As well as the technological side of the Challenges system - which my colleague Jaysen has blogged about elsewhere - the beta development phase is giving us a useful insight into the way users are likely to behave and what their expectations are.
Although our programmers look slightly pale every time it's mentioned, in the end, we want the Challenges system to be all things for all people. That means providing, at the very least, a level of functionality that allows the existing challenges that have sprung up on the forums to migrate across to a new home. But we also want it to be a system that encourages new challenges, beyond what has previously been possible, to evolve. And that means it should encourage different types of behaviour. For instance, the first few challenges put no limitations on when the photos were taken, allowing people to rummage around in their back-catalogues and databases to find their best images that fit the theme. And some very impressive images were submitted, right from day-one.
However, the challenges shouldn't only be about providing another pat-on-the-back for confident, experienced photographers. Additionally we wanted challenges that encouraged people to try something new or, at least, have to start with a blank memory card. With this in mind, the option was created that only allowed entries that had been taken within the timeframe of the challenge itself, that way, there's some encouragement to go out and take some pictures. But it required a degree of trust.
Setting some hurdles
When the first time-limited challenge opened, there was nothing at all to prevent people entering images taken before the challenge started. We depended entirely on people's honesty and that people would read the rules. This didn't prove to be the case: a large number of images were submitted to the panning challenge that had been taken before the challenge started. This prompted two modifications - a cross-check of the date-taken field of the files EXIF metadata, and decision to display the rules more prominently when images were being submitted. This limited the likelihood that people were unaware of the rule and warned them if they tried to breach it.
Of course, it's a trivial matter to remove EXIF data from an image and, sure enough, some entrants chose to do just that. There was, however, a significant drop in the number of people submitting ineligible images (and my faith in the innate goodness of people assures me that this means lots of people just hadn't noticed the rules, not that they can't be bothered to remove the metadata).
Which leads us to ponder what should be done with the people who continue to try to work around the rules. As I say, ideally we'd like to have challenges that encourage people to take new photographs, rather than always rewarding the photographers with the most varied portfolio, so there is some need to prevent people trying to game the system. This could include adding an additional hurdle, such as challenges demanding EXIF remain intact on all entered images, but that doesn't rule out the really persistent participant (And it'd be really sad if the winners of these 'get-out-there-and-shoot' challenges were the ones with a varied portfolio and some computing nous).
The carrot and the stick
So, if it's virtually impossible to impose technological hurdles that exclude all ineligible images, what else can and should we do to discourage people from circumventing the rules? Perhaps, then, we should look to the human side of the equation. Since these challenges offer the chance to bathe in the adulation of your peers (all the more so if challenge wins are displayed in users profiles), then perhaps the ultimate deterrent would be the risk of being shown-up in front of those same peers. And I'm not necessarily suggesting that people should be permanently tainted with a mark saying they've cheated, but perhaps the risk of their previous wins being nullified would work (if strong evidence of disingenuous behaviour came to light). There are enough other users - and other competitors - that would recognise an image previously posted in the forums, or previous challenges. Enough scrutiny that a long-passed sporting event would be recognized, for instance.
Such a system, if users felt it was needed, would utilise the three elements used to discourage disruptive behaviour in the wider world: a hurdle to discourage malfeasance, the threat of some kind of punishment and, perhaps most importantly, a reasonable likelihood of being caught.
Public opinion: a great leveller
Of course, it may not be necessary. The nice thing that the beta has shown is that voting, as well as celebrating the many superb images that have been submitted, has proved pretty adept at ignoring or marking-down images that don't fit with the criteria of a challenge. The panning challenge had some submissions that, though not contravening any rules, weren't quite what I had in mind when I set it up. I didn't feel it was my place to disqualify these images, just because they didn't fit with what I was trying to achieve, but it's heartening to see that the voting public can reach consensus on the matter.
 |
Rolling fun by Mariuss, winner of the Panning challenge |
However, much more than any of these concerns and philosophical questions, the thing that has shone through from the Challenges beta so far is the talent and enthusiasm that it has revealed. All the challenges, regardless of how proscriptive and restrictive they've been, have attracted some excellent entries and plenty of votes to help make sure the best images have done well. So let me congratulate all our winners so far and in particular Mariuss, the winner of my panning challenge. And, from a purely personal perspective, I'd like to thank all the voters who helped make sure that the winning shot was one with a bicycle in it.
Maybe you could add a required input field with the location the photo was taken.
When a location and date are known, it is much easier to find a cheater (weather, sun position, traffic not correct).
Posted by: Sander Nijdam | 21 Jan 2009 14:17:58
How about baring users from participating? 5 challenges at first offense, 10 at second, etc... ?
Posted by: JClaude | 21 Jan 2009 15:04:19
Both interesting ideas.
Sander, I'd worry that requiring the location would create extra work and deter some of the honest shooters (who make up the vast majority of participants).
JClaude, not a bad idea. I think that, once the system is in full swing, there will be so many challenges that it'd make more sense to base the suspension on time, rather than a number of challenges, but it's an interesting suggestion.
Would the risk of not being able to take part in a challenge that interested you be enough of a deterrent, though? Would people be willing to take that risk of having to sit-out a few challenges if it gave them a better chance of winning a challenge?
Posted by: Richard Butler | 21 Jan 2009 15:29:23
I don't know how big an issue it is, or if it's just a canon tool problem in my particular workflow, however, my canon utilities find very little exif data after lightroom has processed an image.
Posted by: Chris Hays | 21 Jan 2009 17:26:52
That is a fair point, Chris. Even making some challenges 'EXIF-intact only' might rule out some processing methods. So we need to think about whether the the inconvenience to people excluded by such a restriction is greater than the inconvenience to everyone if someone wins with an ineligible image.
(In this case, I think there's a 'minimise metadata' option in Lightroom's Export window, which might explain why you're finding it's being stripped-out. It's been a while since I used LR, though)
Posted by: Richard Butler | 21 Jan 2009 17:44:14
Richard,
I think it would be a deterrent to a certain point, time banning would be even better, but, make it banning from participating and voting (1 and 2 bellow would help enforce that). There are few other rules you should consider:
1- Only after x time of membership you can participate in a challenge
2- Only after x amount of membership time and x numbers of posts in the forums could someone vote.
3- Some websites use a kind of "warning" levels next to the user name, could be an idea.
4- Create some non time restricted challenges to please everyone ?
1 and 2 should be a must, to weed out "fake" accounts.
Last suggestions (the most important I think), do not create too many challenges, be very careful with the number of challenges. If there are too many it will mean nothing participating/winning one, people will get so overwhelmed they will not bother participating/voting
Posted by: JClaude | 21 Jan 2009 20:53:06
'EXIF-intact only' limitation is a bad idea. It can't be properly realized (makernote specifications are not available...), it is very annoying limitation for an ordinary photographer and it is an easy thing to get over when you're a geek. A date is recorded in ASCII format so you need just a simple hex editor to modify the date. And there are photo managers that can backup and restore whole exif block in jpeg images - that means that you can edit the image and EXIF block won't be touched.
There's no way how can you stop those people from cheating. But I assume that their photographs won't be the ones that would belong among the best anyway.
Posted by: VojtechT | 21 Jan 2009 21:38:57
JClaude - There will always be non time-limited challenges (they're likely to always outnumber the time-limited ones). I'm merely speculating about what steps are needed to allow both types to exist.
VojtechT - As I say in my post, EXIF-intact (as an option for the challenge host), would not create an insurmountable barrier. I'd be interested to know how many people would be inconvenienced by such a limitation.
That's why I suggest a system of punishment to deter those people who are tempted to game the system.
Ultimately, if you have a competition where most people are having to rely on their luck and skill to get a good shot, but some people can simply enter the best shot they've ever taken, then it creates an uneven playing field.
Surely it's worth doing something to prevent that inequality?
Posted by: Richard Butler | 21 Jan 2009 22:02:54
Public opinion may be the great leveler, but it's a pain in the neck for the public to opinionate if you guys don't do some screening. Expecting us to choose from amongst 900 entries is ridiculous. You should winnow down the field to make voting a truly meaningful task. Tossing hundreds at us to have to peruse is lazy and insulting.
Posted by: Jack Rice | 21 Jan 2009 22:37:40
It's certainly not meant as either of those things. However, it is a beta, so occasionally we have to try things like putting no limit on challenges, to see how big they grow and what problems occur if they do.
I'm afraid I can only comment on my own (rather small) challenge, but your feedback is interesting, useful and noted.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 21 Jan 2009 23:17:33
Richard,
You will never be able to prevent inequality, it is impossible, the simple fact that there are amateurs and pros alike entering those contest makes it impossible.
But enforcing the rules as you mention is a must.
Posted by: JClaude | 21 Jan 2009 23:18:38
"
Which leads us to ponder what should be done with the people who continue to try to work around the rules. ...So, if it's virtually impossible to impose technological hurdles that exclude all ineligible images, what else can and should we do to discourage people from circumventing the rules? "
Stop making stupid rules. It's that simple. Look, you've created a format which favors experienced photographers with good technique and technical skills. Deal with it.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 22 Jan 2009 01:23:06
"Would the risk of not being able to take part in a challenge that interested you be enough of a deterrent, though?"
Think about it, what's more interesting to anyone who is seriously concerned with winning one of these challenges, winning one at the risk of being banned from many, or coming in 5th place or lower in most of them but not winning any of them?
Posted by: touristguy87 | 22 Jan 2009 01:28:01
"VojtechT - As I say in my post, EXIF-intact (as an option for the challenge host), would not create an insurmountable barrier. I'd be interested to know how many people would be inconvenienced by such a limitation."
The use of a simple tool like exiftool will let you put any set of exif data on any image. You can modify it any way that you wish. How are you going to determine that it is legitimate? I'd forget entirely about this approach. Besides innumerable PP programs will alter the exif info just by resaving the file.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 22 Jan 2009 01:30:53
...the rules should only exist to define the challenges in the general sense. Any and every system is susceptible to gaming. Putting too much emphasis on the rules makes the challenge more of an interpretation of what the challenge author wants to see, and not what the general public wants to see as the winning entry for that challenge. I would just forget about banning shots based on exif data and worry about banning them based on image content. That's enough trouble when you have hundreds, thousands of shots that are under consideration in each challenge :)
To me the big problem with this idea is that the challenges are simply swamped with entries and it's extremely difficult to rank them in any rating more than 1-5, and even that is going to depend on what's been seen before. That scale can move up or down as the viewer goes through the images. So, maybe one thing to do would be to let the user set up a list of the images that are good vs not good then allow them to go back and rank the ones that they considered to be good, on a scale from 1-3, add 2 to those and get on with it. But they have to have more than one chance to rate the images to truly get a feel for their overall ranking. You still have to sort the cream of the cream from the cream, so to speak.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 22 Jan 2009 01:37:27
This might sound cruel, but the simplest method is the best. Just disqualify any entry that was taken outside the challenge time window.
Disqualify any entry that is unverifable. For whatever reason. If people are really motivated to enter and win contests, they will find a way to preserve their EXIF data. You will probably see threads offering advice on this in the Open Talk forum if you impose this rule.
Posted by: Marty4650 | 22 Jan 2009 04:27:53
Guys. Who cares? I think it's dumb that your challenges require it be shot during the challenge. Who thought of that rule, anyway? For example, your "A Cold Feeling" challenge -- Portland, OR, had the biggest winter storm in *40 years* about a month ago. I got some awesome pix during that. Then it all melted. I felt crappy that I could not enter that challenge. They were recent enough photos! How about just requiring people to have taken the photos in the last six months, or the last year? Isn't the point of the challenge to show off your current skill level and gear anyway?
-=DG=-
Posted by: darkgoob | 22 Jan 2009 07:06:29
PS -- people can fake EXIF data anyway. Got a file editor? It's easy.
Posted by: darkgoob | 22 Jan 2009 07:07:35
Two points, that seem to be missed in what I originally wrote:
I know that EXIF is easily edited, that's why the post doesn't stop there and goes on to ask what else could be done to deter people from just hacking it.
Secondly, for the reasons laid out in my original post, I think it would be valuable to have BOTH TYPES of challenges. There will always be plenty of challenges that favour the photographer with an extensive back-catalogue of images. And they'll produce some great results.
But is it really so terrible to want to be able to have SOME challenges that encourage people to go out and shoot, even if it means the photographers of Oregon miss out on a challenge every now and again?
Posted by: Richard Butler | 22 Jan 2009 09:17:10
"But is it really so terrible to want to be able to have SOME challenges that encourage people to go out and shoot"
No, it isn't. I like that idea a lot.
Posted by: VojtechT | 22 Jan 2009 11:06:09
Why is DPreview so heavy into this 'blogging-thing' versus just posting in the forums? The "Challenges Area" is about patting photographers on the back! What else is it, Richard?!
Posted by: Wayne B | 23 Jan 2009 02:18:08
i suggest forgetting any date restrictions. Do you really think you have to encourage the folks who hang out here to get out and take pictures?
Posted by: Jay Roberts | 23 Jan 2009 03:57:41
Richard, I think you should try to enforce any rules that are a part of a challenge. Even though exif data can be modified, it should still be required, and so should a date, time, and location, which should be posted alongside the photo.
Some people will cheat no matter what, but some of the punishment examples put forth might deter some people from cheating.
The more serious the "punishment" the more likely people will not try to circumvent the rules, and especially if the punishment leads to them being publicly embarrassed and banned from judging or entering any challenges for a substantial amount of time.
As you have stated, having some challenges with liberal rules would also be a good idea.
It's a shame that this even has to be discussed. It sure would be nice if people were more interested in being honest than in trying to win something at any cost.
The only thing to win is a little pride, and there's no pride in winning by cheating, at least when a person has a conscience.
Posted by: natureman | 23 Jan 2009 09:54:42
I want to add that some consideration should be given to people who simply enter photos that are not quite representative of what the challenge is about.
In other words, there's a difference between people who are inexperienced or mistaken in choosing their entry photos, and those who are just plain cheating blatantly.
Maybe some thought could go into determining a way to choose between the slightly mistakenly entered photos and the blatant cheaters.
Also, maybe just a warning could be given for first time wrongful entries, unless it's obvious that the person is clearly cheating.
I still encourage the idea of no photographers names until the voting is concluded. That, in itself, would get people to vote on the photo, not who the photographer is or isn't.
That may not affect cheating but it still seems to be a more fair way of voting.
One more thing: The sooner any inappropriate photos are removed from a challenge, the better. That might send a message to the people who either deliberately cheat or enter a photo that doesn't fit the challenge, and it would keep some slots open so that other people can enter.
Posted by: natureman | 23 Jan 2009 10:12:44
I don't think I'd classify people who enter images that don't fit a challenge theme (as distinct from rules), as cheating. In general, the voting does tend to ignore the speculative and irrelevant images.
And yes, I do think that there's still a risk that not everyone is seeing the full rules, so may be unaware that their images are ineligible. We wouldn't impose any kind of 'punishment' unless it was essentially impossible to break the rules accidentally.
And hiding identities until after voting is complete is under consideration, lest we disadvantage people with unpopular points-of-view on the forums.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 23 Jan 2009 11:12:04
With regard to the 'taken during the challenge' time restrictions: I like the motivation - to get people out shooting - but as mentioned above it's way too easy to cheat if you want to.
And there is quite a strong motivation to cheat if you have, for example, a great self portrait that you took a couple of months ago amd a time-limited self portrait challenge comes up. You'd really want to enter it and thus feel tempted to cheat.
Could you get the best of both worlds by simply having a box to tick called "Taken for this challenge?". Then perhaps the judging could be split into two areas - 'best shot from the archives' and 'best shot for the challenge'. Obviously it would still be very easy to cheat - but I think it would remove a lot of the temptation to cheat in this area.
Posted by: Tom A | 23 Jan 2009 11:57:37
Oh, that's an interesting idea - the ability to make every challenge a two-tier affair.
As you say, though, it'd still be easy to cheat, so there'd probably still have to be the threat of expulsion there. But I like the idea.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 23 Jan 2009 12:13:38
It is my opinion that it’s more important that the criteria of the theme be met.
As to the date issue:
I look at it this way. If you have an old photo that “ YOU” took that meets the theme requirements, then since you took it, It shouldn't matter if you took it today or 10 years ago.
You should only be able to use a photo once.
If you are a good photographer you will be out shooting whether this site puts up a contest or not.
If the "theme" not the date encourages you to go out and shoot for it, then that’s good, but shouldn't be a requirement.
Just my 2 cents
g
Posted by: George Gallant | 23 Jan 2009 18:19:12
It is my opinion that it’s more important that the criteria of the theme be met.
As to the date issue, I look at it this way.
If you have an old photo that “ YOU” took that meets the theme requirements, then since you took it, It shouldn't matter if you took it today or 10 years ago.
You should only be able to use a photo once.
If you are a good photographer you will be out shooting whether this site puts up a contest or not.
If the "theme" not the date, encourages you to go out and shoot for it, then that’s good, but shouldn't be a requirement.
Posted by: George Gallant | 23 Jan 2009 18:25:54
I see someone already beat me to it, but my suggestion is also to allow both old and new to participate but just make people specify which it is. You could even take this a step further and offer several categories in each competition (during the challenge/from the archives, p&s/dslr, etc.) and then have winners and rankings for each category. I think the temptation to cheat will be greatly removed if people have a legitimate way to share what they wish to share. I would also argue that if someone has a great photo I appreciate the opportunity to view it regardless of what category it may fall into.
Posted by: Fred Lockwood | 24 Jan 2009 17:25:52
It can be a subjective opinion whether a photo fits the theme of a challenge.
I had a submission to "Fruit Shoot" disqualified on the grounds that the shot did not sufficiently "elevate" the fruit from a snack to the centerpiece of a photograph, though (at the least) the fruit in question occupied the center of the photograph.
Posted by: Bob Yanal | 25 Jan 2009 15:14:05
If you you want to issue challenges that will encourage people to go out and take a shot and not dig one out of their shoebox, you should think carefully about the subject:
1) The subject should be such that most people simply do not have a ready made shot.
2) The subject should be readily available.
Ex: Take a panned shot of a cyclist wearing wellington boots.
Supid? Yes. But most people could find somebody prepared to ride a bike in wellies for them, and trying to make an interesting shot out of it is a challenge.
Posted by: roger | 25 Jan 2009 16:14:01
Bob - Yes, I agree, and from my blog you'll see that I chose to let the voting decide when it came to the subjective side of the rules. Not all of us are taking that approach but that's often because we're learning too. Please don't take the rejection of your photo too personally.
Roger - that would be one way of doing things. But you wouldn't get me to wear wellies on a bike, so it might end up being too restrictive.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 26 Jan 2009 14:56:03
I'm all for having both 'shot for the occasion' challenges and 'find in your collection' challenges. Nothing will stop those who really want to cheat, but having a place where they can enter their beautiful image might make them think twice. Also, aren't there experimental search engines for images that can search on basis of content? I think I heard about those. 'Look for images that look like this one' . If someone has an image taken long ago that they think is good enough to win, it is likely they put it on the web before.
Posted by: ak | 27 Jan 2009 10:47:09
It's a powerful rule to submit image taken in a restricted data range, but must be used carefully. For a skyscape challenge is very limiting since interesting sky could be rare, I had a few, but during the challenge was always a gray flat rainy sky in my town!
This rule is more interesting for challenges like "something out of nothing" since you can always shot a competitive picture of the subjects.
What about complain... why not use a starring system to rate how much a photo DOESN'T fit the challenge. For example, If I think Bob Yanal fruit shot doesn't fit the challenge, i can rate this with some complain star. If other user feels the same, his pik will collect some complain rating, after a treshold the background of the foto cold switch to orange to alert voting user that there's something wrong about the photo. Also a commenting system could highligth wat's wrong in the pic.
Last thing, make the shuffle button a drop down menu, with a "sort by my rating" otions, this should allow for a better evaluating of submitted rating!
Posted by: Roberto Patrizi | 27 Jan 2009 22:57:19
Thanks, Roberto. There are some good ideas there, some of which were already being worked on - others of which we'll give some thought to.
I agree that whether a challenge works will depend on the setter making sure a good number of people can enter - that's something we need to be careful of.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 28 Jan 2009 08:45:24
I think date restrictions are an essential part of the competition. As you say the alternative is photographers delving into their portfolios which defeats the point entirely! I totally disagree with DG.
Get out and shoot! Bar the cheaters, disqualify any entry taken outside the time window, require EXIF files, and have a look at the pic to see that it looks plausible. Summer shots of Northern Europe in a January competition etc is an obvious give away. If people are determined to cheat they will, but most won't and the cheats may well be outed later as in "I saw you post that pic a year ago at ...". Retrospective justice could then be applied! Name and shame. Whatever else you do - be firm! If everyone knows the rules then 99 pct will back you.
Posted by: Simon65 | 28 Jan 2009 22:21:09
Keep it simple. After all, there are no prizes like some offer in theirs at DPreview.
Perhaps put a limit on the file size per 'entry' so the planet can see without a highspeed connection?
Posted by: Wayne Birch | 28 Jan 2009 23:40:14
just a thought from a newb. but how about an annual "hall of fame" type challenge for different contests that were held for those old pro's to run those outdated pics against the winners of the original, kinda give everyone a reason to save their old favorites and best work for last? after all, they just want to be heard as well.... why not work with them instead of against them?
Posted by: michael | 29 Jan 2009 06:32:59
Concerning challenge rules:
Perhaps those "few" challenges that require shooting within a specific time frame (past week; past month) should be created to avoid time sensitive subjects such as "A Cold Feeling" mentioned above.
A narrow shooting time could reduce the possibilities for those in another climate zone, or, like the gentleman from Oregon, prohibit the inclusion of his photos of a major cold event just days before the time frame.
The idea is good, to force us to produce an image within the challenge period. I just think some consideration could be put into selecting subjects that would not limit a sizeable portion of your audience.
Posted by: AMAllan | 2 Feb 2009 21:15:57
An interesting debate that has implications for rules of evidence in court. I have two suggestions. One is to ask for two photos - one with a newspaper in it, date clearly evident, and the other the 'real' entry.
My second suggestion is that camera manufacturers should include an encripted version of the date and time in their firmware that is updated in-camera every day as part of the exif information. Then, all valid entries MUST contain this encription - and similarly for all forensic work.
Posted by: Peter Jones | 3 Feb 2009 05:54:01
michael - I like the idea of a 'best-of' challenge, I hope that most people will see time-restricted challenges in the way they're intended - challenges to encourage photography, rather than a crusade against experienced photographers.
AMAllan - A fair point. Consideration has to be made to challenge themes to ensure that a reasonable number of people are able to enter and as few people as possible feel excluded. It's important to ensure this doesn't result in challenges becoming too homogenous, but it's a fair point.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 4 Feb 2009 14:06:06
What about creating a category for the amateur and one for the professional when it comes to challenges? To enter one's image in the "professional" category and win would be a bigger recognition by nature than entering and winning the amateur division. The risk of entering the "pro" division however carries with it the competition against photographers who will by nature have bigger collections to choose from. I think that allowing the user to self-identify which division to submit in might solve some of the problems. If the concern is cheating... well, why cheat just to win the "amateur" division... and if you want to cheat to win the pro division, well you are obviously going to have some pretty stiff competition. I think some people are going to cheat no matter what you do, but maybe something like this could help...
Posted by: JR1 | 5 Feb 2009 23:24:05
I am more concerned about more obvious problems of photos that don't match the rule description.
Take the another point of view challenge... the rules state:
"This challenge is about pictures of buildings and places that people know, captured in an way they're not used to. Make the familiar and famous look unusual, expected and exciting. "
How is a bird feeding upside down valid.
One leaving footprints in sand valid.
And those are just on the first page.... there are many more that miss the mark of that description IMO.
I would say the invalid one's are quite a high percentage in this limited challenge of 250 entries.
The complain link failed on those two pictures when I tried it.
Posted by: ready123 | 6 Feb 2009 04:49:53
richard, this may be a bit off-topic, but are you "the" richard butler, lead singer for the psychedelic furs? One of my favorite 80's bands....
Posted by: funnelwebmaster | 6 Feb 2009 07:30:15
Well the idea that voters woud weed out images that didn't fit the challenge criteria hasn't worked (IMO).
Most of the recently completed challenges have had images that were clearly well outside the guidelines placed throughout the results and in many cases images that should have been removed have come out with a higher score than others that were fully compliant.
"People & Balls", which was supposed to be about sports is full of inappropiate images (the worst being the bull's testiicles) and was even won by one, and "Candlelight Portrait" has a huge number of images with no person in them.
This needs addressing as allowing the voters to decide clearly doesn't work - they seem no more likely to read the rules than the entrants.
Posted by: noisynoodle | 6 Feb 2009 08:15:18
I have a recurring problem with challenges: some of the images are excellent (and deserve a high score), but don’t fit in the parameters of the challenge, so don’t get a rating. At the risk of your developers paling into invisibility, would it be possible to add a variable along the lines of “off-subject but highly regarded”?
Posted by: Stefanathens | 6 Feb 2009 12:01:03
Funnelwebmaster - I'm afraid to report that I'm not that Richard Butler (the 'About Us' section of the site would be a lot more colourful if I had been).
And to all who have raised the problem of off-topic photos. I agree that some people do appear to have got no further than the title, when deciding which images to post. I've tried to have a bit of a sort-out of the 'Another point of view' challenge (which hasn't pleased some of the people whose, often very good photos, I had to disqualify).
It certainly appears that our challenge hosts, when the system begins to emerge from beta, will have their work cut out for them.
We may also trial a 'Does not qualify' option when voting. That'd be a matter for our programming core, though.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 6 Feb 2009 12:27:05
I got a lot of information from this blog.
Posted by: chirs | 9 Feb 2009 08:52:43
I am against users deciding at the time of voting as that means that invalid entries may shut out valid entries when the quota has been reached.
I think the host must do this and should do it in a timely manner... daily basis as entries come in. With that in mind why not come up with a programming system such as the photo remaining with an X through it to guide others of examples of invalidity and removing it from the count of photos submitted.
I was unable to get into a different point of view as it filled up and I still see several that do not meet the criteria of famous places or things taken from a different perspective. How famous is a bird at a feeder??
Also why is the complain feature not working from the outset??
Posted by: ready123 | 10 Feb 2009 13:33:17