| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2002 09:00:43 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Kimbly:
Could the requirement be that you have to vote on 95%/25% comments on the last challenge you submitted to? So people like Karen, who weren't that excited about the fear challenge, or people who go away on vacation for a week, wouldn't have to sit one out again just so that they could vote on it?
This is essentially like saying "If you don't finish your requirement, you will be suspended from submitting for a week." Actually, this was the original plan. What we decided was a) Suspensions would only really hurt the site. Everyone would think we were nazis, and I'd be willing to be 30% or more of suspended users would never return to the site. b) The last thing I want to do is start getting 10 emails a week saying "Suspended?!@?! I was called out of town on business!" ... and then having to make a judgement call on all of those.
eek.
Drew |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:01:30 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Drew,
I think the issue is:
If I choose not to submit a photo one week, do I have to meet the vote requirement for that week before I can submit to the next challenge? I think that if I chose to not participate in a challenge, I should possibly be able to submit to the next one without fulfilling the vote requirement for a challenge that I skipped...
That's what I said, but you explained it better :-)
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:03:48 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Drew,
I think the issue is:
If I choose not to submit a photo one week, do I have to meet the vote requirement for that week before I can submit to the next challenge? I think that if I chose to not participate in a challenge, I should possibly be able to submit to the next one without fulfilling the vote requirement for a challenge that I skipped...
The logic of this programming-wise is getting a little more difficult, but I think maybe we can work that.
Drew |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:04:34 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by Kimbly:
[i]Could the requirement be that you have to vote on 95%/25% comments on the last challenge you submitted to? So people like Karen, who weren't that excited about the fear challenge, or people who go away on vacation for a week, wouldn't have to sit one out again just so that they could vote on it?
This is essentially like saying "If you don't finish your requirement, you will be suspended from submitting for a week." Actually, this was the original plan. What we decided was a) Suspensions would only really hurt the site. Everyone would think we were nazis, and I'd be willing to be 30% or more of suspended users would never return to the site. b) The last thing I want to do is start getting 10 emails a week saying "Suspended?!@?! I was called out of town on business!" ... and then having to make a judgement call on all of those.
eek.
Drew[/i]
Ack. I need to work on my expository writing. Nothing to do with suspensions...I just wanted to say what JM said. That if you didn't submit, you shouldn't be required to vote on that challenge to participate in the next one.
Say I know I am going to be out of town from 7/13-7/22. So I don't submit to Free Challenge cause I knkow I won't be able to vote. I come back and can't participate in the next challenge...doesn't seem quite fair.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:07:34 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Drew,
I think the issue is:
If I choose not to submit a photo one week, do I have to meet the vote requirement for that week before I can submit to the next challenge? I think that if I chose to not participate in a challenge, I should possibly be able to submit to the next one without fulfilling the vote requirement for a challenge that I skipped...
This is my question too. Drew, maybe it's time to take a deep breath and consider if the medicine is worse than the sickness. It was noticed above that we have 2000+ members here. What happens in the future if I have to vote on 95/25% of a few hundred entries to maintain eligibility? |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:09:08 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
We will monitor this, and it'll be easy to do with the help of our users. I'll have to write a new rule for it.
This seems feasible.
What's to stop him from voting 5s across the board in a challenge he has interest in?
You are certainly correct in that aspect--nothing will. But those 5s he cast in a challenge he was interested in are likely more representative of his true feelings.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:15:59 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by balynch:
You are certainly correct in that aspect--nothing will. But those 5s he cast in a challenge he [i]was interested in are likely more representative of his true feelings.[/i]
All 5s are all 5s, and I'm certain that neither situatio is indicative of his true feelings. More importantly, the script that calculates averages/winners doesn't know his true feelings.
Originally posted by sheyingshi88:
This is my question too. Drew, maybe it's time to take a deep breath and consider if the medicine is worse than the sickness.
I assure you this was well-discussed and a long time in the planning. I do appreciate the concerns being brought up, though.
It was noticed above that we have 2000+ members here. What happens in the future if I have to vote on 95/25% of a few hundred entries to maintain eligibility?
Several hundred entries is an issue we'll deal with later... right now, things are under control. BUT, the issue still remains the same -- if you want several hundred people to rate your photo (and a decent percentage of those to comment on it), you should give the same back to the site users.
Keep in mind that this new requirement doesn't say you have to finish all this voting every week to 'maintain eligibility.' You just have to do it when you want to submit.
Drew
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:23:30 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
All 5s are all 5s, and I'm certain that neither situatio is indicative of his true feelings. More importantly, the script that calculates averages/winners doesn't know his true feelings.
You're right, scripts certainly don't know anything about intention. If you were to look at the past voting history, how many people have given all of the photos in a particular challenge the same vote?
Bryan
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:35:54 AM · #34 |
I sort of understand where this is coming from, but I value the votes of those that ''want to vote'' more than I will value the votes of those ''forced to vote because they want to enter''. I take a fair amount of care in my voting and give it a fair amount of thought. I think those that ''vote to be eligable'' are less likely to give fair consideration.
I can even imagine myself, leaving for a trip in the future, sitting down Sunday night (Pacific time) and rushing through the voting processes in order to be allowed to enter the next week. I wouldn''t be proud of it, but I might actually do it.
I guess what I''m saying, is if someone doesn''t want to vote, why do we want them to?
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 1:44:12 PM. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:38:41 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
We got a lot of crap about people going out of town, business or pleasure, and not being able to vote -- only to have their photos disqualified. ....... Drew[/i]
Sounds like someone who doesn't do a lot of traveling. For those of us who at times live on the road,leave on Sun evening, home on Sat, and not always traveling with a portable pc, the possibility of voting on 120-150 pictures on Sunday evening so as to be able to submit to the next challenge will be a challenge unto itself.
Your intentions and goals are good. But I think the implementation will change this from a "fun site" to one dominated by conflicting rules and interpretation. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:46:42 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I sort of understand where this is coming from, but I value the votes of those that ''want to vote'' more than I will value the votes of those ''forced to vote because they want to enter''.
myqyl, that is what I am trying to say. Sure, people can do a lousy job of voting on challenges they are interested in, but logic would seem to dictate that they would do a much more lousy job on something they are forced to do. It seems wacky to think someone would even take the time to vote on something they have no interest in if they are not requred to.
I can even imagine myself, leaving for a trip in the future, sitting down Sunday night (Pacific time) and rushing through the voting processes in order to be allowed to enter the next week. I wouldn''t be proud of it, but I might actually do it.
I think many people may exercise this option as well. I certainly might.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 1:49:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:46:54 AM · #37 |
If that''s the case, then is it really fair for me to take the time to vote on a bunch of pictures taken by people who will not give me the same consideration? I understand if it is a week now and again that you can''t vote. But if week after week you are submitting pictures, and you don''t EVER vote, how is that contributing to the site. For this challenge, you simply need to comment on 26-27 pictures. If you give one minute to each picture, that''s less than half an hour. Granted, when teh site becomes huge, it will be a different situation, but let''s deal with that when it comes. The administrators seem aware of the potential problems, so it''s not like one morning we will wake up and Drew and Langdon will say, "OMG -- 400 pictures!. We never saw this coming, what are we to do?"
Disclaimor: I must admit, I typed this part without fully thinking it through. Though I still like the idea, I reserve the right to change my opinions on THIS post. :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 1:47:51 PM. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:57:51 AM · #38 |
You cant make ALL the people happy ALL the time. Especially on this site. I personally joined this site for fun and to expand my photo experiences. I vote on every photo every week and have no problems with the new changes. Besides it was all the gripeing that lead to these new submit rules in the first place. Keep up the great job Drew. I love this site and think all us who want to continue will keep on keeping on in the future.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 09:58:16 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by karmat:
If that''s the case, then is it really fair for me to take the time to vote on a bunch of pictures taken by people who will not give me the same consideration?
I don''t look at this site in terms of fairness--I submit photos and vote because I am interested in it and I want to. Making rules to ensure "fairness" will accomplish nothing other than lowering the quality of votes and comments. If people are not interested in contributing to the community then rules will not change their attitude.
You will have much more success in life when you do something out of your heart''s desire as opposed to performing actions with an expectation of receiving something in return.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 2:02:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:00:37 AM · #40 |
Look at it like this:
occasionally people might be in that situation that you described. But that is more likely to be the exception instead of the rule.
Most of the people here happily vote on all the pics or as many as they can.
However, as it is now, someone could submit and not vote at all ..
Therefore, what is better: a whole slew of pics dumped into the contest without any obligation on the part of the photogs, OR the occasional voting rush job, but most of the pics 'accounted' for in terms of 'site 'give and take'?
Originally posted by myqyl:
I can even imagine myself, leaving for a trip in the future, sitting down Sunday night (Pacific time) and rushing through the voting processes in order to be allowed to enter the next week. I wouldn''t be proud of it, but I might actually do it.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:02:40 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by balynch:
If people are not interested in contributing to the community then rules will not change their attitude.
I don't agree. I think these particular rules will eliminate people who only want to 'take' and not 'give' from taking advantage of the situation.
People who already want to give won't be affected much at all.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:05:10 AM · #42 |
I think it would be ideal if this could work like an 'upload credit'. Ie. if i fulfill my obligation for a challenge, I get a credit in my acct that will allow me to submit when and if I feel like doing so.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Drew,
I think the issue is:
If I choose not to submit a photo one week, do I have to meet the vote requirement for that week before I can submit to the next challenge? I think that if I chose to not participate in a challenge, I should possibly be able to submit to the next one without fulfilling the vote requirement for a challenge that I skipped...
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:07:36 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Therefore, what is better: a whole slew of pics dumped into the contest without any obligation on the part of the photogs, OR the occasional voting rush job, but most of the pics 'accounted' for in terms of 'site 'give and take'?
I think it is better to rely on the honor system. There will never be a point where there is a whole "slew" of pictures and no votes. I think it is better to have a natural "give and take" as opposed to a forced one. Rules like these will only serve to alienate people who want to be here.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:08:41 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]I think it would be ideal if this could work like an 'upload credit'. Ie. if i fulfill my obligation for a challenge, I get a credit in my acct that will allow me to submit when and if I feel like doing so.
[i]
That's a neat idea, but I have NO, none, zilch, nada programming experience, so would it be difficult? |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:11:11 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I think it would be ideal if this could work like an ''upload credit''. Ie. if i fulfill my obligation for a challenge, I get a credit in my acct that will allow me to submit when and if I feel like doing so.
I think you may be on to something here. Maybe also a system where others can rate comments and your profile can indicate if you are a "First Rate Contributor" or some type of award thing for that. I think it is more effective to encourage all people to comment rather than just weed out the ones who don''t.
Besides, requiring people to vote will probably not weed them out. It will just result in them giving random votes. If they want to submit a photo they will find a way to.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/10/2002 2:15:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 10:28:10 AM · #46 |
Are there statistics kept on how many accounts submit but never vote? Is it a sizable number? Are we talking about 50% of submissions? Or is this more of a 5% thing?
If it's closer to 50% then I understand entirely, but if the number is closer to 5%, then I think we'll all be waving bye-bye to the baby while the bath water flies.
btw ~ I don't picture this affecting me much since I enjoy the voting as much or more than the entering. I just worry that what we get in quanity of votes, will not offset the lose in quality of votes.
Ultimately though, I trust the judgement of the admins. I'm certain they know what they are doing and that they will tweak this new rule till it works out for everyone. It'll be some growing pains, but will likely be for the best somewhere down the road. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 11:26:06 AM · #47 |
If the intent of this new policy is to "encourage" users to provide feedback and criticisms to other users, I think it is flawed. Users that have something beneficial to add to a photo in the way of comments likely will do so without being encouraged (read "forced"). There are varying levels of photographers on the site, which is what makes it intriguing, but a total amateur photographer picking up a camera for the first time will likely have nothing more than "good photo" to add to a comment. A lot more of this will become prevalent. If someone took a good pic, they know it already and some lame comment just to meet the requirements will add no value.
Now about the voting alternative... I had absolutely no interest in voting in a recent challenge (several other users have expressed similar comments). However, this is forcing me to vote on pictures that I'm not interested in, just so that I have the opportunity of submitting next week in case it is a topic I am interested in. |
|
|
|
07/10/2002 11:40:39 AM · #48 |
Actually I would like to discourage people who are brand new to photography to comment and vote on a photo. I would honestly prefer a group of people who are in the top 10% of users to be the voters. I seem to be backwards from everyone else on this site but I feel there should be more photographers than voters/commentatotrs. But this might be the wrong place for that type of setup.
Originally posted by jkirkla1:
If the intent of this new policy is to "encourage" users to provide feedback and criticisms to other users, I think it is flawed. Users that have something beneficial to add to a photo in the way of comments likely will do so without being encouraged (read "forced"). There are varying levels of photographers on the site, which is what makes it intriguing, but a total amateur photographer picking up a camera for the first time will likely have nothing more than "good photo" to add to a comment. A lot more of this will become prevalent. If someone took a good pic, they know it already and some lame comment just to meet the requirements will add no value.
Now about the voting alternative... I had absolutely no interest in voting in a recent challenge (several other users have expressed similar comments). However, this is forcing me to vote on pictures that I'm not interested in, just so that I have the opportunity of submitting next week in case it is a topic I am interested in.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 11:45:49 AM · #49 |
I like the current requirements as they stand, but then I also vote on every photo every week unless I'm gone (which has only happened once). In that kind of a situation, I probably wouldn't have time to shoot anyway.
It seems to me that voting on 95% of the photos should be easy enough. Right now, that means about 145 photos at the most. Even if you're on a dial-up modem (as I am at home), I can't see it taking longer than 2-3 hours. I'd guess some of of spend WAY more than that amount of time on here doing nothing more than checking our score. *grin*
25% of the photos with comments, that's a little harder for me personally -- but then I try to find things I can suggest to improve in every photo I comment on. My comments are among the longest, generally. Even if you avoided comments like mine, and stuck to smaller, relevant comments (and avoided the kind we all hate to get -- and you know very well what I mean), I can't see it taking too long -- in fact, I suspect it might take less time than voting on 95% of the photos (if we're still talking dial-up).
This site isn't just about receiving. Each of us gets somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 votes on our photos these days. If you break that down in terms of "people hours" I suspect it's at least 2-3 hours worth of time spent on your photo. Only fair that you turn around and give it back says I.
Now, as for a system of credits? Hmmm, I guess I can see that. But I think it would have to start out with everyone already having a credit or two to their account. Otherwise, it would be a system of gain and immediate loss -- then the first week you missed out on the voting, and wanted to submit, you'd be screwed. (And you'd complain that you'd been voting all along, and only missed one week, and blah blah blah.)
|
|
|
|
07/10/2002 12:14:15 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
Drew: Sorry, I just don't like the new rule. For instance, I just wasn't into "fear", so thought I had no business voting on it. Yet, that shouldn't stop me from submitting to challenges I feel into or worthy of. I rather liked the hint you gave earlier re: if you submit, you must vote on all the submissions, or at least a high percentage thereof, for that challenge. I vote on every photo every week, and try to give comments where appropriate, or where I feel I have useful input. I know others do not, so I see the motivation behind it, but ask for a reevaluation of the method.
Thanks.
Karen,
The problem with the rule as originally written is that if someone goes on vacation or out of town for one week, they are effectively precluded from participating in challenges for two. This rewrite was intended to solve that problem.
-Terry
|
|
