This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I don't think this is a 1, consequently I shall move it to a non voting category, but would you tell me why you did?
In reply to Al Evans: Not me.......... but after the last thread it wouldn't surprise me if it was simply to poke you with a stick.
In reply to Al Evans:
I agree with you Al, it's not a one, but surely it belongs in 'Historical' or 'People'. And no, not me.
I agree with you Al, it's not a one, but surely it belongs in 'Historical' or 'People'. And no, not me.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Exactly!
> (In reply to Al Evans) Not me.......... but after the last thread it wouldn't surprise me if it was simply to poke you with a stick.
Exactly!
In reply to Al Evans: And thats the whole problem with anonymous voting!
Dry your eyes ya big baby. You would think you were my young nephew rather than a grizzled veteran. Grow a pair of balls.
In reply to Al Evans:
Jealousy because you've actually been to Lancashire an witnessed this kind of grindng poverty these poor Lancastrians live in?
Jealousy because you've actually been to Lancashire an witnessed this kind of grindng poverty these poor Lancastrians live in?
In reply to Al Evans: No idea, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
In reply to Al Evans:
It could just be that voting is a person's opinion and doesn't directly affect the merit of your picture. You seem to take it really personally as if the vote has robbed you of something. It doesn't become a better or worse photo, it doesn't change anything, it's simply someone's perception. Let it go ... and probably just someone trolling you :P
Quite an interesting photo though.
It could just be that voting is a person's opinion and doesn't directly affect the merit of your picture. You seem to take it really personally as if the vote has robbed you of something. It doesn't become a better or worse photo, it doesn't change anything, it's simply someone's perception. Let it go ... and probably just someone trolling you :P
Quite an interesting photo though.
In reply to Al Evans: I don't like sheep.
In reply to Al Evans: Cool photo! I like the composition. I suspect it's just to wind you up, and it's worked.
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to Al Evans) Cool photo! I like the composition. I suspect it's just to wind you up,
Another reason there shouldn't be voting on pictures, it can be used as something as childish as to wind someone up! In reply to Al Evans: I quite like it Al. Very atmospheric and seems to be telling a bit of a story if you know what i mean
In reply to Al Evans:
What difference would it make if you knew who it was? Would you tit for tat vote 1 on all their photos? Send them threatening emails? Ask for them to be banned? Or just nurse a burning animosity towards them forever...?
I don't see how it would make any difference knowing who voted what
Why does it clearly upset you so much al? It's just people being people, and it happens to everyone.
(And it wasn't me, I think its a 3 or 4)
Cheers
Gregor
> (In reply to Al Evans) And thats the whole problem with anonymous voting!
What difference would it make if you knew who it was? Would you tit for tat vote 1 on all their photos? Send them threatening emails? Ask for them to be banned? Or just nurse a burning animosity towards them forever...?
I don't see how it would make any difference knowing who voted what
Why does it clearly upset you so much al? It's just people being people, and it happens to everyone.
(And it wasn't me, I think its a 3 or 4)
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to Al Evans:
I don't like the photograph and I don't think it's very good. I didn't vote on it.
I don't like the photograph and I don't think it's very good. I didn't vote on it.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Another request for a 'like' button.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> Jealousy because you've actually been to Lancashire an witnessed this kind of grindng poverty these poor Lancastrians live in?
>
> Jealousy because you've actually been to Lancashire an witnessed this kind of grindng poverty these poor Lancastrians live in?
Another request for a 'like' button.
In reply to Al Evans:
That most certainly is not a 1, Al. I'd probably give it as much as 4, actually, because of its unusual aesthetic qualities (with almost the feel and look of an Edwardian painting, plus a nice composition), and the fact that it has a sense of time/history. The only problems with it are, frankly, technical - and that's totally irrelevant here. A bit like marking down Leonardo's Last Supper because the fresco hasn't aged well. Many people these days have an extremely narrow range of criteria when it comes to judging anything. Probably as a result of various deep prejudices.
That most certainly is not a 1, Al. I'd probably give it as much as 4, actually, because of its unusual aesthetic qualities (with almost the feel and look of an Edwardian painting, plus a nice composition), and the fact that it has a sense of time/history. The only problems with it are, frankly, technical - and that's totally irrelevant here. A bit like marking down Leonardo's Last Supper because the fresco hasn't aged well. Many people these days have an extremely narrow range of criteria when it comes to judging anything. Probably as a result of various deep prejudices.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Oh the irony!
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> . Many people these days have an extremely narrow range of criteria when it comes to judging anything. Probably as a result of various deep prejudices.
>
> . Many people these days have an extremely narrow range of criteria when it comes to judging anything. Probably as a result of various deep prejudices.
Oh the irony!
In reply to Al Evans: It is up to you though whether you let it wind you up. You clearly feel confident that the judgement is invalid so ignore it. I don't tend to vote of photos and didn't in this instance but if you don't want people to vote on your photo's put them in a section where people cannot vote. Rather than a blanket removal of voting for all.
In reply to estivoautumnal:
+1
There's no mountain or climbing context, irrespective of where it (actually) is. The photo doesn't show that, sorry. I'd have probably given it a 2.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> I don't like the photograph and I don't think it's very good. I didn't vote on it.
>
> I don't like the photograph and I don't think it's very good. I didn't vote on it.
+1
There's no mountain or climbing context, irrespective of where it (actually) is. The photo doesn't show that, sorry. I'd have probably given it a 2.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Of course not, I just think constructive criticism is better than mindless votes.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> What difference would it make if you knew who it was? Would you tit for tat vote 1 on all their photos? Send them threatening emails? Ask for them to be banned? Or just nurse a burning animosity towards them forever...?
> [...]
>
> What difference would it make if you knew who it was? Would you tit for tat vote 1 on all their photos? Send them threatening emails? Ask for them to be banned? Or just nurse a burning animosity towards them forever...?
Of course not, I just think constructive criticism is better than mindless votes.
In reply to Fraser:
THats just not true, it's on a standard trecking route in the Langtang, that is like saying a move on a boulder problem picture has no climbing context!
> (In reply to estivoautumnal)
> [...]
>
> +1
>
> There's no mountain or climbing context, irrespective of where it (actually) is. The photo doesn't show that, sorry. I'd have probably given it a 2.
> [...]
>
> +1
>
> There's no mountain or climbing context, irrespective of where it (actually) is. The photo doesn't show that, sorry. I'd have probably given it a 2.
THats just not true, it's on a standard trecking route in the Langtang, that is like saying a move on a boulder problem picture has no climbing context!
In reply to Al Evans:
Well done on arranging the sheep Al.
I put up a couple of pics to give people an idea of a local bouldering venue. Straight away I was punitively marked. I'm picturing someone sniggering into their keyboard in a darkened room.
/shrugs shoulders
Well done on arranging the sheep Al.
I put up a couple of pics to give people an idea of a local bouldering venue. Straight away I was punitively marked. I'm picturing someone sniggering into their keyboard in a darkened room.
/shrugs shoulders
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Thank you Gordon, the most sensible comments and criticism I have heard on this thread.
In reply to Al Evans: Oh!! FFS! Not this again
In reply to Al Evans: If it's any consolation Al there was a time that whenever I put up a picture someone would almost straight away give it a one, irrespective of the quality of the pic or what others were voting. It didn't bother me, in fact it became quite amusing but I think voting perhaps should not be anonymous.
John.
John.
In reply to Al Evans: Good god, not again!
In reply to Al Evans: If it was a beautiful young lady and she gave you 1. Would you complain ?
In reply to Al Evans:
Because he agrees with you....?
Of course constructive criticism is better than mindless 1 voting, or worse, deliberate trolling
But you appear to be getting wound up because people aren't all reasonable and considerate. And then suggesting those with thicker skins should have a facility they value withdrawn because you are upset by some aspects of it
If you put work or even just opinions up on public view, some people are going to react negatively. That's just life, and people aren't ever going to change so just ignore it, and spare yourself the angst....
Cheers
Gregor
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) Thank you Gordon, the most sensible comments and criticism I have heard on this thread.
Because he agrees with you....?
Of course constructive criticism is better than mindless 1 voting, or worse, deliberate trolling
But you appear to be getting wound up because people aren't all reasonable and considerate. And then suggesting those with thicker skins should have a facility they value withdrawn because you are upset by some aspects of it
If you put work or even just opinions up on public view, some people are going to react negatively. That's just life, and people aren't ever going to change so just ignore it, and spare yourself the angst....
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
That's an excellent point. Lots of people aside from Al keep calling for voting to not be anonymous but never say how they would use the information!
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> What difference would it make if you knew who it was? Would you tit for tat vote 1 on all their photos? Send them threatening emails? Ask for them to be banned? Or just nurse a burning animosity towards them forever...?
>
>
>
> I don't see how it would make any difference knowing who voted what
>
> [...]
>
> What difference would it make if you knew who it was? Would you tit for tat vote 1 on all their photos? Send them threatening emails? Ask for them to be banned? Or just nurse a burning animosity towards them forever...?
>
>
>
> I don't see how it would make any difference knowing who voted what
>
That's an excellent point. Lots of people aside from Al keep calling for voting to not be anonymous but never say how they would use the information!
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Thank you Gregor, the most sensible comments and criticism I have heard on this thread
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> Because he agrees with you....?
>
>
>
> Of course constructive criticism is better than mindless 1 voting, or worse, deliberate trolling
>
> But you appear to be getting wound up because people aren't all reasonable and considerate. And then suggesting those with thicker skins should have a facility they value withdrawn because you are upset by some aspects of it
>
> If you put work or even just opinions up on public view, some people are going to react negatively. That's just life, and people aren't ever going to change so just ignore it, and spare yourself the angst....
>
> Cheers
>
> Gregor
> [...]
>
> Because he agrees with you....?
>
>
>
> Of course constructive criticism is better than mindless 1 voting, or worse, deliberate trolling
>
> But you appear to be getting wound up because people aren't all reasonable and considerate. And then suggesting those with thicker skins should have a facility they value withdrawn because you are upset by some aspects of it
>
> If you put work or even just opinions up on public view, some people are going to react negatively. That's just life, and people aren't ever going to change so just ignore it, and spare yourself the angst....
>
> Cheers
>
> Gregor
Thank you Gregor, the most sensible comments and criticism I have heard on this thread
In reply to Al Evans:
or the whole thread.
What do you think the photo voting is actually *for*?
Is it to tell the photographer how good their picture really is? I don't think so as it's a very poor mechanism for doing so and many people disagree very strongly with the votes they get even if those might genuinely be their view of the image.
Is it to allow UKC to let people look for "good" pictures to look at? Pretty clearly yes since "photo of the week" is decided on that basis and one can sort galleries according to votes. It's very crude and plenty of excellent images fall through the cracks or don't excite the voting public. conversely it does make it rare for uninspiring route info or "bum-shots" to be held up as the best of UKC which is hardly in the sites interest!
So why does it matter what votes a particular image gets?
or the whole thread.
What do you think the photo voting is actually *for*?
Is it to tell the photographer how good their picture really is? I don't think so as it's a very poor mechanism for doing so and many people disagree very strongly with the votes they get even if those might genuinely be their view of the image.
Is it to allow UKC to let people look for "good" pictures to look at? Pretty clearly yes since "photo of the week" is decided on that basis and one can sort galleries according to votes. It's very crude and plenty of excellent images fall through the cracks or don't excite the voting public. conversely it does make it rare for uninspiring route info or "bum-shots" to be held up as the best of UKC which is hardly in the sites interest!
So why does it matter what votes a particular image gets?
In reply to Al Evans:
Nice image Al, wish I had taken it!..... Can't you just ignore all the bollocks posted here though?!
Nice image Al, wish I had taken it!..... Can't you just ignore all the bollocks posted here though?!
In reply to Al Evans:
On the subject of this particular image. It clearly has some technical shortcomings (scan quality, and what look like sharpening artifacts) which (at least for me) do detract considerably from what is (imho) otherwise a perfectly good photograph.
Does it warrant a 1? Not for me but I would certainly not assume that anyone voting a 1 was being malicious. They would just have (as we all do) a different set of criteria for judging the photo.
On the subject of this particular image. It clearly has some technical shortcomings (scan quality, and what look like sharpening artifacts) which (at least for me) do detract considerably from what is (imho) otherwise a perfectly good photograph.
Does it warrant a 1? Not for me but I would certainly not assume that anyone voting a 1 was being malicious. They would just have (as we all do) a different set of criteria for judging the photo.
In reply to Al Evans:
Al, it obviously means somehting to you, but in reality, it's a grainy photo of a stone-strewn field, some sheep and a wee guy/girl holding something. End of. It's not climbing related. Stick it somewhere else if you really have to, just not on a climbing site.
That's a really poor and completely inappropriate analogy.
>
> THats just not true, it's on a standard trecking route in the Langtang,
> THats just not true, it's on a standard trecking route in the Langtang,
Al, it obviously means somehting to you, but in reality, it's a grainy photo of a stone-strewn field, some sheep and a wee guy/girl holding something. End of. It's not climbing related. Stick it somewhere else if you really have to, just not on a climbing site.
> that is like saying a move on a boulder problem picture has no climbing context!
That's a really poor and completely inappropriate analogy.
In reply to Al Evans: Its a reasonable shot and worth a look but to me it would be more involving if the girl who is the main subject was nearer and edited to bring out the detail in the shadow that shes in. Having said that its a subjective judgement and the main problem is habitual over-grading on voting for UKC pics! For some of the pics on here one wonders why people bother.
In reply to Al Evans:
I don't think anyone enjoys getting poor votes on their photos but, for flip's sake man- get over it!
How many threads have you started on this topic? It seems like hundreds....
I don't rate the pic (3 max) but didn't vote.
I don't think anyone enjoys getting poor votes on their photos but, for flip's sake man- get over it!
How many threads have you started on this topic? It seems like hundreds....
I don't rate the pic (3 max) but didn't vote.
In reply to Wee Davie:
>
We should vote on the quality of Al's photo-voting threads. This one is poor.
>
> How many threads have you started on this topic? It seems like hundreds....
We should vote on the quality of Al's photo-voting threads. This one is poor.
In reply to Al Evans:
out of interest did you explain to the 4% you voted a 1 why? lead by example and all that
out of interest did you explain to the 4% you voted a 1 why? lead by example and all that
In reply to Al Evans:
The composition is good & the subject matter kinda interesting but the colour is largely washed out and the girl is under exposed. These cannot be dismissed as technicalities: a large part of the skill of a photographer should be in getting these elements balanced, whether in capturing the image or afterwards in developing (old skool) or editing. Otherwise its largely a case of point & click. I wouldn't have put this up for a vote.
The composition is good & the subject matter kinda interesting but the colour is largely washed out and the girl is under exposed. These cannot be dismissed as technicalities: a large part of the skill of a photographer should be in getting these elements balanced, whether in capturing the image or afterwards in developing (old skool) or editing. Otherwise its largely a case of point & click. I wouldn't have put this up for a vote.
In reply to Al Evans: I think this deserves at least a 4.. and yet what has it got?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=203631
The voting system is knackered. It's about time they introduced a non-anonymous vote, or at least the option of one! I'd just ignore it Al, I like the photo.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=203631
The voting system is knackered. It's about time they introduced a non-anonymous vote, or at least the option of one! I'd just ignore it Al, I like the photo.
In reply to Flinticus:
The girl is not underexposed, simply underlit. If she were any more exposed the sheep would become disastrously overexposed. In other words, I suspect that the original exposure was perfect, and the only way the shot could have been improved would have been some fill-in flash on the girl, or use of a reflector.
The technical issue is that the picture has become degraded with age i.e. flattened/washed out. I suspect it may even be a copy of a half-tone reproduction that has become faded in sunlight etc. Or simply just fading of the dyes.
But, as I said before, I think that gives the picture a certain charm.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> The composition is good & the subject matter kinda interesting but the colour is largely washed out and the girl is under exposed. These cannot be dismissed as technicalities: a large part of the skill of a photographer should be in getting these elements balanced, whether in capturing the image or afterwards in developing (old skool) or editing. Otherwise its largely a case of point & click. I wouldn't have put this up for a vote.
> The composition is good & the subject matter kinda interesting but the colour is largely washed out and the girl is under exposed. These cannot be dismissed as technicalities: a large part of the skill of a photographer should be in getting these elements balanced, whether in capturing the image or afterwards in developing (old skool) or editing. Otherwise its largely a case of point & click. I wouldn't have put this up for a vote.
The girl is not underexposed, simply underlit. If she were any more exposed the sheep would become disastrously overexposed. In other words, I suspect that the original exposure was perfect, and the only way the shot could have been improved would have been some fill-in flash on the girl, or use of a reflector.
The technical issue is that the picture has become degraded with age i.e. flattened/washed out. I suspect it may even be a copy of a half-tone reproduction that has become faded in sunlight etc. Or simply just fading of the dyes.
But, as I said before, I think that gives the picture a certain charm.
In reply to Pylon King Liberation Front:
Quite, if we can have a system where the far more useful 'comments' can be chosen to be negated, why can't we also have a system where 'the photographer has chosen to not allow voting ' is also an option.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> Voting system = COMPLETE BOLLOX
>
> Voting system = COMPLETE BOLLOX
Quite, if we can have a system where the far more useful 'comments' can be chosen to be negated, why can't we also have a system where 'the photographer has chosen to not allow voting ' is also an option.
In reply to odox:
Why? Because other people have different opinions than you?
Your example does highlight a real problem of the system- there are only 3 votes. This is pretty common, so its difficult for photos to find their 'true' level, and malicious 1s and mates or second profiles voting 5 can skew the overall score by a significant amount
"It's about time they introduced a non-anonymous vote, or at least the option of one!"
What possible difference would that make?
> (In reply to Al Evans) I think this deserves at least a 4.. and yet what has it got?
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=203631
>
Well I think it deserves at most a 3> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=203631
>
> "the voting system is knackered."
Why? Because other people have different opinions than you?
Your example does highlight a real problem of the system- there are only 3 votes. This is pretty common, so its difficult for photos to find their 'true' level, and malicious 1s and mates or second profiles voting 5 can skew the overall score by a significant amount
"It's about time they introduced a non-anonymous vote, or at least the option of one!"
What possible difference would that make?
In reply to Al Evans:
fair comment, thats a reasonable point
still not sure why this bothers you so much though...
cheers
gregor
fair comment, thats a reasonable point
still not sure why this bothers you so much though...
cheers
gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Any photo worth their salt would end up getting enough votes to outweigh any deliberate marking up or marking down. Any single photo with a low score and low amount of votes, or high score and low votes would normally be open to scrutiny anyway.
> Your example does highlight a real problem of the system- there are only 3 votes. This is pretty common, so its difficult for photos to find their 'true' level, and malicious 1s and mates or second profiles voting 5 can skew the overall score by a significant amount
Any photo worth their salt would end up getting enough votes to outweigh any deliberate marking up or marking down. Any single photo with a low score and low amount of votes, or high score and low votes would normally be open to scrutiny anyway.
In reply to Milesy:
Yes the excellent photos get lots of votes its true, but I don't take too many of them! Ones that are just good, but perhaps don't stand out, get swept away by new uploads before they get a chance to get more than a few votes. If there are only a few votes, the score doesn't mean much, and its less use to me to serve as a learning process. A few years back, even average photos I posted got 10-15 votes. Then it dropped to 5 or so, and I haven't uploaded anything in ages (in part cos I haven't taken any that are worth posting...)
Yes the excellent photos get lots of votes its true, but I don't take too many of them! Ones that are just good, but perhaps don't stand out, get swept away by new uploads before they get a chance to get more than a few votes. If there are only a few votes, the score doesn't mean much, and its less use to me to serve as a learning process. A few years back, even average photos I posted got 10-15 votes. Then it dropped to 5 or so, and I haven't uploaded anything in ages (in part cos I haven't taken any that are worth posting...)
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
No, ironically you've already mentioned most of the issues of the system. It's easily open to abuse.
Solve most of the problems you've just mentioned.
> (In reply to odox)
> [...]
> Well I think it deserves at most a 3
>
> [...]
>
> Why? Because other people have different opinions than you?
> [...]
> Well I think it deserves at most a 3
>
> [...]
>
> Why? Because other people have different opinions than you?
No, ironically you've already mentioned most of the issues of the system. It's easily open to abuse.
> What possible difference would that make?
Solve most of the problems you've just mentioned.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Could you not do a bit of 'dodging' or whatever the digitial equivalent would be to bring her features more into light?
Could you not do a bit of 'dodging' or whatever the digitial equivalent would be to bring her features more into light?
In reply to odox:
You can't just throw glib responses like this, onto the thread and consider your argument closed.
Explain to me how non-anonymous photo voting would change anything for the better, please.
I have not voted on many photos, and I think I have given some of the few I've voted on quite a low score. Having to put my UKC username next to my vote would not have changed the score.
If you think that a rough initial period of tit-for-tat voting would soon settle into some of photographic love-in, think again. A lot of voters don't have many pics in their own gallery. If you're thinking that people who consistently vote low can be identified and witch-hunted, well that's an ill-conceived solution I think.
I don't see many people who get consistently high scores, complaining that the system is broken. I think the system works, it's just that sometime the people misbehave. You can't blame the system for that.
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> No, ironically you've already mentioned most of the issues of the system. It's easily open to abuse.
>
> [...]
>
> Solve most of the problems you've just mentioned.
> [...]
>
> No, ironically you've already mentioned most of the issues of the system. It's easily open to abuse.
>
> [...]
>
> Solve most of the problems you've just mentioned.
You can't just throw glib responses like this, onto the thread and consider your argument closed.
Explain to me how non-anonymous photo voting would change anything for the better, please.
I have not voted on many photos, and I think I have given some of the few I've voted on quite a low score. Having to put my UKC username next to my vote would not have changed the score.
If you think that a rough initial period of tit-for-tat voting would soon settle into some of photographic love-in, think again. A lot of voters don't have many pics in their own gallery. If you're thinking that people who consistently vote low can be identified and witch-hunted, well that's an ill-conceived solution I think.
I don't see many people who get consistently high scores, complaining that the system is broken. I think the system works, it's just that sometime the people misbehave. You can't blame the system for that.
In reply to Al Evans:
A quick perusal of the top 200 shows some excellent examples of what you need to get a 5:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=200929
A quick perusal of the top 200 shows some excellent examples of what you need to get a 5:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=200929
In reply to Al Evans:
Only have 3 voting options: -
Good
Very Good
Superb
That way, the better photographs still get votes and subsequently will be easy to find if you're searching for good quality.
The bad/historical/personal interest photo's won't get any votes.
If individuals want their photo's critiqued, they can do so by starting a thread or entering it onto the currently live "Pictures you have taken this week": http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=485070
Only have 3 voting options: -
Good
Very Good
Superb
That way, the better photographs still get votes and subsequently will be easy to find if you're searching for good quality.
The bad/historical/personal interest photo's won't get any votes.
If individuals want their photo's critiqued, they can do so by starting a thread or entering it onto the currently live "Pictures you have taken this week": http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=485070
In reply to odox: still don't see how non anonymous voting makes any difference
Say we had it and I went and voted every photo in your gallery a 1, what difference does knowing its me that's done it make
And my point wasn't that the voting system is flawed- its fine as it is. It's the sheer volume of photos uploaded that is the problem. That will be the same whatever the system is.
So I'm still.waiting for an explanation of what difference knowing who is voting would make...
Say we had it and I went and voted every photo in your gallery a 1, what difference does knowing its me that's done it make
And my point wasn't that the voting system is flawed- its fine as it is. It's the sheer volume of photos uploaded that is the problem. That will be the same whatever the system is.
So I'm still.waiting for an explanation of what difference knowing who is voting would make...
Ok, I agree it wouldn't be an instant solution and it's certainly not the only answer but it would be a deterrent.
What about having a comment with a vote mandatory? At least that way people would receive some constructive feedback if they've gone to the effort of sharing a photo in the first place.
Well no, I'm not blaming anyone, I'm suggesting that it could be improved upon. If you think it's a perfect balance right now then fair enough, but I don't.
What about having a comment with a vote mandatory? At least that way people would receive some constructive feedback if they've gone to the effort of sharing a photo in the first place.
> You can't blame the system for that.
Well no, I'm not blaming anyone, I'm suggesting that it could be improved upon. If you think it's a perfect balance right now then fair enough, but I don't.
In reply to MJ:
This would change nothing. Al would just ask why a pic has not got any votes cos he thinks it's dead good, and suspects people of maliciously not voting a "good" or higher....
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
>
> The bad/historical/personal interest photo's won't get any votes.
>
>
> The bad/historical/personal interest photo's won't get any votes.
This would change nothing. Al would just ask why a pic has not got any votes cos he thinks it's dead good, and suspects people of maliciously not voting a "good" or higher....
In reply to odox:
A deterrent..?!
In what way? What would you propose to do to someone that voted one on your photos...?!
A deterrent..?!
In what way? What would you propose to do to someone that voted one on your photos...?!
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I concede it wouldn't make any difference other than highlighting a consistent 'low voter' and yes again, you wouldn't do much with that unless the moderators decided to take a heavy handed approach. Still it's a shame that it's so easy for people to abuse it.
I concede it wouldn't make any difference other than highlighting a consistent 'low voter' and yes again, you wouldn't do much with that unless the moderators decided to take a heavy handed approach. Still it's a shame that it's so easy for people to abuse it.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Invite him around for a nice cup of tea and a biscuit.
> What would you propose to do to someone that voted one on your photos...?!
Invite him around for a nice cup of tea and a biscuit.
In reply to odox:
arguably a 3 is the worst vote as its neither here nor there, at least a 1 or a 5 has evoked some sort of reaction, a 3 is just a meh vote
arguably a 3 is the worst vote as its neither here nor there, at least a 1 or a 5 has evoked some sort of reaction, a 3 is just a meh vote
In reply to odox:
Lol...
But seriously, what could you do?
Tit for tat vote all his as 1s?
That would make you just as sad as he would be. And I suspect anyone doing systematic trolling wouldn't put many photos up for this reason
Stalk them in the forums or start threads about them? Desperately sad stuff. You'd be a laughing stock...
But what else could you do? Get really frustrated and grind your teeth? How would that help?
Lol...
But seriously, what could you do?
Tit for tat vote all his as 1s?
That would make you just as sad as he would be. And I suspect anyone doing systematic trolling wouldn't put many photos up for this reason
Stalk them in the forums or start threads about them? Desperately sad stuff. You'd be a laughing stock...
But what else could you do? Get really frustrated and grind your teeth? How would that help?
In reply to Blue Straggler:
This would change nothing. Al would just ask why a pic has not got any votes cos he thinks it's dead good, and suspects people of maliciously not voting a "good" or higher....
Possibly, but I would hope not...
I think what some people are forgetting, is that, this isn't a photography forum. The whole purpose of the Photo's section, is so people can share their experiences and sometimes, some of the photo's aren't particularly good.
So what? Does it really warrent negativity from other users?
As I said earlier, keep the voting positive and if people want critiquing, they can ask or join a forum especially for that purpose.
This would change nothing. Al would just ask why a pic has not got any votes cos he thinks it's dead good, and suspects people of maliciously not voting a "good" or higher....
Possibly, but I would hope not...
I think what some people are forgetting, is that, this isn't a photography forum. The whole purpose of the Photo's section, is so people can share their experiences and sometimes, some of the photo's aren't particularly good.
So what? Does it really warrent negativity from other users?
As I said earlier, keep the voting positive and if people want critiquing, they can ask or join a forum especially for that purpose.
In reply to MJ:
I disagree (no surprise there...)
I don't join a politics forum to discuss politics, or a sport forum to discuss sport; the forums here do me just fine
And tbh I can think of anywhere better than the photography section of a climbing website to get critique on climbing photographs
Though I think I agree with al that it should be possible to opt out of having your photos voted on if you want
Cheers
Gregor
I disagree (no surprise there...)
I don't join a politics forum to discuss politics, or a sport forum to discuss sport; the forums here do me just fine
And tbh I can think of anywhere better than the photography section of a climbing website to get critique on climbing photographs
Though I think I agree with al that it should be possible to opt out of having your photos voted on if you want
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to Al Evans: I can't believe people are really taking it that seriously (not Al's post, but the whole photo uploading thing in general). Who cares what some random person on the internet thinks about a photo? And what would be the point of voting if you can only say it's good? Maybe the person voting thinks the photo is really shit and gives it a 1, no matter how good everyone else thinks it is. That is their opinion, it can't be wrong.
In reply to Al Evans: Is a 1 bad then? Surely it's better than no vote?
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
And tbh I can think of anywhere better than the photography section of a climbing website to get critique on climbing photographs
Precisely. What I suggest, is that if people want their photo's critiqued, they can certainly ask on UKC for that to be done. However, I really can't see the benefit of negative voting availability for the vast majority of users and their photo's.
The opt out option is perhaps a convenient solution.
And tbh I can think of anywhere better than the photography section of a climbing website to get critique on climbing photographs
Precisely. What I suggest, is that if people want their photo's critiqued, they can certainly ask on UKC for that to be done. However, I really can't see the benefit of negative voting availability for the vast majority of users and their photo's.
The opt out option is perhaps a convenient solution.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I thought that was the case. Or is it only comments that you can choose to not accept, rather than voting?
I know I don't put many pics up, but when I do, I am able to ignore the voting (well, I obviously see the scores and am sometimes bemused, but it does not affect what I think of a pic, and I don't feel sad when something I like gets a low score). In effect, I have opted out of having my photos voted on, by dint of rising above it all :-P
One could put nothing on UKC and put it all on smugmug or flickr and provide links to the pics on here, I suppose.
> (In reply to MJ)
> Though I think I agree with al that it should be possible to opt out of having your photos voted on if you want
>
> Though I think I agree with al that it should be possible to opt out of having your photos voted on if you want
>
I thought that was the case. Or is it only comments that you can choose to not accept, rather than voting?
I know I don't put many pics up, but when I do, I am able to ignore the voting (well, I obviously see the scores and am sometimes bemused, but it does not affect what I think of a pic, and I don't feel sad when something I like gets a low score). In effect, I have opted out of having my photos voted on, by dint of rising above it all :-P
One could put nothing on UKC and put it all on smugmug or flickr and provide links to the pics on here, I suppose.
In reply to Al Evans: Can I chuck my 2p in? I like aspects of the composition in this. Good lines, especially with the sheepy curve. Down points for me: colours look flat, and it's looking very grainy or pixellated on my screen. Have to say though Al that I like this a lot more than the last one. I'd give it a 2, but that's on my criteria and until someone explains to me what the criteria are for rating photos I'm going to have to stick with my own.
(By the way, I recall that your argument with the last photo was photos on UKC should be scored in part because of their relevant or historial climbing interest? Unless you were planning on climbing onto the back of one of those sheep how does this one resolve that position? Just asking).
(By the way, I recall that your argument with the last photo was photos on UKC should be scored in part because of their relevant or historial climbing interest? Unless you were planning on climbing onto the back of one of those sheep how does this one resolve that position? Just asking).
In reply to Al Evans: can i still vote on it? Is it turned off. Pity...
In reply to MJ: 3.5 if the wee boy in the foreground was looking into the photo, prob a 4 . I find a lot of good photos are really just opportunistic. I like this as it puts a human touch to the area. Certainly at least 3. As for quality. It's taken in 1991. So for a scanned print. Fine.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...