Red Filtered Blue Sky (BW shot with no human nor animal)

Started Apr 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
Deleted pending purge Senior Member • Posts: 1,197
Re: Red Filtered Blue Sky (BW shot with no human nor animal)

RaptorUK wrote:

OldArrow wrote:

iMac, therefore iAm wrote:

I disagree. If the host won't adhere to the rules of the challenge, then the voters should. Case in point, I just gave a bunch of 0.5's to some nice shots in the National Parks After Dark challenge because they either weren't 'after' dark, or they weren't a National Park. If you have the sun in your 'after dark' picture it IS a bad picture given the context of what is required. Removed from that context it may be a decent image, but challenges require that context be critiqued as well as quality.

I see what you mean, but having a bad picture in a challenge isn't the same as having an inadequate picture in a challenge. This should be sorted out by other methods (like issuing a one-only warning to that host for not doing proper job). Hosting DUTIES can not be delegated to the voters, and allowing improper entries, even when voted low, shifts the final rank of proper entries. This is the difference between DQ's and 0.5's.

The question of improper HOSTING is something else entirely, and should be addressed by DPR.

So what is a voter to do when the Host refuses to DQ entries that are obviously in breach of the Host's rules ?

e.g. an Entry that is 3200 pixels on it's longest side when there is a limit of 1600 pixels

an Entry like that cannot be allowed to win in place of Entries that meet the rules.

IMO, a voter who knows how this all works, has read the rules etc. can skip such an entry... but since all voters are not really voting like that, others will probably award their votes according to picture quality anyway. In other words, such an entry will likey gather various vote values, and several honest 0.5's deserved for not following the size rule will have the same effect as a few another 0.5's cast by the sandbaggers.

That's why I think that hosts should either be forced to do their part the way it was intended, or (be made to) stop hosting altogether.

Alternatively, there shoud be two distinctive groups of votes: one for quality, the other (yes/no) for observing the frames of the Challenge. Any entry deserving a "no" should have some consequence, either by removing certain percentage of vote-gathered quality points, or by affecting the hosting privilege. Details can be discussed, of course...

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow