| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2015 08:03:05 AM · #51 |
If this little experiment causes the unofficial anonymity rule to go away,
will it be a matter of time when we have pre-challenge threads that begin:
Will this image do better in green? or red?
What do you think about portrait rather than landscape?
Will puppies get me a better score than kittens?
etc, etc. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 09:30:45 AM · #52 |
| let's all just enter the same cat photo and see who wins |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 09:48:30 AM · #53 |
| or, a little more interesting, a photo of the same cat. (not talking duckies here; I mean a real cat, one that can walk, run, catch a bus, take a train, sail a boat, fly a balloon). |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 09:50:49 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
If the argument is that it is (1) unavoidable and (2) it really doesnt matter, (3) recognizability is the curse of the ultra popular ribbon winner, and (4)we are all adult enough to vote a good photo a good score no matter the source, then why have it at all (the fiction of anonymity)?
I know it will never change, but perhaps knowing the context of the shot is a good thing. Art does not exist in a vacuum, we are doing the sillyness of assigning a numeric value to it, the least we can do is know the context. |
That's what I'm wondering; the current challenge explores that idea just to see what happens. |
I guess we'll find out. |
umm... when has objective aesthetic judgement ever trumped group dynamics? Without anonymity all contests become popularity contests. The cult of celebrity, the trusting of people who are perceived to have authority, the projection of (good or bad) motivations onto people we think we know... all these things will come to the fore. Psychological studies have proven this over and over again. Blue eyes become more beautiful than brown eyes, guards get higher scores than prisoners.
Yes, a handful of people have gotten around anonymity. Gyaban can get an 8 in an expert challenge whenever he wishes, just by visually declaring "I am Gyaban! 10 me!". But it's better to have a very small handful of unassailable celebrities and the rest of us in fair competition, than to throw the whole game away. |
You know that I disagree with you on this. And indeed I've thrown my toys out of my pram on occasion about it too. I assess student work all the time, I actively work to suppress the process of anonymity is such processes - albeit this is done while championing the use of robust assessment criteria but I do believe that people are able to separate photo from person - although I understand they may choose not to. So, what I'm challenging is the degree to which you seem to be suggesting that people are incapable of being anything but influenced - I don't accept that inevitability.
As for Gyaban - I don't think you are being fair; you may not be wowed by his particular aesthetic but I believe he does well because of what people regard as being the difficulty (and effort) tariff of the images he pulls off. The man ribboned in his first challenge - we didn't know him then and if we had we wouldn't have known it was his. There are plenty of other examples too
Sometimes I believe a blurry photo of a dog on a lead works very well and I give the image an 8. Sometimes a similar image may lack something (for me) and I may give it a 3. It isn't a judgment upon the photographer, just a response to the image at the time I view it.
Of course, I understand bias exists but I think it can be managed if we really try. I have to say that commenting (in detail) is probably the best way to manage bias. Often, as I've tried to write a long comment I've found that my view of an image evolves and I find the score I give changes as a consequence. I would contend therefore - really looking at an image (or not) is what we should be worrying about, not whether we can or cannot resist reinforcing our preconceptions.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 13:52:17. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:04:06 AM · #55 |
| Once we come to terms with the fact that the scores here are totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and when we also finally accept that a good or great score here doesn't usually mean a good or great photo, but usually quite the contraire, then finally we can just take what we think are good photos without worrying about our anonymity or not, relief, relief, relief. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:19:46 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Often, as I've tried to write a long comment I've found that my view of an image evolves and I find the score I give changes as a consequence. I would contend therefore - really looking at an image (or not) is what we should be worrying about, not whether we can or cannot resist reinforcing our preconceptions. |
Maybe we could program in a 15-second delay, so that you can't immediately vote and move on to the next picture ... |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:39:12 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
If the argument is that it is (1) unavoidable and (2) it really doesnt matter, (3) recognizability is the curse of the ultra popular ribbon winner, and (4)we are all adult enough to vote a good photo a good score no matter the source, then why have it at all (the fiction of anonymity)?
I know it will never change, but perhaps knowing the context of the shot is a good thing. Art does not exist in a vacuum, we are doing the sillyness of assigning a numeric value to it, the least we can do is know the context. |
That's what I'm wondering; the current challenge explores that idea just to see what happens. |
I guess we'll find out. |
umm... when has objective aesthetic judgement ever trumped group dynamics? Without anonymity all contests become popularity contests. The cult of celebrity, the trusting of people who are perceived to have authority, the projection of (good or bad) motivations onto people we think we know... all these things will come to the fore. Psychological studies have proven this over and over again. Blue eyes become more beautiful than brown eyes, guards get higher scores than prisoners.
Yes, a handful of people have gotten around anonymity. Gyaban can get an 8 in an expert challenge whenever he wishes, just by visually declaring "I am Gyaban! 10 me!". But it's better to have a very small handful of unassailable celebrities and the rest of us in fair competition, than to throw the whole game away. |
You know that I disagree with you on this. And indeed I've thrown my toys out of my pram on occasion about it too. I assess student work all the time, I actively work to suppress the process of anonymity is such processes - albeit this is done while championing the use of robust assessment criteria but I do believe that people are able to separate photo from person - although I understand they may choose not to. So, what I'm challenging is the degree to which you seem to be suggesting that people are incapable of being anything but influenced - I don't accept that inevitability.
As for Gyaban - I don't think you are being fair; you may not be wowed by his particular aesthetic but I believe he does well because of what people regard as being the difficulty (and effort) tariff of the images he pulls off. The man ribboned in his first challenge - we didn't know him then and if we had we wouldn't have known it was his. There are plenty of other examples too
Sometimes I believe a blurry photo of a dog on a lead works very well and I give the image an 8. Sometimes a similar image may lack something (for me) and I may give it a 3. It isn't a judgment upon the photographer, just a response to the image at the time I view it.
Of course, I understand bias exists but I think it can be managed if we really try. I have to say that commenting (in detail) is probably the best way to manage bias. Often, as I've tried to write a long comment I've found that my view of an image evolves and I find the score I give changes as a consequence. I would contend therefore - really looking at an image (or not) is what we should be worrying about, not whether we can or cannot resist reinforcing our preconceptions. |
I think feelings ran high because it got unnecessarily personal. For this argument, I can concede the point that an individual can overcome these biases. But scientific studies aren't about individuals, they are about the group. And the DPC score is also about the group. If you are optimistic about human nature in general, I refer you to the "guards and prisoners" study that I alluded to above. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:39:45 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Paul:
Often, as I've tried to write a long comment I've found that my view of an image evolves and I find the score I give changes as a consequence. I would contend therefore - really looking at an image (or not) is what we should be worrying about, not whether we can or cannot resist reinforcing our preconceptions. |
Maybe we could program in a 15-second delay, so that you can't immediately vote and move on to the next picture ... |
They have a delay (not 15 seconds though) at 1x when you do curation. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:43:33 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
If the argument is that it is (1) unavoidable and (2) it really doesnt matter, (3) recognizability is the curse of the ultra popular ribbon winner, and (4)we are all adult enough to vote a good photo a good score no matter the source, then why have it at all (the fiction of anonymity)?
I know it will never change, but perhaps knowing the context of the shot is a good thing. Art does not exist in a vacuum, we are doing the sillyness of assigning a numeric value to it, the least we can do is know the context. |
That's what I'm wondering; the current challenge explores that idea just to see what happens. |
I guess we'll find out. |
umm... when has objective aesthetic judgement ever trumped group dynamics? Without anonymity all contests become popularity contests. The cult of celebrity, the trusting of people who are perceived to have authority, the projection of (good or bad) motivations onto people we think we know... all these things will come to the fore. Psychological studies have proven this over and over again. Blue eyes become more beautiful than brown eyes, guards get higher scores than prisoners.
Yes, a handful of people have gotten around anonymity. Gyaban can get an 8 in an expert challenge whenever he wishes, just by visually declaring "I am Gyaban! 10 me!". But it's better to have a very small handful of unassailable celebrities and the rest of us in fair competition, than to throw the whole game away. |
You know that I disagree with you on this. And indeed I've thrown my toys out of my pram on occasion about it too. I assess student work all the time, I actively work to suppress the process of anonymity is such processes - albeit this is done while championing the use of robust assessment criteria but I do believe that people are able to separate photo from person - although I understand they may choose not to. So, what I'm challenging is the degree to which you seem to be suggesting that people are incapable of being anything but influenced - I don't accept that inevitability.
As for Gyaban - I don't think you are being fair; you may not be wowed by his particular aesthetic but I believe he does well because of what people regard as being the difficulty (and effort) tariff of the images he pulls off. The man ribboned in his first challenge - we didn't know him then and if we had we wouldn't have known it was his. There are plenty of other examples too
Sometimes I believe a blurry photo of a dog on a lead works very well and I give the image an 8. Sometimes a similar image may lack something (for me) and I may give it a 3. It isn't a judgment upon the photographer, just a response to the image at the time I view it.
Of course, I understand bias exists but I think it can be managed if we really try. I have to say that commenting (in detail) is probably the best way to manage bias. Often, as I've tried to write a long comment I've found that my view of an image evolves and I find the score I give changes as a consequence. I would contend therefore - really looking at an image (or not) is what we should be worrying about, not whether we can or cannot resist reinforcing our preconceptions. |
I think feelings ran high because it got unnecessarily personal. For this argument, I can concede the point that an individual can overcome these biases. But scientific studies aren't about individuals, they are about the group. And the DPC score is also about the group. If you are optimistic about human nature in general, I refer you to the "guards and prisoners" study that I alluded to above. |
I'll check it out. Do you not believe that anonymous scoring offers some insulation - surely any effect may be dampened as compared to votes being attributed to individuals? |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:45:19 AM · #60 |
| 15 seconds was an arbitrary number ... it would be interesting if we could recover statistics on the average time a voter spends looking before voting -- "supposedly" it's 3-5 seconds now ... |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:48:21 AM · #61 |
I wonder if any of us know more than a few of each other except as a collection of images. I have met a few people here face to face, but I know many more through the work they have presented here, as authors of images and nothing more.
I have never formed an opinion of  h2 or AllenP as people, so I do not like or dislike them as people. I can often spot their work in a challenge because I like the way they use light. Does the fact that I am pretty sure that a particular style can be tied to a particular person make my affinity for that style a question of popularity?
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 15:05:43. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 10:48:45 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I'll check it out. Do you not believe that anonymous scoring offers some insulation - surely any effect may be dampened as compared to votes being attributed to individuals? |
Yes, I do believe that anonymous scoring offers some insulation.
anonymous images offer further insulation. :) |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 11:05:29 AM · #63 |
the less peripheral information accompanying a photo, the easier it is to SEE the photo. I often worry that I am unduly influenced/influencing by a title.
of course this only tangentially pertains to anonymity, but I think it is a good support.
on the other hand what is under discussion is rather silly. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 12:12:37 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Paul:
Often, as I've tried to write a long comment I've found that my view of an image evolves and I find the score I give changes as a consequence. I would contend therefore - really looking at an image (or not) is what we should be worrying about, not whether we can or cannot resist reinforcing our preconceptions. |
Maybe we could program in a 15-second delay, so that you can't immediately vote and move on to the next picture ... |
They have a delay (not 15 seconds though) at 1x when you do curation. |
And this, as well as requiring comments for 1-3 votes would result in even fewer votes on the site.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 16:12:46. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/05/2025 05:54:48 PM EDT.
