Jump to content

Why can't we critique the POW choice?


matt_kime

Recommended Posts

i'm posting my messages here that have been removed from the POW thread.

 

Is there another proper place to critique the choice of the photo.net Elves?

 

I don't understand what is inappropriate about discussing the choice of the topic of

discussion. I think its completely natural to talk about this. I'd hope the photo.net

Elves would read these comments and take them into concideration.

 

----

 

There are other reasons to critique the POW choice aside from which image is The

Best. Its a certain amount of control over the POW discussion. What kind of images

facilitate good discussion?

 

The POW isn't the best image of the week? Thats interesting, because its ALWAYS

presented as such. Read the main photo.net Elves posting. Every sentence is a

complement. (if you include "no photoshop") Perhaps if the text provided wasn't

trying to sell us on the photo, there would be fewer comments about The Best photo.

At the same time, i think it is very worthwhile to discuss which photograph is most

effective. However, I doubt the distiction between which image should be the POW

and which image is The Best will ever be at the top of poster's minds.

 

Finally, I don't understand why the photo.net Elves can't hear some criticism. If they

want to ignore it, then they can ignore it. Thousands of photographers survive

critques of their photographs on this very website.

 

----

 

Now, a few comment i have since my comments were taken down.

 

I understand that my comments above were concidered inappropriate in the POW

thread. However, it is also stated that "great photo!" type comments are also

inapproriate. Yet these are NEVER taken down. At least my comments above were

thoughtful.

 

It has been explained to me that the reason for the rule prohibiting discussion of POW

choice is because the goal is to make the conversation more useful in the future. I

question this goal, because a large number of people treat the thread as though it is

a conversation. While some things may not be of interest to people outside of the

discussion, they still may be very important to the people taking part in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At the risk of misinterpreting the elves I'll just say that the purpose of the POW seems to be about the same as Time magazine's annual Man of the Year cover issue.

 

Time editors have to repeat the same thing every single danged year: the Man of the Year cover issue is *not* an award. It is *not* a recognition for good deeds. It is simply an acknowledgement of the most newsworthy person (or, in one case, the personal computer) of the year. Hence, the one-time recognition of Adolph Hitler as Man of the Year.

 

The purpose of the POW appears to be to foster discussion - often lively discussion. There is virtually no chance that any single photograph ever created will receive unanimous recognition as being without flaw. Therefore there would always be at least some controversy about any POW choice. That being the case, it is pointless for the elves to choose "best of class" photos or anything of the kind.

 

Instead, the long-standing practice of choosing photos that provoke discussion seems to be the best compromise.

 

For example, what would make a better POW:

 

1. Ansel Adams' "Moonrise...";

 

2. That rather forgettable Adams photo displayed at the Amon Carter Museum?

 

I'd say the latter. It would inspire more varied discussion while the former would merely engender more fawning.

 

You must admit that the PN practice regarding POWs has been successful in that regard.

 

If the elves ever choose a photo as POW that elicits mostly comments such as "Boring," "Seen it," "Trite" or "Done it," then, perhaps, they will have failed.

 

So far most typical POW negative comments suggest that the commenter:

 

1. Has seen a better example of this type of photography;

 

2. Has done a better example of this type of photography;

 

3. Doesn't like this type of photography;

 

4. Enjoys using critiques as an excuse for waxing philosophic (mea culpa);

 

5. Has, once again, noted blown highlights;

 

6. Has, once again, questioned the sanity of the elves.

 

Entertaining, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the POW is never presented as the "best" image on photo.net. It is unavoidable that people will think so, but the POW is not a weekly contest.

 

It is presented as an image that is worth a week-long discussion. That implies either that it is a good image which warrants discussion or which raises issues which warrant discussion. In theory, the elves could pick an image that fails in some interesting way that warrants discussion, but I don't believe this has ever been done deliberately.

 

I believe that the elves are picking images which they greatly admire, since those usually are also the best for discussion, but they are not under instructions to find, or agree, on which is "best".

 

There are many reasons why we don't ask them to find "the best". First, only a handful of elves are involved in the choice; and each of them has a different opinion, probably, as to which is "best", Then, there are other constraints. Even assuming the elves could individually decide, then agree, on the "best", they might not select it because: (1) it might be a nude, or politically controversial, which the "management" asks them not to be put on the home page; (2) it might be the same genre as a recent POW; (3) it might be by a photographer who is known not to be able to tolerate criticism, or who has asked us not to pick his/her works as POW; (4) it might be by someone whose behaviour in the Gallery (ratings, etc) is too controversial, and picking their work would be asking for a debate about the rating system; (5) it might be by someone whose work was selected for POW recently; (6) it might raise the same issues as a recent POW; (7) there might already have been a long discussion of the image. You can probably think of some more reasons, once there is no requirement to pick "the best". Except for the first of these, these things aren't rules, but they enter into the elves thinking.

 

The reason that there is a rule against criticizing the elves choice rather than the image is that it would get boring, and the focus of the discussion would become the selection process rather than the image that was selected. You may think the world is interested in which image YOU would have picked instead of the one actually chosen, but most likely they aren't. Once the selection is made, there is no point in Monday-morning elving; it would be tedious for the readers, and unfair to the photographer whose work was selected (of whom we already require quite a thick skin.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with discussing POW selection is that

we'd have that discussion every week. With only a few

Elves and a lot more members, there will always be

people who disagree with the choice. Disagreeing per se

is not the problem, expressing it every week is.

 

In a way, POW is a given. The Elves go through a lot of

trouble to nominate and vote every week. Having their

work criticized every week, does not show much appreciation

for their efforts.

 

When a photo.net visitor is interested in a particular

photograph and clicks on the thumbnail image, he (she)

expects to see a larger version, technical details and

comments pertaining to the image itself. That person

wants to learn why it is a good photograph, or why it

isn't, or how it could be improved. That person may not

be aware of Photograph of the Week, Elves and such things.

Thus, comments that the Elves failed again, but also that

member X is not qualified to write a critique or other

such personal comments not discussing the image, are not

of any interest.

 

As Brian said, POW is an image that is worth a week-long

discussion. The gallery of POW images should present the

visitor with a list of images, each interesting in its

own way. By clicking a few landscapes in that gallery,

for instance, the visitor should be able to learn something

about landscape photography. Having repeated "bad Elves" (or "Photoshop should be banned", or "you are not qualified" or

... ) comments does not help that purpose.

 

I agree it is inconsistent that usually only the negative

and personal comments get deleted and not the short, wow! comments.

On the other hand, these short comments are not doing as much harm to the stated learning purpose. And with limited time available and the desire to not moderate every single comment, I think this is perhaps best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the system (of selecting the POW) itself is flowed, you

can delete all you want every single week, but people will still talk

about and question the selection.

 

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.

 

PN can even make a trial on this system by running this system

together with the presnt one to see if it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picking an image at random would often result in a negative example - this is how not to do it. Better to pick a strong example of a genre rather than tear apart someone's snapshot. Virtually all the images that get attention on this site have something positive to recommend them and the POW should be an especially strong image if the site wants to sustain an interesting discussion for a whole week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is mindless censorship. Some people think they know better than the rest of us what is proper and correct. I don't think the primary problem is with the POW choice (we could discuss any photograph) just the occasionally silly reasons given for making that choice. The Elves are expressing an opinion, so I do not see any reason why reasonable adults should not be able to agree or to disagree with that opinion as a point of discussion. If you don't want people challenging your statements then don't make them to begin with.

 

It's all pretty much nonsense anyway considering what is happening in the rest of the world, so I'm not sure why the moderators need to get off by censoring other peoples comments. Why have a forum at all? Perhaps the Elves should conduct the entire discussion among themselves all week since only their opinions seem to matter.

 

I still cannot believe that you (Patrick) edited the Photographers comments. It's beyond ignorance. I don't care about half the things that are posted here but I do want to know what the photographer thinks and how he arrived at the final photograph. Who cares if people have the same tired things to say every week? I don't see the harm in that as opposed to censoring the Photographer or anyone else who has something to say. Consider yourself thoroughly reviled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis - Do you write to Popular Photography (or Time, or People, Or any other magazine you read) telling them that you disagree with the images they've chosen for the latest issue. If you do, what do you think happens to your letters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of its prominence and the amount of discussion that it attracts, the POW feature has certain rules. Nobody is compelled to look at the POW, or read the comments, or make a comment, or to take it seriously. This is just a web site where people post photos and the POW is just a photo that some people happen to think is worth discussing. Nothing is at stake; there is no prize.

 

If the policies surrounding the POW are raising your blood pressure, please feel free to ignore it.

 

Dennis, of course you can express a difference of opinion with the elves. The comment posted by the elves about the photo is intended to launch a discussion. If people are being edited or having posts deleted merely for expressing a different view, then I would be greatly surprised.

 

What get deleted are the comments complaining about the selection process, about the elves (or anybody else for that matter) being drunk, blind, biased, foolish, etc. Basically the reason for deleting those comments is that they are boring and tedious, and are not on-topic in the POW. (You are free to make boring and tedious comments that are on-topic, although we hope you don't.)

 

POW is not a weekly thread to discuss POW selection policies. If you feel the urge to discuss those, this forum is for that, although the subject has already been discussed to death, and nobody ever says anything new on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Bob, I've noted a trend toward tolerance of fiesty letters to the editors in most magazines, including Pop Photo. Letters may be abbreviated for space but the flavor is usually retained.

 

Big change from when I was a commentary editor 20 years ago. Back then the trend was toward rather bland letters. If the letters weren't bland enough as received we'd edit 'em to suit our rather dull style.

 

I prefer the current style of longer letters that not only show off the writers' personalities, but allow the editors opportunities to crack wise. Sometimes the only thing I read in most magazines is the letters section for that very reason. Car & Driver is a good read for that reason; so, believe or not, is Organic Gardening magazine - the letters section is a hoot.

 

Personally I think it's all due to National Lampoon which was the first magazine I can remember that spiced up the letters section with obviously fake but extremely entertaining correspondence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I�m not talking about disagreement, I�m talking about censorship.

 

Bob, I don�t usually write to magazines because I have found it is more fun to write for magazines. I don�t see why thirty people can post the comment �Wow� and I can�t make a general comment congratulating the photographer and publicly recognizing him for his work, which I have followed for a long time.

 

Brian, it appears to me that the �rules� are being inconsistently interpreted and administered. The POW is prominent on the site, so it is about as difficult to ignore as the front cover of a magazine. Censorship is what raises my blood pressure and I don�t feel that I need to endure another lecture about the rules. I know what the rules are because I took great pains to discuss them make my thoughts known before they were implemented. No one of any serious intellect is going to tolerate having their comments diced up according to the whim of a moderator applying their own interpretation of the rules. It appears to me that all this preoccupation with rules has driven a lot of talented people from the site.

 

I do not care do discuss the POW selection process, the elves or if a person is qualified to comment based on how many photos they have posted. I am not arguing those points so please don�t be confused about my intentions. I am trying to express a deep concern about the censorship of long time participants applied by anonymous moderators of unknown qualifications. That�s the way it looks from this side of the looking glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any censorship (editing) of on topic comments? If you comment on the POW image itself, are your comments edited?

 

Comments aren't edited on the basis of their quality (you can comment "Wow" if that's the full extent of your vocabulary) but on their direction. If you comment on the sanity of the elves or the fact that you don't agree with their choice of image, well, that's off topic and likely to be edited.

 

You're more than welcome (well, at least you won't be edited, I'm not sure you'd be welcome) to make such comments OUTSIDE the POW forum. INSIDE the POW forum, stick to discussing the mertis of the image. If you don't think the image is very good then say so or don't bother to comment. Don't attack the choice of image or those who volunteer their time to select the images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis, I believe most of Leslie's comments are still present in the current thread. When I delete a comment, I also delete or edit responses to that comment. It makes no sense to have references to non-existent statements in the discussion; it would only cause more confusion and off-topic discussion. It does not matter if it's the photographer or any other person making the response.

 

<p>

 

 

For what it's worth, I certainly do value the photographer's opinion and particularly Leslie appears to be quite capable to respond to his critics.

 

<p>

 

As for moderation / censorship... did you really like it better when there wasn't any? Having long, heated arguments, usually between just a few people? Do they really help people learn about photography?

 

<p>

 

A few semi-random examples:

 

<br>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=394351">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=394351</a>

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=275014">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=275014</a>

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=474979">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=474979</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so anybody reading this understands: some people made comments about the POW that we didn't want to serve to tens of thousands of people, and they were deleted. The photographer responded. before the moderator got there. Although there was nothing particularly inappropriate in the response, when we remove comments, we remove the responses as well. Otherwise, the thread becomes a mess. This is one of the reasons why moderation is hard, and one of the reasons that moderators don't lightly start deleting and editing comments. If you want to label this "censorship", this is the forum to do it in, not the POW, although it has also been discussed many times before and is an even more tedious topic than POW selection. If your goal is to exasperate me and the other people running the site, cries of censorship will work. Apart from being dis-spiriting and exasperating to people who are working hard to keep this site running, however, such complaints will have zero affect on how the site is run, since we have no intention whatsoever of making this an anything-goes site. That means that we have a few rules -- very few. And it means that we accept the possibility that the people applying and interpreting the rules do so inconsistently, since this is unavoidable and still better than no rules at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Quoting Brian: <i> It is unavoidable that people will think so, but the POW is not

a weekly contest.</i></p>

 

<p>I really don't agree with this. 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.</p>

 

<p> Quoting Patrick: <i>Having their work criticized every week, does not show

much appreciation for their efforts. </i></p>

 

<p>Does criticizing a photograph show a lack of appreciation for it? How thin

skinned the elves must be.</p>

 

<p>-----</p>

 

<p>Obviously some people are quite unhappy about the way POW is run. I think this

is because the "censorship" method of running the forum is rather harsh. over and

over again, it has been mentioned that there is a concern to keep the threads

readable by people in the future. i think this is at conflict with the conversational

nature of the forum. in a conversation, you don't have a concern with the validity of

your words in the future. however, the moderators are explaining to us that some of

our conversation makes for terrible reading some time down the road. do many

people really attempt to use these threads as an educational resource? its a noble

goal, but i don't necessarily see people expecting that usage. </p>

 

<p>could there be an unmoderated POW forum? </p>

 

<p> 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.</

p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderation in all things, and as I said in the POW thread I don't object to being moderated by the elves. Refusing to publish my words on their server isn't censorship censorship is refusing to let me publish my words on <i>my</i> server. But I do regret the loss of the lively exchange between me and Back Shooter, who's very articulate and makes a good case for his point of view (though I'll never share it). We kept it up person-to-person over several long emails, the sort of heady stuff I'd enjoy reading even if I hadn't been a party to it. Seems a shame there isn't a meta-thread for POW's, perhaps a link to a more freewheeling forum, one that viewers of the photo wouldn't be shown as a matter of course but which would be there for folks who wanted to pursue a particular argument or just get off a dumb but passionately held opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back Shooter: Forum threads are not edited willy-nilly. Out of 40,000 forum posts per month on this site, only one or two per thousand are deleted or edited. The POW Forum ratio is probably higher, because the current POW is the most visible thread on the entire site and attracts more crud than average. The absolute number of deleted and edited posts has dropped significantly in the last 12 months, even though the total number of posts has increased by at least double. This is also true of the POW Forum. If you look at photo comments (another 36000 posts per month), the ratio or edited/deleted comments there is similar. The moderators are perhaps more protective of the photographers and delete sarcastic, hurtful comments that probably would be allowed to stand in the forums, assuming they notice them. This makes the deletion ratio a little higher in the Gallery than in the forums, but not much. Many people have objected that we don't delete enough posts, and this group probably outnumbers the people who protest censorship. (Some people are in both groups.)

 

Posts are not edited or deleted for arbitrary reasons, but because of reasons that are set forward in the Terms of Use. It is very easy to avoid being censored on this site, if that is what you want to call it. If you think your post is at risk of being one of the tiny fraction that are edited/deleted, and you don't want this, don't post.

 

As for intellectual dishonesty, that is facile. There is no dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise. It would be dishonest if we said we don't edit or delete posts and then secretly did it anyway, thinking that we could also suppress any protests before they were noticed. That is not the case: we have a set of rules which are publicized, we announce that the moderators delete and edit posts, and we actually do openly edit/delete a very small number of posts. I think it is a good idea for the moderators to indicate an edit, and that is what I do if I have time, but that is up to each moderator. Where is the dishonesty?

 

Matt: can there be an unmoderated POW forum? 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. They are quite entertaining if you like flame-wars and trolls and have plenty of time to read through all the guff. photo.net does not plan to be one of these sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does criticizing a photograph show a lack of appreciation for it? How thin skinned the elves must be.--Matt said.

 

I look at it like this: They're not thinned skin. They just prefer to take it outside, as the expression might be. Here, in this venue, we're all outside and it's more of an open forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems a shame there isn't a meta-thread for POW's, perhaps a link to a more freewheeling forum--Leslie asked.

 

Unless I'm asked otherwise, or unless someone beats me to it, I intend to start one Monday morning. The trick will be to let members know it so they know where to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they [the elves]talked about it [the pow]as a point of discussion--Matt said.

 

I agree with this. Although I personally don't look at it as a contest per se, there is a sense of competition and hope regarding being POW'd, and a sense of reward if one's images are chosen. So it SEEMS like a contest, if it in fact isn't. Perhaps there are linguistic techniques that could be practiced. Different ways of phrasing, or whatever. Remember, we're photographers here. Any other artistic effort (e.eg writing) is most likely a second skill. Theoretically, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Quoting Burgess: <i>Unless I'm asked otherwise, or unless someone beats me to

it, I intend to start one Monday morning. The trick will be to let members know it so

they know where to go.</i></p>

 

<p>That is exactly what i was suggesting. I link to it could be posted in the "About

POW" page. Would be even better if there was a link on the page with the discussion,

but I'm guessing this would take more work.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By deleting and editing discussions willy-nilly--said Back Shooter.

 

The term willy-nilly is somewhat of an exageration, don't you think? More accurately, they snip within a set of published guidelines. If you post outside of those guidelines, you have to turn the other cheek when you get edited. Whenever I post against the rules I anticipate the moderation and hope my point is seen by at least someone. I'm not sure if this is benefit of membership or not, but registering for the POW email alerts is fabulous. You get all the content with none of the edits. You can follow the whole thread via your IN box. I recommend those who are especially sensitive about moderation click on the "notify me of new responses" link at the top of every forum thread.

 

yes, Matt. This thread is exactly that. If a mechanism could be set up so that only one back beat thread is posted, that would be good, too. But even so, it wouldn't be good to just flock to this side-thread for unbridled animosity. I mean, disagreement I'm sure is not a problem for anyone here, but I would hate to see it run amock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, you're spinning your wheels over this issue. Photo.net administration clearly will not change or recognize that there are flaws and inconsistencies in application of moderation policies.

 

Frankly, I believe that administrators and moderators prefer that photo.net policy remains unclear and ambiguous. That enables them to apply censorship arbitrarily and selectively while feigning innocence. That's why any calls for specific policies, doctrines, etc., will be rebuffed.

 

That's why I've resigned myself to enjoying the site where I can, participating and contributing where it's appreciated and with less risk of finding my contributions arbitrarily erased. That's why the forums are photo.net's strongest asset and the galleries the weakest. It's the photo display sections that generate the most controversy and the most inconsistencies in application of the delete button.

 

However I will agree with Brian on one issue - I'm sure the sheer volume (in terms of number and noise) must be overwhelming at times. I wonder whether any of us would do better at administering such a raucous site with only a small cadre of volunteers. Maybe if we've swapped positions for a week among groups of volunteers we'd have a better understanding of their positions.

 

That reminds me - how's the Jay Leno/Katie Couric swap going? Oh, wait, I hear from Leno's staff she's a bitch. Hmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...