There have been quite a few suggestions that voting be broken into "creativity / technical / etc." or that people be able to vote for photos to win awards for "Most Creative", "Funiest" etc.
The pros and cons of these different ideas have been debated previously, and this post is not an attempt to drag all of that up again. Instead, I'd like to suggest something similiar, but more subtle, which I hope could appease both camps.
In the user preferences, allow the user to select just one aspect of photography that they most value. Creativity, technicals, shock value, thought provokation, etc. Then, when voting is over, the results page for your photo would tell you your average vote from users who value each category, exactly how it currently tells you your average vote from users with cameras and users without cameras.
Maybe I just don''t want to be pegged into a category, but this seems limiting.
Quite honestly, I appreciate different things in different photos and thus the label would be pretty useless, I think. Technical merit may come in second to an outrageously hard to get shot -- a relatively bland shot may gain some extra points because it''s technically perfect. Shock photography may not really speak to me, but if I can catch the vision of the artist, I''m not gonna give ''em a 1.
Which leaves me nay-saying without offering an alternative -- sorry. I still kind of like the idea of "Best Of" categories.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/13/2002 6:09:54 PM.
As long as there's a "non category", that is to say, one is allowed to judge the photography overall, then I'd be happy with categories. But I'm more or less with Patella on this matter.
Originally posted by Patella: Maybe I just don''t want to be pegged into a category, but this seems limiting.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that you'd have to choose one. It would be best if it was an optional setting. And I certainly don't mean to imply that you should then vote based on which aspect you reported as most valuable to you!
Quite honestly, I appreciate different things in different photos and thus the label would be pretty useless, I think. Technical merit may come in second to an outrageously hard to get shot -- a relatively bland shot may gain some extra points because it''s technically perfect.
Just because you value one aspect of photography more than others, doesn't mean that people can't do the other things well enough to outweigh that they did the thing you prefer poorly. Or vice versa. I really don't see this as limiting.
Originally posted by Reuben: Originally posted by Patella: [i]Maybe I just don''t want to be pegged into a category, but this seems limiting.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that you'd have to choose one. It would be best if it was an optional setting. And I certainly don't mean to imply that you should then vote based on which aspect you reported as most valuable to you!
Quite honestly, I appreciate different things in different photos and thus the label would be pretty useless, I think. Technical merit may come in second to an outrageously hard to get shot -- a relatively bland shot may gain some extra points because it''s technically perfect.
Just because you value one aspect of photography more than others, doesn't mean that people can't do the other things well enough to outweigh that they did the thing you prefer poorly. Or vice versa. I really don't see this as limiting.
[/i]
But I think the point is that what you value in a picture is dependant on the picture, not on the person. At least I know it is for me, I can appreciate the technical work in something like Adams pictures, or the timing in Cartier-Bresson's work or the creativity in Dalhi's pictures, it doesn't mean I would for example value the timing in Adams work, the technical excellence of Cartier-Bresson and so on.
The picture defines what is good about it, not really the viewer.
Originally posted by Zeissman: I have a question for everyone.
How much does your current score affect your vote?
Example: If you are averaging a 4, do you think, this picture is not as good as mine, 3. This is good, but not that much better than mine, 5.
Would it be better is scores were not shown at all, just comments?
I will never, read NEVER let general consensus tell me how good or bad a photo is..ever.
Can and do I learn through study and discussion with other photgraphers something new and eye opening..most definitely.
But even if I got all 1's on a photo of mine that I thought was a 10 that would not make me vote any different on any other photo. To worry so much about a freindly competition that I would lose my perspective and reason for participating? That would invalidate every comment I have ever made concerning photographic skill and style.
If course, you have never scored lower than a five.
I know a few people that use this site, and it was something that we were discussing. I think we all try to get over it. But it definitely weighs on my mind. That is one reason I go over my votes several times. I usually end up changing a few votes every time I go over them. Comments sometimes too.
I like watching the scores rise and fall..I cannot lie. I am just as curious as the next person.
But I made a decision after my first week or two here. I would not allow good or bad scores to affect what my goal was..to learn how to use my digital camera as well as I used to use a film camera, maybe even better.
To be honest, I try things with a digital camera I never would have tried with a film camera. Film developement cost too much to waste taking 70 photos to get the hang of a new idea.
But with digital I can screw around a lot and have a heck of a lot of fun and experiment. If I started to care too much about the scores here I would get that same feeling I had shooting too much wasted film..unhappy and cautious.
My goal is too get good enough that people say "you shot that with a digicam? Cool!"
i believe this is one of the reasons that the overall average score on the site is pretty low. cautiously voting for everyone else so as to not give unfair advantage. i'm not saying anyone is doing this consciously of course :). it's just kind of a thing that sort of hangs over everything.
it would be useful to know the std deviation as well as your average. then you would know if more of your votes clustered around the average, or if you were getting a more bipolar response. "the lovers" and "the haters"
Originally posted by Zeissman: If course, you have never scored lower than a five.
I know a few people that use this site, and it was something that we were discussing. I think we all try to get over it. But it definitely weighs on my mind. That is one reason I go over my votes several times. I usually end up changing a few votes every time I go over them. Comments sometimes too.
Originally posted by Zeissman: How much does your current score affect your vote?
It doesn't. It wouldn't even make sense to let your score affect your vote. Your vote is 1 in 200, if your score affects my votes by, say, -1 on average, you've only given yourself a 0.005 bonus over the rest of the playing field.
Of course, I always said lets just see how everyone votes on every photo. ;-)
Then the photgraphers who fear being outed as sucky judges would keep them from routinely voting folks low for other, more sinister purposes >:-) Muhahahah
Then all the votes would be arbitrarily high due to excessive ass kissing ..you just can't win.
I am glad everyone here is so honorable to not let ego affect them in any way.
And unfortunately, I have never seen my score rise.
Originally posted by Reuben: Originally posted by Zeissman: [i] How much does your current score affect your vote?
It doesn''t. It wouldn''t even make sense to let your score affect your vote. Your vote is 1 in 200, if your score affects my votes by, say, -1 on average, you''ve only given yourself a 0.005 bonus over the rest of the playing field.
[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/14/2002 12:08:04 AM.
