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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Photo disqualified, but for what?!
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 252, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/02/2009 10:53:09 AM · #76
Originally posted by Citadel:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Is there any side challenge team voting associated with the current FS challenge?

Is there even a side challenge associated with the Free Study?

My point is.... the SC should be (and probably is) checking friend/foe voting correlations, rather than facilitating pranks and tricks on April 2. I've only entered 249 challenges and cast 40,000+ vptes, so I'm not an authority on anything. Anecdotally, the votes received on the FS challenge are not normal. It genuinely "feels" like there is unusual behavior, based on score swings (down only) and general score level on an okay image. Even if there are no side challenge competitions on the current FS, there are teams out there somewhere. Just would like to see voting continue to be a solo activity.


So, in other words, if I am hearing you correctly, you have no evidence of foul-play, no motive for foul play, but we should be investigating because it *could* be a possibility?


Hi Spider-sense is tingling. 'Nuff said.

As an aside I was disappointed when I saw the apology. My image is getting rocked in the voting right now and if I don't think I can self-DQ. Which brings up another point: If there are indeed shenanigans going on and people request a self-dq would it still follow the normal rules? (This is one reason we shouldn't have any more April Fools surprises...people often react strangely to them).


Not sure what you are referring to with "shenanigans," but if we had played a joke based on scores (which we did one year), and a self-dq came in based on a low score, we wouldn't self-dq until the photog verified that they understood the consequences, etc. like we do know. That very often lasts longer than the "prank" would, so a self-dq based on a scoring prank isn't likely. Is that what you were asking?
04/02/2009 10:53:24 AM · #77
Humour may occasionally be misplaced. Complaining about it is always misplaced.
Jokes, like truth, hurt sometimes. The incessant whingeing of those who wish to draw attention to themselves and their supposed suffering at the hands of either truth or humour, is a source of constant, chronic agony.
04/02/2009 10:58:59 AM · #78
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by karmat:

So, in other words, if I am hearing you correctly, you have no evidence of foul-play, no motive for foul play, but we should be investigating because it *could* be a possibility?

No evidence, just a "sense" of some unusual behavior, based on watching vote behavior on quite a few challenges. (I don't think I'm the only one.) The whole thing about not finding the April 2 prank humorous is related to a general sense of ill-advised marshaling of resources by the management and supervisors. I'm not mad, just disappointed. The jokes and pranks should be the sideshow, rather than the raison d'être of this excellent photo contest website.


It would be a shame if people resort to this kind of behaviour to get votes. I actually thought there was a rule (maybe unwritten) that you shouldn't vote if you know who the poster is. Anyway - if there are groups out there who want to spend their time skewing the system rather than having great, unadulterated fun like the rest of us, then let them. I say, who cares!!
04/02/2009 11:03:21 AM · #79
Originally posted by salmiakki:

No sooner said than done I think! Check the front page
Originally posted by togtog:

DPC should put up a poll asking if it was funny or not. Personally I wasn't overly amused and that was after I knew it was a prank. Guess I'm just Mr. No Fun. Bah humbug!


I am all powerful, next I will make my score magically rise!

PS- Thanks SC for the poll :)
04/02/2009 11:08:43 AM · #80
I thought the prank was rather transparent and unbelievable until I saw all the threads. Clearly some folks fell hard. It's harmless, and it's certainly not life and death, so I'm really enjoying the prank! Good stuff IMO.
04/02/2009 11:14:27 AM · #81
Indeed, the prank is far more enjoyable now that I've seen that it really, actually, got some people. That, mixed with the fact that there was no real harm done (outside of some sensitivities being injured), is a true sign of a great April Fools prank.

Kudos.
04/02/2009 11:17:15 AM · #82
*lands on Ed's head and flaps wings frantically*

It is only funny until somebody loses an eye!!!
04/02/2009 11:17:54 AM · #83
Originally posted by togtog:

*lands on Ed's head and flaps wings frantically*

It is only funny until somebody loses an eye!!!


hehe.

Nobody lost anything here. Let's keep some perspective! ;D
04/02/2009 11:17:55 AM · #84
Originally posted by togtog:

*lands on Ed's head and flaps wings frantically*

It is only funny until somebody loses an eye!!!


then, it is freakin' hilarious.
04/02/2009 11:21:15 AM · #85
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

...a true sign of a great April Fools prank....

Okay, it might have been hilarious on April 1. On April 2, it was only a cruel hoax, which caused an apology to be sent out. Although, I don't think "the apology" was sincere. Very well! Maybe we can move past "the great joke" and get back to great photography.
04/02/2009 11:22:20 AM · #86
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by togtog:

*lands on Ed's head and flaps wings frantically*

It is only funny until somebody loses an eye!!!


then, it is freakin' hilarious.


I have both eyes, thank you very much.
04/02/2009 11:22:52 AM · #87
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

...a true sign of a great April Fools prank....

Okay, it might have been hilarious on April 1. On April 2, it was only a cruel hoax, which caused an apology to be sent out. Although, I don't think "the apology" was sincere. Very well! Maybe we can move past "the great joke" and get back to great photography.


eh, some of us don't have anything to go "back" to. :P
04/02/2009 11:24:34 AM · #88
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

...a true sign of a great April Fools prank....

Okay, it might have been hilarious on April 1. On April 2, it was only a cruel hoax, which caused an apology to be sent out. Although, I don't think "the apology" was sincere. Very well! Maybe we can move past "the great joke" and get back to great photography.


eh, some of us don't have anything to go "back" to. :P

That would explain the energy allocated to a misdirection prank.
04/02/2009 11:25:17 AM · #89
Here's one thing that was great about the prank that really nailed me... the message was perfect: "You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph "... when posting a photo to the web (not on DPC) I frequently add an abberant extra "star" to my astrophotos which uniquely identifies my astrophotography, if I suspect my image has been copied without permission, I just look for that extra star. I don't do this on DPC because it's a violation, but I thought for a second that surely I had and that some brilliant SC member actually looked at my image with a magnifying glass and had found that "copyright star", I was in disbelief for a moment pondering this possibility.

Great prank! At 42 yrs old I didn't think I could be nailed, but you got me, good on ya mate!
04/02/2009 11:30:42 AM · #90
it just got a yawn...
yayaya.. dq'ed ya .. right ..
04/02/2009 11:31:01 AM · #91
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

...a true sign of a great April Fools prank....

Okay, it might have been hilarious on April 1. On April 2, it was only a cruel hoax, which caused an apology to be sent out. Although, I don't think "the apology" was sincere. Very well! Maybe we can move past "the great joke" and get back to great photography.


eh, some of us don't have anything to go "back" to. :P

That would explain the energy allocated to a misdirection prank.


and the sense of humor. :)


Message edited by author 2009-04-02 11:31:24.
04/02/2009 11:31:07 AM · #92
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

...a true sign of a great April Fools prank....

Okay, it might have been hilarious on April 1. On April 2, it was only a cruel hoax, which caused an apology to be sent out. Although, I don't think "the apology" was sincere. Very well! Maybe we can move past "the great joke" and get back to great photography.


A prank like this I would automatically expect it to have a grace period that would be longer than usual because of the international bent of the user-base. If you sent the emails out early, some people would get them on March 31st, then they would be the ones that would have to decide if they wanted to put energy into being pissed off. The way it happened, it was some people getting it on April 2nd. The day after, oh no!

Why people can't just relax a little, have a bit of a chuckle, and move on, I don't know. As for moving past 'the great joke', the only ones keeping it going are the complainers.
04/02/2009 11:31:07 AM · #93
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by karmat:

eh, some of us don't have anything to go "back" to. :P

That would explain the energy allocated to a misdirection prank.

It might... if she actually had anything to do with it. Look at the poll- very few people share your oversensitivity to a prank.
04/02/2009 11:32:24 AM · #94
This is the first time that I am competing in the Free study challenge and I got really scared when I saw the email ... and being a fool wrote to the site council, protesting about it, as I didn't do any post processing ;)
04/02/2009 11:38:01 AM · #95
Originally posted by jlanoue:

Here's one thing that was great about the prank that really nailed me... the message was perfect: "You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph "... when posting a photo to the web (not on DPC) I frequently add an abberant extra "star" to my astrophotos which uniquely identifies my astrophotography, if I suspect my image has been copied without permission, I just look for that extra star. I don't do this on DPC because it's a violation, but I thought for a second that surely I had and that some brilliant SC member actually looked at my image with a magnifying glass and had found that "copyright star", I was in disbelief for a moment pondering this possibility.

Great prank! At 42 yrs old I didn't think I could be nailed, but you got me, good on ya mate!


Yeah, I sometimes put in a third nipple in my portraits.
04/02/2009 11:40:21 AM · #96
Originally posted by scalvert:

...Look at the poll- very few people share your oversensitivity to a prank.

Let's see... there is one prank "affirmative" choice and four other choices splitting the "less than affirmative" opinions. At this writing, "affirmative" has 81, with "less than affirmative" with 100. If I wanted to create a poll with misleading results....

Anyway, I don't care about the April 2 prank. I laughted for an appropriate amount of time (3 seconds). It's behind us now. Let's get back to the enjoyment of learning to improve our photography.
04/02/2009 11:44:46 AM · #97
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by scalvert:

...Look at the poll- very few people share your oversensitivity to a prank.

Let's see... there is one prank "affirmative" choice and four other choices splitting the "less than affirmative" opinions. At this writing, "affirmative" has 81, with "less than affirmative" with 100. If I wanted to create a poll with misleading results....

Anyway, I don't care about the April 2 prank. I laughted for an appropriate amount of time (3 seconds). It's behind us now. Let's get back to the enjoyment of learning to improve our photography.


actually, there are 2 "not" affirmative, 2 were neutral. but, hey, what's a few facts among friends.
04/02/2009 11:44:57 AM · #98
Just curious: was this DPC's first April fool's prank? If not, what were the previous pranks?
04/02/2009 11:46:23 AM · #99
Originally posted by halopes:

Just curious: was this DPC's first April fool's prank? If not, what were the previous pranks?


one year, Langdon programmed it to add a 1 to every picture every hour.

i don't remember the rest, but there is a select group that gets mad every year. kinda gives the impression that photographers don't have a sense of humour.
04/02/2009 11:48:05 AM · #100
Originally posted by karmat:



Not sure what you are referring to with "shenanigans," but if we had played a joke based on scores (which we did one year), and a self-dq came in based on a low score, we wouldn't self-dq until the photog verified that they understood the consequences, etc. like we do now. That very often lasts longer than the "prank" would, so a self-dq based on a scoring prank isn't likely. Is that what you were asking?


Yup...that was what I asking. And that explanation works for me. And stuff...you can never forget stuff.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/15/2020 02:46:23 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: 07/15/2020 02:46:23 PM EDT.