A little more on the realm of possibility, what do you think would happen if we changed the rules and actually ATTRIBUTED all the pictures in the voting phase, so you knew whose image you were voting on?
Brainstorm that one, for a while, would you, folks? What do you think would happen then? Seriously...
Now a challenge where you had to title the photo with your user name could be pretty interesting. /racing off to the suggestion forum now
yeah, it used to be people always knew it was me (or a sofia sp) if i entered a shot of her. Now that she's moved out, people know its me when they see my big fat head in a studio shot....Def not an advantage for me
yeah, it used to be people always knew it was me (or a sofia sp) if i entered a shot of her. Now that she's moved out, people know its me when they see my big fat head in a studio shot....Def not an advantage for me
i give bonus points to attractive women, i dont dock points for ugliness of either sex.
... considered poor form. Most folks who keep a port up at 1x, 500 pixles, flickr, ect. will wait until voting is over to publish shots they submit here. But I know of no rule that requires it.
This.
This is silly - it presumes that the DPC entry represents the 'primary purpose' of the image - unlikely to be the case for Free Study images at the very least. I don't think twice about putting something on 1x at the same time as DPC. Why would I? It's my image, I'll do what I want with it.
... considered poor form. Most folks who keep a port up at 1x, 500 pixles, flickr, ect. will wait until voting is over to publish shots they submit here. But I know of no rule that requires it.
This.
This is silly - it presumes that the DPC entry represents the 'primary purpose' of the image - unlikely to be the case for Free Study images at the very least. I don't think twice about putting something on 1x at the same time as DPC. Why would I? It's my image, I'll do what I want with it.
yeah, it used to be people always knew it was me (or a sofia sp) if i entered a shot of her. Now that she's moved out, people know its me when they see my big fat head in a studio shot....Def not an advantage for me
i give bonus points to attractive women, i dont dock points for ugliness of either sex.
yeah, it used to be people always knew it was me (or a sofia sp) if i entered a shot of her. Now that she's moved out, people know its me when they see my big fat head in a studio shot....Def not an advantage for me
i give bonus points to attractive women, i dont dock points for ugliness of either sex.
I give bonus points for ugly people. I dock points for tattoos. I no vote if you include nudity.
I guess we could have a challenge that included user names and see how that went. It would be great if there was a way to let some voters see the photographer's name and others not see it, then compare scores between the two groups. I honestly can't say if it would make a difference in my voting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
