Perhaps The Site Should Run Pay-For Juried Competitions?

[bens]

It seems to me that many now view posting photos on the site as a

competition. Whether its with mate rating, hate making or happy

rating, the competitive approach appears to me to be on the rise,

and here to stay. So I wonder if there's a way to channel this

competitive energy in a constructive way by holding periodic, say

quarterly, juried competitions? I don't know much about such

things, but I would think there is a way to charge people for

participating in each competition, retain qualified people to review

and select winners, and display the photos effectively on the site.

This could have several advantages:

 

Those who dislike the present state of the TRP can refer to these

juried photos as the site's top photos resulting from a "fair

competition," and participate themselves.

 

The site can have an additional congregation of "top photos" for

public viewing, and could even diversify the top photos in this

grouping some by creating categories to be juried.

 

The site could generate additional revenue (and it still has

options, like a sliding scale and scholarships, to keep the juried

competitions accessible).

 

Hopefully, the rising acrimony and loss of interest resulting from

the frustration of those who think such things as the TRP are

not "fair" will be reduced.

 

The site does not need to change the rest of the site, or alter its

accessibility.

[wilsontsoi]

Good one, Ben. However, I think that the change-ups from the admin might just do the job, that is switching around the criteria/filter for the TRP definition (updated to, "Rate Recent, Sum," a little while ago.) I have to say that if I were a casual visitor, I would say that the, "Photo, Average," is the most sensible gauge for TRPs, but since I've been following some of these site feedback forums, I think the admin is wise in mixing up the TRP criteria and go with, "Rate Recent, Sum," for now. If anything at all, then just to diffuse the, "Competitiveness" that Ben had stated, and not to mention to taper off those utilizing extra, superficial identities.

 

"Ratings," "Average," "Rate Recent, Sum," etc., mix them all up, lets keep giving feedback, but in the end, make sure that we all enjoy the wonderful images here in PN. ^_^

[Spearhead]

Juried competitions work because the juror(s) are people who are well-respected as teachers and critics. There is nobody here who regularly contributes and qualifies in that regard. Maybe if photo.net hired outside jurors and paid them and required payment for entrants there would be some good results. Otherwise, it's just amateur hour.

[thenudebychrishenry]

First off, I would like to see a TRP by category and I do not think this would take much effort by the administrators. I think a juried competition may be a good idea, but the key would be who should be on the jury. I would be willing to pay for having work judged by professional jurists, who have solid credentials in being able to actually judge things such as aestetics and originality, though I think originality is useless in judging a photographs merits. If the subscribers on this site want true feedback on their photos, it would certainly be helpful to have qualified opinions. The problem with an open format at this site and with the internet as a whole, is you have to allow unqualified people to participate and you allow individuals who are gamers/computer aficianados to treat this as a game and are just looking for a way to beat the system. If you do not have an editor, per say, you end up wading through a bunch of muck trying to find anything worthwhile. I think most people would love to have their work reviewed by qualified individuals. The problem with the current format obviously allows a lot of unqualified people or people with questionable motives to rate/review your work and how do you weed these folks out? You either end up paying for that or constantly try to outwit these folks. Personally, I do not need to be on the TRP page, the real judgment in this world is whether someone is willing to pay for your work or your services.

[david_anderson13]

I'm not the greatest at forming my jumbled thoughts into coherent sentences. So with that said I hope this reads like I'm thinking.

 

I think every photographer wants his work to cause a reaction and to make the ultimate photo that everyone praises. I do indeed take photos for myself, but I think the only reason to post on the net is for recognition. Whether this is for self esteem reasons or to promote yourself for your art. If you want to help people grow as photographers there is really no reason to post your own photos. This only proves that the advice you are giving comes from someone that may know what they are talking about. Photo magazines and sites are flooded with contests. This is what most people enjoy...competition.

 

With that said, I'm all for a contest with judges. I would like to see a list of top rated and the reasons for this. Also maybe some critiques on why some photos where not selected and how to improve them. This format is very similar to a couple of photography mags I enjoy.

[nicholasprice]

Its a good idea Ben, and I share you sentiments about the competitism going on here.

 

If ever I had the balls to enter such a competition, I would be willing to pay, and I don't see

myself as particularly competitive. Others, I am sure would jump at the chance, given what

has been going on in these forums recently!

 

Regards, Nick.

[acearle]

Well, I DID contribute something to this thread, which appears to have been deleted. Amazing how threatening one little photographer in Asia can be to the powers that be...tch tsc tsc...

 

...brilliant idea, but I seriously doubt if it will happen. As I said in the post, if p.net could figure out how to accually allow me to PAY for it, I'd pay for it...

 

Aside from saying that the p.net critique forum is a bit of a joke to many of us, I'll leave it at that...yes, I'd pay for useful critiques...

[aphanius]

Hey, Ben, I've found what most of you are asking for, but unfortunately it's on another site: <br><br>

<a href=http://www.dpchallenge.com/>www.dpchallenge.com</a><br><br>

The contests are basically set up into three weekly steps: submitting, voting, showing results. I'm not going to tell you the whole set of rules, it's up to you to read it. Let's see if this would suit your competition purposal, but I doubt this system would work here in PN or even could be programmed. This dpchallenge site gives clear privileges to payment subscribers, but as it has been seen in PN's history, subscribing isn't a guarantee about honest criteria or responsible behaviour.

<br><br>

Best regards from a PN free subscriber bored with mate-rating, mate-commenting, low-balling, cheating, gaming, reveanging, retaliating, faking identities, random-rating, robot-rating and more and more and more...

<br><br>

Waiting for PN improvements :)

[ken dennis]

I myself think that this is a great idea, but I doubt that it would curtail any of the problems mentioned in the forum posts before this one, as long as there is a TRP, there will be those who will abuse it!

 

I myself am not holding out any hope of seeing one of mine in the TRP, but am happy to see some changes have been made, to give what I concider to be excellent photo's top billing, compared to what I had been seeing there in the recent past!

 

But a totaly seperate contest, I think would benefit P.net in many ways, it would draw more to join, boost profits, and add a side to this site that I think is missing, call it a jamborie, or community picknic or fair if you will, what I am trying to say is, this whole mess with the TRP and bad apples and such, has left a dark cloud over this site, and it needs something to bring back the lighter side of things!

 

Ken.

[dw fletcher]

I don't know. Jeff's right that it would be hard to find jurors who people wouldn't bitch about. And, really, the interweb isn't a good place for such a show to begin with. No matter how good you computer skills, some photographs just don't translate to the screen.