| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2008 10:01:14 AM · #251 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Do the majority of voters have a rather equally spread and weighted voting pattern? Do those that tend to score lower vote higher? Just curious - has very little to do with the discussion at hand. |
Or does it? Is there wholescale voter fraud being perpetrated? Has the sky fallen? Do I type needlessly into a vacuum? :-) |
THIS is why I called Shannon a troll (tongue in cheek) earlier in the thread. I think there are not a few who are wondering right now about his intent with this thread. Will it become a sixteen questions contest next????? Weirdness. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:11:01 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
[Your scores are not visible to me. I still don't believe you. |
I suppose I could send you some screenshots, but I suspect you wouldn't believe that either. |
Ken, you don't need to prove anything.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:11:53 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
I will say it again as I said it before - There must be a method for member transparency of others votes. This would be my suggestion to consider for a solution. Opened ballots would leave no sanctuary, no shroud, no excuses.
|
BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR! I was a member of another group that had partial voting transparency. It is a disaster. If the SC think they've seen a "forum storm", well they've seen a summer thunderstorm compared to the "Katrina" they will see if this is adopted at DPC.
I actually would prefer to see one of our SC acting weird in the forums, rather than try non anonymous voting. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:15:04 AM · #254 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I would far rather appeal to an educated few than to the masses. A cult following is nothing to dismiss and I would take greater pride in having that than popular appeal. Shooting to the likes of the average viewer is a good way to cheapen your vision...if you have one at all. |
This sounds like a great plan/idea/vision for photographic pursuits in general. However, if you're planning this approach to challenge entries here at DPChallenge you certainly must have faith and confidence in what you've entered, because appealing to the "educated few" is not going to garner high votes from the voting majority.
If you're here to try and score higher and make the top cut in challenges the smart shooter (with skills) WILL shoot for what the "average viewer" likes. That's not "cheapen"ing your vision, that's playing to win.
I would also add that there's room for both. I'm sure there are many here at DPChallenge that take entirely different photos for what's entered in a challenge, versus meeting the needs of a client or shooting artistically to please themselves. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:16:46 AM · #255 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Um... I didn't recommended any solutions. I only expressed disappointment at shady voting patterns. |
Ok, maybe I'm slow. So this is why you are posting this thread?
You want suggestions? Here's mine. You see someone breaking the rules? Carry it to the rest of the SC. Using whatever procedure you have to reach consensus, burn the sucker. Take action. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:20:04 AM · #256 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anywhere I have ever been where there is such a process of "publicly transparent voting", the end result has been a "social normalizing" of the voting process, where those whose opinions do not coincide with the majority end up marginalized, and sometimes persecuted. |
Thank you Bear. I don't have the grasp of language you exhibit.
This is exactly what I meant about "transparent" voting. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:20:22 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Do the majority of voters have a rather equally spread and weighted voting pattern? Do those that tend to score lower vote higher? Just curious - has very little to do with the discussion at hand. |
Or does it? Is there wholescale voter fraud being perpetrated? Has the sky fallen? Do I type needlessly into a vacuum? :-) |
THIS is why I called Shannon a troll (tongue in cheek) earlier in the thread. I think there are not a few who are wondering right now about his intent with this thread. Will it become a sixteen questions contest next????? Weirdness. |
It feels a bit like it is meandering in this direction, which doesn't seem too useful or productive. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:23:31 AM · #258 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
I will say it again as I said it before - There must be a method for member transparency of others votes. This would be my suggestion to consider for a solution. Opened ballots would leave no sanctuary, no shroud, no excuses. |
Add me to the list of people that think this is the worst idea I've ever heard expressed in the forums. Secret ballots work well for a reason - people get to express their opinion, without the ability for coercion, punishment, repercussions or reciprocal deals. I think it is approaching a breach of trust that the SC have started revealing information about individual voters on various occasions, recently. In general, I think it'd be better if they could either keep that information to themselves, or at least stop posting about it. Particularly when they start using it as a tool to call members out in public for not voting the way they think they should.
If you want to get a higher score, then transparent voting is the way to get it. If you want a meaningless score, it's the same mechanism, too.
10s for everyone, woohoo!
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 10:25:41. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:27:02 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I would also add that there's room for both. I'm sure there are many here at DPChallenge that take entirely different photos for what's entered in a challenge, versus meeting the needs of a client or shooting artistically to please themselves. |
You are right, there is room for both. However, only one of them is tolerated by the masses. I think that's the whole point of all of this. The masses are so intolerant of anything that is not the norm. I don't think that most of the people that disagree with Shannon are mad because they don't consistantly get high scores. I think they just want the voters to accept it for what it is, and that is something different. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:29:55 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think it is approaching a breach of trust that the SC have started revealing information about individual voters on various occasions, recently. In general, I think it'd be better if they could either keep that information to themselves, or at least stop posting about it. Particularly when they start using it as a tool to call members out in public for not voting the way they think they should.
|
I only know of two instances where this has been done. Once was Shannon earlier in this thread, and another time was when someone accused someone else of "illegal" voting patterns, or something like that, and I posted some stats that defended the "accused." Of course, I posted several numbers, only one of which was "hidden" and the photog told me that was okay.
(edit -- other than those two situations, I'm not sure what you are referring to. I thought I had read this whole thread, but seeing some of y'all's responses, I'm thinking I missed something back on the first page or so. :/)
I agree with you on the transparency stuff.
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 10:31:45. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:32:45 AM · #261 |
Hopefully my own comments have not implied I'm somehow in favor of "transparent voting" ... I'm completely against it. I am, however, in favor of the voting rules as they already exist.
If Shannon had said the things he said without letting on that he had seen it happening - I think most people would have agreed that it happens anyway. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:43:25 AM · #262 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I only know of two instances where this has been done. Once was Shannon earlier in this thread, and another time was when someone accused someone else of "illegal" voting patterns, or something like that, and I posted some stats that defended the "accused." Of course, I posted several numbers, only one of which was "hidden" and the photog told me that was okay.
(edit -- other than those two situations, I'm not sure what you are referring to. ) |
Yup, those are pretty much what I'm referring to. No harm no foul, so far, maybe. (aside from the vague suspicions on anyone with a ribbon that Shannon is throwing around in this thread) But it sets a problematic precedent that I think y'all would be better served stopping now before it does cause problems. If you don't think we should know people's voting patterns (and you said as much on the transparency front) then you shouldn't reveal people's voting patterns (even if they ask you to confirm or deny them)
In much the same way when I vote (when I'm allowed to vote) I don't get a receipt that says which candidate I voted for. It'll be a whole lot easier if you just don't reveal the information, even if you think you are doing it with good intentions.
'Oh, well he got the SC to confirm his votes, so he's okay - now why won't Gordon do it - what's he hiding?'
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 10:44:02. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:45:07 AM · #263 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
However, only one of them is tolerated by the masses. I think that's the whole point of all of this. The masses are so intolerant of anything that is not the norm. ... I think they just want the voters to accept it for what it is, and that is something different. |
Well, if the "masses" are only "tolerating" one type of photo why not get with the program and submit what works? Why are people so surprised when they try to swim upstream and meet resistance?
Submit what's expected and do it well - you'll be rewarded with higher scores.
Submit "something different" and stay mired in the lower levels of the challenge results.
This is a challenge site. A contest. If you want to win, then go for it. Really, it's not that difficult conceptually.
If you want to share your artistic genius with deep, thought provoking images - do it. I'd suggest doing it in the forums for it to be appreciated at the level that's acceptable to those that are grumbling and accussing the masses of being so "intolerant".
With hundreds of challenge entries to vote on, the photos that are pleasing to the eye and embrace the challenge theme in an easily digested manner are going to continue to excel.
In the end your statement "I think they just want the voters to accept it for what it is..." should be turned around to say "I think the submitters should accept it for what it is...".
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:51:18 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, if the "masses" are only "tolerating" one type of photo why not get with the program and submit what works? Why are people so surprised when they try to swim upstream and meet resistance?
Submit what's expected and do it well - you'll be rewarded with higher scores.
Submit "something different" and stay mired in the lower levels of the challenge results. |
I don't think people are surprised. Doesn't mean everyone should turn around and swim downstream though.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain
Conform and be dull. - J. Frank Doble
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Roads are just a suggestion, like pants. - Homer Simpson
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:52:33 AM · #265 |
| Your points are excellent for those that do indeed wish to score well here. No doubt. Some of us like to have our work viewed in hopes that maybe someone else out there likes it - that's another form of validation besides score. But pictures put in a challenge have hundreds more views than those simply placed in a portfolio or discussed in a thread. And silly me, I entered a shot in Curves I thought voters (in general) might like better than the one I really wanted to enter. The shot I entered will get several hundred views. The one I really like? Maybe a dozen. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:04:58 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
... Some of us like to have our work viewed in hopes that maybe someone else out there likes it - that's another form of validation besides score. ... |
I include myself in that group from time-to-time as well. However, I'm also realistic (not saying you specifically are not) and can usually predict in advance if a shot I've entered will appease the masses or be appreciated by just a handful.
I understand the point that Gordon just made (following the herd or taking a stand). That being said, DPChallenge is just one of many photography contest sites out there. I like it here and accept the "masses" for who and what they are and recognize that as part of the culture that exists here.
Some bemoan the issue that their "art" isn't appreciated by the masses at DPChallenge. I don't belong to sites like Deviant Art, etc...but I wonder if the situation is reversed there? A wonderfully done waterfall shot with flowing, mystical light for example, being "unappreciated". ???
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:06:28 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't belong to sites like Deviant Art, etc...but I wonder if the situation is reversed there? A wonderfully done waterfall shot with flowing, mystical light for example, being "unappreciated". ??? |
No, it's pretty much the same there, but with more teen angsty goth stuff thrown in to the mix. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:12:34 AM · #268 |
I agree with Gordon ... and I think general discussions of peoples mindset during voting can be extremely helpful in pointing out different ways of looking at the same set of images. NOT forcing everyone to see things my way, but letting people know that there are other ways ... maybe one they prefer to their own.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, if the "masses" are only "tolerating" one type of photo why not get with the program and submit what works? |
I don't think people are surprised. Doesn't mean everyone should turn around and swim downstream though. |
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:24:24 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anywhere I have ever been where there is such a process of "publicly transparent voting", the end result has been a "social normalizing" of the voting process, where those whose opinions do not coincide with the majority end up marginalized, and sometimes persecuted. |
Thank you Bear. I don't have the grasp of language you exhibit.
This is exactly what I meant about "transparent" voting. |
Re-read the post and we seemingly are in agreement.
Ray
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 11:35:33. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:38:08 AM · #270 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anywhere I have ever been where there is such a process of "publicly transparent voting", the end result has been a "social normalizing" of the voting process, where those whose opinions do not coincide with the majority end up marginalized, and sometimes persecuted. |
Thank you Bear. I don't have the grasp of language you exhibit.
This is exactly what I meant about "transparent" voting. |
If I read this right... what you are saying is that you fully support a system where those that dare differ from the masses can be "marginalized and persecuted".
Sorry, but I truly cannot support your proposal.
Ray |
Two thoughts: those that "dare differ" always encounter opposition from the many who don't. Isn't this the nature of the beast? And,
the way I read Bear's statement, "social normalizing" leads to conformity. Ergo, those who "dare differ" are simply painted over and muted.
I have a feeling you and Bear would agree, if the misunderstanding were cleared.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:00:28 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Melethia:
... Some of us like to have our work viewed in hopes that maybe someone else out there likes it - that's another form of validation besides score. ... |
I include myself in that group from time-to-time as well. However, I'm also realistic (not saying you specifically are not) and can usually predict in advance if a shot I've entered will appease the masses or be appreciated by just a handful. |
Oh, I'm quite realistic. Fatally so. I KNOW without a doubt that my shots will not appease the masses. :-) Now I just have to figure out whether or not they really aren't very good as well. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:03:26 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, if the "masses" are only "tolerating" one type of photo why not get with the program and submit what works? Why are people so surprised when they try to swim upstream and meet resistance?
Submit what's expected and do it well - you'll be rewarded with higher scores.
Submit "something different" and stay mired in the lower levels of the challenge results. |
I don't think people are surprised. Doesn't mean everyone should turn around and swim downstream though.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain
Conform and be dull. - J. Frank Doble
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Roads are just a suggestion, like pants. - Homer Simpson |
This is all very deep and good. Of course, for newbies like me it's worth reminding that this is a learning site among other things and an important part of learning any art is learning the rules and practicing towards what works. As the Grammy winning Rickie Lee Jones likes to say, "You can't break the rules until you know how to play the game."
(on an art form I know well...) Name a classical composer that's popular enough that most folks recognize the name and I'll show you someone who started by composing within strict rules towards pleasing an audience. (There are only a few exceptions to this). Mozart & Beethoven had to be students of Bach before they could become the Mozart and Beethoven we now know. Bach, likewise, had to master the successful techniques and styles of other (lesser known) greats like Lully and Pachelbel (yes, composer of that Cannon in D that you keep hearing at weddings) before he would go on to become the very definition of contrapuntal composition (a stlye started long before he was born) and, IMHO, the most important composer ever to live.
The music world also has validation for those who feel they've mastered their art and are now just misunderstood by the masses. Great composers like Beethoven pushed out the boundaries as their careers progressed but many contemporary critics were not ready to have these boundaries altered, so many of those trolls gave him a low score and Beethoven's only recourse was to bitch about it in the forums, and bang even crazier stuff out of his deaf head for the next concert.
As for the OP's issue. I appreciate the attempt to knock some sense into the head of anyone behaving with unsportsman like conduct and most of this discussion has been very interesting (particularly compared to previous related threads). |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:35:22 PM · #273 |
Late to the party, but with two thoughts to add:
Whenever I'm feeling bad about my score, or that its undeserved, I make a special point of trying to vote on every picture in the challenge. Revenge? Not in the least. Usually by the time I've finished, I've seen a number of creative, engaging and special images that I can appreciate as better than mine, whether from an art-centric or popular point of view. And that, in turn, helps me understand, and appreciate, my own score as well. I may still like my photo better than you all, but at the same time that practice helps me recognize that I would have voted it lower than a number of others I've given 8s 9s and 10s to.
If you really want to normalize the vote while still preserving freedom to vote as you see fit, seems to me one solution is an enforced voting median. Make everyone vote on a curve, so that their average vote on the challenge must be between 4.5 and 5.5 (or whatever you want) for the votes to count at rollover. A voter could hit that with a combination of 10s ands 1s, or by bunching everything up in the 4s 5s and 6s -- but would not be able to give everything they see a 3 ... or a 10.
I'm not necessarily advocating that; just pointing it out as something perhaps to consider. My guess is, if that were implemented, overall scores would not change much, if at all, but the level of concern over troll voting would diminish. As an added bonus, knowing the voter had to hit an enforced average would tend to help you appreciate the overabundance of 1s and 2s on your personal piece of art as being valid expressions of opinion, rather than just the unthinking voting of Philistines on speed getting their jollies by ruining some stranger's day. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:38:40 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
If you're here to try and score higher and make the top cut in challenges the smart shooter (with skills) WILL shoot for what the "average viewer" likes. That's not "cheapen"ing your vision, that's playing to win. |
I partly agree. To appeal to the masses you have to dumb down the message. In commercialized work it doesn't cheapen anything since the "message" is the clients not yours. You're simply the manufacturer in the process. Client has square holes to fill so you manufacture a square block and don't even consider anything else.
For any other type of work (i.e. non-commercial) when you dumb down a message/vision you ARE cheapening your work.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:52:38 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by JMart:
This is all very deep and good. Of course, for newbies like me it's worth reminding that this is a learning site among other things and an important part of learning any art is learning the rules and practicing towards what works. As the Grammy winning Rickie Lee Jones likes to say, "You can't break the rules until you know how to play the game."
|
Absolutely. All very true and I wouldn't disagree at all. Though at some point once you've learned all those rules, it can help to tweak them a little bit, otherwise you end up as Thomas Kinkade, which is fine if that's where you want to be. But not everyone should aspire to the same end.
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 12:53:07. |
|
