DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> DNMC
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 103, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/07/2006 02:54:07 PM · #1
Im not sure if this is a feesable idea or not, but lets toss this around:

Since this has come up so many time and many people feel they dont know how they should vote when they feel a photo DNMC. Do you give it a bad score based on that even though it could be a technically stunning shot? do you skip it an not even vote on it? but by doing that you can't leave a coment on it until the challenge is over. What if we had a DNMC vote. that way its not good or bad, but your way of saying that you dont feel it fits here. It would not count positive or negative towards your score, you can still comment on it, and it give a viable alternative to lo-balling or ignoring a shot.
03/07/2006 03:01:31 PM · #2
I would support that if the image was given more than 50% DNMC is was then disqualified. As you said you could then vote on the quality of the image and whether it met the challenge separately...
03/07/2006 03:05:36 PM · #3
Originally posted by Leok:

I would support that if the image was given more than 50% DNMC is was then disqualified. As you said you could then vote on the quality of the image and whether it met the challenge separately...


Well instead of DQing a photo that reached a certain percentage how about using that number to deduct some points from the final score? That way DNMC doesn't constitute a DQ (like how the site has always been) but it remains important in terms of getting a top score.
03/07/2006 03:06:52 PM · #4
I don't think this will fly - there are those who believe that meeting the challenge is a valid part of the process - that a technically excellent shot that does not fit should rightfully get a lower score.

It might work to have two catagories - technical and topical - which could be rated independently and then averaged at the end. I'm sure that has come up in many forums in the past and probably generally rejected because it would take more time and the current method of 1-10 and comments is a sufficient mechanism for the voter to communicate as much or as little of their voting process as they wish.
03/07/2006 03:15:10 PM · #5
How about just a tick box for DNMC? Take the percentage of voters that clicked on it and deduct the decimal equalvalent to the final score?

For example:

- 46% clicked the DNMC box for a specific photo.
- The final score of said photo was 5.460
- Deduct 46% or .46 from the score 5.460
- Actual score is 5.000

What about that?

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 15:15:42.
03/07/2006 03:15:38 PM · #6
As you say, this one jst does't go away.

The most sensible Idea I have ever seen in this long saga is this thread where the concept is for two votes, one technical and the other on-challenge. The final score is the average (or weighted average) of the two.

It takes your idea a step further and allows the voter to not have to decide yes or no but decide a degree of compliance. In that proposal, you can vote the on-challenge component 10 for 100% MC, 5 if its a 50/50 call and a 1 if it's a shoehorn job that didn't even get close.

Example:
- Emotive/Technical Score = 10 (I believe this is the vote most people use now)
- OnChallenge score = 4
Vote = 7 i.e. (10+4)/2

There would just be two rows of voting boxes instead of one and time taken to vote wouldn't change but the feedback to the photographher would be 1000% more meaningful than it is now.

Brett

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 15:18:46.
03/07/2006 03:18:14 PM · #7
KiwiPix, did anybody suggest what I am suggesting above? What you mentioned as well as others seems more complicated. I think what I mentioned is simple and rather transparent since the DNMC score would be calculated automatically taking the individual out of the mix and going by the numbers produced by the group.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 15:18:46.
03/07/2006 03:18:17 PM · #8
Originally posted by joebok:

I don't think this will fly - there are those who believe that meeting the challenge is a valid part of the process - that a technically excellent shot that does not fit should rightfully get a lower score.

It might work to have two catagories - technical and topical - which could be rated independently and then averaged at the end. I'm sure that has come up in many forums in the past and probably generally rejected because it would take more time and the current method of 1-10 and comments is a sufficient mechanism for the voter to communicate as much or as little of their voting process as they wish.

So, if the DNMC crowd was really irked by a photo being "shoe-horned" (their opinion) into a challenge - they could just vote a 1 on each scale. Tweak, fix, all you want...people will get around it. ;^)
03/07/2006 03:29:03 PM · #9
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by joebok:

I don't think this will fly - there are those who believe that meeting the challenge is a valid part of the process - that a technically excellent shot that does not fit should rightfully get a lower score.

It might work to have two catagories - technical and topical - which could be rated independently and then averaged at the end. I'm sure that has come up in many forums in the past and probably generally rejected because it would take more time and the current method of 1-10 and comments is a sufficient mechanism for the voter to communicate as much or as little of their voting process as they wish.

So, if the DNMC crowd was really irked by a photo being "shoe-horned" (their opinion) into a challenge - they could just vote a 1 on each scale. Tweak, fix, all you want...people will get around it. ;^)


The multiple category idea is not indended to keep out trolls or control voters - it's a possible way to give more meaningful feedback to photographers.
03/07/2006 03:33:00 PM · #10
Originally posted by yanko:

How about just a tick box for DNMC? Take the percentage of voters that clicked on it and deduct the decimal equalvalent to the final score?

For example:

- 46% clicked the DNMC box for a specific photo.
- The final score of said photo was 5.460
- Deduct 46% or .46 from the score 5.460
- Actual score is 5.000

What about that?

NO thanks!

Photo A) a rather good photo, some minor technical issues. The photographer has spent considerable effort, thought etc on the theme, and worked within the topic and rule restrictions.

Photo B) Excellent photo, nearly flawless. The photographer totally ignored the challenge that others worked so hard to follow. This one simply entered a "free study"

Which photo should place higher? "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly. "

Photo A needs to win, without a doubt.

There are plenty of "free for all" websites around.
Please respect the DPC system of challenges.
03/07/2006 03:35:24 PM · #11
I don't think we should start putting limits on people's imagination by penalizing them for not submitting photos that are part of a general consensus status quo. If the picture is technically good, then I will look at it longer to figure out how it relates to the challenge. WHich means that it can be less obviously related. If it is not a good image, then it won't be rated high anyway.

03/07/2006 03:46:00 PM · #12
I hate gardening, so I'm not about to join a gardening club and then complain that they shouldn't make me pull out weeds and dig in the dirt.
03/07/2006 03:46:33 PM · #13
Originally posted by yanko:

KiwiPix, did anybody suggest what I am suggesting above? What you mentioned as well as others seems more complicated.

No they didn't. Some people were against having to assign a degree of DNMC in a vote so the concept of Yes or No was seen as too scary altogether.

One of the reasons this subject keeps coming up is that people are troubled by attaching a label DNMC to their voting process. We all know how difficult and time consuming that process is. We love the pic but we think its DNMC, we don't know how to balance our vote on that. It takes time to decide and sometimes we're not sure we've done the right thing.

The double vote really is just such a great solution ... it makes it easy for the voters and provides excellent feedback to the photogs. Doesn't seem it could get any better than that.

I'm interested in the nay-sayers reasoning on this one. What have we to lose? What are they afraid of? Perhaps the suggestion is too good because it would mean both photogs and voters would have to play by the spirit of the rules.

Brett
03/07/2006 03:48:10 PM · #14
All it would do is penalize "out of the box" thinking. I'm all for less moving parts. Don't like it, vote low.
03/07/2006 03:51:35 PM · #15
Originally posted by joebok:

... The multiple category idea is not indended to keep out trolls or control voters - it's a possible way to give more meaningful feedback to photographers.

Sorry. I read the thread title 'DNMC', noticed some comments about DQ's or lowering a challenge entries final score based on DNMC or not, and initially thought it was about impacting scores.

This idea has come up before as mentioned by KiwiPix. I think a dual voting/scoring system is extra work that's not needed. Actually, it sounds like a way to maybe help those that "shoe-horn" an image into a challenge by giving the voter a choice that shouldn't be there. As it is now, as a voter you can choose to raise/lower a vote based on whether you think an image meets the challenge or not.

In the end, people are going to vote how they want to. If they see a stunning image that clearly doesn't belong in the challenge and want to vote it high - they will. If they think it's a DNMC, they'll vote it low regardless of how great it is technically.
03/07/2006 03:57:41 PM · #16
I hate to bring this photo into the spotlight once again, but I will for demonstration purposes.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/420/thumb/266913.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/420/thumb/266913.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As you can see it recieved 60 1's and 32 2's, these are votes generally reserved for DNMC or really bad photos, niether of which it fits. It's on topic for challenge and while technically not great, it is acceptible.

Now, if we were to have some sort of DNMC checkbox or voting button, how many of those 1's or 2's would have been actually DNMC votes? My guess is that at least 50% of them would have been, even though it clearly meets the challenge.

My point? If there is any sort of DNMC system in place, it will be abused and will not by any means better the scores of those photos that do meet the challenge nor will it be very affective in lowering the scores of off-topic photos.

The honest truth is that the votes are subjective when calculated. Voters have thier own agendas. Some hate baby shots and score all baby shots low, some love them and vote them high. The two thus cancel each other.

The system works the way it is and I've yet to see a ribbon winner that did not meet the challenge. I HAVE seen an on-topic snapshot win a ribbon though.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 15:59:49.
03/07/2006 03:59:10 PM · #17
Originally posted by Beetle:

I hate gardening, so I'm not about to join a gardening club and then complain that they shouldn't make me pull out weeds and dig in the dirt.


and that is definitely an interesting analogy. <karmat files that one away for future use> ;)
03/07/2006 04:04:46 PM · #18
Here's the problem as I see it:

The challenge topics are used to challenge the photographer; "here's your theme of the week, internalize it, think about, go make an image that shows us your response th this challenge."

So, we go do that. Nearly all of us do that, actually. But we don't all think alike; some of us are more literal-minded, some are more metaphorical, different cultures perceive certain topics in different ways, and so forth.

Now it comes to the voting, and the tables have been turned. The voters, as a group, are now voting on whether the image meets their concept of what the challenge topic "means". The end result is that with very few exceptions the bulk of the top scores go to "safe", non-controversial, middle-of-the-road imnages. Many voters perceive certain images as being "shoehorned" into challemnges where the photographer, in all honesty, thought about the challenge long and hard and came up with something oblique or a little off-the-wall. And the photographer feels censured by this response to his work.

These suggestions, in my mind, simply serve to further institutionalize a herd mentality and drive the net content of our collective images closer and closer to the norm, to the "expected response". Personally, I consider this a loss. When I am voting in challenges, I am always on the lookout for those who brave enough to seek a more personal interpretation of the challenge topic, always looking for entries that make me think "Wow! I never thought it quite that way before!"

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 16:05:06.
03/07/2006 04:07:38 PM · #19
Originally posted by blurbayou:

All it would do is penalize "out of the box" thinking. I'm all for less moving parts. Don't like it, vote low.

Not at all. Look at our challenge results, there's hundreds of examples of Ribbons awarded to photos that are way out of the box - and still on challenge.

What it would do is highlight glaring errors in voting that exist now. The classic example is the Singled-Out challenge where sheep made it into 56th place where the challenge required entrants to "Drop your fear of candids this week and single-out a person in a crowd as your source of composition"

How do the 53 photogs that came after that image feel having taken the time and trouble to go find a crowd of people, overcome their fear of candids to make their entry.

So the current system is grossly unfair, this proposal addresses that unfairness - how can it be bad?

Brett
03/07/2006 04:10:26 PM · #20
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

... Now, if we were to have some sort of DNMC checkbox or voting button, how many of those 1's or 2's would have been actually DNMC votes? My guess is that at least 50% of them would have been, even though it clearly meets the challenge. ...

I think that is a MAJOR stretch. 50%. Did you ever stop to think that maybe people didn't like looking at somebodies backside hanging out of his britches? Some of those votes may have gone to the "disgusted" factor. ;^)
03/07/2006 04:13:42 PM · #21
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

How do the 53 photogs that came after that image feel having taken the time and trouble to go find a crowd of people, overcome their fear of candids to make their entry.

That is exactly the part that bugs me, too.
I know there are grey areas - see bear music's post - but NO culture, NO race, NO religion etc is incapable of telling the difference between sheep and people.

The grey areas will always remain difficult, but there is far too much abuse happening in the "black and white" areas.
03/07/2006 04:14:49 PM · #22
Originally posted by glad2badad:


I think that is a MAJOR stretch. 50%. Did you ever stop to think that maybe people didn't like looking at somebodies backside hanging out of his britches? Some of those votes may have gone to the "disgusted" factor. ;^)


A majority would have checked a DNMC box or pressed a DNMC button, even if it was because it disgusted them. The same goes for my "Industrial Bronze" which many voters felt was off-topic.
03/07/2006 04:16:50 PM · #23
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by blurbayou:

All it would do is penalize "out of the box" thinking. I'm all for less moving parts. Don't like it, vote low.

Not at all. Look at our challenge results, there's hundreds of examples of Ribbons awarded to photos that are way out of the box - and still on challenge.

What it would do is highlight glaring errors in voting that exist now. The classic example is the Singled-Out challenge where sheep made it into 56th place where the challenge required entrants to "Drop your fear of candids this week and single-out a person in a crowd as your source of composition"

How do the 53 photogs that came after that image feel having taken the time and trouble to go find a crowd of people, overcome their fear of candids to make their entry.

So the current system is grossly unfair, this proposal addresses that unfairness - how can it be bad?

Brett

You really liked that shot didn't you? ;^) You forgot to (re)mention the 4-5am challenge. How would this "proposal" help in that scenario? After all, many of those were technically DNMC - yes?

Again, in the end - people are going to vote how they want or figure a way around any new "system". Robert raises (again) a valid point also, that what one person see's another does not, etc...

Really making more complicated than it needs to be. Just vote. ;^)
03/07/2006 04:32:37 PM · #24
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

A majority would have checked a DNMC box or pressed a DNMC button, even if it was because it disgusted them. The same goes for my "Industrial Bronze" which many voters felt was off-topic.

Actually, as one of the grossed-out voters, what I would have done under a two vote system, would be to have scored it
- Emotive/Technical = 1
- OnChallenge = 10
Vote = 5.5. (I actually gave it a 4 - so you'd be ahead)

You would then know for sure what the 60 '1s' were for. I suspect very few were DNMC but were, as glad2badad suggested, people offended by your butt:) Under the two-votes you'd know for sure. Again - how can that be bad?

Brett
03/07/2006 04:36:27 PM · #25
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Again, in the end - people are going to vote how they want or figure a way around any new "system". Robert raises (again) a valid point also, that what one person see's another does not, etc..

Exactly and currently the photog's left wondering "... what did i do wrong ...".

This idea would tell him or her. For the first time, we'd be able to 'see' how people are thinking about our images.

Brett
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 05:43:58 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 05:43:58 PM EST.