| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2006 01:28:36 PM · #1 |
Three cheers for getting rid of the recent Basic Editing Challenge âDetailsâ of confusion.
They are Great-and-Necessary to limit and precisely aim some Categories.
But they must be precise and have a purpose other than creating Controversy and Confusion.
Being somewhat new to this site I accepted the obliterated details as a mimic to Real Life situations.
If a boss sends two people on a photography assignment, one person may spend two hours trying to figure out the directions and misses the opportunity entirely. The other person might take off running and get some shots, even if they may be totally the wrong ones.
So which is better being Wrong or having None?
EXAMPLE
â¦the âStationeryâ-Challenge-Details, stated:
âThat is with an E not A so it means stuff you write on. Itâs not as dumbs as it sounds; lots of people have submitted extraordinary images of paperâ
1) ââ¦STUFF YOU WRITE ONâ¦â and âIMAGES OF PAPERâ, most directly mean just that, âPAPERâ.
Anything that was not âPAPERâ should not have made it to the top 20, DNMC.
5 out of the top-twenty had NO PAPER in them at all!
2) I had a great shot in mind with a slew of âPens, Pencils. Markers, and writing instruments.
I did not shoot it since I happen to take the âDetailsâ as âDirectionsâ.
SOLUTIONS
1) I am willing to take on the challenge of âChallenge Details Editorâ if anyone is interested.
I could edit it only one hour before, or maybe one hour after. it is released publicly. I donât think that would make it unfair for my own entries. I would only point out any possibilities for gross misinterpretation, and not deviate from the original intention.
2) Maybe the âDetailsâ could be displayed TWO times.
Can be titled as or âPRELIMINARY Challenge Detailsâ open for discussion on the related forum thread (which is done already).
Then, 24-Hours later, another revised one may be posted titled, âFINAL Challenge Detailsâ
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 01:44:31 PM · #2 |
the stationery description was modified after the challenge was announced.
"dnmc" is not grounds for a DQ. if you don't think it belongs in the challenge, vote accordingly and move on.
most of the challenge descriptions are pretty much right what the original suggestor wrote. if you have great descriptions in mind, feel free to submit some to the challenge suggestions forum. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 02:16:14 PM · #3 |
It's an interesting phenomenon when a category is so specific and mundane that even things that don't completely fit into the challenge get good scores. Even if the category was changed after it was announced, voters still must have voted on the current description not the original). the problem with arguing the final finishers it that this has already been voted upon and the majority decided with their votes. I agree that many images were not "paper" ... and that final placement was surprising ... but sometimes people push the envelope and it works ;] wink wink. PS: it is extremely rare that the 3 of the top 10 were ones that I would have picked personally.
Additionally you bring up the issue of "DNMC" which people are happilly throwing out all of the time. It would be interesting to see the difference between the scores of people that are voting on images when they too have an image in the challenge vs. the scores when they don't. Are people "expecting" something and responding to disappointment with a vote ... I think so. I only say this because my brain is often disappointed when first looking through a challenge. I think we all need to look at all the images and grade them compared to the others ... it's just a matter of having enough time and many people don't.
This one was a little different: i think in the stationery category people were looking for something interesting -- which paper is usually not, so when different stuff popped up they gave them the benefit of the doubt.
As for the challenge descriptions, I like them vaguely specific ... "Bokeh" for example.
Many of the other categories cause too much whining among voters ... "The challenge said "singular" not "plural" ... etc. I mean c'mon ... if it can fit the challenge just score it and move on.
Just my 17.2 cents.
Message edited by author 2006-07-26 14:43:32.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 04:54:03 PM · #4 |
So, should I totally ignore the "Challenge Details"? Are these "Rules" or not.
Muckpond: "the stationery description was modified after the challenge was announced."
That's new to me. Could you please show me where, as a new-member, I would find that such things can happen.
SUGGESTION:
Maybe 24-Hrs. Before the "Actual Challenge Starting Date" the "Challenge Details", could be further noted as "PRELIMINARY-Challenge Details". And after a certain time, 24-48 hrs., it can be changed to "FINAL-Challenge Details", on the Main-web page.
Regularly, I capture the screen on the day the new challenge is started, and print it out for a handy reference.
Muckpond: ""dnmc" is not grounds for a DQ. if you don't think it belongs in the challenge, vote accordingly and move on."
Above, I wasn't at all speaking about voting, I understand that part.
Muckpond: most of the challenge descriptions are pretty much right what the original suggestor wrote. if you have great descriptions in mind, feel free to submit some to the challenge suggestions forum.
Okay, the original suggestor, may not be good at writing.
I haven't seen those threads. Should/Could, I submit "Suggested Revisions and Alternatives" for all the suggestions.
Maybe there is or needs to be such a thread, but that's not going to fix a typo or an intention, "lost-in-translation". |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 05:07:48 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
So, should I totally ignore the "Challenge Details"? Are these "Rules" or not.... |
Meeting the challenge details is not a rule. You can't be dq'd, but you will probably score very poorly if you don't fit the challenge. Sometimes, if there is a yellow flag, it is 'extra' dq-able details.
Normally, if there is a modification to the challenge after it is posted, there will be an 'Administrator announcement' thread in the forums (those are highlighted in green).
There is a 'Challenge Suggestions' topic in the forums. This is where the challenges are cultivated from. They are a forum, so discussion is welcome there. You could follow along the threads and suggest rewording, more/less detail, say you like/dislike the idea, anything. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 05:34:26 PM · #6 |
I like the ambiguity of the current challenge definitions (I like it even better when there aren't any). I don't like that voters are getting anal about the challenge topic being only correct in the way they view it, but I like that I am free to interpret the title and description as I see fit.
Having one person look at the challenge description and edit it the way they see fit doesn't sit well with me. Then the focus of the challenge is narrowed down to a little box - the vision of one person. At least during the voting period multiple people with multiple differing points of view are considering the challenge. It would be too boring narrowly defined. Who wants to look at 300 pictures of the same thing? |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 09:45:40 AM · #7 |
Yes, that may be an altenative. If it is left to the imagination, the imagineers's freedom for creativity is greatly expanded. That may have less negativity for DNMC's. On the other hand it would be less focused and less of a "Challenge".
But I do agree with dahkota, that it would be too, boring, to view 300 similar photographs. That would only be if the "focus" of the challenge is too, narrow.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Normally, if there is a modification to the challenge after it is posted, there will be an 'Administrator announcement' thread in the forums (those are highlighted in green)."
taterbug:
How long is an "Administrator announcement" thread of some Revised-Details visible to a user signing in at any time during the shooting-period? |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 09:52:14 AM · #8 |
perfectly stated...
Originally posted by dahkota:
I like the ambiguity of the current challenge definitions (I like it even better when there aren't any). I don't like that voters are getting anal about the challenge topic being only correct in the way they view it, but I like that I am free to interpret the title and description as I see fit.
Having one person look at the challenge description and edit it the way they see fit doesn't sit well with me. Then the focus of the challenge is narrowed down to a little box - the vision of one person. At least during the voting period multiple people with multiple differing points of view are considering the challenge. It would be too boring narrowly defined. Who wants to look at 300 pictures of the same thing? |
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 10:25:04 AM · #9 |
How To End the "Challenge Details" controversy
Not possible.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 11:05:48 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
... but that's not going to fix..."lost-in-translation". |
That right there is the main issue. The site is used by people all over the world, with different up bringings and cultures, not to mention languages. Heck when I go from Illinois to Kentucky I have to change from asking for a soda to asking for a pop and if I was in Georgia it better be Coke.
Everyone sees what they want and there is really no way to get this diverse of a group to agree on the exact same thing.
Some people are very literal and will take the details for everything they say, case in point... my submission to the 80s challenge received a comment stating that the Rubix cube was invented in the 70's and so it didn't fit the challenge, even though the details said to "capture the essense of the decade". I don't know many people that see a rubix cube and think..."Oh I remember the 70" (actually most probably don't remember the 70's but you get my drift lol). I do not know if the member voted me down for that but I'm betting yes. Did this person HAVE to take the details to that level...in her mind yes.
While others will read between the lines and try to figure out what the suggester is really talking about and then hold you to that belief, even if it is their own. These are usually the people that "think outside the box" and submit an image in this fashion then wonder or gripe why no one saw what they intended.
I personally think the details are needed, maybe not all the time but on most. I also strongly believe that if you are voting on the images and you have marked DNMC on more than one or two of them, then maybe you are looking at it wrong and need to re-evalute YOUR idea of what the details say. (btw...this also holds true if you are constantly commenting that images are too dark, too light, too blurry, etc...one or two ok fine, but more than that and you have to think maybe their fine and your wrong).
Don't like the details, hey don't read em...but also don't go complaining when you get the "DNMC" comment or don't think you got a fair vote (not saying anyone here has done that). |
|
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: 03/13/2025 12:51:21 AM EDT.
