| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2007 12:15:29 PM · #501 |
In it's current format, this DNMC button does not really appeal to me personally.
However, if we had a DNMC button and, if a voter clicked it for 2% or more of the entries in a challenge, and if that voter was then subject to Voting Privilege suspension, I could get on board. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:15:40 PM · #502 |
People already get angry PM's when a comment is dropped that they dont like. Can you imagine what would happen if additional boxes were thrown into the mix?
MASS CHAOS!
I say leave things the way they are bc we really, really, dont need anymore rules.
If folks have issues they wish to lament about, well, that's what the forums are for.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:16:45 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
[quote=Gotaka] [quote=GeneralE]
We have a simple scoring system 1-10 that can be utilized by the voter as they see fit. Why is this so hard to fathom? |
because it is ineffective and inefficient. Each person has a different way of looking at DNMC as we see from this discussion and they will vote differently from a scale of 1 to 10. How is that going to standardize voting? You will not be able to distinguish between the four situation with just one bit. Like I said, to define four different situation, you need two bits. |
No it is very efficient about as efficient as it gets. Uncomplicated simple, easy to understand and the data is pertinent. Yes each person does have a different way of looking at the DNMC adding a check box means nothing, the data that is derived from said box is meaningless much like the comment helpful check box. The only situation that matters is the final score to determine placement in the challenge. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:19:06 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Strictly speaking, as a programmer, you need two bits to define it (log base two of four). How you can define each of these with one bit (a radio button) ponders me. |
Thus the magic of the comment...
Since this issue of images not meeting the challenge seems to bother you (and some others) so greatly, why not take some fraction of the effort expended in blathering here in the forums and comment on those images you feel do not meet the challenge? That would better serve both you and the photographers. You would get to articulate your feelings in much greater depth than any simple mouse click will ever allow and the photographer will gain much more insight into opportunities for improving their images. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:21:28 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Unfortunately, all this proposal would do is demonstrate that people may not have understood the rapport between the image and the challenge... nothing more, nothing less, and that my friend is not the type of information that is worth garnering. |
Is not this information that youy could use to determine in your own mind whether or not *your* interpretation of the challenge details was expressed successfully based on the DNMC checks rendered? |
The only certainty in checking a DNMC box rests in the fact that the checkers do not feel that the image meets their definition of the challenge description. That is not to be confused with reality, as all of us are limited in our knowledge in a myriad of venues, and it could well be that we were mistaken. Only active interaction between two people can fully demonstrate if our speculations were indeed accurate.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's like the comment helpful checkbox.....I *always mark it helpful because I want any feedbacl I can get as its representative of whether or not I hit the target with my entry. |
As do I... but in most instances these fall into two areas of helpfulness, namely:
- helpul in that it was pleasant but not necessarily insighful, thought provoking or of a nature to impart some form of knowledge that would make me a better photographer, or
- helpful in that the author took the time to provide a critical analysis of my image and proffer advice as to how I might ameliorate future submissions.
As you can see, the first is of limited value, whereas the second is replete with good advise which can only be garnered through critical analysis and an interaction between the submitter of the image and the scorer.
The box being proposed in this instance is more in line with the first of these examples and would produce an almost meaningless statistic which would do little to enhance the understanding of the submitters as to what exactly they did wrong... assuming of course that the error rested in their court.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
One of my biggest frustrations is that I get so few comments in challenges .... |
Rest assured that you are not alone in that realm.
Having said that, the question that begs to be answered is: "Would the inclusion of a DNMC box alleviate this problem... Somehow I think NOT.
I have said it before and I shall say it again... this proposal for a DNMC box is not the panacea some seem to suggest it is. YES it does provide a statistic, but one seriously has to wonder as to the validity of such a statistic.
I am certainly not against change, but change has to have a tangible value and provide a clear demonstration that what is being proposed has a propensity to improve existing conditions, and that I fear is a criterium that is not being met in this instance.
Message edited by author 2007-09-27 12:22:55. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:24:50 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Strictly speaking, as a programmer, you need two bits to define it (log base two of four). How you can define each of these with one bit (a radio button) ponders me. |
Thus the magic of the comment...
Since this issue of images not meeting the challenge seems to bother you (and some others) so greatly, why not take some fraction of the effort expended in blathering here in the forums and comment on those images you feel do not meet the challenge? That would better serve both you and the photographers. You would get to articulate your feelings in much greater depth than any simple mouse click will ever allow and the photographer will gain much more insight into opportunities for improving their images. |
Yup... works for me.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:44:09 PM · #507 |
| I can't believe this thread is still going... |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:45:46 PM · #508 |
Gotaka--Standardizing voting is not the issue, the 20% stipulation is in place to ensure that each voter has to vote on a significant number of entries, thus leveling the field. The 1-10 voting scale is not without its negatives, but it is simple to use.
Eschelar has obviously put some thought into his idea and it has some support. A DNMC checkbox and its statistics would be interesting but I believe we already have the mechanism to vote and comment in an intelligent manner. Respectfully, I don't agree with those who have posted here that the DNMC issue is prevalent. It is a fun thing to talk about and garners a strong reaction, but it's not a big deal. Sure, some shoehorned images win, so what? And some images are voted down that DMC but a majority of the winners are well deserved. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:50:07 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
As for comments, I'm doing ok.
Comments:
Made: 4,431
Helpful: 3,690
Received: 3,483
Helpful: 3,382
|
You forgot to mention an important stat...that your comments made amount to about 1 for every 7 votes cast. That is not actually all that bad to be honest. But please do not try to make yourself out as a commenting God without giving all the stats.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:57:14 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
As for comments, I'm doing ok.
Comments:
Made: 4,431
Helpful: 3,690
Received: 3,483
Helpful: 3,382
|
... please do not try to make yourself out as a commenting God without giving all the stats. |
Your words, not mine.
I was just providing feedback to the banter at hand. Make of it as you wish. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:59:31 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
As for comments, I'm doing ok.
Comments:
Made: 4,431
Helpful: 3,690
Received: 3,483
Helpful: 3,382
|
You forgot to mention an important stat...that your comments made amount to about 1 for every 7 votes cast. That is not actually all that bad to be honest. But please do not try to make yourself out as a commenting God without giving all the stats. |
Lemme see:
Comments made (592)divided by total number of votes cast (2577) = 22.9%
I don't believe the person you point an accusing finger at EVER insinuated that he was a God... I do believe he said he was doing OK, which is a quantum leap from your assertions.
I seem to recall an old adage that said something akin to: People living in glass houses should not cast stones.
If you find his comment to vote ratio appalling, I would strongly suggest you not visit mine... it might cause you to go into shock.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 09:36:34 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Strictly speaking, as a programmer, you need two bits to define it (log base two of four). How you can define each of these with one bit (a radio button) ponders me. |
Thus the magic of the comment...
Since this issue of images not meeting the challenge seems to bother you (and some others) so greatly, why not take some fraction of the effort expended in blathering here in the forums and comment on those images you feel do not meet the challenge? That would better serve both you and the photographers. You would get to articulate your feelings in much greater depth than any simple mouse click will ever allow and the photographer will gain much more insight into opportunities for improving their images. |
Incidentally, how long do you spend voting on a challenge?
If it is a small challenge, I usually make sure I have at least an hour. If it's a larger challenge, I spend a minimum of two. I try to comment on 10% and vote on 25% or comment on 20% and vote on 50% if I have the time. That takes a fair bit longer. Those are my decisions and my standards and are nobody else's business of course.
This hardly compares to taking a few minutes to 'blather' in the forums on an issue which clearly has not seen the end of discussion as new posters are still appearing.
Incidentally, Glad2badad's commenting/voting/whatever stats are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Commenting stats are global in that they record all comments, whether they are tied to a vote or not. It's inevitable that the number of comments to votes will be higher than it appears for this reason. Why he posted them here is really quite bizarre, particularly after his subtle digs at me for 'threadjacking' by posting my idea in this forum. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 09:58:56 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
... Incidentally, Glad2badad's commenting/voting/whatever stats are completely irrelevant to this discussion. ...
... Why he posted them here is really quite bizarre ... |
Hello again. :)
In response to your comments above, please refer to my post made at 09/26/2007 11:08:57 PM. In that you'll see a quote by basssman7 making a statement about commenting while voting, mine specifically.
Really, you should get up to speed on this Keiran. :P
I wait with abated breath your next twist and turn on this. :) |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 11:28:13 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Strictly speaking, as a programmer, you need two bits to define it (log base two of four). How you can define each of these with one bit (a radio button) ponders me. |
Thus the magic of the comment...
Since this issue of images not meeting the challenge seems to bother you (and some others) so greatly, why not take some fraction of the effort expended in blathering here in the forums and comment on those images you feel do not meet the challenge? That would better serve both you and the photographers. You would get to articulate your feelings in much greater depth than any simple mouse click will ever allow and the photographer will gain much more insight into opportunities for improving their images. |
Sure. I'll stop living my life and comment on someone's entry who clearly did not spend the time to think whether their entry meets the challenge or not. I am new in DPC, so I don't have much experience here, but what you are telling me is not something I am going to do. If a photo meets the challenge and needs help (and if I can be of any help) then i'll comment. Otherwise, it is a waste of my time and clearly the photographer doesn't care.
edit: can't spell. hehe
Message edited by author 2007-09-27 23:28:47. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 11:34:01 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Gotaka--Standardizing voting is not the issue, the 20% stipulation is in place to ensure that each voter has to vote on a significant number of entries, thus leveling the field. The 1-10 voting scale is not without its negatives, but it is simple to use.
Eschelar has obviously put some thought into his idea and it has some support. A DNMC checkbox and its statistics would be interesting but I believe we already have the mechanism to vote and comment in an intelligent manner. Respectfully, I don't agree with those who have posted here that the DNMC issue is prevalent. It is a fun thing to talk about and garners a strong reaction, but it's not a big deal. Sure, some shoehorned images win, so what? And some images are voted down that DMC but a majority of the winners are well deserved. |
I agree with your comments. For the most part, they are well deserved entries. I am not complaining who won and how they won. Since I am a noob, I won't be winning an entry anyway. But for those who do complain because they have put an effort into understanding the challenge and meeting the requirements, I can see why they'd be discussing this issue. What I was trying to do is add a bit to the discussion and give my perspective on the issue. Hope I didn't offend anyone ;p
peace |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 12:44:05 AM · #516 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Strictly speaking, as a programmer, you need two bits to define it (log base two of four). How you can define each of these with one bit (a radio button) ponders me. |
Thus the magic of the comment...
Since this issue of images not meeting the challenge seems to bother you (and some others) so greatly, why not take some fraction of the effort expended in blathering here in the forums and comment on those images you feel do not meet the challenge? That would better serve both you and the photographers. You would get to articulate your feelings in much greater depth than any simple mouse click will ever allow and the photographer will gain much more insight into opportunities for improving their images. |
Sure. I'll stop living my life and comment on someone's entry who clearly did not spend the time to think whether their entry meets the challenge or not. I am new in DPC, so I don't have much experience here, but what you are telling me is not something I am going to do. If a photo meets the challenge and needs help (and if I can be of any help) then i'll comment. Otherwise, it is a waste of my time and clearly the photographer doesn't care.
edit: can't spell. hehe |
Then, don't bother commenting. It's up to you.
How is it that you're willing to stop your life in order to bitch in the forums? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 12:50:54 AM · #517 |
| Does this thread have anything more to contribute, or is everyone just going to bring out the boxing gloves and popcorn? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 12:53:41 AM · #518 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Then, don't bother commenting. It's up to you.
How is it that you're willing to stop your life in order to bitch in the forums? |
How does personal attack help your arguments? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 12:58:12 AM · #519 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
As for comments, I'm doing ok.
Comments:
Made: 4,431
Helpful: 3,690
Received: 3,483
Helpful: 3,382
|
You forgot to mention an important stat...that your comments made amount to about 1 for every 7 votes cast. That is not actually all that bad to be honest. But please do not try to make yourself out as a commenting God without giving all the stats. |
Lemme see:
Comments made (592)divided by total number of votes cast (2577) = 22.9%
I don't believe the person you point an accusing finger at EVER insinuated that he was a God... I do believe he said he was doing OK, which is a quantum leap from your assertions.
I seem to recall an old adage that said something akin to: People living in glass houses should not cast stones.
If you find his comment to vote ratio appalling, I would strongly suggest you not visit mine... it might cause you to go into shock.
Ray |
Well, first of all I do not find his ratio appalling, as I did say That is not actually all that bad to be honest so please do not take me out of context and accuse me of living in a glass house. However since you brought it up... my 22.9% comment to vote ratio is better than his 14.5%..by more than 50%.
If you were to use your considerable brain power to look at the whole picture, you would know that what I took issue with was the fact that he brazenly put up his stats for number of comments made, but did not put it in proper context by mentioning how many votes he had made to make that many comments.
I don't think I have ever seen so many arguementative people in one thread before!
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 01:01:11 AM · #520 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
[
Sure. I'll stop living my life and comment on someone's entry who clearly did not spend the time to think whether their entry meets the challenge or not. |
Just exactly how do you arrive at this conclusion?
What exactly makes you more knowledgeable of the challenge topic than the photographer. Is it possible that YOU could be the one mistaken... or has that possibility even crossed your mind.
Just curious.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 01:07:25 AM · #521 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by eschelar:
... Incidentally, Glad2badad's commenting/voting/whatever stats are completely irrelevant to this discussion. ...
... Why he posted them here is really quite bizarre ... |
Hello again. :)
In response to your comments above, please refer to my post made at 09/26/2007 11:08:57 PM. In that you'll see a quote by basssman7 making a statement about commenting while voting, mine specifically.
Really, you should get up to speed on this Keiran. :P
I wait with abated breath your next twist and turn on this. :) |
You might want to release your 'bated' breath. Bassman's comment was about commenting while voting for the general public. your response was regarding total comments made. these are not the same thing. I do see you posting your stats as if they prove something, but not something directly tied to what bassman said. Perhaps you might consider thinking that maybe more is being discussed in this thread than the world as it revolves around you.
I'm glad you find my opinions entertaining. It's pretty much my entire goal in life to make posts for you to get a kick out of. But you already knew that because you can read the REAL message that's being presented in all of these threads. In fact, you elucidated all the relevant information from both threads from all posts before they had even been written. Thank goodness you've been posting here or the thread might have gotten off track and the relevance of the issue at hand might have been lost. |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 01:09:33 AM · #522 |
Originally posted by Gotaka:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Then, don't bother commenting. It's up to you.
How is it that you're willing to stop your life in order to bitch in the forums? |
How does personal attack help your arguments? |
Agreed. I haven't seen gotaka post anything that has any resemblance to 'bitching'. I've seen plenty from some of the others though. |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 01:11:18 AM · #523 |
Well put eschelar. :) If Kreskin there could give me next week's lotto numbers too, that would be great. :)
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 01:14:22 AM · #524 |
| Hookay, I think we're done here. Don't worry, I hate all y'all equally while I'm crackin' down. |
|
