| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2006 08:47:37 AM · #326 |
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 09:22:20. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 08:50:26 AM · #327 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by kashi:
You research, write and rewrite several 2-page essays, but your best effort and most accurate essay is only 1/2 page long. You hand that in. |
The answer is simple... increase the size of the margin wide enough until the text fills two pages :) |
LOL!!! |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 08:51:15 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by posthumous:
and an example of what's so horribly wrong about public education. In any other context, if you can get your point across in one fourth the time you will be greatly rewarded. |
but you missed the true point here - you get graded down for not listening and following the details of the assignment. |
I get the point exactly. The child is being graded for the wrong thing, being taught merely to follow rules, to conform. But this doesn't fully apply to the current situation, because DPChallenge isn't responsible for quite as much as public education is.
This is, in fact, yet another pointless tangent in an endless thread... :) but if you want to start a new thread about Left Brain vs. Right Brain, linear thinking vs. creative leaps, etc., I'll see you there! |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 08:58:00 AM · #329 |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 10:07:59 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by brizmama:
How do we know then whether they used 2 seconds or not... or are we guessing? |
Would be recorded in the EXIF data on the original file.
Man, I'm glad I don't drop by much anymore. It's just not worth my precious time. I have enough people at work trying to bend the rules that I don't need the same kind of crap on my own time.
See you much later.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 10:09:42. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 10:12:16 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by colyla:
 |
Awwwww, poor horsey :-(
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:39:26 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Not accurate at all, the teacher specified before giving the assignment that you would NOT be penalized/failed for submitting an essay that's shorter than 2 pages. |
For this to be accurate you would have to add something like this -- "However, the teacher made this announcement after the class had been excused and only a part of the class was aware that they would not be graded down for falling short of the assigned two pages." And you could continue it like this --"The teacher had the opportunity to tell the whole class that the full two pages was not mandatory the next day but decided it was not necessary to do so." This second sentence covers the remote, but not unprecedented, possibility of the SC/admins adding a Special Rule (to make 2 sec mandatory, or to say it was only a guideline) after the challenge had started.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:48:37 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Not accurate at all, the teacher specified before giving the assignment that you would NOT be penalized/failed for submitting an essay that's shorter than 2 pages. |
For this to be accurate you would have to add something like this -- "However, the teacher made this announcement after the class had been excused and only a part of the class was aware that they would not be graded down for falling short of the assigned two pages." And you could continue it like this --"The teacher had the opportunity to tell the whole class that the full two pages was not mandatory the next day but decided it was not necessary to do so." This second sentence covers the remote, but not unprecedented, possibility of the SC/admins adding a Special Rule (to make 2 sec mandatory, or to say it was only a guideline) after the challenge had started. |
and to further drag this analogy down, you would also want to point out that that had always been the case for several years in the class room and that those students who hadn't been paying attention for several years can hardly claim ignorance as a reason for their confusion.
You've been here a while - How long has it been since someone was DQed for not meeting a challenge, unless explicitly stated in the rules (Ducky) ? Why would you think it would be different in this particular case ? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:55:14 AM · #334 |
Well I can honestly say that for me this is a big black mark on the credibility of this site. I was considering signing up. There is no way if this is standard procedure.
Iâm sorry, but there is no way to 'creatively interpret' 'exactly 2 seconds'. I suppose a track runner can enter a 440 meter race, run a 50M sprint and say "I won" right? Not.
The whole "well we can't verify everyone" thing is a red herring, too. You wouldn't be verifying everyone, just the top 10 or so. And if you canât verify, then why are you creating these sorts of challenges in the first place.
Now I realize, obviously, someone could theoretically edit their EXIF data too, but that is another matter all together. We presume honesty in challenges. Those that are dishonest are scorned, or at least should be. If you arenât going to enforce the challenge âguidelinesâ then Iâm not quite sure what the point of this site is.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:55:37 AM · #335 |
Hey now - I never said it was a GOOD analogy, just that is WAS an analogy !
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:08:39 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by buddyellis:
...The whole "well we can't verify everyone" thing is a red herring, too. You wouldn't be verifying everyone, just the top 10 or so. And if you canât verify, then why are you creating these sorts of challenges in the first place.
Now I realize, obviously, someone could theoretically edit their EXIF data too, but that is another matter all together. We presume honesty in challenges. Those that are dishonest are scorned, or at least should be. If you arenât going to enforce the challenge âguidelinesâ then Iâm not quite sure what the point of this site is. |
The "verify everything" scenario was an extreme example, to be certain. If we want to be *certain* that no one cheated, we'd need to verify all entries. My point was, that to certify any given entry, we have to require an original proof file. Past history (1 challenge) on this has shown that a LARGE fraction of entires get DQ requests; it was close to 50% the one time we DQ'd for "Does Not Meet Challenge." So while the "verify everything" scenario seems far-fetched, it is not so far from reality.
You're correct that in the case of technical challenges where the guidelines are very explicit, DNMC should be considered differently than in "creative" challenges. This challenge has provided some harsh lessons, and we are actively discusssing exactly how to address this in the future. Several good suggestions have been brought forward in this thread.
In summation, any GOOD community will have bumps in it's roads. It's how the *community* reacts to the bumps that determines the character of that community. I firmly believe that the DPC community is one of the most positive, responsive communities on the web, but as we change and grow we will most definitely hit more of these bumps. Let's react by discussing how we can eliminate the bumps, not by tearing up the entire road.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:22:41 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why would you think it would be different in this particular case ? |
Why? Well maybe because the word "exactly" appeared in the details; or maybe because of the title; or maybe because you thought that a two second exposure was a pretty clear instruction that would be understood by everyone and not subject to variations in personal interpretation; or maybe because you thought that it was fairly easy to accomplish a two second exposure without having expert level knowledge of how camera settings are done; or maybe because you looked at the thread that gave away the requirement and decided you didn't want to wade thru a dozen or more pages; or maybe because you thought it was reasonable to expect a certain level of integrity on the part of all entrants; or maybe you thought the powers that be would protect you from those who would take an unfair advantage; or .... and so forth. Quite a few of us (dare I guess that we are the majority?) naively fell into this trap.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:07:16 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why would you think it would be different in this particular case ? |
Why? Well maybe because the word "exactly" appeared in the details; or maybe because of the title; or maybe because you thought that a two second exposure was a pretty clear instruction that would be understood by everyone and not subject to variations in personal interpretation; or maybe because you thought that it was fairly easy to accomplish a two second exposure without having expert level knowledge of how camera settings are done; or maybe because you looked at the thread that gave away the requirement and decided you didn't want to wade thru a dozen or more pages; or maybe because you thought it was reasonable to expect a certain level of integrity on the part of all entrants; or maybe you thought the powers that be would protect you from those who would take an unfair advantage; or .... and so forth. Quite a few of us (dare I guess that we are the majority?) naively fell into this trap. |
Yeah - I understand all that. But as I said - why would you think it would be any different this time around ? What in the history of the site would lead you to believe that anything in the challenge definition would be enforced ?
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 13:08:24. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:08:15 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The "verify everything" scenario was an extreme example, to be certain. If we want to be *certain* that no one cheated, we'd need to verify all entries. My point was, that to certify any given entry, we have to require an original proof file. Past history (1 challenge) on this has shown that a LARGE fraction of entires get DQ requests; it was close to 50% the one time we DQ'd for "Does Not Meet Challenge." So while the "verify everything" scenario seems far-fetched, it is not so far from reality. |
This is not an attack. Harsh critcism perhaps but not directed at any one person.
The first part of kirbic's post, as quoted above, makes me think that the SC was reluctant to take on the task of verifying about 90-100 entries for the 2-Second Exposure challenge. They would have been fairly easy verifications for the most part, simply check the EXIF for shutter speed and then pass or fail, not a subjective judgement that needs extensive discussion. I believe we have the resources to shoulder that burden on one occasion, or a few occasions, when necessary to rescue the integrity of a challenge. Perhaps those resources are not available to the 17-member SC as presently constituted, but cetainly they exist within this community.
As always, just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 02:25:22 PM · #340 |
I agree on the 2 second instruction, there is NO interpretaion or creativity to muster out of it. Let's just rename the challenge to "Any second exposure" and it is fixed. I know it is after the fact and many people followed the RULES and concept of the challenge, but what the hey. Why not make it like alot of things these days? GIve EVERYONE a ribbon so we don't hurt their self esteem? Make everyone happy?
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:14:57 PM · #341 |
Just exactly what do all of you who are continuing to complain in this thread expect us (SC members) to do?
We have a situation where it's universally acknowledged that the rules were not well-defined. We didn't define them, and we can't change them now. We will try to avoid such ill-defined rules in the future.
So, just WTF do you want ...?
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 15:15:40. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:19:20 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, just WTF do you want ...? |
As dacrazyrn just suggested, give us all a ribbon. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:19:23 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just exactly what do all of you who are continuing to complain in this thread expect us (SC members) to do?
We have a situation where it's universally acknowledged that the rules were not well-defined. We didn't define them, and we can't change them now. We will try to avoid such ill-defined rules in the future.
So, just WTF do you want ...? |
Well said! Can we end this thread....please???? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:19:38 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just exactly what do all of you who are continuing to complain in this thread expect us (SC members) to do?
We have a situation where it's universally acknowledged that the rules were not well-defined. We didn't define them, and we can't change them now. We will try to avoid such ill-defined rules in the future.
So, just WTF do you want ...? |
GeneralE, I love when you talk dirty to me, lol
just trying to add some humor
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:26:37 PM · #345 |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:28:25 PM · #346 |
Kill it, kill it, kill it :-) GeneralE, you CAN do it :-)
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:32:24 PM · #347 |
They have this need to abuse people... so ... its SCs turn this week..
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just exactly what do all of you who are continuing to complain in this thread expect us (SC members) to do?
We have a situation where it's universally acknowledged that the rules were not well-defined. We didn't define them, and we can't change them now. We will try to avoid such ill-defined rules in the future.
So, just WTF do you want ...? |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:44:44 PM · #348 |
Posted this over on the "other thread" and wanted to bring it up here as well:
Suggestion for future challenges, especially technically specific ones:
EXIF data can be read on uploads, that is a given, as TrekEarth / Lens / Nature sites read on uploads if attached to the image. Server side software could easily read EXIF on uploads to qualify a shot by date, exposure data, etc.
Presently 150k is allowed, and at times even save for web will leave artifacts of compression, especially on high-detail images, so bump another 30k to cover the non-image data that would accompany it, no longer saving for web.
No qualifying EXIF, no submission allowed.
Maybe ALL challenges should pass a pre-screening of this type, at least to qualify date/time, unless world regions would create havoc with that, though IP filters should be able to handle that side of the filtration process.
Sure would eliminate a lot of hassles & heartaches and subsequent civil unrest because someone didn't have their camera set to AM instead of PM and fell outside the submission dates, thus being disqualified on a technicality.
In the case of the 2-second challenge, a go/no-go filter to read and allow uploading if exposure time was between 1.90 to 2.10 seconds, could have been in place, kicking out anyone from submitting a shot that truly DNMC, thus easing the already over-burdened Site Council that continue to do, for the most part, a thankless job on this site, and yet always seem to be in the cross-hairs when someone is unhappy.
Just a thought.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 15:45:01. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:55:23 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just exactly what do all of you who are continuing to complain in this thread expect us (SC members) to do?
We have a situation where it's universally acknowledged that the rules were not well-defined. We didn't define them, and we can't change them now. |
Ah, well it's actually very easy. You say you can't change the rules now, well you don't have to, there is a clear solution and it's covered in the rules of membership. The Challenge Rules assume people are trying to meet the challenge and are largely competing in an honest way. They were never written with the thought that people would try to deceive or cheat. However there is also a rule of membership that we have all agreed to as a condition of participation in this site. This is it.
Originally posted by Registered Users Agreement:
4. Your Conduct
4.1 Generally, you must use the DPChallenge.com Service in a manner that demonstrates good taste and respect for the rights of DPChallenge.com and third parties. |
These entries do not respect the rights of third parties (i.e. the rest of the membership) as they set out to cheat them of ribbon opportunities by deception and cheating.
Therefore there is a very easy and satisfactory way out for SC and the Admins. DQ the two ribbon images and send a message (which is what everyone is bleating about) that such activities are not tolerated.
Such an action would recover the integrity of DPC, it's SC members and restore the faith of the paying membership. Does SC and the Admins really think the rights of two people who set out to bring DPC into disrepute outweighs the rights of the thousands of rule-abiding members? I would sincerely hope not.
Brett (who at this point will not renew his membership on renewal)
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 15:59:31. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 04:00:37 PM · #350 |
yeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaa
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:36:40 PM EDT.
