Limits on Gallery Uploads and Submissions

[niranjn]

Philip's strong statement that this site will be more focused on learning from

now on, is encouraging. To that end, I would suggest that the site do whatever

it can to encourage critiques. There have been many suggestions (reviving

critique circles, curators/experts, paid critics) in the recent past -- I

won't rehash them. I want this thread to have a narrow focus and consider one

of the biggest problems in getting adequate number of (quality) critiques ---

the sheer number of uploads and critique requests, and the relatively smaller

number of critics.

 

It may be a good idea to *drastically* throttle down the number of images that

are being submitted for ratings and critique. It could become one per day per

subscribed member, for instance. The stringent limit will also force folks to

consider their photos carefully and edit/cull *before* submission. The quality

of the critique request gallery will be improved, and there will be more

critiques. It will certainly be more educational.

 

This will certainly turn off some of our users. In the past, when financial

performance was the main benchmark, I wouldn't have suggested this, but now,

perhaps it's feasible?

 

Thoughts?

[susan stone]

I tend to agree with Niranjn about limiting the number of images that a PN member can upload per day. I think even if we had an approved group of critiquers they would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of images submitted for critique, and the time it would take to rate and comment would certainly limit their time allocation on any given image. I, for one, would be willing to limit my posts to a smaller given number. The issue of ratings will continue I'm sure, but I think that a solution that should/could/would work for the majority can be implemented.....I just don't have the answer.

[steve foster]

I agree also, I think we would be better photographers if forced to limit our requests for critique. I would guess that I have asked for about 6 photos this year to be critiqued with maybe only half of them receiving constructive wriiten critique. Anything that forces users to write the reasons behind there ratings is OK by me.

[stephen hazelton]

I'd be curious how many photographers regularly submit more than one critique request per day. I know you'll see several requests from one person, but that person is quite likely still averaging one a day or less.

[louis1]

He said after 10000 images you have just started.

 

With digital and NON large format I guess that figure should be increased to say 50000.

 

He also thought a good year would yield 10 good images.

 

At photonet we post our 10 images plus our WIP.

 

So how many should we post for critique 50 a year-max.?

 

Can we learn from a master?

[wood]

I'm with Stephen H on this. <p>Although I think it's a good idea, it may not help reduce the number of photos submitted for critique/rating by much if most users are submitting one per day or less. It would be helpful to hear some stats on this, if possible. <p>As an alternative, perhaps the number of submissions for critique could be tied to the number of previous critiques given out by the person submitting. Example: for each image you submit, you must have critiqued two. These two could be subject to approval from the person receiving the critique in order to reduce the useless "Good shot" type of comments. After approval, they are added to the critiquers profile and would be used to determine how many, up to a limit, of his/her photos could be submitted.

[john falkenstine]

From a business standpoint, it would be suicidal.

[Landrum Kelly]

I say, the more pictures the better. No one should be so compulsive as to feel that they need to get around to critiquing all of them.

 

--Lannie

[mg]

I agree with Niranjn, 100%.

[root]

So do I. Just compare the number of images in "photographer's highest" sort to other comparable ones and you'll see that this isn't a trivial matter. Some people like to upload similar versions of the same shot, but they shouldn't clog up the list. Make them all part of one discussion.

[john falkenstine]

Is there ANY kind of proof that throttling submissions will increase the likelihood of critiques that havy any validity? I think not.

[niranjn]

"Proof"? Of course there isn't any, John.

[mg]

""Proof"? Of course there isn't any, John." - Niranjn T

 

Well, no proof, no... BUT... There are other sites that already exist, and which have limited the number of uploads allowed (5 or 7 pictures in 7 days, if I recall well). Guess what, this site averages about 15 critiques per picture posted. Of course, we could argue that this has another explanation, but I'd tend to believe, simply because a limited number of members has a limited time to spend on the site, that the total time of all members critiquing should be divided by as many pictures as have been uploaded. So, less pictures is very likely to result in more critiques per picture.

[mmmee]

What sort of proof do you want John?

 

It seems to me the statistics speak for themselves. If we have too many uploads to the critique forum, how do we achieve any consensus on any category?

 

We need a limited upload with critiques on the uploads.

 

Any one who wants to upload can pay for the privilidge, and for the critigue by an informed person, as designated by the Admins. of the site.