david robinson

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

You should also look here: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/11

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I ordered my new subscription but did not get the 18 months. Could you please check on this. Thanks...

There seems to be an etiquette that has developed among the regular

posters in the Critique Only area. Most of us observe a tacit rule of

posting only one or two images per a total of 16 postings under any

current view. We observe this for a couple of reasons. First and

foremost it is rather imposing, if not rude, to think that commenters

will respond in depth (which is the point of this area) to multiple

postings. Secondly, there is very limited visibility for those of us

using this area. When folks post multiple images then that limits

even further the visibility of those who are then bumped out of view.

I have seen a single poster with half of the allotted 16 spaces used

with his images.

 

I propose the following rule change for limiting postings in the

Critique Only section: one image per day...

 

Part of the need for this rule change is that it is often the case

that the violators of the tacit understandoing are new postors. They

post multiple images, get little or no response then disappear. But

this happens repeatedly. For those of us using the Critique Only

section regularly, this rule change would be greatly

appreciated...

I have requested the feature before. Many of us enjoy browsing, or refinding images, in the middle of the deck. I hope this feature is added soon. Thanks for showing what is possible...

Yes thanks Brian. This site just became much more interesting and in the process more fair...

This example has nothing to do with the question of how we process visual stimuli. This example relates rather specifically to how we 'interpret' visual ambiguity. A different problem altogether. You can not correctly infer from this that we (westerners) process images left to right. (The correct answer of course is that the stairs are going up and down, but that was not an option given. The results are forced to begin with...)

I should add that we would also be highly biased to search out faces when present...

I very much doubt this proposition. Attention to visual stimuli, based upon evolutionary principles, would not have us scanning from left to right (at least not for long!). Our attention would be more likely driven firstly by elements of movement or their suggestion. Then perhaps by objects that somehow stand out in differentiated ways. My opinion is not researched, but I would put bet money that the original proposition is not true.

Like many I enjoy looking at the images beyond the front pages of the

TRP. Currently to search those pages we must either go forward or

backward, but sequentially. Why not create a search by page number

feature? This would help those like me who like to see view images in

the middle of the deck. Thanks...

Mark, you have restricted the universe of mate raters to those who only go about it in rather crass and obvious ways. There are others who are much more subtle, but who are mate rating nontheless. I repeat: we are all mate raters.

As things stand within an open more transparent system, the management cannot do anything about mate rating because they know what some of you fail to acknowledge. Namely that we are all mate raters.

 

Carl suggestion of maximizing anonymity would be the only possible resolution of mate rating. But we would then loose part of what Ben is advocating -- the importance sense of building community.

Trouble is we are all mate raters -- All of you here complaining about the practice are mate raters. There is nothing the management can do to help you. Good luck. I wish you well...

Hey Dave I have thought about this some more and came to the realization that the lack of visibility for the Comment Only section gives us an opportunity to have a self-selecting group of photographers who really are interested in a more satisfying exchange with one another. Hell who cares how visible it is? What does that mean? I appreciate the effort you are making over at the CO. That is where I will be posting from now on exclusively. I bet we could help build an interesting community over there and again the lack of visibility make work to our advantage. Just some thoughts...

Correction I see that the thumbnail viewing is available. That helps. Thanks.

I think the structure of the Critiques Only section has greatly limited its impact for precisely the reason Dave mentioned, visibility. Listings are not even thumbnail for ease of viewing. Nor is there any access to the TRP even for images that are significantly commented upon. One idea might be to include the highly commented images when people use the "by commented" filter on the TRP. That would be a start.

 

Its the ratings system that people using the Critique Only section want to avoid, not visibility. Give this section some greater visibility and I assure you many more people will use it. This attitude of "I gave them what they asked for and they don't even use it" reflects the assumption that you created what was asked for. Perhaps you didn't. Asking for some improvement in the visibility here is not unreasonable.

The elves have my sincerest sympathy for what they must endure. Some of the feedback on this thread is absolutely ridiculous. My main point however about the backdoor entry onto the TRP is a valid issue. I hope you will give it some thought.

 

I'm not sure if Venicia is an elf, but if so you smugness is most unbecoming.