Why can't we critique the POW choice?

[think27]

Interesting... I've actually seen an improvement in the quality of the POW's as far as consistancy. Long ago I perceived some weeks were truly great and other weeks were in my opinion - truly horrible! Left me scratching my head. Sometimes I still am surprised but for the most part I see an "overall" improvement. Just my opinion. Everybody has one. Just that I see other people's opinions as different - not wrong.

[mottershead]

Back, I don't think your dictionary captures the full flavor of "willy-nilly". For me, it connotes more than simply randomness.

 

If I go to K-mart and pick out one pair of white socks, at random, from the bin, I don't think people would say that I chose them "willy-nilly". The word has the connotation of *often-repeated* randomness and arbitrariness. If I chose ten pairs of socks from a mixed bin, of different styles, and colors, without even looking, without regard even to whether they fit me, completely randomly, on impulse, without a second's consideration, then you might say I picked them "willy-nilly".

 

So, when I say that only 1 or 2 posts are edited or deleted per thousand, I am saying that there is neither a sufficient quantity of deletion/edits, nor sufficient randomness or arbitrariness, to describe them as having been done "willy-nilly".

 

As for whether the POW quality is declining; that is rather a matter of opinion. For a while now, the POW has been picked by a vote of the elves, after nominations are collected. Previously, each week one elf chose it, with the duty rotating. The old way had its advantages, in that the group of elves represented a variety of approaches and tastes. The POW choices were very different, and there was a lot more controversy. When it came around to the guy who liked black-and-white-slice-of-life photography, we'd have a Jo Voets, with one group of people saying "Huh?" and another group saying "Great!". When it came around to the landscape guy, we'd have one of those, probably reflecting some fine points of landscape photography that might escape the Jo Voets-fanciers. The choices were more idiosyncratic. Now that it is done by a vote, the results are smoothed out: in order to be selected a photo pretty much has to be liked by all the elves, and liked very much by at least a few. A photo that causes a few of the elves to rave and all the others to say "Huh?" is rather at a disadvantage. This may be what you are seeing in your survey of POW choices.

[dougityb]

What's the difference between an image selected at random that is disagreeable, and one selected by deliberation that is disagreeable?

 

If an individual disagrees with the selection, which method is faulted? The random selection process? The deliberation process? It's clear to me that the random process poses more problems than the deliberation process. In the latter case you're merely differing with an opinion. In the former case, the problem is in the process.

 

So, it is not the process that should be questioned. It's the result, and only the result. By identifying previous POW's that are felt to be worthy, the process is validated, although many individual choices are not.

 

So, the POW can be rejected, and it often is, but it doesn't follow that the system is screwed up because a (perceived) unworthy photo has been published.

 

In national elections this same sort of process is used and look at the results in the case of Bill Clinton, president of the USA for 8 years! Does that mean the process is flawed? No, not necessarily. Does it mean Clinton is flawed? Well, that's a given, but that's the point: A bum got elected and what happened? Did everybody get up and decry the process? Or the did they decry the clown that was put in office by the process?

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Brian, I'm sorry I have to repeat myself on this one point, but I find that a number of posts edited/deleted in a single thread, in a capricious manner, where there was some passionate and thoughtful discourse taking place about photography, a photograph (the particular POW) and this site, does not reflect well on the moderation process, whatever your personal definition of the w-n word may happen to be today.

 

The fact that moderation does not appear to be taking place in other threads that go something like this:

 

"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

WOW!!!!WOW!!!!WOW!!!!

 

GREAT!!!!

 

FANTASTIC!!!!

 

BEAUTIFUL!!!!! [ad nauseum]"

 

...well, need I say more?

[mottershead]

Back, there is a tendency for people to describe as capricious or arbitrary any behaviour they find disagreeable. Mary Ball, the principal moderator of the POW Forum has described in this thread how she moderates the POW, what the rules are and how she goes about administering those rules. Whether you agree with it or not, the process is not capricious or arbitrary.

 

Is it robot-like and totally consistent? No, she and the other moderators are human. We don't have an elaborate process, with trials, juries, witnesses, a library of dusty books full of precedents, lawyers on each side, several layers of appellate tribunals, reviews of DNA evidence, last-minute pardons from the governor, victim's families seeking closure, or death clerks hanging by the phone as the fateful moment arrives for the deletion of a post.

 

We have none of this to guarantee that there is never an error or inconsistency before a post suffers the ultimate penalty. Does that mean the moderation is arbitrary and capricious? No, we have intelligent, conscientious, moderators doing the best they can, and that is good enough for me.

[markci]

<i>

Did everybody get up and decry the process? Or the did they decry the clown that was put in office by the process?

</i>

<p>

A minority decried Clinton. Widespread condemnation of the process had to wait for the subsequent bum.

[dougityb]

Good retort, Mark.

 

At least we both agree that Clinton is a bum.

[scott bulger]

Is anybody else curious as to "Paula Jones" true identity?

[bacsa]

Nnope. Leave it like this, it's more funny. I do enjoy these argueings, identities do not matter.

[dougityb]

What! You mean we've been duped? I'm interested. Who is she/he?

[lex_jenkins]

My money is on Patrick. ;>

[scott bulger]

As interesting as it would be Lex, I 'm pretty sure Patrick isn't arguing with himself, or maybe he has been pushed over the edge ;.)

 

But it probably is an American. I don't know how many other countries would get the "Paula Jones" cultural reference.

[lex_jenkins]

I dunno, Patrick has a good sense of humor. He might enjoy a good argument with himself. I do.

 

No I don't.

 

Damn, there I go again...

[jeremy_craig]

I was intrigued by the suggestion by someone above (I'm not going to reread this lengthy thread to find it) to have the elves choose a Photographer of the week, and then allow the Photographer to choose the photo to be shown. There would need to be the other limits (no nudity, etc..). this idea I think has some promise.

 

Off topic: I've noted that some POWs have been really old ones (say 20yrs+) that were dug out of boxes and put on PN. Shouldn't there be some sort of "recency" policy?

[lex_jenkins]

"Recency" and "decency" policies, hmm?

 

Ho-hum.

[think27]

I love that every so often an older picture comes out. Some truly great older images get lost over time to newer members... Not easy to find.. This gives them a chance to check out the oldies but goodies... It also helps people realize there are some super pix out there and you won't always find them by just looking at the "top rated" list. Popularity does not always equal excellence. With some digging there are gems out there.

[pmj]

Nope, you're all wrong. I don't exist. Neither does Brian. We're all Philip in disguise. Just look at our portraits, obviously fakes (Brian looks too much like a Transporter Chief Miles O'Brien look-alike, and as for Patters, well ...). Bob's real, though. Look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=14630">his portrait</a>, no way that can be a fake.

 

<p>

 

:-)

 

<p>

[matt_kime]

ok...i'm annoyed by this...why is the "alternative" POW forum gone, as well as the post

leading to it???

 

*lots of swearing*

 

okay, okay. i'll just leave. but for the time the forum was up, i was quite happy with

the arrangement.

[dougityb]

Matt, the alternative POW forum was moved to a new location shortly after I posted it. The new location was under the unarchived forums, which means, I think, that it disappears automatically after 48 hours. Personally, I was a little disappointed to see it go because it was fun, and I think it provided a good alternative to the POW by allowing us to vent and fume. Anyone reading the POW thread can clearly see that the commentary is much more centered around the image and there is very little discussion about the process. So, it worked.

 

I'll be happy to start one of these every week, unless I am dead or disabled, or just asleep, or unless the elves ask me not to. Also, if they show me the right place to post it, that would be good to. I don't understand the forums, seeing as how I'm a pointy headed photographer, and all. Anyway, I was real happy to see that a lot of people participated, it all seemed like good fun, there was no name calling, etc, and it protected the POW. I agree that it should be a weekly event.

[matt_kime]

make the forum in the "Help and Feedback" section, it'll last longer. :)

[lex_jenkins]

Not only do I suspect Patrick as Paula Jones, but now I'm wondering about the Natasha X connection.

 

The plot thickens.

 

But whadda I know, I, a mere fallen and former double-icon flashing troublemaker.

 

I can say two things about this thread:

 

"Wow!!!"

 

and

 

"I've seen better."

[mmmee]

Perhaps if all my paying guests in my country Inn were trampling each other, I might put an extension on the place and hire more staff. errr, rather find more volunteers.

 

I thought the alternate thread for the POW discussion worked very well. Maybe, the POW person would even like to be able to keep both threads. With the alternative thread we can have the nice, proper moderated discussions in the front parlor, and any raucous, highly amusing, elf-bashing, name calling, etc., take place out in the back by the cock-fight ring. Put it right next to the swimming pool so any one who gets hysterical from laughing or crying can be sobered up with a quick dip. Actually, there should be no moderation allowed in the 'outside' discussion, if we could HAVE an outside thread, that is.

You have a volunteer to start such a thread, and a double icon bearing volunteer willing to throw any hysterics into the pool. I think this would make the front palour discussion easier to moderate and hopefully a more sensible discussion, considering there would be no deletions. Any remark that did not belong in the front parlour could just be transferred outside. The "Wow" and "Great" could just be left sitting in the outside thread, for whatever they are worth. I have had short, congratulatory remarks deleted from the POW discussion and can understand that rule, but the POW person may want to keep all those remarks on view somewhere on the site. It seems to me that a double thread solves a lot of problems. I cannot think of any problems that it would cause. It would stop people from crying censorship, if their comments were still viewable, although moved to to a different place.

[think27]

There is more latitude for banter and angst and name calling on an outside thread of the POW...but no thread is "unmoderated" completely. Ranting and raving left unchecked can and does get out of hand. Also - No one is stopping anyone from e-mailing the POW recipient with a "Congrats" or "Kudos". Or complaining ad-nauseum about the fact that the POW is not worthy or the elves are blind or whatever... via e-mail. Photonet has a right to keep things civil and considerate.