I would like to see the titles on top of the pictures when voting. Seeing the title first and then the picture seems to make more sense to me for some reason when I vote. Sometimes the picture fits so well to the challenge that I find I dont even look at a lot of the titles. A lot of times I only read the title when I dont see the marriage of picture and challenge so it would be nice to see the title and then the picture for me.
I don't really like this idea. If the title pops up before the image, then it doesn't give the picture a chance to speak for itself.
To me, the best images are those that don't need any explanation from a title. And sometimes titles are [ab]used to shoehorn images into the challenge category (I've probably been guilty of this myself).
I'd actually like to throw in a challenge idea that we do a challenge with a specific theme, but aren't allowed to use titles...
I'd actually like to throw in a challenge idea that we do a challenge with a specific theme, but aren't allowed to use titles...
If you have a specific topic, then the title of every photo would be the topic title anyway ...
We moved the titles from above to below the photo some time ago, so that those who choose to evaluate the photo without the title can do so, while those who "like" titles can read them easily.
We moved the titles from above to below the photo some time ago, so that those who choose to evaluate the photo without the title can do so, while those who "like" titles can read them easily.
My preference is for no titles so having them at the bottom works best. It also makes it less likely for necessary scrolling of vertical images. What a pain it would be to have to scroll every vertical image in order to see it in full.
I'd rather make my own connection to the challenge topic than be led by the photographer.
You know what else? A lot of people use titles, it seems, to help shoehorn images into challenges. I haven't been around long, but I notice this sometimes when voting. A picture should stand up on it's own without a caption, IMHO.
You know what else? A lot of people use titles, it seems, to help shoehorn images into challenges. I haven't been around long, but I notice this sometimes when voting. A picture should stand up on it's own without a caption, IMHO.
That is very true. On the other hand, some titles really enhance the image.
Titles, to me, are a part of the whole package, and I do take them into account.
I like having them below the photo, though - I can look at the photo first, then check the title as a secondary consideration.
Titles are useful to anchor an image to a meaning and are useful to all forms of art. However when a photo only fits a challenge because of a laboured title I think it is marked down accordingly.
If a picture ONLY works because of a title then it's a poor photo. If the title enhances an otherwise good image then that's good for me.
Personally I'd prefer NO titles. Might be worth an experimental challenge with a specific topic but all titles hidden until the end of voting?
Titles are useful to anchor an image to a meaning and are useful to all forms of art. However when a photo only fits a challenge because of a laboured title I think it is marked down accordingly.
If a picture ONLY works because of a title then it's a poor photo. If the title enhances an otherwise good image then that's good for me.
Personally I'd prefer NO titles. Might be worth an experimental challenge with a specific topic but all titles hidden until the end of voting?
The point is valid but the gripe that keeps recurring is that voters do not take the time to look at the images in the first place. If anything it would be interesting to include, with each submission, a brief description as to greater the likelihood of engaging with the photo. This would mean that we'd have to do a lot of additional reading but it would be an interesting experiment in the least. All of these issues simply stem from "image overload" and the emphasis on "quantity" viewing versus "quality" viewing. When is the last time somebody boasted that they engaged and commented meaningfully on twenty images in a challenge? Usually there is praise given to those who vote and comment on 470 photos. They are considered heroic. Really??
The point is valid but the gripe that keeps recurring is that voters do not take the time to look at the images in the first place. If anything it would be interesting to include, with each submission, a brief description as to greater the likelihood of engaging with the photo. This would mean that we'd have to do a lot of additional reading but it would be an interesting experiment in the least.
Do you think people would really take the time to read all the descriptions before voting? My bet is that the only ones who would are the ones who take the time to look at the image properly in the first place. Others would just glance at the picture, vote and move on.
The point is valid but the gripe that keeps recurring is that voters do not take the time to look at the images in the first place. If anything it would be interesting to include, with each submission, a brief description as to greater the likelihood of engaging with the photo. This would mean that we'd have to do a lot of additional reading but it would be an interesting experiment in the least.
Do you think people would really take the time to read all the descriptions before voting? My bet is that the only ones who would are the ones who take the time to look at the image properly in the first place. Others would just glance at the picture, vote and move on.
... and there'd be a lot more shoehorning due to much more space to explain an image. The image shouldn't need an accompanying explanation. JMO
Do you think people would really take the time to read all the descriptions before voting? My bet is that the only ones who would are the ones who take the time to look at the image properly in the first place. Others would just glance at the picture, vote and move on.
I guess some would and some would not. I look whether I like the shot at all and then look at the title. Mostly because I'm subconsciously obligated to get through and vote them all. When that is done, I'll comment on the top shots spending more time as I feel those shots earned my extra attention.
In my eyes, the title is important but the image is the lead. In this venue, one needs the other and would suffer without.
There has to be a sincere effort here to try to remedy that disconnect. It cannot simply be resolved by each member's heightened commitment to go that extra step without enhancing the functionality of the site to address this as well.
I have yet to see anyone offer a rational, cogent, objective explanation of the difference between a "shoehorned image" and a "creative interpretation" of the topic. I get really tired of the intimation that just because a commenter didn't think of some particular way of photographically expressing the topic, that all other interpretations are somehow illegitimate or "wrong."
Originally posted by The Voting Rules::
You Should: keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
I have yet to see anyone offer a rational, cogent, objective explanation of the difference between a "shoehorned image" and a "creative interpretation" of the topic. I get really tired of the intimation that just because a commenter didn't think of some particular way of photographically expressing the topic, that all other interpretations are somehow illegitimate or "wrong."
Originally posted by The Voting Rules::
You Should: keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
That's all well and good, just don't use the title to explain the image. This is what I refer to as shoehorning. If we open it up to allow an image description as well as a title then we open the door for campaigning for votes.
How about we run a challenge where the titles are hidden during voting.
That's all well and good, just don't use the title to explain the image.
What exactly does that mean? If by "explaining the image" you mean that the title helps you to see a relationship between the topic and the image that your didn't see before, well, wasn't that relationship there all along, but only that you failed to see it? I don't see what's wrong with "Oh, now I get it" ...
I have yet to see anyone offer a rational, cogent, objective explanation of the difference between a "shoehorned image" and a "creative interpretation" of the topic. I get really tired of the intimation that just because a commenter didn't think of some particular way of photographically expressing the topic, that all other interpretations are somehow illegitimate or "wrong."
Really... I'd always thought it was pretty simple. A shoehorn is an "creative interpretation" that is too far off the challenge topic to qualify as meeting the challenge. Of course this all part of each voters opinion, just like everything else having to do with challenges.
I have yet to see anyone offer a rational, cogent, objective explanation of the difference between a "shoehorned image" and a "creative interpretation" of the topic. I get really tired of the intimation that just because a commenter didn't think of some particular way of photographically expressing the topic, that all other interpretations are somehow illegitimate or "wrong."
Originally posted by The Voting Rules::
You Should: keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic.
Well, that's intimating that it's up to the commenter to connect to the photographer's intent, when it's really the photographer that has the onus to connect to the commenter.
If we're supposed to just take every interpretation at face value that it somehow connects to the challenge topic given, simply because the photographer entered it in that challenge, then how does it become different than a Free Study? It doesn't.
Be as out of the box crazy as you wish to be, but don't expect people to fall all over themselves understanding you, or pretending that you're some unsung genius because you've interpreted a tear drop on a deck of cards to mean "Reign of Kings".
Hmm, actually, that's a great idea.
Can we have a challenge called "Reign of Kings" now?
I have yet to see anyone offer a rational, cogent, objective explanation of the difference between a "shoehorned image" and a "creative interpretation" of the topic. I get really tired of the intimation that just because a commenter didn't think of some particular way of photographically expressing the topic, that all other interpretations are somehow illegitimate or "wrong."
Not wishing to appear critical, but this might explain how I feel about titles.
I consider the title 'How can they walk away without paying for my music?' for makes it a shoehorn. Without the title describing the image and what has happened, this image would make no sense to me.
