| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2006 09:14:21 AM · #51 |
interesting numbers for msgoodygal :-)
# Made: 1359
# Helpful: 1554
# Received: 86
:-| |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:20:42 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by gooc:
interesting numbers for msgoodygal :-)
# Made: 1359
# Helpful: 1554
# Received: 86
:-| |
So she'll be allowed to enter the next 'comment challenge' huh?
This is ridiculous.
Look lady, stop leaving comments like "great job." You were probably told nicely the first 4 times by the site council. The fact that you refused to listen and probably got out of line with them is why some people react the way they do. You should feel lucky I'm not in charge of this site. If I was, I'd delete your membership. Just move on and stop leaving worthless comments that contain no thought to them at all.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:35:51 AM · #53 |
there are a number of things going on in this thread that bug me.
first, if you REALLY think this is the work of rose, submit a ticket and let the admins deal with it.
second, drew & langdon are the ONLY ones who will ever be able to EXACTLY correlate a score fluctuation with a comment received. you might THINK you can pinpoint the score someone gave you, but you will never know for sure.
next, take a step back and think about this: you are all lashing out at someone who is VISIBLY participating in the site. i guess it's the visibility that makes her any easy target for unleashing the frustrations that come with getting scores lower than what you want without getting any comments.
also, how about a little 'he who is without sin...'. how many of you vote 100% of the challenges, vote the same way today as you did when you started, vote with a concrete scale? how many of you go through and use a placeholder system--but never make it all the way back through for a complete final tuning?
lastly, given the size of the site and the number of entries, i would almost prefer people blasting through, speed voting, and giving out letter grades, then having them go back through to detail why they thought something deserved an F. at least, you could pm them after the challenge.
jeesh...
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:39:03 AM · #54 |
I think this is a case of not everything is as it seems. Please read on.
Originally posted by dudephil:
I understand what you're saying but shouldn't scores go up after a "great job" comment and go down after a "this shot sucks" comment? |
Generally, yes.
Originally posted by dudephil:
However, when the first comment on my image is, "great job", but I see a vote of 4, I get a little ticked. It makes me feel like the commenter is being, for lack of a better term, "troll-like". <underline added by me - glad2badad> I realize by reading this thread that this was not msgoodygals intent but I truly can't see how an image would get a "great job" with a vote of less than 6 or so (in my eyes 6 is very low for a great job). |
This is the part where continued reading clarified the all is not as it may seem...
Recently I've had the opportunity to do some commenting (the past few challenges). It just so happened that I commented on a few of msgoodygals images during the challenge period (along with many, many others). Obviously I didn't know whose images they were at the time, but after commenting I rec'd a thank you PM from msgoodygal. We've happened to send a couple of PM's back and forth since then, before this comment situation came to light (her "Great Job" comments being pulled).
I can assure you, based on what I know, that her generic comments were made in good faith as a pat on the back you might say, for people having the initiative to just enter the challenges, regardless of any score given out. Maybe I'm being naive, or I'm being snookered here - but I really don't think so.
Just as we often give the photographer the benefit of the doubt on challenge images (meeting the challenge, etc...) because we can't be that person, I think we should also apply this benefit at times to those leaving comments. You can't always know what a person is thinking.
For those of you that know me, you know I'm a pretty straight shooter on comments and my opinions. If you like it fine, if not that's ok too.
I'm a little peeved that the witchhunt mentallity kicked in on this one. I'm also a bit upset that "rules" are being quoted and used in this case that have yet to be verified as existing (i.e. "cut and paste comments" - see earlier postings in this thread).
My long two cents. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:46:38 AM · #55 |
You're peeved because people started stating the rules?
What were they supposed to do?
She was obviously giving copy/pasted comments to boost her comments given number...she was asked nicely to stop, refused and continued violating site policy. Then, she brought it up publicly in which case she was called out and the public was informed exactly what happened.
The fact of the matter is that you can't run around copy/pasting "good job" on 500 photos and think that's okay. Furthermore, once asked to stop nicely by the site council not once, but probably 3 or 4 times, you shouldn't refuse, you should just accept that and stop. Even now to this day she's saying she is in the right when clearly she isn't.
I'm actually a little peeved that you're a little peeved. It's clear that she's wrong, no matter of what her intentions were, she should have stopped when asked nicely.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:48:38 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by deapee:
You're peeved because people started stating the rules? ... |
Show me the "rules" and I won't be peeved anymore. ;^)
edit to clarify: show me the rule(s) she broke.
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 09:49:22. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:00:11 AM · #57 |
| This has got to be one of the sillier arguments here (and there's a lot to contend with). The SC asked someone not to copy and paste the same exact comment 2000 times. Why not just comply? There's no requirement to comment, this method is not beneficial to anyone and no one feels special knowing they got the same comment that the other 300 people in the challenge did. If you don't have time, don't comment on every image. It happens. This is not a "right" (see faq#27) worth fighting for. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:01:51 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by deapee:
You're peeved because people started stating the rules? ... |
Show me the "rules" and I won't be peeved anymore. ;^)
edit to clarify: show me the rule(s) she broke. |
I'll show you no rules for numerous reasons. First, I dont care enough to go searching through them. Secondly, all rules don't have to be written. If you're doing something and the site council asks you nicely to stop, you stop. If you don't, you are breaking the rules.
This whole thing is not a matter of someone going out and purposefully violating a policy right off the bat. It's a matter of someone refusing to listen when asked by the proper authorities to stop doing so.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:07:07 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Maybe I'm being naive, or I'm being snookered here - but I really don't think so. |
And I agree, as I think you picked up on that with the underlining of my comment above.
I truly hope that no one thinks that I am a member of a "witch hunt" - especially msgoodygal. I was glad to see that her reasoning as to why she made "great job" comments was to congratulate people for entering a challenge. Surely though, you must understand why people would assume differently after receiving such a comment coupled with a drop of an already mediocre score. Personally, I think the wording of the comment is the biggest culprit here. If I see, "great job" and nothing else, how am I to figure out that it doesn't apply to the image itself but rather the fact that I entered a challenge?
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:14:31 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Show me the "rules" and I won't be peeved anymore. ;^) |
you are correct. there are no "rules" about commenting. it's common sense that copying and pasting the same comment 1500 - 2000 times devalues the effort of commenting.
the "rule" (if you want to call it that) that she DID break is that she was requested by more than one SC member to stop the copy-and-paste comments and refused to comply. the reason she was asked to do so was because we received a number of complaints/tickets/questions/reports about the behavior from the community.
we're not trying to be the "heavies" here because we see something WE don't like. the SC is merely acting as an advocate of the community by asking this user to discontinue unwanted behavior. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:16:48 AM · #61 |
| I have used cut and paste to comment before. Usually on my 2 and 3 votes that don't meet the challenge, and it is what I want to say but don't want to type 5, 10 or 15 times. I often just paste one part and then customize it for the specific entry. I have also used it in some challenges where several entries could benefit from larger sizing. Is this really wrong? If I can't do it, I am less likely to leave a lengthy comment on shots with similar problems, and I hate just saying DNMC. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:17:20 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I'll show you no rules for numerous reasons. First, I dont care enough to go searching through them. ... |
That's a cop out. I've searched. They aren't there...
If "rules" are going to be quoted and used as threats, they should exist. If I start cutting and pasting comments now what rule would I break? Where is the line? If I do it on 100 of 300 images in a challenge, if I do it on 25 images per challenge and no one knows - is it "OK" then?
At what point does the witchhunt begin?
Originally posted by deapee:
It's a matter of someone refusing to listen when asked by the proper authorities to stop doing so. |
If that happens, yes - I agree. It would be nice to have some basis for the authoritative request however.
Think about this. If she voted every image a 7 and made that comment on every challenge entry would we still be having this conversation? I don't think so. ...oh, but wait, maybe we would - after all, there is a rule somewhere isn't there? Geez...
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:20:36 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by deapee:
I'll show you no rules for numerous reasons. First, I dont care enough to go searching through them. ... |
That's a cop out. I've searched. They aren't there...
If "rules" are going to be quoted and used as threats, they should exist. If I start cutting and pasting comments now what rule would I break? Where is the line? If I do it on 100 of 300 images in a challenge, if I do it on 25 images per challenge and no one knows - is it "OK" then?
At what point does the witchhunt begin?
Originally posted by deapee:
It's a matter of someone refusing to listen when asked by the proper authorities to stop doing so. |
If that happens, yes - I agree. It would be nice to have some basis for the authoritative request however.
Think about this. If she voted every image a 7 and made that comment on every challenge entry would we still be having this conversation? I don't think so. ...oh, but wait, maybe we would - after all, there is a rule somewhere isn't there? Geez... |
You're out of line now brother. Just step away from the computer. You're mis-representing what I said and nowhere did I threaten anyone. I don't believe anyone threatened anyone in any way whatsoever.
Bottom line...as I said before...maybe you will listen this time. She was asked to stop by authorities...she didn't stop...she broke the rules...she should have moved on...you should move on also...you're wrong.
edit: dp has left the building..........
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 10:21:18.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:21:59 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I can assure you, based on what I know, that her generic comments were made in good faith as a pat on the back you might say, for people having the initiative to just enter the challenges, regardless of any score given out. |
I corresponded through PM with her about this issue - not because I had gotten a comment from her, but because I had noticed and I was wondering why. And it is my strong belief, like glad2badad, that she is making the comments with good intentions.
Now, I do understand that it is easy to misinterpret/misunderstand the generic comment. In addition, I believe if SC asks someone to change behavior, that should happen. I just want to chime in in support of, if not her methods, her intentions. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:23:33 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I just want to chime in in support of, if not her methods, her intentions. |
No one is questioning her original intentions. This is the point where you're all getting confused. The fact is that when you're asked to stop doing something by the authorities, no matter how right you think you are, you should stop.
and with that, dp has left the building...for real this time.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:24:02 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... we're not trying to be the "heavies" here because we see something WE don't like. the SC is merely acting as an advocate of the community by asking this user to discontinue unwanted behavior. |
Thanks Rob. I appreciate what SC does for this site. Hopefully you know that in general. Your point is well taken overall.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:25:14 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by klstover:
I just want to chime in in support of, if not her methods, her intentions. |
No one is questioning her original intentions. This is the point where you're all getting confused. The fact is that when you're asked to stop doing something by the authorities, no matter how right you think you are, you should stop.
and with that, dp has left the building...for real this time. |
Excuse me? Maybe the part where I said In addition, I believe if SC asks someone to change behavior, that should happen. wasn't clear enough? |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:26:21 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by deapee:
... You're out of line now brother. Just step away from the computer. You're mis-representing what I said and nowhere did I threaten anyone. ... |
Oh boy. I didn't say you threatened anyone deapee. It was from a post earlier in this thread. I'll find it. ...hold on.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:29:03 AM · #69 |
| there is nothing wrong with copying and pasting a similar comment on a few images. i do it myself. copying and pasting the same comment 1500 times -- even if there is an intent to go back and change it -- makes people wonder about the value of the comment. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:29:45 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... we're not trying to be the "heavies" here because we see something WE don't like. the SC is merely acting as an advocate of the community by asking this user to discontinue unwanted behavior. |
Thanks Rob. I appreciate what SC does for this site. Hopefully you know that in general. Your point is well taken overall. |
dude...he said EXACTLY what I said. How can you respond by mis-quoting me, but telling him how great he is?
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:30:21 AM · #71 |
Here it is. The "possible penalties" sounded a bit ominous, and it applies to "anyone else", on the unwritten rules clarified by muckpond a few posts back.
Originally posted by HBunch:
... The comments are being removed, and if you (or anyone else) feels the need to continue making such cut and paste comments, they will be removed as well, and possible penalties applied. |
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:32:35 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here it is. The "possible penalties" sounded a bit ominous, and it applies to "anyone else", on the unwritten rules clarified by muckpond a few posts back.
Originally posted by HBunch:
... The comments are being removed, and if you (or anyone else) feels the need to continue making such cut and paste comments, they will be removed as well, and possible penalties applied. |
|
That's not a 'threat' ... that's how it goes man. This site is under no obligation to retain anyone's membership. If you're out of line and don't listen to the site council or if you agree with one person who says exactly the same thing as another person, but disagree strongly with that other person, you should just get banned on the spot.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:35:26 AM · #73 |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:35:34 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
If she voted every image a 7 and made that comment on every challenge entry would we still be having this conversation? I don't think so. |
..and you'd be right because the pattern vote scrubber would toss 300 votes of 7 along with the associated comments. ;-P
The issue IMO isn't so much the copy and pasting (lots of people do that to save time), it's giving the exact same comment across the board with little apparent regard to image quality. In that respect, it's similar to the also-undocumented vote scrubber. If the votes weren't tossed and everybody got a "Great Job! 10!" then yes, we'd almost certainly get complaints about that too. High scores/praise for poor images casts doubt on the validity of the votes. If so little thought went into the comment, then people will naturally wonder if the scores are equally random or worthless. Edited to add that the intentions may indeed have been noble, but the result of so many pasted comments comes across as patronizing.
Sometimes the "offense" is more about a general adverse affect on the site or lack of consideration for others rather than an outright rules violation. For example, there's no rule against putting a spam link in a comment, but I'm sure it would be quickly removed. If there was a specific rule against pasted comments, then we might not have bothered asking her to stop... ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 10:42:26. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:40:01 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... For example, there's no rule against putting a spam link in a comment, but I'm sure it would be quickly removed. ... |
;^)
TOS
4.3 You will not (i) use "spam," "blast-faxes" or recorded telephone messages to market or sell Products, (ii) interfere with the DPChallenge.com Service by using viruses or any other programs or technology designed to disrupt or damage any software or hardware, (iii) modify, create derivative works from, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any technology used to provide the DPChallenge.com Service, (iv) use a robot, spider or other device or process to monitor the activity on or copy pages from the DPChallenge.com Web Site, (v) collect electronic mail addresses or other information from third parties by using the DPChallenge.com Service, (vi) impersonate another person or entity, (viii) engage in any activity that interferes with any third party's ability to use or enjoy the DPChallenge.com Service or (ix) assist any third party in engaging in any activity prohibited by this Agreement.
|
|
