DNMC Bag for Challenges - DPChallenge Forums

08/29/2007 06:19:31 AM · #1

for those new to the thread that want to see the updated form of this suggestion, please refer to post #43. The form of the suggestion has changed. Feel free to read the comments between, but this post contains an outdated variant of the Web Site Suggestion/edit

I wonder if there were certain challenges that could get a special flag that could see DNMC entries moved to the DNMC bag. Obviously, challenges with interpretative descriptions would not be subject to this.

If the entries were DNMC, they would be removed from their challenge and people could vote on them within the DNMC bag. Perhaps voting could take place for the whole month.

Obviously, there are many challenges where the interpretation of the challenge description is a vital part of things, but after reading the recent discussion on the Fill-The-Frame challenge, it seems as though there are plenty of challenges that DO have enough strictness of definition that they could be subject to this.

it could be kind of like a "Free Study Afterthought". Of course, photographers could move their own image to the DNMC bag if they came to realize that they had made a major error in reading or something.

No ribbons would be handed out for the DNMC bag, images within would not even need to be given placements, just hand them a numerical score and walk away. It's still possible to get a personal best, but shooting DNMC on non-interpretative challenges, but no ribbon would be applied.

Benefits:

lower numbers of entries creates more dynamic placements and a more relevant voting field. It is not so unreachable to get top ten or whatever.

voting is more pleasant with a smaller and more relevant field, so more people would likely vote.

Voting on the DNMC bag taking place over a longer period of time, so their results would be more homogenous, but also would be less affected by attack votes.

Once an image is bagged, the error would be acknowledged and nobody would need to vote low. Therefore, the mysery of the often discussed "trolls" might be reduced.

Would increase the relevance of challenge descriptions.

Would decrease people's sensitivity to the DNMC concept, as well as polarizing whether it is meant as a statement of fact vs a statement of opinion based on the type of challenge.

Would increase public learning value of DPC due to increased awareness of the role of DNMC in receiving votes.

Would still allow a vote to be received on a DNMC image, which is what many people look for when entering a challenge, but would deny a ribbon for DNMC entries - something which often causes an uproar and sometimes causes people to just quietly leave.

If the DNMC box were left in for all voting, but left completely anonymous and unattached to any other statistic, people could learn a bit about whether their votes are low because of perception of the public that the image is not suitable. This would remove a lot of the stigma associated with the term DNMC by just rendering it another stat to be used for learning only by those who feel they want to.

For example these kinds of statements might be found in the forums
- "I just finished a challenge with 0 DNMC votes!"
- "couldn't figure out why my image wasn't breaking 5.5... until after the challenge and I discovered that 45 of the 239 votes I received felt that my image was DNMC... no wonder!"
- "Oh, I get it, 17 votes of 3 or less and 29 DNMC votes..."
- "So this pic of mine got a 6.2 but isn't very good, while this other pic is brighter, sharper and better composed, but got a 5.4... OHHHH look at the DNMC votes!"

Implementation: during voting, images could be tagged via a radio box DNMC. A small DNMC council could work on these. If a person's image came up for review, he would be notified and given 24 hours to change the image description to demonstrate compliance with the description. After 24 hours, a further vote would be required to cancel or 'banish' the image. If DNMC is flagged, when the image is moved to the DNMC bag, the vote is REMOVED. images may require a certain percentage of flags before the image is reviewed by DNMC council.

if this were the case, people could vote down DNMC images as many currently do, but without fear that they were knocking a good image just because it was in the wrong place.

The challenge description could state: This is a TECHNICAL challenge. The challenge description is a requirement, and DNMC boxes will be considered for moving unsuitable images to the DNMC Bag.

Voting on the DNMC Bag could be possible, but the bag could only be visited after voting on 20% of the standard challenge. To clarify, if a voter voted 20%, but the image was moved to the DNMC bag, the vote would still count for quantity with that challenge, but the value of the vote for that image would be removed from that image itself. Each challenge subject to the Bag could have a sub-section for images moved to the Bag during voting.

DNMC Bag images are suitable for Free Study type definitions, so if images were placed in the bag, they would just sit in the bag for 30 days and then would be added to the end of the challenge.

Kind of like a Soft DQ in place of having a regular DQ for DNMC as is currently implemented only extremely rarely in technical type challenges.

I believe that both sides of the issue would likely be quite satisfied.

Regarding the increased workload, only technical challenges would be subject to the DNMC Bag. the DNMC box could be left in to help people learn about their anonymous voting group without getting specific.

DNMC would become a disposable stat instead of a source of contention.

Message edited by author 2007-09-22 00:15:27.

quiet_observation

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/29/2007 07:00:24 AM · #2

should be in the rant forum

08/29/2007 07:08:34 AM · #3

why?

I have read a number of forums about the issue, so it obviously is a real issue. This is a suggestion with potential for a solution.

Do you think people are just going to stop talking about it because they have become bored with it? No, they will just start another thread next week.

An additional benefit to this idea is that if you were concerned that your image was getting lots of 'troll' votes, you could opt to move to the DNMC bag, as those DNMC votes would be removed.

What's to stop someone from voting 1's but not checking the DNMC box? Nothing, but nothing is there to stop them currently either. At least with the DNMC box to check, people can be more specific about what they mean.

08/29/2007 07:26:41 AM · #4

Originally posted by eschelar:

... DNMC would become a disposable stat instead of a source of contention.

The "source of contention" will never go away, it would just be redirected. People like to have something to bitch about, not everyone of course, but quite a few. :)

DNMC would still be subjective. A panel (or Site Council subgroup) would be very similar to the judging panel suggested in another thread. While I like and appreciate the Site Council members, I know I have a different view/perspective on many issues than they have. It's natural, as everyone has individual preferences (thank goodness!). Point being, I wouldn't want DNMC scrutiny to be put in the hands of a few.

Think we have "troll" issues now (in the minds of some) - what happens when good images start getting not only dinged on score for people thinking the image is DNMC is their opinion, but also having the DNMC box checked.

While a valiant thought on your part to bring this up, I think it would just add more fuel to the various debates that wage here on a weekly basis.

BTW - Notice there's no description on the Bokeh IV challenge? :D I nearly groaned when I saw that challenge show up this morning. I LOVE Bokeh as a challenge theme, but bemoan all the hype and definition banter that ALWAYS comes along with it.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/29/2007 11:03:11 AM · #5

I believe that people blow DNMC WAY out of proportion. In most cases, it's just an opinion of one or a few voters.

Learning that many people have a similar specific view is what those statistics are really for. If one person flips out now if they get a single DNMC comment, having that remanded to just a handful of little box checks isn't too bad.

I don't see a lot of threads constantly freaking out about how few of their comments are checked as helpful. Yet for some, the gap is quite wide.

When something gets spread out a bit more, things are much easier to say and much easier to accept.

The DNMC would be subjective if voted on by a panel. Of course! However, there are a few things that could prevent this from getting too difficult for them.

#1, only have images reviewed for DNMC bag after they pass a certain percentage of dnmc votes to votes, only starting the counting after the first day

#2 have a small DNMC council voting requirement.

#3 provide 24 hours to the photographer to provide a coherent description of how they feel that the image fits the challenge if it gets to this point. if it's coherent, the dnmc could just leave it alone. An image description is already requested, and it's pretty rare that someone wouldn't have time to enter a rudimentary description of their image within the first few days if they have had time to shoot and process an image. It doesn't take much. (for 30 second challenge - took a shot at 30 seconds) This gets a lot less complicated for challenges of a technical nature, hence the DNMC Bag would only apply to this type. see above.

#4 IF the DNMC Council did not feel a need to move an image to the bag, the photographer might consider the number of DNMC votes they had received and consider that ***IF they were shooting for SCORE***, they might get better numbers by choosing to move their own image to the bag.

This is a way of putting the choice in the photographers hands. Don't like your scores? maybe those 63 DNMC boxes might help you understand. What do to about it? Jump to the DNMC bag and ditch the DNMC tagged votes.

You think it would fan the flames? I don't believe that it would.

Scenario 1 - Someone starts a thread complaining about his low score. People ask how many DNMC votes he got. Turns out there were 37. total sub-4 votes, 26. question answered. Guy complains that image is not DNMC. Anyone explains that this is merely his own view and that 37 people did not agree. Printing photos and putting them on the wall in your living room is a great way to enjoy photos where your opinion is all that matters. Putting them online in a contest is a good way to find out what others think.

Scenario 2 - Someone starts a thread complaining that after three days of voting, his amazing picture has gone from a 6.2 to a 4.3. Someone asks if he has any DNMC votes. Responds yeah, 45 of them. Someone points out that with 87 total votes, 45 is a pretty big portion. Guy opts to Bag it. His vote goes back up to 5.3. A month later, he gets a final score of 5.6.

Scenario 3 - someone comments DNMC on a pic of a sensitive photographer. Gets PM'd with a flame. Someone has two options - shut mouth or let DNMC boxes tell the story. Decides to remove the DNMC comment as it's completely unnecessary with the anonymous box. At the end of the challenge, the original photog posts a thread asking if it was really DNMC. Turns out they only got 7 DNMC box checks. DNMC commenter walks away knowing that at least he wasn't alone, and that the message was delivered. Original photog walks away realizing that you can't please everyone all the time, but when it boils down to it, it's not a huge deal. Image was pretty close anyhow...

Additionally, voters who voted 1,2 or 3 could have a small reminder along the lines of "Many people learn better when a brief comment explains why a low vote was cast. Additionally, if you feel the image is DNMC, please check the box." maybe for the first 10 times a person votes sub-4 and every 100 times after that?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/29/2007 11:13:08 AM · #6

I have to admit I have a hard time following some of it, but then again I haven't hit starbucks yet. Overall, it sounds like there is a workable idea in there.

08/29/2007 11:21:41 AM · #7

Originally posted by eschelar:

I believe that people blow DNMC WAY out of proportion. In most cases, it's just an opinion of one or a few voters. ...

Agreed. So why the big fuss?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/29/2007 11:42:07 AM · #8

I didn't start the fuss. there are several threads currently moving and I just came upon them this afternoon. I started this thread as I felt I had a 'workable idea' and made some suggestions for the web site in the Web Site Suggestions forum section.

Why the big fuss about DNMC?

People care too much about their images.

People care too little about making them.

People care too much about what a few voters think.

People care too little about what the guy who writes the challenge descriptions thinks.

People think that it's possible to please everyone some of the time.

People don't understand that DNMC is just one facet of their picture, and that receiving a DNMC comment is not equivalent to an attack.

People are afraid of saying what they mean or think they should say because people are oversensitive.

Have I scratched the surface yet as to why there is a big fuss? You can read about it in the forums and make your own decisions.

I'm trying to offer a solution to reduce the big fuss as it rolls and rumbles around the forum, reducing everyone's enjoyment of the challenges.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/29/2007 12:00:48 PM · #9

Originally posted by eschelar:

I'm trying to offer a solution to reduce the big fuss as it rolls and rumbles around the forum, reducing everyone's enjoyment of the challenges.

THAT part I understand, and I, personally, appreciate the effort, but the rest of it I don't understand. That is to say, I don't see how your "segregation" proposal will result in less controversy; I think it would engender more.

If "data" is what you're after (in other words, direct feedback from voters on the DNMC issue), then I'd suggest a set of several radio buttons that can be clicked on any image:

1. Totally misses the challenge topic

2. Connection to challenge topic is marginal at best

3. Addresses the challenge topic, but boring and predictable

4. Interesting, creative take on the challenge topic

If people started using these buttons regularly, THAT would provide valid and useful feedback on how the voters, as a group, interpret your image in the context of the challenge.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-08-29 12:01:45.

yakatme

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/29/2007 12:24:59 PM · #10

Originally posted by quiet_observation:

should be in the rant forum

Why? I don't see any ranting in the original post or in any of the replies (yet).

It looks like a web site suggestion to me and has been appropriately placed in the "Web Site Suggestions" forum.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/29/2007 12:42:13 PM · #11

I like it!

Do you think it would be more likely that a choice between 4 radio buttons would see more use or a single DNMC button?

From my POV as a voter, I'd see the choice as slowing me down more. The DNMC button would only get clicked maybe 20 times or so in a medium sized challenge with 50% voted on, so I'd lean towards getting people to do something easy that requires little thought/time/effort rather trying to find a way to get them to actually think more.

It may be more helpful, but a thorough detailed comment by each voter would be even more helpful still. Not going to happen though.

Still, I think it would be worth the time to explore the 4 radio button choice to see if it had long-term support by the voting crowd.

the segregation proposal is only a part of my suggestion. it would be nice to have some more challenges that were supported by a form of segregation as were the two challenges we have had in the past. This would result in more people putting more thought into challenges. As stated above, once the DNMC vote ran high enough in a specific challenge, a photographer would be allowed to present his side of it. If it was coherent, the DNMC would not be placed.

In actuality, by tracking the stat though, much of the segregation could be left up to the individual photographers without the stigma of a DQ. And I say this knowing that most people view a DQ as a fairly inconsequential matter, but the site views it as a serious issue, where DNMC is viewed by the site as a minor issue (according to rules) but is viewed as a 'Big Deal' by many. This is largely due to the fact that DNMC has much more to do with the score than DQ and many people do care about their scores.

the way that it would create less controversy is that it would disassociate the names from the DNMC comment. You wouldn't hear that 'eschelar' comments 'DNMC'. You would simply hear that you have ## votes where the voters felt the image was DNMC.

Who to yell at?
Who to point fingers at?
The words get spoken and heard, but the emotion is removed.

In fact, by having the DNMC bag, if the person wishes, they could retreat to a free-study area where DNMC votes could be cast off and a number score can be received.

This would put an element of choice and action into the hands of the photographer.

Instead of someone starting a forum thread because they are angry because ONE person said their image was DNMC, they might start a thread stating that 47 people thought their image was DNMC. This type of thread would likely result in a great deal of learning.

Or, they might start a thread stating that ONE person said their image was DNMC. And nobody else thought that. At which point the person realizes that this single anonymous individual is really unimportant - or is informed of that in the forums. The person might even give a moment to consider that their image might be DNMC from some POV's.

In fact, I was thinking about your Self Portrait image a bit too. You weren't submitting for a score. You were submitting to submit for your own reasons of personal expression. If you pulled 200 votes by day 5 and you were told that there were 80 DNMC votes, what would you do/have done?

My guess is that you would have left the image, knowing that whether those 80 people didn't click the box or not, that wouldn't have changed their voting, and also knowing that you knew that the DNMC vote would weigh heavily on such a submission. Ultimately, you would have been satisfied just as you doubtless are now, but you would have been more 'informed' about how many people did not connect with your deeper meaning.

If the DNMC council gave you a buzz and said 'Hey, you've got a large number of DNMC votes. We don't see a connection either. Could you please post a comment in your photograph description to explain the link in 24 hours? Thanks.' Would you be offended? No, you probably would have stated what you already stated 'my mind is a more relevant description of me than my physical body. The photograph is a dual form of art with the image a reflection of the poem, both of which reflect the deepest part of me - hence a self-portrait in poetic terms' and they would say something like 'OK, We can appreciate that, but understand that the voters can't, so your votes may be affected. If you wish to throw away the DNMC votes, you may opt to move your image to the DNMC bag where it will still be attached to this challenge and given a score, but will not be given a placement.'

Or perhaps the whole thing could be voluntary, with an automated warning if the person got more than 25% of their votes with the DNMC box checked. That wouldn't solve the issue of those who scum for brown (and I don't personally see that as an issue that really needs solving).

thanks for posting!

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

08/29/2007 01:34:31 PM · #12

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...I'd suggest a set of several radio buttons that can be clicked on any image:

1. Totally misses the challenge topic

2. Connection to challenge topic is marginal at best

3. Addresses the challenge topic, but boring and predictable

4. Interesting, creative take on the challenge topic

If people started using these buttons regularly, THAT would provide valid and useful feedback on how the voters, as a group, interpret your image in the context of the challenge.

R.

Even this, IMO, would only sustain the undue focus on DNMC. Should the aim not be to subordinate the issue to the photographic and artistic criteria instead of providing an easy away to dismiss any need to look at and investigate an image?

This, it seems to me, can only be done by effecting the spirit of things from the start, in the rule set. Let voters continue to keep the challenge topic in consideration, just don't make it the "highest", and

make it clear here that topicality is there for the benefit of the photographer, to foster his or her creativity. This, IMO, should not be contentious and would, if anything, encourage entrants to take advantage of such a benefit rather than encourage "shoe-horning".

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/29/2007 02:12:00 PM · #13

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...I'd suggest a set of several radio buttons that can be clicked on any image:

1. Totally misses the challenge topic

2. Connection to challenge topic is marginal at best

3. Addresses the challenge topic, but boring and predictable

4. Interesting, creative take on the challenge topic

If people started using these buttons regularly, THAT would provide valid and useful feedback on how the voters, as a group, interpret your image in the context of the challenge.

R.

Even this, IMO, would only sustain the undue focus on DNMC. Should the aim not be to subordinate the issue to the photographic and artistic criteria instead of providing an easy away to dismiss any need to look at and investigate an image?

This, it seems to me, can only be done by effecting the spirit of things from the start, in the rule set. Let voters continue to keep the challenge topic in consideration, just don't make it the "highest", and

make it clear here that topicality is there for the benefit of the photographer, to foster his or her creativity. This, IMO, should not be contentious and would, if anything, encourage entrants to take advantage of such a benefit rather than encourage "shoe-horning".

I actually agree with you, Zeus, and I'm on record as begging for that approach myself. My suggestion above is offered as a more useful alternative (IMO) to eschelar's proposal, assuming the site, collectively, wants to keep its focus on this rather anal obsession with "obvious" solutions to challenges.

Given the way things are now, people tend to get hurt when their images don't fare as well as they perhaps ought to on purely creative/photographic merits, and such a set of radio buttons might at least have the benefit of clearly informing the photographer why this happened.

In my best of all possible worlds, the emphasis would shift as you have so eloquently expressed it.

R.

Les_Feck

Sony SLT-A58

Sony DT 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6 SAM AF

08/29/2007 08:24:54 PM · #14

The proposal I envisioned would be more modest.

I would suggest initially that voters be instructed to vote primarily on the merits of the entry, regardless of the challenge topic.

Voters would then have the option,before submitting their vote, of clicking a radio button that says DNMC.

If a particular entry then exceeds a pre-determined percentage of, say, 20%, the entry will not be able to ribbon and will be DQ'd from the challenge. There would be no "penalty" for this DQ other than perhaps that the score for the DQ'd entry not being listed in order of finish at the end of a challenge.

Sony DT 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6 SAM AF

08/29/2007 08:30:56 PM · #15

Originally posted by jonejess:

... Voters would then have the option,before submitting their vote, of clicking a radio button that says DNMC. ...

How is this different from "troll" voting? Get enough people screwing around clicking DNMC buttons on good images and you end up with some of the same problems that exist now, maybe even more with a potential direct DQ and removal from the challenge. JMO of course.

Les_Feck

Sony SLT-A58

08/29/2007 08:41:56 PM · #16

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jonejess:
... Voters would then have the option,before submitting their vote, of clicking a radio button that says DNMC. ...

How is this different from "troll" voting? Get enough people screwing around clicking DNMC buttons on good images and you end up with some of the same problems that exist now, maybe even more with a potential direct DQ and removal from the challenge. JMO of course.

One problem at a time. It doesn't solve world hunger, war, or poverty either - but it's not purported to.