| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2007 02:56:29 AM · #51 |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 03:23:20 AM · #52 |
I see your point Bear. It's easy to get lost though, in that there are an awful lot of folks in these discussions that are addressing it as a 'problem', in need of some solution. :-)
I think you are right, there are SOME people that would see the value, and could glean some useful insight from such a stat. I'm not sure though, that there may be an awful lot of people that wouldn't see it, or treat it as such. :-)
I don't know how everybody is, obviously, but I know when I'm pushing the boundary of challenge relevance. I know it going in, and it doesn't take a multitude of dnmc comments, or check marks, to tell me. If a shot has serious technical or compositional flaws, people will point it out in comments. And I always figure that a single comment is more than likely representative of others less vocal. If no faults are being pointed out, and a poor score, than I figure I missed the mark :-) And a mediocre score and no comments, than I can figure, yeah, it fits the challenge, just a mediocre, not very exciting choice of subject/composition, etc. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 03:48:35 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DNMC does not exist. |
I have to agree with this comment.
The DNMC horse has been beat to death several times over the past couple of years.
What to one voter DNMC may be the perfect fit for the next voter...
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 04:23:07 AM · #54 |
Perhaps you are posting in the wrong thread. This thread is not debating the existence of DNMC.
DNMC is the expression of Person A that the photograph has been placed inappropriately due to the definitions of the challenge. People have opinions, therefore DNMC does exist. If you want to take photographs without searching for the opinions of others, you are welcome to do that. This is a website about challenges voted on by the public.
If DNMC does not exist then the challenge descriptions are completely irrelevant. But this is immaterial. My suggestion is to allow those who feel that it does exist to say it in a way that will be easier to swallow and easier to say. And to some extent less important that what many people currently feel it is.
Hopefully those that are deliberately shoehorning images might also be shown that such behavior is not always smiled upon.
if you still feel this is a dead horse, then refer above. I think the horse has been beaten, but in the absence of a change in behavior, the death has not actually occurred.
Aguapreta please read the thread. This is specifically about the fact that what is MC to one person may be DNMC to the next. We all know this. That's not the point. The point is that people can't quite come to terms with how important it is to them. This suggestion attempts to highlight the importance of how important meeting the challenge is to the photographer in view of received scores as well as increasing the simplicity of expression for the voters, and hopefully increasing the honesty of such.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 04:26:45 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DNMC does not exist. |
Azrifel. If we put your "1922"  image into the "Color Portrait II" challenge where you placed nicely with this , would you agree or disagree that DNMC does not exist?
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 04:27:34. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 06:08:45 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DNMC does not exist. |
Azrifel. If we put your "1922" image into the "Color Portrait II" challenge where you placed nicely with this, would you agree or disagree that DNMC does not exist? |
LOL, true, but this is one very obvious example.
People should just give it a 1 and not bother with it.
If someone deliberately continues to put such irrelevant pictures in the challenges and they average a 2 without any comments (=no fun), they will soon go away.
The problem is where you put the boundary of what is and what not is DNMC. On several occasions I see people say DNMC when thinking about it for a little while longer you can imagine why it DMC's. It is very subjective and it is imo not possible to put in statistics, checkboxes and whatever. But that is just MHO. :)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 08:31:18 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
I don't know how everybody is, obviously, but I know when I'm pushing the boundary of challenge relevance. I know it going in, and it doesn't take a multitude of dnmc comments, or check marks, to tell me. If a shot has serious technical or compositional flaws, people will point it out in comments. And I always figure that a single comment is more than likely representative of others less vocal. If no faults are being pointed out, and a poor score, than I figure I missed the mark :-) And a mediocre score and no comments, than I can figure, yeah, it fits the challenge, just a mediocre, not very exciting choice of subject/composition, etc. |
Yes, yes, YES!!! There is hope for some common sense around here. :)
Thanks for the insightful post Gene. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 09:23:42 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
LOL, true, but this is one very obvious example.
People should just give it a 1 and not bother with it.
If someone deliberately continues to put such irrelevant pictures in the challenges and they average a 2 without any comments (=no fun), they will soon go away.
The problem is where you put the boundary of what is and what not is DNMC. On several occasions I see people say DNMC when thinking about it for a little while longer you can imagine why it DMC's. It is very subjective and it is imo not possible to put in statistics, checkboxes and whatever. But that is just MHO. :) |
Judging on the thread posts, this isn't the way it's occurring. Some images are shoved into other challenges in a very similar way. Some people care. I usually don't, but sometimes it's just a bit too blatant. If a person can explain what they were thinking and how it relates to the challenge, I usually leave it there. On the other hand, it is also true that people are blatantly shoving images into challenges that they know do not belong there. This is not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but it does sort of ruin the spirit of things. Currently, people are often too shy with their comments in general to really gather much accurate information from them.
Challenge descriptions CAN be very subjective (personally, this is a big part of why I usually wait until I can read their image description before I pass DNMC judgement but that's just my way), but some challenge descriptions are not very subjective at all. However, at least by putting it in a box, it could at least be expressed by those who wanted. It is after all their right to hold the opinion that an image DNMC. And finding out what other people think about an image is why I personally submit to challenges. It could be viewed as similarly narrow minded to say that nobody has the right to say that your image doesn't meet their interpretation of the challenge.
Wouldn't you rather have them say it by means of a little number that you can privately view in your voting tally information rather than a bunch of meaningless, empty "DNMC - 1" comments? I know I would. |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 09:27:22 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by taterbug:
I don't know how everybody is, obviously, but I know when I'm pushing the boundary of challenge relevance. I know it going in, and it doesn't take a multitude of dnmc comments, or check marks, to tell me. If a shot has serious technical or compositional flaws, people will point it out in comments. And I always figure that a single comment is more than likely representative of others less vocal. If no faults are being pointed out, and a poor score, than I figure I missed the mark :-) And a mediocre score and no comments, than I can figure, yeah, it fits the challenge, just a mediocre, not very exciting choice of subject/composition, etc. |
Yes, yes, YES!!! There is hope for some common sense around here. :)
Thanks for the insightful post Gene. |
that's funny, sounds a lot like some of my posts where I explained how most people, when going into a challenge, have some idea of how it's going to be perceived by the majority, and are already prepared to take what comes from the comments and learn from those few comments that do help with the technicals etc.
How come you didn't thank me for my insightful posts? ;) |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 10:30:03 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by taterbug:
Lastly, I guess I'm just not sure that this is such a widespread, great problem that it is being made out to be. |
Again, let me suggest that this doesn't have to be a "problem" in order to justify addressing the issue, which is after all a real one as it pops up frequently. It wasn't a "problem" that we didn't have a buy/sell forum, but now we have one. It wasn't a "problem" that we didn't have a lot of things we now have; we could have lived without them, but they enhance the DPC experience for all.
Instead, look at the proposal as "value added" to the voting and evaluating process, from the point of view of entrants who have been voted upon.
DPC being to some measure a community for learning, any workable proposal that enhances the ability of challenge entrants to evaluate the votes they have received and learn from their challenge experiences has my vote of approval. In theory the "comments" box was to be that element, but in practice as challenges have gotten larger and more frequent, the number of useful comments has declined.
In practice, many people are reluctant, especially, to make DNMC comments, whether because they are afraid of looking silly if the image DOES prove to be on topic and they missed it, or because they have negative experiences with challenge entrants disputing their DNMC evaluation, sometimes very acrimoniously. To have a statistical, anonymous, DNMC feature could be a VERY useful piece of the puzzle for those who study their results in hopes of learning from them.
R. |
I hate to sound like the Prez of the  Bear_Music fan club, but......what he said, verbatim!.....8>)
I still see it as a subjective point of reference to gauge how voters interpreted you expression of the challenge concept.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 10:34:21 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by aguapreta:
The DNMC horse has been beat to death several times over the past couple of years.
What to one voter DNMC may be the perfect fit for the next voter... |
The second line in your post addresses exactly what I'm talking about when I state that the DNMC button would be useful to gauge the voters' interpretation of your efforts to meeting the challenge.
I'm going to assume that wasn't what you were going for, though......8>)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 10:49:19 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
I don't know how everybody is, obviously, but I know when I'm pushing the boundary of challenge relevance. |
That's true if you're doing a shoehorn job and you know it, but there have been many times that I have done worse in a challenge than I thought possible and I would loved to have known if it was a bad shot or DNMC.
There's also some times when your attempts at subtlety fall flat and you possibly wouldn't realize it without the DNMC button.
The whole DNMC fanatic thing is real, and I certainly have experienced it when I tongue-in-cheek entered a challenge purposely striving for an OOBIE and a WTF reaction.....I got both, in spades, and I learned a lot doing it.
Some may remember this:
I entered this black man, with a white beard, in a Black and White Portrait challenge. Yes, I know what the challenge title meant THEORETICALLY but the challenge description was N/A and did NOT state specifically that the image must be rendered in a B&W format.
So.......it is therefore not possible for my entry to be a DNMC entry, yet I still got a couple.
It was a hoot, and as someone stated earlier, yes ABSOLUTELY I knew I was being a smart@$$, but I still want to know how by literal definition, anyone could justify the use of DNMC when there was *NO* challenge description.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 11:15:41 AM · #63 |
Bold added for emphasis
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It was a hoot, and as someone stated earlier, yes ABSOLUTELY I knew I was being a smart@$$, but I still want to know how by literal definition, anyone could justify the use of DNMC when there was *NO* challenge description. |
So a DNMC checkbox is going to give you the answer? |
|
|
|
09/24/2007 11:33:06 AM · #64 |
Bold added for emphasis
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It was a hoot, and as someone stated earlier, yes ABSOLUTELY I knew I was being a smart@$$, but I still want to know how by literal definition, anyone could justify the use of DNMC when there was *NO* challenge description. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So a DNMC checkbox is going to give you the answer? |
Absolutely not, and you know that......that was a rhetorical comment.
My point was that yes, I knew exactly what I was doing with that one, but the point that you missed from my earlier post was this:
"I still see it as a subjective point of reference to gauge how voters interpreted your expression of the challenge concept."
That's what I'm referring to when I talk about it as a useful tool.....for those ones I'm *NOT* using to push the limits.
Message edited by author 2007-09-24 11:36:32.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2007 10:57:42 PM · #65 |
Thanks for your thoughts NikonJeb.
So you would appreciate the radio checkbox, I can see that, but what do you feel about the other aspect of the suggestion above?
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 09:30:12 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
... the undue focus on DNMC. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...this rather anal obsession with "obvious" solutions to challenges. |
Why are you so very much against paying attention to detail?
There are countless websites full of photography where anything goes, no topic at all.
There are very few sites that DO give us the challenge of an assignment.
Why do you need to struggle so hard against that concept?
Couldn't we just go with the flow and make the most of it? |
There's a difference between a scavenger hunt and a source of inspiration.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:39:19 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
... the undue focus on DNMC. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...this rather anal obsession with "obvious" solutions to challenges. |
Why are you so very much against paying attention to detail?
There are countless websites full of photography where anything goes, no topic at all.
There are very few sites that DO give us the challenge of an assignment.
Why do you need to struggle so hard against that concept?
Couldn't we just go with the flow and make the most of it? |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's a difference between a scavenger hunt and a source of inspiration. |
True.
But there's room for both.
Let's face it, you'd go out of your mind trying to enter every challenge you could......some are unique and intersting, other ideas are just off the wall.
The beauty of it is that there are people who excel in every challenge.....just not the same people 'cause of the variety.
The OP in most of these threads is usually someone who is surprised at how the end result shook down and that sometimes artistic license reigns if accompanied by a spectacular shot.
I look at it this way......it's not like this makes any real difference in the big picture.......so why not give it a try if it's not too much of a nuisance to incorporate, and just see how it's received as a guideline for those of us that wonder if we hit the mark in our expression of the challenge.
ETA:I gotta tell ya.....I've just run out of steam on this issue.
There's too much resistance and stubborn adherence to the system as it stands.
I doubt I'm going to be able to effect change so I'll just vote and comment the way it suits me.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 15:52:46.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 03:33:02 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's a difference between a scavenger hunt and a source of inspiration. |
Indeed this is true. Some challenges intend to be more like scavenger hunts. Others intend to be more like sources of inspiration. Some have loose meanings for challenge descriptions others have strict.
It certainly seems that some people have difficulty telling the difference between the two since each challenge description seems to have it's own level of strictness of definition.
See above example of Azrifel's two shots from two different challenges. Color Portrait and Time Capsule. Time Capsule was more a source of inspiration with a very broad spectra of challenge meanings. Color Portrait was intended to be a bit more narrow, albeit still with some freedom. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 01:02:44 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's a difference between a scavenger hunt and a source of inspiration. |
Indeed this is true. Some challenges intend to be more like scavenger hunts. Others intend to be more like sources of inspiration. Some have loose meanings for challenge descriptions others have strict.
It certainly seems that some people have difficulty telling the difference between the two since each challenge description seems to have it's own level of strictness of definition. |
I think it is more that different people bring different approaches to the challenge, as well as to their photography.
Some people like to find pictures. Others like to make them.
Some see meeting the challenge as the primary goal, others see taking a great picture as the primary goal.
Some people see the world as lots of little boxes to be filled & compartmentalised, others see the space as more liquid.
Neither is right. Neither is wrong. Just different. All these DNMC type discussions usually end up because of disagreements on where these essentially fluid boundaries should be. The absolutes are probably quite easy, the grey areas are always going to be grey, if people vote on it or not, or if a panel picks the images or not.
The voting tells you how good the picture was and how well it meets the challenge, across the breadth of the people who voted. A small subsection picking or choosing doesn't add any more information.
If 20 out of a 100 check the DNMC box, does that mean 80 out of the 100 thought it meant the challenge, or just that they didn't check the box ? Does that mean we now need 3 check boxes ? [] MC, [] DNMC, []couldn't care enough to click ?
Its the same problem with the 'helpful' box. Unchecked doesn't say 'unhelpful' it just means unchecked.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 01:33:46 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
If 20 out of a 100 check the DNMC box, does that mean 80 out of the 100 thought it meant the challenge, or just that they didn't check the box ? Does that mean we now need 3 check boxes ? [] MC, [] DNMC, []couldn't care enough to click ?
Its the same problem with the 'helpful' box. Unchecked doesn't say 'unhelpful' it just means unchecked. |
If 20 out of 100 people commented "DNMC" wouldn't you consider that valuable information on how your image was perceived? Would you care whether it meant the remaining 80 thought it was on-topic or just couldn't be bothered to comment? If 20% of voters definitely think you missed the mark, then you probably did.
I don't see where the concept "DNMC" is any more or less valid depending on whether it is a check box or a comment. It's just a matter of gathering data, which some of us want. Those as don't want it, don't need to use it :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 01:45:48 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...If 20 out of 100 people commented "DNMC" wouldn't you consider that valuable information on how your image was perceived?... |
Not at all. I'd consider it trivia, distracting from the facts and nature of the image itself. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:05:47 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...If 20 out of 100 people commented "DNMC" wouldn't you consider that valuable information on how your image was perceived?... |
Not at all. I'd consider it trivia, distracting from the facts and nature of the image itself. |
I've said this before. DNMC is not a description of the image itself, but the usage and situation of that image. As such, wouldn't it be better to leave the comments for the facts and nature of the image itself and keep this bit of trivia/voting context information where it belongs - in a little tally box out of the way?
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:12:34 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...If 20 out of 100 people commented "DNMC" wouldn't you consider that valuable information on how your image was perceived?... |
Not at all. I'd consider it trivia, distracting from the facts and nature of the image itself. |
I've said this before. DNMC is not a description of the image itself, but the usage and situation of that image. As such, wouldn't it be better to leave the comments for the facts and nature of the image itself and keep this bit of trivia/voting context information where it belongs - in a little tally box out of the way? |
Perhaps. I'm not quite convinced that the little box and the idea of having to look at one permanently won't attract more hubbub than it's worth. Other than that, I think we're on the same page. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:14:20 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...If 20 out of 100 people commented "DNMC" wouldn't you consider that valuable information on how your image was perceived?... |
Absolutely, positively, YES!
Originally posted by eschelar:
I've said this before. DNMC is not a description of the image itself, but the usage and situation of that image. As such, wouldn't it be better to leave the comments for the facts and nature of the image itself and keep this bit of trivia/voting context information where it belongs - in a little tally box out of the way? |
No. Whether an image meets the challenge topic or not IS part of "the facts and nature of the image". It's a package deal when you enter a challenge - not a consider the image, then consider the topic/theme, scenario.
BTW - Here we go again. :-D |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 12:19:12 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
BTW - Here we go again. :-D |
? I thought I was responding to zeuszen. |
|
