as to each voter, the interpretation will be slightly different. |
yes. exactly. everyone should interpret the challenge in their own way. that's the POINT. that's the CHALLENGE. the issue is not only to meet the challenge in a way that YOU think you satisfy the criteria...it's to satisfy the criteria for the challenge in a way that VOTERS will understand and reward you for it.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.....all you have to do is please the most voters and you win, right? |
as with everything that's voted on....yes.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 05:11:30 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...SC tends to pick people who are active, stay calm in the forums and aren't troublemakers or loons. |
CHIT!!!! Well there go any aspirations I might have had. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 05:19:43 PM · #338 |
One thing I would like to add to this spiel. I had a shot that I was going to enter however I misread the challenge name. I thought it said Open not Opening so when I went to enter my shot I realized that it really didn't meet the challenge. In light of how others appear to have come to a similar interpretation I am wondering if I should have just entered my shot anyways.
It's really hit or miss on how far you can stray away from the challenge description. Sometimes the voters are DNMC Nazis and you have to stick RIGHT to the challenge description. Other times you get a lot of latitude. This time I think the voters were a little more lenient. I think it also has something to do with the fact that a lot of entries didn't strictly fit the challenge too. I think that might be the biggest indicator out there. If there is a lot of DNMC entries out there that take a similar approach as you, you probably won't get slammed. If you are the only one standing out on a limb? I hope you have a safety net below...
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 05:44:43 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
yes. exactly. everyone should interpret the challenge in their own way. that's the POINT. that's the CHALLENGE. the issue is not only to meet the challenge in a way that YOU think you satisfy the criteria...it's to satisfy the criteria for the challenge in a way that VOTERS will understand and reward you for it.
|
Interesting...here I thought challenges were supposed to be clearly defined so that everyone understands exactly what is being requested so that everyone is on a level playing field. All this time I have wasted trying to answer the challenge of the photography....and the real challenge is actually in defining the guidelines. :(
edit to add: Darn...there goes my chance at being asked to join the SC!
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 17:55:48. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:34:12 PM · #340 |
Those who oppose it could chose not to use it. Provide it in preference that one can turn it off. Is it so hard to do????
If you oppose it, nobody is forcing you to even see these stats if you do not want to see. And you are not force to use it when there is voting going on.
I remember few days ago (may be month or so), one person started a thread that she does not want to see personal threads in general discussion, it took just two days and we have a personal life forum.
(yes i was opposed to that idea).
Here we are asking for something and only thing we are getting is nothing will change.
Is it that who makes request matters on this site???
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 18:35:54. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:39:52 PM · #341 |
| put me on the opposed side.... forcing a photographer to only see one side of an issue is in my mind like the old Nazi regime. I see many photos with a different idea than I had for a challenge, and some of them are MUCH MUCH better than what I had thought of. DPCers shouldn't FORCE other photographers to think only one way and shouldn't mark down them for thinking in a unique way either |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:48:44 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by muckpond:
yes. exactly. everyone should interpret the challenge in their own way. that's the POINT. that's the CHALLENGE. the issue is not only to meet the challenge in a way that YOU think you satisfy the criteria...it's to satisfy the criteria for the challenge in a way that VOTERS will understand and reward you for it.
|
Interesting...here I thought challenges were supposed to be clearly defined so that everyone understands exactly what is being requested so that everyone is on a level playing field. All this time I have wasted trying to answer the challenge of the photography....and the real challenge is actually in defining the guidelines. :( |
i think part of the fun of DPC is coming up with a unique interpretation of each challenge topic. how much fun would it be if we had a post your best photo of a yellow bug on a green leaf with a contrasting color in the background (blue or orange only). photos that don't meet the rule of thirds exactly will be disqualified. challenge?
i've always maintained that the challenge part of dpchallenge is not in the photography itself, but in the creation of a photo that represents your take on the topic while being of high enough quality that others will respond well to it. anyone can take a great photo once in a while. the challenge comes in taking a great photo with a theme within a week.
Originally posted by basssman7:
edit to add: Darn...there goes my chance at being asked to join the SC! |
i'm always open to arguments and differing points of view, so a discussion such as this has no bearing on anyone's future SC worthiness, at least as far as i'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:49:37 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by Di:
put me on the opposed side.... |
I think it is not about 'how many of us oppose or favour it'. It does not matter how many oppose it, if good number of people want it and as paying members we hope it could be heard.
It is more about few people requesting a feature that could be turned off in preference.
If this feature could be turned off for the people who do not like to see this stat, there is no harm done. You are not even bothered by it.
Now, if there is no way it is bothering to you or others who oppose it, are we not entitled to request for some feature that we want. Are you opposed to us having something that we want. (and that is not hurting you in any way).
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:49:46 PM · #344 |
Reading the posts in this thread is just comical. Most don't even seem to take the time to read what has been proposed before opposing it. I can't say that's surprising since that's how most people seem to function in every day life. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. It already has been proposed to make the checkbox/stat optional for photographers who don't want it and of course the voter can choose not to participate either. I really do not understand why anybody would oppose something that just provides additional information that would be helpful for the photographer while not altering the challenge results one bit. I swear people just oppose things just for the sake of opposing things. If you have no interest in this feature then don't participate in it. It's that simple.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 18:53:08.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:54:47 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Reading the posts in this thread is just comical. Most don't even seem to take the time to read what has been proposed before opposing it. I can't say that's surprising since that's how most people seem to function in every day life. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. It already has been proposed to make the checkbox/stat optional for photographers who don't want it and of course the voter can choose not to participate either. I really do not understand why anybody would oppose something that just provides additional information that would be helpful for the photographer while not altering the challenge results one bit. I swear people just opposing things just for the sake of opposing things. If you have no interest in this feature then don't participate in it. It's that simple. |
I disagree that thereis no harm. Its not about addidtional info as much as it is another way to divide and intimidate voters. As mk smartly pointed out, only those who support the box would use it, so its value is limited at best since its not an accurate measure. And then, with inaccurate numbers, there would be even MORE opportunity to kvetch about the # of DNMC checks one got. As if we didn't already have enough to kvetch about around here. I don't see what such as box adds to the discussion or to our knowledge. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 06:59:55 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
SC tends to pick people who are active, stay calm in the forums and aren't troublemakers or loons. Somehow, I slipped through security. ;-P |
And, unfortunately, I did not. I wonder why?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 07:02:45 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
SC tends to pick people who are active, stay calm in the forums and aren't troublemakers or loons. Somehow, I slipped through security. ;-P |
And, unfortunately, I did not. I wonder why?
|
being insane isn't the only criteria, but it helps.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 07:24:26 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I disagree that thereis no harm. Its not about addidtional info as much as it is another way to divide and intimidate voters. As mk smartly pointed out, only those who support the box would use it, so its value is limited at best since its not an accurate measure. And then, with inaccurate numbers, there would be even MORE opportunity to kvetch about the # of DNMC checks one got. As if we didn't already have enough to kvetch about around here. I don't see what such as box adds to the discussion or to our knowledge. |
How would voters be intimidated? The process would be anonymous. The way it is now encourages intimidation because the only way you can say if a shot is DNMC is by leaving a comment as such. This proposal would help eliminate voter intimidation.
As for mk's comment, that assumes a site that doesn't grow. This one does. Sure those who seem to hate the checkbox now (the handful of those on that list) wouldn't use it but so what? Their participation doesn't decide the validatity of the stat. Over time more and more people would use it. That's just the way things happen. Besides, whether just a few in each challenge participated or everybody the stat would still have meaning. If you get on average 2 DNMCs per challenge but then you get 12 that'll tell you the shot you entered had issues with DNMC far more than your previous entries.
Originally posted by frisca:
As if we didn't already have enough to kvetch about around here. |
We get that already. In fact it's happening in this very thread by the very people who oppose this idea. Why be so negative about some number posted on the voting results page?
Originally posted by frisca:
I don't see what such as box adds to the discussion or to our knowledge. |
It provide MORE information. Do you just oppose providng more information in general? I'm glad there wasn't an open discussion about having a comment box on the voting page because I'm guessing you would have opposed that as well and we wouldn't never have gotten that feature. This proposal is just like that. It gives you yet another piece of information to gauge the effectiveness of your shot. That's it.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 19:29:17.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 07:25:12 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by yanko:
Reading the posts in this thread is just comical. Most don't even seem to take the time to read what has been proposed before opposing it. I can't say that's surprising since that's how most people seem to function in every day life. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. It already has been proposed to make the checkbox/stat optional for photographers who don't want it and of course the voter can choose not to participate either. I really do not understand why anybody would oppose something that just provides additional information that would be helpful for the photographer while not altering the challenge results one bit. I swear people just opposing things just for the sake of opposing things. If you have no interest in this feature then don't participate in it. It's that simple. |
I disagree that thereis no harm. Its not about addidtional info as much as it is another way to divide and intimidate voters. As mk smartly pointed out, only those who support the box would use it, so its value is limited at best since its not an accurate measure. And then, with inaccurate numbers, there would be even MORE opportunity to kvetch about the # of DNMC checks one got. As if we didn't already have enough to kvetch about around here. I don't see what such as box adds to the discussion or to our knowledge. |
I do not understand what you are saying.
As I think there are two groups, one who support it and want th feature other who oppose it.
Since the feature could be turned off in preference, lets assume that it is used by the people who support it.
You are saying that there will be lots of threads complaining about number of dnmc checks they got. But since those who oppose it , do not even know how many dnmc checks they got, I assume such thread are started by the people who supported it. (isn't it).
So whats wrong in starting a thread. That we still do about things we feel about. I chose to have this feature whatever good or bad comes out of it, I have to live with.
Further for those who opposed it, and do not want to see the thread, can use 'ignore thread' feature.
As far as its value is concerned let us decide how much we value it, please do not decide it for us. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 07:26:09 PM · #350 |
I think words are being attributed to me that I did not write.
|
|
