Bummer... two DNMC in the top three...

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/25/2007 09:04:11 PM · #378

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by KaDi:
I think that this is not only a redundancy of the site, but also meaningless.

Why not we decide about the usefulness or redundency after this feature is implemented. Untill then its all guessing. (on my part and on your part. Isn't it).

Why? More are opposed to it than in favor of it.

Based on your logic I think we should wait until there's enough support for it to implement it. :P

This is much like a passage in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series involving the invention of the wheel. In the book, it goes over a scenario about what would have happened if lawyers, marketers and advertisers were involved when the wheel was invented. After many focus groups and analysis of risk factors it was determined the wheel idea would be scrapped.

Actually, I liken this post to already having a wheel invented and getting said group of people together to reinvent it when it's not broken:)

I'm sure there's a character in the book that fits you. I'll have to think about which one it is. :P

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/25/2007 09:05:53 PM · #379

lol..i'm sure there is.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/25/2007 09:13:34 PM · #380

Originally posted by taterbug:

Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by yanko:
This is much like a passage in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series involving the invention of the wheel. In the book, it goes over a scenario about what would have happened if lawyers, marketers and advertisers were involved when the wheel was invented. After many focus groups and analysis of risk factors it was determined the wheel idea would be scrapped.

Really? I see it more like the passage in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Arthur settles for something that's like, but not quite the same as, tea.

Close! :-) Actually what Arthur keeps getting on the Heart of Gold is a liquid that is 'Not quite, but entirely unlike tea.'

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/25/2007 09:16:53 PM · #381

zxaar

09/25/2007 09:17:36 PM · #382

Originally posted by doctornick:

:-))

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

09/25/2007 10:20:18 PM · #383

Originally posted by yanko:

You haven't understood what I've said in this thread. If you had you would be saying:

What I see here is a few people saying how helpful it would be to receive more opinions in regards to DNMC (anonymous, of course). I'd like to receive more information on my photos and I think others would too if the idea wasn't twisted and turned into something it's not.

That of course presupposes that this box would generate additional comments... and that the person doling out the DNMC truly had an appreciation of the image and it's relation to the challenge topic.

Neither of these factors can be elucidated through demonstrable evidentiary value , nor can the correlation between the two be clearly demonstrated.

Not totally useless... but close.

Ray

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/25/2007 10:32:28 PM · #384

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by yanko:

You haven't understood what I've said in this thread. If you had you would be saying:

What I see here is a few people saying how helpful it would be to receive more opinions in regards to DNMC (anonymous, of course). I'd like to receive more information on my photos and I think others would too if the idea wasn't twisted and turned into something it's not.

That of course presupposes that this box would generate additional comments... and that the person doling out the DNMC truly had an appreciation of the image and it's relation to the challenge topic.

Neither of these factors can be elucidated through demonstrable evidentiary value , nor can the correlation between the two be clearly demonstrated.

Not totally useless... but close.

Ray

It presumes nothing of the sort, Ray, I'm sorry: it's RAW DATA: how well-founded the checkmark is, is neither here nor there. All that matters is that someone makes the distinction, for better or for ill.

R.

09/25/2007 10:43:42 PM · #385

Originally posted by RayEthier:

That of course presupposes that this box would generate additional comments... and that the person doling out the DNMC truly had an appreciation of the image and it's relation to the challenge topic.

I think too much is being read into this whole thing.

One of the things that IMO will appeal to the voters as a whole is the ease and simplicity of the checkbox if they choose to use it so that it may very well get used as a part of the three second viewing.

I don't see this as something that the deep thinkers and scrutinizers are gonna use, they'll leave the well-worded, constructive and thought out comments.....I see it as something that will get hammered during that "gotta get the 20%, then go back if I get to it" type of voter who all too often can be the majority.

I know that sometimes I do that, and then don't get a chance to go back, for whatever reason, usually time.

And I know that many of you are strong willed and comfortable with yourselves so that the "wimpiness" that you refer to is not an issue, but some people WILL NOT be confrontational and won't do something that *could* get them a scathing PM no matter how many of you here say it doesn't happen very often.

Not to mention that there may well be more people who are in favor of the idea reading along who once again, do not want to be scoffed at, ridiculed, told that they're beating a dead horse, too stupid to "get" the idea, too wimpy......why would anyone WANT to get involved in this thread???????

Especially in support of this checkbox that is being so vehemently resisted.

At this point, I know I can and will get along without it, but I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work as a reference tool and as a way to gather info. I just hear a lot of resistance and some strong verbiage about how it won't solve or accomplish anything.

I say put up or shut up. I don't believe those of you who say that it won't be useful, because I'm pretty sure it would be to me.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

09/25/2007 10:49:38 PM · #386

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

... I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work ...

I say put up or shut up. ...

The reasons HAVE been posted, but you missed them (or fail to see clearly) - some of which have been posted twice as a repeat.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/25/2007 10:54:14 PM · #387

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work ...

I say put up or shut up. ...

The reasons HAVE been posted, but you missed them (or fail to see clearly) - some of which have been posted twice as a repeat.

No.....you have told me your views as to why you think the idea has no merit, but since you cannot predict, or gauge a reaction to something that hasn't happened, it's strictly opinion.

As have many others, but once again, without trying the idea, it will just be an endless debate.

If the powers that be do not want to implement such a feature, for whatever reason, so be it, and I don't even have to have a reason.

But SC has to say they won't and that it's an administrative decision, not that it's not viable.

You cannot tell me that I won't get anything useful out of it without actually putting into play.

That is an undeniable fact.....everything else *IS* beating the dead horse.

We can both have our points of view, but you cannot prove yours any more than I can prove mine without testing the theory.

Message edited by author 2007-09-25 22:56:22.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

09/25/2007 10:59:50 PM · #388

:D Okie-dokie.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/25/2007 11:06:53 PM · #389

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work as a reference tool and as a way to gather info.

Kinda like that other data-gathering reference tool, the "This comment was helpful" checkbox? ;-)

cloudsme

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

09/25/2007 11:09:33 PM · #390

I think if you have over 15% DNMC checked, you should get an automatic DQ. Then the check box would mean something [:

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/25/2007 11:11:05 PM · #391

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work as a reference tool and as a way to gather info.

Kinda like that other data-gathering reference tool, the "This comment was helpful" checkbox? ;-)

Hehehehehehehehehe it's funny cuz it's true...

:-P

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/25/2007 11:11:51 PM · #392

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I think if you have over 15% DNMC checked, you should get an automatic DQ. Then the check box would mean something [:

Meeting the challenge is NOT a DQ-able offense, and the brief experiment making it so apparently didn't go over very well.

09/25/2007 11:12:48 PM · #393

Originally posted by glad2badad:

:D Okie-dokie.

I never know quite how to take you.....you're smart, but obstinate.

And we all know I'm level-headed and reasonable!......8>)

09/25/2007 11:13:57 PM · #394

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I have yet to really hear any good reasons as to why it wouldn't work as a reference tool and as a way to gather info.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Kinda like that other data-gathering reference tool, the "This comment was helpful" checkbox? ;-)

Exactly like that!

So whose point are you trying to prove?.....8>)

09/25/2007 11:15:26 PM · #395

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I think if you have over 15% DNMC checked, you should get an automatic DQ. Then the check box would mean something [:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Meeting the challenge is NOT a DQ-able offense, and the brief experiment making it so apparently didn't go over very well.

As I understand it, that's never really been what the point was to be.

You can't DQ something that's subjective and a point of interpretation.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

09/25/2007 11:16:37 PM · #396

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by yanko:

You haven't understood what I've said in this thread. If you had you would be saying:

What I see here is a few people saying how helpful it would be to receive more opinions in regards to DNMC (anonymous, of course). I'd like to receive more information on my photos and I think others would too if the idea wasn't twisted and turned into something it's not.

That of course presupposes that this box would generate additional comments... and that the person doling out the DNMC truly had an appreciation of the image and it's relation to the challenge topic.

Neither of these factors can be elucidated through demonstrable evidentiary value , nor can the correlation between the two be clearly demonstrated.

Not totally useless... but close.

Ray

It presumes nothing of the sort, Ray, I'm sorry: it's RAW DATA: how well-founded the checkmark is, is neither here nor there. All that matters is that someone makes the distinction, for better or for ill.

R.

Yes indeed Robert... it is RAW data. However, in order for such data to have any useful function, one must be able demonstrate a correlation between the question asked and what is being extrapolated.

As it relates your comment relative to the distinction that someone makes, that is not a measurable entity since personal preferences and life experiences cannot be truly quantified in an exercise such as this one.

I am not adverse to the existence of a DNMC box... I merely hope to demonstrate that, in my humble opinion, it will not give rise to an increase in scores or comments, nor give rise to a better understanding of where the submitter went wrong.

It might make some feel better, but I truly doubt it will be a source of enlightenment.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

09/25/2007 11:18:13 PM · #397

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I think if you have over 15% DNMC checked, you should get an automatic DQ. Then the check box would mean something [:

Yes... it could mean that 15% of the voting population truly failed to grasp the meaning of the image and how it relates to the challenge.

Ray

09/25/2007 11:19:10 PM · #398

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I am not adverse to the existence of a DNMC box... I merely hope to demonstrate that, in my humble opinion, it will not give rise to an increase in scores or comments, nor give rise to a better understanding of where the submitter went wrong.

It might make some feel better, but I truly doubt it will be a source of enlightenment.

What better way to demonstarte your point than to try it?

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

09/25/2007 11:20:06 PM · #399

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

... something that's subjective and a point of interpretation.

Hmmm...that sounds like something to garner statistical feedback from. He-he. I hear the wheel coming back around. Yep, full circle. :)