Maybe this has been suggested before (I couldn't find it though), but maybe we could abolish challenge descriptions on most challenges. Obviously, challenges such as the current "Username" challenge, a description is necessary, but for "Shallow Depth of Field" and "4-5am" and similar challenges, no description would allow for greater interperetations and fewer complaints from the so-called DNMC Nazis.
It's a suggestion that has been made regularly for as long as I've been here.
I'm all for it - having just the challenge title with no supporting description would really encourage users to interpret the challenge more widely and focus less on arguing back and forth about the minutae of dictionary nuances. It would allow the challenge title to be a launching pad for creativity rather than a constant cause for debate.
Sadly, I don't think it's a change that's destined to happen.
There were some challenges where the description echoed the title. For most challenges, the description is very useful though, sometimes I don't understand what the challenge is about until I read the details.
Ok then, here are the next 10 challenges:
Free Study X
Free Study XI
Free Study XII
Free Study XIII
Free Study XIV
Free Study XV
Free Study XVI
Free Study XVII
Free Study XVIII
Free Study XIX
...hope my roman numerals are correct for the Incorrect-Roman-Numeral nazis. ;-)
I think what upsets a lot of people are those who do read the descriptions and leave no wiggle room because "it didn't say you could take a photo of that." If there's no description then there is no textual evidence for them to justify themselves and they would be forced to accept other's interpretations (within reason).
Take the "Shallow DOF" challenge as an example. Having just finished voting, I found PLENTY of shots where the photographer clearly didn't understand what this meant. If they had read the description, there's a much better chance they would have understood the challenge:
("Shallow depth of field is often used to isolate a subject from its surrounding environment or to make it stand out. Find a creative use of a shallow depth of field for this week's challenge.")
I can see your point... but I really think the descriptions do much more good than harm.
...everyone will have their own ideas on what "they really mean."
The same is true of the Challenge titles. For all the complaints about descriptions limiting creativity or allowing only narrow interpretations, I have yet to see a challenge that didn't offer a variety of excellent solutions.
Lets not forget that this is an international site, and that there are many of us for whom English is not their native language. The description helps refine the point of the exercise. Lets rememeber that we are all learning here, and the more specific the challenge the more it helps push us out of our comfort zones.
As Karin points out, there are many other photo sites that need your free study shots, the reason I like this site is the specific nature of the challenges. It IS anoying when someone decides i didn't meet the challege because they disagree with someing in my shot ("this isn't pink", or "these are not complementary colors", ect.) but letting everyone have an opinion will lead to disagreements, life goes on.
We are so INTENSE this week? Must be something in the stars...
As someone who is way too literal, I enjoy the descriptions as a way to help me stretch my interpretation of the challenge title. I try not to vote too quickly, as that causes injustices to subtle interpretations.
And if voters don't get mine, I now just shrug and move on, though it has taken a while to adopt that attitude (thanks to those here who've helped me see the light about that.
Maybe this has been suggested before (I couldn't find it though), but maybe we could abolish challenge descriptions on most challenges. Obviously, challenges such as the current "Username" challenge, a description is necessary, but for "Shallow Depth of Field" and "4-5am" and similar challenges, no description would allow for greater interperetations and fewer complaints from the so-called DNMC Nazis.
What do you think?
I don't think the absence of a description would lead to less discussion/debate about what fits the topic. It may lead to even more.
What makes you think it is OK to call other users Nazis just because they don't agree with your thinking this point?
Yes, that is fun, isn't it?
But what if D&L think that the majority of members don't want to have challenges that "restrict" them?
I would hate for DPC to end up being the same as all the other sites, so I can't just sit and watch silently.
...maybe we could abolish challenge descriptions on most challenges.... no description would allow for greater interperetations and fewer complaints from the so-called DNMC Nazis.
What do you think?
I would disagree with this as we see countless instances where members ask in forums for an interpretation of the "challenge description", witness some of the questions asked in recent forums.
Secondly, there are no limitations imposed by challenge descriptions, those are merely thought provoking mechanisms that should have your creative spirits working overtime.
As for the DNMC Nazis, have you considered that they do serve a useful purpose, ensuring that the site does not become a "Free for All". I for one will closely analyse a photo, and revisit on several occasions prior to submitting my final vote, and I can assure you that NOT MEETING THE CHALLLENGE does indeed factor in my voting decision. I make no excuses for my voting patterns, and will not be swayed by anyone. Too many times I see photos that even the most open minded person would consider as falling outside prescribed norms. I certainly do not dole out a 1 for such photos, but neither will they occupy the upper echelon of the scores I have meted out.
Yes, that is fun, isn't it?
But what if D&L think that the majority of members don't want to have challenges that "restrict" them?
I would hate for DPC to end up being the same as all the other sites, so I can't just sit and watch silently.
Well said Beetle... If we all become complacent and offer no counter arguments to what is sometimes proferred, we may find ourselves with a site that is no longer reflective of the majority. As if often stated:
"The sad time thing about the silent majority..........is that it is silent.
