| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/11/2008 10:27:14 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I understand why you don't care about getting 1's but people that aren't professionals or don't have a $1,000 dollar camera with $4,000 in lenses would like a shot at ribbons too. |
My first 6 ribbons came from a Canon Digital Rebel 300D. My most expensive lens at the time was $250, and I had no studio lights or filters. I was nowhere near a professional. Got any more excuses? |
Yeah, DD, that was a pretty lame shot.
Go look at the vast array of ribboners on Team Suck.
We go for the aesthetic, the quirky, the OOB; we have few pros, and there isn't a ton of equipment.
What you will find is a side group of enthusiastic photogs who support each other, run our own little side challenges, scoring, and commenting rings under the DPC umbrella, and go out of our way to help the enthusiastic and interested people who stop by to do what this site is intended to do.
Have fun, learn, and compete.
And we watch people grow and flourish every day.
And ribbon........8>)
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:11:53 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
It deserved whatever people gave it. If someone felt that it deserved a 1, so be it... it didn't keep it from winning the blue now, did it? |
And there's the crux of the matter. It seems to me that, yes, almost every challenge entry receives scores of three and less, and most receive ones, even ribboners. For example, of the entries on the front page, only two have no scores of three or less, and five have a score of one -- three of those are blue ribbons. Low scores happen, but they don't break the mechanics of the site. Forcing comments on those low scores seems completely useless to me. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:20:47 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I'm sure if I voted on 25,126 entries my average would be lower than 6%. Let’s actually look at how many you gave vs. how many I gave. I'm sure you have given out more than me. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Wrong- it's not even close. You've handed out triple the 2's and nearly 13X as many 1's as Keegbow. |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
yes I see that. I was new to the site and didn't know any better. That was the old me or really young me. I'm better now and I understand more than I did then. |
Umm....you say that like it somehow absolves you from any responsibility for doing the very same thing.
Here's a thought......assume that there are people out there learning just like you were doing.
What would you have thought while you were learning if some guy on a mission would have started a rant about all the jerks voting 1s, 2s, and 3s and not commenting when you didn't know any better?
Would you have stayed if this very same rule you're promoting was instituted?
Would you have just changed your voting to vote 4 or better and still not commented?
I will say that I didn't vote much below a 4 at the outset of my membership I pretty much never gave below a 5 'cause I didn't know any better and didn't want to offend anyone.
Now I realize THAT isn't really doing anyone any favors, either.
It's just not reasonable to impose these restrictions like you're suggesting.......people will just not vote at all, adjust their voting so that it skews the numbers, which will still average out anyway, or leave because the rules are becoming too Draconian.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:24:10 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Please lock this thread.
I have nothing more to say here.
I have PM'd and created a ticket asking to lock this thread.
Can we please lock it? |
So......what you're asking here, again, is for the site to cater to your needs/expectations?
You're done and don't want to consider what anyone else may want to say, so the thread should be locked?
If you want to be the picture of reasonable behavior, perhaps you should consider other sides of this issue.......that you raised.
Maybe......you haven't really examined your whole rant from all sides, eh?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:28:25 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Maybe that's because a very few keep pushing for a change the majority doesn't want? :)
Btw, looking at my own entries, my only one that scored under 4 had 31 comments. I KNEW why people voted low.
My midrange entries average about 8 comments. I'm going to lobby for enforced commenting on scores of 4-6; THEY need it most!
Sleep well :) |
Funny......both my best, and my most outrageous entries have exactly the same number of comments at about 70.
Imagine that......people told me what they thought when I pulled out all the stops in what I was trying to do.
Can we ask any more than that?
I think not!
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:29:44 AM · #131 |
Back off Jeb... It's over stop trying to bring it back.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:30:44 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
No I got what I wanted. That and it's 12:29am and I have been up since 20 hours ago. I would like to go to sleep. I could just walk away but then the trash talk would go on ad I wouldn't be able to defend myself.
Besides it's pointless talking to people here. Everyone has their own opinion and when a site suggestion comes up it's ignored by SC until it becomes a fight with other members and then just escalades from there. Usually ending up with someone getting suspended. Ask Leroy He'll tell ya.
I made my pitch and no one bought it. Same as all ideas everyone else has. They are just useless. |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
I can totally understand wanting to go to bed without this thread continuing. Why sit here an nitpic on the original post starter for his opinions, when he has asked nicely to lock the post and explained why. |
Except that it's kind of abundantly clear that upon being offered up reasonable discussion on the other side of the fence, he doesn't want to hear it.
Locking the thread on that count isn't equitable, is it?......8>)
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:32:28 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Back off Jeb... It's over stop trying to bring it back. |
Umm....that's not really how it works.
You don't get to dictate policy.
You used to seem a lot more reasonable and less stoic....what happened?
This's supposed to be fun?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:32:30 AM · #134 |
Call me... you should still have my number. Let me explain this to you so maybe you can understand me.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:42:16 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Call me... you should still have my number. Let me explain this to you so maybe you can understand me. |
Dude, I don't have it here at work, and go ahead and say what you want on list.....I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, I'm genuinely trying to understand why you want to impose this concept when it seems both kind of strict, and not necessarily something that anyone wants.
You can PM me the number, but I'll have to call later....my email's on my profile page, too.
I know that in general the mood has been to promote commenting across the board, and to make them as constructive as possible.
That's really a great idea and good practice.
 posthumous even put forth TWO excellent tutorials on how to comment both thoughtfully and constructively.
Bottom line as I see it with my tiny brain?
Be true to what YOU want to do, set the example as best you can, and let the rest go.
I know I have had a lot more fun here since I got tired of trying to fight all the little battles and just try and do better as a photographer.
Although I still occasionally can't resist a lively rant thread!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:54:25 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
No I got what I wanted. That and it's 12:29am and I have been up since 20 hours ago. I would like to go to sleep. I could just walk away but then the trash talk would go on ad I wouldn't be able to defend myself.
Besides it's pointless talking to people here. Everyone has their own opinion and when a site suggestion comes up it's ignored by SC until it becomes a fight with other members and then just escalades from there. Usually ending up with someone getting suspended. Ask Leroy He'll tell ya.
I made my pitch and no one bought it. Same as all ideas everyone else has. They are just useless. |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
I can totally understand wanting to go to bed without this thread continuing. Why sit here an nitpic on the original post starter for his opinions, when he has asked nicely to lock the post and explained why. |
Except that it's kind of abundantly clear that upon being offered up reasonable discussion on the other side of the fence, he doesn't want to hear it.
Locking the thread on that count isn't equitable, is it?......8>) |
No, you're right. For a second there last night, I thought he understood (or accepted) what we were trying to convey and just wanted to be done with it, but I was wrong. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 12:09:00 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Dude, I don't have it here at work, and go ahead and say what you want on list.....I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, I'm genuinely trying to understand why you want to impose this concept when it seems both kind of strict, and not necessarily something that anyone wants. |
You’re good man don't worry about it. If you want to understand what I was saying keep reading the thread. You seem to be doing a good job of quoting all my other post, if you keep reading you will hit my theory and might see what I was talking about.
It's not strict at all unless you hand out tons of low votes. What is so hard for you all to understand that you wouldn’t be doing much more than what you do now?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 12:21:38 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Dude, I don't have it here at work, and go ahead and say what you want on list.....I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, I'm genuinely trying to understand why you want to impose this concept when it seems both kind of strict, and not necessarily something that anyone wants. |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
You’re good man don't worry about it. If you want to understand what I was saying keep reading the thread. You seem to be doing a good job of quoting all my other post, if you keep reading you will hit my theory and might see what I was talking about.
It's not strict at all unless you hand out tons of low votes. What is so hard for you all to understand that you wouldn’t be doing much more than what you do now? |
I guess where I've gotten with all this is that after a year and a half or so, I figure that no matter what we try to implement to change what people who intend to be ignorant do, it'll just get them to create a different manner to be obstinate and obstreporous, so why bother to try and change what we can't.
Like a couple other people have pointed out, the end result is that the 1s and 2s just wash out anyway between the average, the vote scrubber, and natural selection.
I know if I don't let it get to me, in the end, THEY lose!
Too bad about their luck! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 12:27:50 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
It's not strict at all unless you hand out tons of low votes. What is so hard for you all to understand that you wouldn’t be doing much more than what you do now? |
What exactly are you trying to achieve? If you only give out a few low votes, then those will tend to be on the worst shots... which already get a large share of comments. Those photographers are well aware of viewers' opinions. If you give out a ton of low votes (or none), then you probably aren't following the site rules anyway (and clearly don't care about evaluating photos for their own value), so one more rule isn't going to change anything.
Message edited by author 2008-03-11 12:28:24. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 01:25:40 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
It's not strict at all unless you hand out tons of low votes. What is so hard for you all to understand that you wouldn’t be doing much more than what you do now? |
What exactly are you trying to achieve? If you only give out a few low votes, then those will tend to be on the worst shots... which already get a large share of comments. Those photographers are well aware of viewers' opinions. If you give out a ton of low votes (or none), then you probably aren't following the site rules anyway (and clearly don't care about evaluating photos for their own value), so one more rule isn't going to change anything. |
What am I trying to achieve?? Where have you been this whole time?
People vote down pictures that clearly don't deserve it. Remember all those pictures I posted in here? Remember when I asked you why they were getting low votes. People are getting low votes when they don't deserve them. If the picture is clearly a 10 and someone gives it a 5, that’s understandable that they don’t like the picture or might change something about it but if it's clearly a 10 and someone thinks that your image completely sucks then to me that says “there is a problem and something should be done about it”. I'm not saying the brown ribbon should deserve a 10 but like you said people comment on them all the time. People comment on the top 10 all the time. I don't have a solution for those in the middle and I might not ever but clearly there is a problem here.
To me it seems like every suggestion that comes up is swept under the rug. I could be wrong because I'm not in here all the time reading every single post but it "seems" that they are. As far as people getting upset about the idea of having to comment, I can understand that. Like I already said I wouldn't want to be forced but yet again, I'm not demanding you’re first born. No one is twisting your arm to vote or comment on every picture.
The suggestion was simple and I really think it could be an affective method to stop troll votes. NOT people that give out 3's and below to people that deserve it but people that give out 3's and below to people that don't deserve it. If you generally score high you should like the idea of not getting those low votes that drop your score drastically. It would stop people from giving you crappy votes. If they do however, they would be forced to comment on your picture and hopefully have enough balls to tell you why they gave your top 10 picture a 1. If not then so be it, but chances are that 3 or below won't count on your final image.
Someone suggested that the scores would stay the same. Doesn't matter, my suggestion isn't only for scores. People would comment more on low votes and if not then people won't get low votes.
If you don't want to comment on low scores, don't give them. You don't have to vote on every image in the challenge. If you feel that the picture sucks completely skip it. If you think it's a good picture and you vote it a 4, good. It deserves at least a 4 not a 1.
Someone said I like constructive comments... Not everyone is going to comment on every picture nor are they going to explain everything wrong with the picture. That is where the rest of the crowd comes in. One person might say your lighting is wrong, while another might say your BG is wrong. Together I can say “okay I know I need to fix these 2 things for my next picture”. If the image is a ribbon winner and someone votes it a 1 and leaves the comment "it sucks" well guess what... a troll was just found. That person's account can be looked into and can be dealt with accordingly.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 01:38:54 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
To me it seems like every suggestion that comes up is swept under the rug. |
I honestly don't believe that to be the case at all. This thread is a pretty long "rug," where a lot of folks have chimed in to explain why this particular idea just wouldn't have the effect you envision. The blunt truth of the matter is that just because there's a new suggestion, that doesn't automatically make it a good suggestion.
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
What am I trying to achieve?? Where have you been this whole time? |
If you can't understand the inherent problems with your suggestion, I would say where have you been this whole time? The suggestion is flawed, plain and simple, for a bunch of reasons discussed previously.
We all come up with bad ideas from time to time; I'm full of them! In fact, I'd say that my life is basically a big ole series of bad ideas... just ask the other SC members! But there comes a time when I'll have to look at an idea and say, yeah, this really wouldn't go over as well as I thought. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 01:41:58 PM · #142 |
Could an image that is derivative, unoriginal, bland, overdone and been seen plenty of times before be considered 'bad' ?
Is there a possibility that that could be a valid opinion to have ?
Might it not also be that to someone who hasn't seen it before, that a very saturated, colourful water drop perfectly stopped in mid splash is the single most pure and beautiful expression of photography that they've yet to see. Something fresh, unique, showing them a view of the world that they've never seen and be a perfect 10 ?
Is it possible that those are the same image, to different viewers ?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 01:53:00 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I don't have a solution for those in the middle and I might not ever but clearly there is a problem here. |
You don't have a solution for the ends, either. As noted repeatedly, the top and bottom photos already get the lion's share of comments, and no troll is going to leave a comment admitting it. If all you're trying to achieve is the elimination undeserved votes, dream on... instead of a 1 you didn't deserve, you'll just get a 4 you didn't deserve (and still no comment). If anyone would love to eliminate bogus low votes on a ribbon winner it's me, but we don't need comments to identify trolls. Langdon can just look at whoever left a low vote and check their voting pattern.
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
If you don't want to comment on low scores, don't give them. You don't have to vote on every image in the challenge. If you feel that the picture sucks completely skip it. |
If people actually did that, then the worst photos wouldn't get the worst votes, and the bottom half of the challenge results would be a mess. Asking people to vote that way could be construed as an attempt to manipulate the voting and lead to suspension. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 02:51:38 PM · #144 |
Here we are again arguing about the same thing I said I was done with last night but you guys just couldn't leave it alone. It's my fault I responded.
I'll say it again like I said it last night. I understand my site suggestion was shot done. I understand you guys don't like the idea and you think it has flaws, OK cool So why can it be dropped?
You guys keep on talking. Talk trash, quote what I said. It's a rant and you can all do as you please.
I'll be sure to keep my mouth shut the next time I have a site suggestion.
Thanks all for debating and leaving some smart ass comments (you know who you are) and as always, Jeb it is fun to stir up a pot sometimes. It's keeps people on their feet and gives them something to talk about later.
sorry I wasted everyone’s time with my thoughts. I'll be sure to stay out of actual threads from now on.
Message edited by author 2008-03-11 14:54:56.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 03:07:18 PM · #145 |
Hey, let me play devil's advocate for a minute.....
How we should vote:
10 = Perfect: Wow! What makes a shot perfect? I know when I vote a shot a 10, it's VERY subjective, because that's the only way I'm going to give out a 10, is if it hits ME. And a shot that really sends ME into orbit may not work for you.
9 = Almost Perfect: Same deal as the 10 vote.....a vote that relies heavily on the visceral appeal subjectively.
8 = Excellent Picture: This is a vote that I often give that is more based on MY PERCEPTION of what a technically perfect shot is that has little or no personal appeal, yet I cannot fault the image itself.
7 = VERY Good Picture: Here's where I start to blend the combinations of what I view as subjective merit AND technical quality
6 = Great Shot: Again....this could be a shot lacking technical skills with a great composition that hits the mark, OR good technically that just leaves me flat.
5 = Average shot Needs work : I don't necessarily see this as needing work, just as average but doesn't WOW me.
4 = Thanks for entering: That's kinda cold, but not altogether untrue.....again, probably average appeal and/or technical skills, maybe sneaking up on DNMC.
3 = Lighting, angle, subject, and/or clarity is not right: pointed and constructive albeit direct......I try and phrase it in such a manner as to be constructive, but am sometimes hesitant to try and offer technical tips since my own skills are sorely lacking.
2 = What were you thinking? : I really just can't say that. It's either something so wrong IMO, or that I just can't fathom.....or bad yet I don't even know what to suggest. I don't give these very often. I have given this a few times and really not been able to leave what I felt was a constructive comment, so I have left none. This may be a DNMC from a subjective viewpoint......and I may have just missed out on it.
1 = You Shouldn’t have entered this challenge.: I cannot say this......it's not my place, and in some cases, it may have been a situation where it was a genuine mistake and/or an attempt to accomplish something I don't get.....and I'll vote this as a representation of how it reaches, or in the case of a 1 vote, doesn't. Again, it mat reflect my DNMC status.
One caveat.......between subjective appeal, or the lack of, or my own ability to interpret what the photographer was trying to convey will directly affect both the number and my ability, and inclination, to comment.
So....I ask you, Joe, and Shannon, and anyone else this rhetorical question.....how close is my scale to yours? How on earth could we implement rules on what is subjective?
Especially when opinions, education, skills, and tastes change.
Why, when I first got here, I thought shots of Iceland and the Aurora were FABULOUS!!!!!
Now they're just same old, same old.......8>)
Message edited by author 2008-03-11 15:10:40.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 03:11:53 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Hey, let me play devil's advocate for a minute.....
How we should vote: |
1-Bad 10-Good
I feel like some sort of reject from a George Orwell novel. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 03:15:02 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Hey, let me play devil's advocate for a minute.....
How we should vote: |
1-Bad 10-Good
I feel like some sort of reject from a George Orwell novel. |
Don't be so hard on yourself!
You're not from a George Orwell novel! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 03:17:01 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
How we should vote:1-Bad 10-Good |
My point.....I have this elaborate system, Gordon cuts right through it.
How would you implement a rule that fits both?
Maybe leave it the way it is??????.......8>)
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 03:40:31 PM · #149 |
If this is a truly free rant thread in the rant forum is that the rant forum is getting a bit tame...!
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 03:44:06 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Gordon:
How we should vote:1-Bad 10-Good |
My point.....I have this elaborate system, Gordon cuts right through it.
How would you implement a rule that fits both?
Maybe leave it the way it is??????.......8>) |
crazy notion, totally nuts.
My new voting scheme:
4 legs good, 2 legs bad
I need icons made up, please. |
|
