I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sorry for my ignorance, but could you clarify?
It's what you call voters who have a different aesthetic basis than the one-size-fits-all basis of the collective or little green monsters under bridges. I forget which.
Thanks for the comment you left on my photo, and this is an interesting thread. I suppose it's not too often an image doesn't get a vote lower that a 5. I used to pay more attention to the break down of my score now I don't even notice unless someone points it out.
I guess what it means is you found an image that does't offend anyone too much, or my thinking with this particular challenge was that since it was a self portrait challenge people were being a bit nicer handing out 5's instead of 1's and 3's.
Check out LalliSig's Best Of 2011 winner and the low scores. Come on, three 1's?
I know people have diverse voting styles but I would love for someone to explain to me how this photograph deserved anything less than a five.
i'd like to know how any one thought it deserved less than a 10.
I probably would have scored it a 6 or 7 since I know getting the rendering just right takes time and skill. However it lacks humanity, IMO. It has been sculpted away in favor of an idealized beauty, but just one and it's straight forward making the image a closed one to the viewer. I much prefer ambiguity, spontaneity, vulnerability, authenticity, imperfection, basically what makes a human, human. To compare this to say Marliyn Monroe's famous movie still, this one looks robotic and unemotive. It's a classic male view of beauty.
Check out LalliSig's Best Of 2011 winner and the low scores. Come on, three 1's?
I know people have diverse voting styles but I would love for someone to explain to me how this photograph deserved anything less than a five.
Perhaps it didn't move them. As I spend more time with photography, I realise that there are many technically perfect, visually outstanding shots out there, you don't have to look far. What there aren't however, are a lot of shots that stir a real emotional reaction in me and these are the ones I find myself lingering over.
If I were to translate that to voting, I could easily score this less than a five as it doesn't move me.
I would love it if the trolls were forced to give a comment on any photo they rated 3 or under, and explain whats so terrible about that photo. Maybe someone will get satisfaction and recommend that. Maybe just then we can figure out who these trolls are.
I would love it if the trolls were forced to give a comment on any photo they rated 3 or under, and explain whats so terrible about that photo. Maybe someone will get satisfaction and recommend that. Maybe just then we can figure out who these trolls are.
They tried this already. For a short while there was a window that would pop up if you gave a low vote. You weren't forced to leave a comment (that's impossible to implement) but it was encouraged and you had to click the ok button before you could vote on the next photo. I don't know how many people complained but apparently a lot since it was removed shortly after that feature was rolled out.
I would love it if the trolls were forced to give a comment on any photo they rated 3 or under, and explain whats so terrible about that photo..
Well, if someone voted a 1 or 2 or 3 on an image beacuse they thought it was terrible then they are not, by definition, a troll then are they. And they have every right to vote that way and not have to explain it to anyone and quite right too.
A troll is someone who votes a very low score on images under the belief that it will improve the rating of their own image in the challenge. Or maybe because they recognise the photographer and have a grudge against them. Or someone who jjust comes on the site to vote low just to piss people off. Basically, a troll is someone whose votes on an image have nothing to do with the actual image itself.
