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.