Never fun to win one this way. Reminds me of my first blue.
However, this is an opportunity to understand what is legal and what isn't. I have to assume it is the stars that were the problem, but I would love to know if a) that's the case and b) how much or little were they there before?
Even though I wind up getting a blue out of this, I'd wage the argument that with the amalgum of rulings over the last months stars can almost be created out of nothing but noise.
Still, I'd like to know as I use stars in pictures too...
So how hard would it be, when DQ'ing an image, to not only state the rule that was broken, but also cite the specific instance for that image?
I mean ... simply stating "No stars existed in the original capture" adds a LOT of useful information which will be lost in the forums but, attached to the image, could be helpful for a lot of people.
simply stating "No stars existed in the original capture" adds a LOT of useful information which will be lost in the forums but, attached to the image, could be helpful for a lot of people.
I agree. It also helps people learn. I definitely look at a lot of DQs to see what not to do.
So how hard would it be, when DQ'ing an image, to not only state the rule that was broken, but also cite the specific instance for that image?
That's not a bad idea at all. The reason we don't do it now, and/or haven't up to this point is that we use canned DQ messages. This makes it easier on the person pushing the DQ button (which is not even remotely fun, especially on a wonderul image like this), and also allows us to consult a disqualification gallery on the trickier cases (in attempt to not waffle on issues and look foolish). :)
So how hard would it be, when DQ'ing an image, to not only state the rule that was broken, but also cite the specific instance for that image?
That's not a bad idea at all. The reason we don't do it now, and/or haven't up to this point is that we use canned DQ messages. This makes it easier on the person pushing the DQ button (which is not even remotely fun, especially on a wonderul image like this), and also allows us to consult a disqualification gallery on the trickier cases (in attempt to not waffle on issues and look foolish). :)
Even though entering in a photo-specific infraction message is a manual procedure, it's not like there are tons of these to do. How many DQs on average are there a week? Less than one?
I think it took you longer to reply in this thread, "No stars existed in the orginal capture." than it would have to enter that into the actual image page. (assuming that type of page infrastructure was already set up) ;-)
I think it's probably more a matter of trying to sound tactful about describing the DQ, rather than making it sound like we're railing on the person who had the DQ, to be honest.
I agree that tact is necessary. But not saying anything at all leaves everyone speculating at just what, exactly, the photographer did wrong. And what the potential trap might be that they could fall into. Seeing the image and knowing the sterile description of what rule was broken, leaves too many questions unanswered as witnessed by the many threads that spawn from DQs.
Simply stating "there weren't any stars in the original image" shouldn't hurt anyone feelings and it immediately silences all further speculation.
Yes, do it tactfully... but educate us as well. Perhaps you'll save someone else from getting DQ'd down the road.
Why not just ask the photographer (after notification of DQ), if you can use original and edited to show exactly what got DQ'd?
Oh man, that would just be so awesome. (with the photographer's permission, of course) Embedding a link to the original right into the message. It would be so much more instructive.
Yes, do it tactfully... but educate us as well. Perhaps you'll save someone else from getting DQ'd down the road.
We are getting educated - these threads, while more cumbersome than an announcement under the photo itself, do help us know what's going on. If anyone's curious, they can just look in the appropriate forum section and see the "results recalculated" thread for details. Reasons for DQ might not always be specified in the first post (I don't know if they always are) but everyone talks about it and the discussion has always, to me, been informative.
Yes, yes, I know. I've been here for several years and witnessed much of it.
My point is ... threads get buried and forgotten. But when you look at the image, you see the DQ and then you wonder ... what does all that techno-gibberish really mean? (which is what spawns the many threads discussing the DQ) So all I was suggesting is a short quick sentence (as was given here in this thread), together with the stated rule, which states more specifically what was in error.
The forums and threads are great. And the fact that they are searchable helps tremendously. But you wouldn't even have to go searching if the information was stated together with the rule violation.
Maybe they could have the standard DQ statement to help SC in their search for similar DQ's later...but also (with permission from the photographer, of course) have the added extra information beneath the DQ statement...so 2 years down the track you don't have to try and search for the appropriate forum thread. Maybe they could include any link to the said forum thread so people can look there for more discussion(if any) on the said photo.
Also, maybe a 'Recalculated Challenge' thread can be added to the forum list so they are all in one area for further perusal by the members to help them know what they can and can't do...especially as wording rules can be quite a daunting and confusing affair both for SC and for members.
My point is ... threads get buried and forgotten. But when you look at the image, you see the DQ and then you wonder ... what does all that techno-gibberish really mean? (which is what spawns the many threads discussing the DQ) So all I was suggesting is a short quick sentence (as was given here in this thread), together with the stated rule, which states more specifically what was in error.
As far as having the "photographer's permission" to post the explanation, I can't imagine why this should be required. Either the transgression was accidental (didn't know it wasn't allowed, forgot what ruleset was being used, pushing the envelope, whatever) or it was deliberate (hoping nobody would catch it). If the former, why would anyone object to the details being released, since they will help fellow-members in the future? And if the latter, who cares? I got no sympathy in me for deliberate transgressors. I can see asking permission to post the unaltered original, however, if that's what we're talking about. Although, personally, I think that posting originals of all ribbon-winners ought to be REQUIRED as part of the challenge terms, because there's so much we can learn that way. But I suppose there are some folks who like to keep their PP close to their vests, so to speak...
I think it's an EXCELLENT idea to post a more detailed explanation of WHY the DQ happened, anyway; that's the bottom line. Just this single line "The stars were added" goes a long way towards answering everyone's questions.
As a side point to the benefits of sharing reasons right in the DQ notices, I'd like to point out that Structor has been around for nearly 3 years, and has won numerous ribbons (and would be on the home page twice simultaneously without this DQ), and yet still somehow thought the rules allowed him to create stars.
If that's not an indication something's up with the rules, I don't know what is.
SC, did someone ask him why he thought it was legal? Did he think the recent rule changes now allowed him to do it? Or is this a long-standing confusion that surfaced now as an essentially random thing?
SC, did someone ask him why he thought it was legal? Did he think the recent rule changes now allowed him to do it? Or is this a long-standing confusion that surfaced now as an essentially random thing?
He may have been confused by this shot, which is a recent blue ribbon:
There was a long thread not too long ago, also, where Jason was discussing what he conceived us as basically "legal" ways to "create stars" by dodging spots of noise on long exposures. That muddied the waters considerably, I think. But I don't know how much Structor reads the forums...
