Why can't we critique the POW choice?

Matt,

 

<p>

 

<i>I think the photo.net Elves posting about why the pic was

chosen as the POW causes people to beleive its a contest.

The posting always tries to sell us on the virtues of the

photo, quite often praising the range of colors or tones.

If they talked about it as a point of discussion, perhaps

it would be recieved as such.</i>

 

<p>

 

An interesting suggestion, which I will forward to the Elves.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure if it will help much. When

no explanation was given, people misunderstood and complained.

Now that it is given, people complain. Most likely, people

will still complain whatever we do.

 

<p>

 

Sometimes I wonder if people [on the internet] complain

simply because they can. But that's a whole other issue :-)

 

<p>

 

 

<i> Does criticizing a photograph show a lack of appreciation

for it? How thin skinned the elves must be. </i>

 

<p>

 

I think this comparison is invalid. A photograph is an artistic

effort and by posting it on photo.net, one implicitely asks for

comments. POW is an editorial decision and the rules explicitely

state that discussion of that decision should not take place in

the POW forum.

 

<p>

 

<i>

Patrick, if i properly understand your link postings, those were

supposed to be examples of the problems of lack of moderation. I

saw nothing wrong with them.

</i>

 

<p>

 

Then I'm afraid I failed and I don't know how else to explain it.

 

<p>

 

Finally, nobody is under any obligation to participate in the

POW forum, or any part of photo.net for that matter. While

I regret that Lex Jenkins feels the need to restrict his

activities on photo.net, I do agree very much with his point

of view: enjoy and participate wherever you can.

BTW, just to clarify or reiterate my POV: I agree with the elves deleting comments - especially gratuitiously provocative comments - on POWs that are unrelated to the image itself. What's the point of criticizing the POW selection process? It's absolutely inane. Get over it. As abrasive and contrary as I can be I don't think I've ever once criticized the elves for the selection process. But I was raised to eat what put in front of you or go hungry.

 

Talk about the damned photo, fer St. Ansel's sake.

Finally, nobody is under any obligation to participate in the POW

forum, or any part of photo.net for that matter. -- Patrick

Hudepohl

 

No, we have no unmoderated forums on photo.net. If we were

going to start having them, the POW is not the place where we

would start. There are many places on the 'net where you will

find unmoderated forums, if that is what you are looking for. --

Brian Mottershead

 

 

----------------------------------

 

Instead of "Let's discuss this situation and perhaps we could

come up with some sort of resolution", it's "If you do not like it

here, go find yourself another forum".

 

Everytime I participate in the anti-war protest marches, there are

always people who thinks that protesting is stupid and most of

them would heckle protesters to go and live in another country. "If

you do not like how things are done here, why don't you go back

to your country?"

I went through the "Elves can't take the simplest heat� discussion a couple of weeks ago. It was clear then, as it is now, that there is no winning...the elves will be a bunch of fairies that all love to hate. <p><p>Now what I would like to see each week is the elves select a photographer and ask him to present one of his shots as POW. The photographer can then explain why he likes it and how it came to looks as it does. Then as the week plays out the photographer consults with the elves over comments. If the photographer feels a comment made is an attack...off it goes to elf hell. If he feels the comment is off topic but somehow applicable it can be shipped off to a separate �off topic but still interesting� folder. (This folder would renew with every new POW). No muss, no fuss (yah, right).<p><p> And finally lets talk dwarf tossing here for a second. The Aussies have it right...they have contests to see who can toss a dwarf the furthest. There is no reason in the world why they should rule supreme at this...North America should go into training. And since dwarfs & elves are interchangeable a national elf tossing campaign should be planned. Bad elves will be conscripted. Elf hurling will take over from Monday Night Football and peace will reign...I pray.

Paula's right. Anybody else see the recent South Park episode in which the townfolk were divided between pro-war and anti-war demonstrators? After the usual cussing, irreverence and bloodletting they finally realized that we need *both* types for a successful community.

 

We need the censors (read: pro-war) to keep things relatively sane (read: safe) and the anything-goes types (read: anti-war) to give photo.net the appearance - however insincere and disingenuous - of being receptive to all points of view (read: CNN and "objective").

 

One big happy dysfunctional family.

I second Jim's suggestion and volunteer to be the Mr. T of photo.net.

 

Fairies...hee...Jim...! Why not. We got trolls, elves, might as well add the whole dang Middle Earth.

Paula, we don't want to seem unwelcoming, but suppose you were running a charming-country-inn-style place, that had more guests than you could handle, and one of them suggested that they would like your place much better if you made it into a MacDonald's franchise because the kids like Ronald MacDonald? Would you try to resolve this difference of opinion by hiring a clown to run around the place -- or would you perhaps suggest to them that the MacDonald's, just down the street, might fit their needs better?

Paula has a point. I think a big part of all the rudeness on this thread is because

people don't feel listened to.

 

Brian, you're not exactly being mature. I started this thread because i feel i have very

legitimate conversation topic. Apparently the topic makes you sore. Ignore it. I don't

think the POW conversation is of the quality it could be and several people here agree

with us. i've made suggestions to improve it. if you don't like them, ignore them. I

think everyone who has posted on this thread has done so out of a genuine concern

for the site, even if its been expressed rather brashly. Comparing our complaints to

trying to set up a McDonalds shows a real lack of respect for us.

 

If you don't like what i said here, ignore it.

I love Brian's parallel scenarios and I'm surprised he's even spending time here in the first place. If it were my country style inn, and no one was coming, and one of my first guests suggested the Mcdonald's idea, I would listen. However, if the door were falling off the hinges because of so many guests, and I was having trouble meeting their demands because of staffing, or inventory, I'd be likely to respond in the same way to the same sort of complaint. You can't please everyone, but everyone can find something here to be pleased about. It looks like there are ways around the policies, so use them. In this case, maybe the..what did Leslie call it...Meta forum, or whatever, will relieve the pressure. --Doug Burgess

Matt, the only suggestion that you have made in this thread is that the POW should not be moderated.

 

However, if I didn't make it clear, I consider the fact that photo.net is moderated to be a fundamental premise of the site. When you suggest changing this, you might as well be suggesting that we turn the site into something completely different than it is, like turning a country inn into a MacDonald's. I don't think there is anything wrong with MacDonald's; it just doesn't make sense to turn a country inn into one, especially if there is already a MacDonald's down the road. So the answer to your suggestion is: no, never.

 

You are correct in one thing, however, which is that it is utterly fruitless to engage in these discussions.

Have you read my posts? No really, have you?

 

I suggested that there be a "less moderated" POW discussion. Perhaps I said

unmoderated the first time around, but i was refering to the way all non-POW

discussions are treated.

 

Additionally, I recommended that the POW photo.net elves text place the photograph

as a seed for discussion, rather than singing its praises.

 

For the record, i'm trying to turn your McDonalds into a country inn.

i'll clarify. an _additional_ less-moderated POW forum

Matt! Great come-back!

 

The POW will go public in a few hours. I'm on the edge of my seat.

Oh great. Two POW forums. One civilized and on topic, the other a "gloves off, knock down, drag out" free for all. We might as well webcast cockfights...

 

BTW the original question was "Why can't we critique the POW choice?". The answer is you can. You just can't do it in the POW forum.

I always figured it was up to the commenters to regard the POW as a seed for discussion. The fact that many of 'em use it as a altar for fawning and groveling can't be helped or prevented.

 

Look at to what passes for "critiques" on most of the top-rated photos. I feel like I need a shot of my grandma's insulin after reading some of that drivel.

 

I'm surprised some of those folks are into photography - they wouldn't recognize a negative if it came in an envelope from Wal-mart.

 

Oh, wait...of course they wouldn't...they're all using digicams.

 

Whew, is it hot in here or am I just going to hell for being a cynical bastard?

Duuno Lex, do you smell sulphur?

 

Remember that 90% of everything is crap, and that includes photo critiques. We can only hope that the other 10% are worth reading.

 

When it comes to pleasing people, remember the 90/90 rule. The first 90% of your time is spent pleasing 90% of the people. The other 90% of your time is spent trying the please the last 10% (and you'll fail even then).

No Brian, if I am running a country inn (read a website forum)

with a few hard-working elves, and begin to have more guests

than the inn (and the elves) could handle; I will start thinking

about being pro-active. and start preparing for the future. Time

will come when there will be just too many posters that you and

the elves just can't managed to read each and every single post.

So what do you do? You do what almost every single BIG site

does, they run unmoderated forums and they make every

function on their site automatic; meaning no more elves. The

POW is chosen randomly by a program.

 

And no, I will not try to resolve this difference of opinion by hiring

a clown to run around the place. I will not even try. I will let people

express their opinions however different they are from each other

or from my own. This way, more people gets involved, which

means more traffic to the site. If you hadn't notice, there are only

two new posts on the POW page and this thread already have

more than 36 posts.

Paula, why is the system of POW selection flawed? What would

you consider a fair system? How can we avoid having people

disagree with the choice and/or system? To a reasonable extent,

that is -- I realize we will never please everybody. -- Patrick

Hudepohl

 

Below is my earlier post.

 

If the main purpose of the POW is to generate educational and

informational discussion about the designated photograph, why

not have the POW selected randomly from the week's

submissions for request for rating and critique. This way, people

know that the image is not necessarily the best, it might even be

a really bad image, but still people can discuss what's wrong

with the photo and how it can be improved.

 

If the POW is chosen randomly by a program, then it is most fair

and no one in their right mind will blame a program; and I

assure you, it will please everybody.

Hey, don't forget about me. I'm not part of the everybody you're talking about and I would not be pleased at robot selections. One of my photographs was a POW in December and believe me: It makes a big difference to me that it was selected by people. If I knew the weekly POW was selected totally at random according to software, I would totally ignore it. This is a visual art. What good would it do to make selections according to anything but what an image looks like?

Paula,

 

<p>

 

<i>If the POW is chosen randomly by a program, then it is most fair and no one in their right mind will blame a program; and I assure you, it will please everybody.</i>

 

<p>

 

How should that program decide which photograph will be the new POW? At random, so we could end up with porn, miserable holiday snapshots and rubbish? On the front page of a BIG website? I think that is certainly not a good idea.

 

<p>

 

Based on ratings? That will only stirr up the old debates about the rating system, people will be more than ever lured into using fake accounts, mate rating and whatever other tricks to try to get their shots on the front page. Again, not a good idea, I think.

 

<p>

 

And yes, photo.net IS a big website and has been for quite a while. Its roots are Philip's personal homepage circa 1993, so "we" have been around for some time. And the staff has made a serious commitment to running a website that is backed by editorial decisions, whether they are Elf-choices for POW, moderator choices in discussions or editor choices for articles. Changes can be good, improvements are welcome, but don't expect the staff to simply give up on their basic premises with regard to how this site is run.

Then, make it what it really is, a contest; since anyway, that is how it is seen

by the members, even by the authors themselves. Actually, whether you

admit it or not, it is -- by default -- a contest. And if it is a contest, people will

continue to question your and the other elve's choice for this week's POW

and every single week's POW. This has been the case since the start and it

will be the case until...

Why don't you pick an image at random. Let's make it #243 in 24 hour

view, in other words don't look at it first. Post it on the general

unarchived list where it will run for two days. The title could be

"Paula's Random POW selection - please comment". Let's see what

happens.

 

Most of us can predict exactly what will happen . . . and it won't be

pretty, or interesting . . . or educational. . . . . just a lot of

noise. . . . .

Brian, FYI:

 

willy-nilly

adv 1: in a random manner; "the houses were randomly scattered"; "bullets were fired into the crowd at random" [syn: randomly, indiscriminately, haphazardly, arbitrarily, at

random, every which way]

<em>"Instead of "Let's discuss this situation and perhaps we could come up with some sort of resolution", it's "If you do not like it here, go find yourself another forum". - Paula</em> <p>Well Paula..it seems we are "discussing the situation". But - we are doing it here and not on the POW page. And, if you've followed Photo net for as long as I have - you would know that Brian and co. listen to the membership and make improvements constantly based on member input!!!. <p>Re the censorship issue.. I think from the outside looking in .. some of you may not be aware that <p>1) Most people are contacted when a change is made or deleted. <p>2) Most people write and say they were having a bad day or just trying to see if they could get away with it for a few hours. And, surprisingly most people understand and agree with the change.<p> 3) Some that have been contacted by e-mail don't have valid e-mail addresses. Nothing I can do about that. <P>4) If there was a screw up with continuity or a screw up with changing the meaning while editing... (and believe me it can be tricky and time consuming) members do and can make it known to me via e-mail and it is thus corrected. <p>5) Yes, short "wow" comments are deleted... Who says they are not? If it is a short Wow comment that has at least one supporting statement - it is left. <p> 6) Derogotory comments towards elves, other commentors or the choice itself are edited or deleted. So - if someone says -- Hey so and so - are you blind? and then goes on to make a point about the image..... the "Hey so and so - are you blind? is taken out. It is inflammatory and often starts a stupid war between commentors and the page becomes a chat-room-like battlefield. The point they make still remains the same but without the personal attack. <p>7)Sometimes I get hit with a ton of e-mails calling for an edit or delete. There is nothing Willy-nilly about this process... You just can't please everyone. <p>Anyone who can honestly say the days of the Tris wars of old on the POW page were in any way constructive or positive doesn't realize how many new members and students and the majority of the PN population was affected. I still have the e-mails from horrified people in those days. It was appalling. Philip put moderation into place because of it. His form of moderation was much more strict than what is in place now. If anyone has a problem with edit's or deletes...that have been made on their comments.. Feel free to write to me and plead your case. I'm not perfect but I'm careful and considerate and not close minded. I just follow policy...sometimes I actually agree with the comment I have to delete but policy is there for a good reason...In my opinion.

Brian,

 

First of all, please do not take this, or any of my other posts here as a personal attack, or a denigration of your hard work and real contribution to the photo community.

 

When I speak of 'willy-nilly' and 'intellectual dishonesty', may I refer you to a lengthy and thoughtful answer you provided in another thread to the question, 'what is photo.net's mission statement?' (to paraphrase). I'm very sorry, but I fail to see how that very laudable 'mission statement' can be reconciled with the way the recent, controversial POW thread has been moderated. This is what I mean by 'intellectual dishonesty', or perhaps, to be less harsh about it, self-delusion. The term 'willy nilly' -- as shown in the dictionary definition I provided above, has nothing to do with quantity. I don't doubt that you rarely edit/delete posts in most threads, as you claim. However, I was speaking of the particular POW thread only, in which you/'elves' did edit and delete several/many posts, in an arbitrary (/'willy nilly') manner -- by your own admission.

 

I think photo.net has a problem with the presentation of its POW feature and it is this which I have attempted to comment on and discuss with other users, through my posts questioning the merit of particular choices, and by extension the POW selection process. Today I scrolled through the long, long web page of all POWs (going back to at least 2001) and I note an 'interesting' trend, which you may want to consider: it would appear that your standards for selection of a POW are slipping.

 

In the past ten or so (since March 2) POW's I see three or at most four images that merit selection, only going by your prior, evidently higher standards. Are the elves growing weary of this onerous task? Do they have spring fever perhaps? My point is this: all new visitors to your web site will see the POW prominently posted at the top of your homepage. Not your mission statement. Think about it.