Challenges requiring previous wins

[jeffbottman]

I see that 50% of the challenges currently open for submission require a previous first place challenge finish. It's OK to have challenges of that sort, but in my opinion not quite as high a percentage; after all how does one finish first without being allowed to enter? Opinions?

 

[anisah]

At the time of writing there are 6 challenges open for submissions and 2 of those include the rule regarding first place only entrants. The actual rules state:

• Only entrants who have won at least one photo challenge in Dpreview.com can enter.
• I might consider allowing entries from beginner participants if their shot are on par with the rest of the entries.

In reality this usually means that the host allows those who have not won a challenge to enter, providing the images submitted are of sufficiently good quality. The host goes on to say:

• Make sure the entries look good and tasteful (at least you must find your own shot tasteful).

So he is pretty broadminded about what is good and tasteful! This generally means that he is, and this includes my own experience, very lenient with regard to entries, and only tends to disqualify those who disregard other requirements, eg non-inclusion of a border. I have regularly entered such challenges even though I have not won any challenge.

Hope this helps a bit.

"The only thing certain about life is uncertainty." (Rabbi Berel Wein)
"We must learn to love the man who differs from us in opinion." (Swami Vivekananda)

 

[RuthC]

I think you are incorrect in suggesting that 50% of the challenges require 1st place winners only. I believe there is only one host, with two challenges each week who has this requirement. In recent times, I've noticed that he has become more lenient in allowing members who haven't won anything to enter his challenges.

If you feel the quality of your photos are above the 'happy snaps' category, then message him, and ask if you can enter these challenges.

Ruth

 

[bruxi]

• I might consider allowing entries from beginner participants if their shot are on par with the rest of the entries.

An example of poor hosting that made me lose interest in challenges

 

[Trensamiro]

.

Hi, anisah:

In reality this usually means that the host allows those who have not won a challenge to enter, providing the images submitted are of sufficiently good quality.

Indeed. This host kindly allowed me to enter his recent "Dumb Ways 2 Die" challenge with this picture:

Playing with Death

despite the fact that I haven't won a challenge yet, though I've already got several 2nd places. Matter of fact, my entry went to get 2nd place in this challenge too.

As I understand it, the purpose of this rule is to ensure the quality of the entries, as winning a previous challenge is reasonably deemed to be correlated with producing quality images, and all other people are required to enter images of similar quality to the entries of the previous winners if they want to have a chance.

Seems fair to me and may well help increase the quality of the images submitted.

T.

See my best pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

Current batch: Xmas Streets at Night. Next batch: Fast & Very Dangerous Action.

 

[jeffbottman]

I think you are incorrect in suggesting that 50% of the challenges require 1st place winners only. I believe there is only one host, with two challenges each week who has this requirement. In recent times, I've noticed that he has become more lenient in allowing members who haven't won anything to enter his challenges.

If you feel the quality of your photos are above the 'happy snaps' category, then message him, and ask if you can enter these challenges.

Ruth

The 50% number was correct, but just at one point in time. It varies, of course, usually less than 50% it's true.

 

[Harveydad]

Have we become so "elitist" that we will tolerate mostly winners' entries in the challenges? Does that not defeat the whole purpose of challenges? I always thought DPReview Challenges were for amateurs more than pros, but with room for everyone. I guess I was wrong.......

 

[Wildbegonia]

I see that 50% of the challenges currently open for submission require a previous first place challenge finish. It's OK to have challenges of that sort, but in my opinion not quite as high a percentage; after all how does one finish first without being allowed to enter? Opinions?

This issue has been debated many times in the Forum way back two years at least. Browse it if you have time to waste, you may find yourself laughing.

Check previous Challenges where this "only entrants who have won at least one photo challenge" rule applies, and you will see that a big percentage of the participants in these challenges never won a challenge before, so it is really up to you. Really, I dought the host ever checked or respected her\his own creation.

But, "I might consider allowing entries from beginner participants if their shot are on par with the rest of the entries." In other words, the host decides, so again, it is up to you.

Opinions? It is nothing short of pompous and slightly arrogant. Many members deters from participating in DPchallenges because many hosts are simply not up to the challenge.

_______________________________________________

--'Balls! Said the Queen, if I'll had them, I'll be the King'.

 

[Jamesie]

I think you are incorrect in suggesting that 50% of the challenges require 1st place winners only. I believe there is only one host, with two challenges each week who has this requirement. In recent times, I've noticed that he has become more lenient in allowing members who haven't won anything to enter his challenges.

If you feel the quality of your photos are above the 'happy snaps' category, then message him, and ask if you can enter these challenges.

Or just enter and let him throw you out if he wants to. He hasn't thrown me out. I haven’t won a challenge yet. I've now had a couple of respectable finishes, but nothing near the top. I wonder whether I have beaten previous winners, though.

I find the voting a bit capricious -- sometimes predictable -- but who cares? It's fun.

Incidentally, I do like the engine driver, jelly fish, and old household tech winners. Excellent work.

As for the bubbles! Aaargh!!! Lots of very enjoyable pictures that everyone is going to treasure for decades to come. My kids and their friends were bubbling about like mad -- I looked at the field and gave up right there! Okay, I took a few snaps for the kids to keep, but I wasn't about t embarras myself! LOL!

 

[Mike Ronesia]

For a long time it has just been one host with 2 challenges. The real problem is that the challenge system is so messed up that there are less and less people willing to host and deal with it. When I was hosting there were 40 or more challenges open for submission on any given day. Now there are a lot less.

Fix the system so hosting isn't a challenge in and of itself and those 2 challenges won't be such a large percentage of challenges that are available for people to enter.

 

[Larry de March]

I only recently started entering challenges but I haven' let the "winners only" entry rule deter me and I've entered a number of them. I haven't been kicked out yet!

 

[Midwest]

• I might consider allowing entries from beginner participants if their shot are on par with the rest of the entries.

An example of poor hosting that made me lose interest in challenges

I might consider entering challenges where the host has won at least five challenges, proving he's not full of hot air.

 

[Midwest]

Have we become so "elitist" that we will tolerate mostly winners' entries in the challenges? Does that not defeat the whole purpose of challenges? I always thought DPReview Challenges were for amateurs more than pros, but with room for everyone. I guess I was wrong.......

I agree with you. Who do these hosts think they are, Ansel Adams? Too important to be bothered by people who don't meet certain standards?

Every person who has won his/her first challenge did so by entering a challenge that did not have that pompous "must have already won" rule.

 

[Midwest]

I see that 50% of the challenges currently open for submission require a previous first place challenge finish. It's OK to have challenges of that sort, but in my opinion not quite as high a percentage; after all how does one finish first without being allowed to enter? Opinions?

This issue has been debated many times in the Forum way back two years at least. Browse it if you have time to waste, you may find yourself laughing.

Check previous Challenges where this "only entrants who have won at least one photo challenge" rule applies, and you will see that a big percentage of the participants in these challenges never won a challenge before, so it is really up to you. Really, I dought the host ever checked or respected her\his own creation.

But, "I might consider allowing entries from beginner participants if their shot are on par with the rest of the entries." In other words, the host decides, so again, it is up to you.

Opinions? It is nothing short of pompous and slightly arrogant. Many members deters from participating in DPchallenges because many hosts are simply not up to the challenge.

A not-great entry in a challenge is likely to place low; the challenge takes care of that on its own (other than when sandbagging etc. are involved, which does happen). But when a host is sub-par the entrants are at their mercy.

I've entered and seen other challenges where the host allowed entries that had virtually nothing to do with the stated theme, and people who entered good and relevent photos lost out to photos that didn't even belong - but the judge let them in.

Who has more right - the host, or the entrant - to insist on competence before an entry is made?

 

[bruxi]

• I might consider allowing entries from beginner participants if their shot are on par with the rest of the entries.

An example of poor hosting that made me lose interest in challenges

I might consider entering challenges where the host has won at least five challenges, proving he's not full of hot air.

Yes - a bit much...

 

[Chuck Lantz]

Have we become so "elitist" that we will tolerate mostly winners' entries in the challenges? Does that not defeat the whole purpose of challenges? I always thought DPReview Challenges were for amateurs more than pros, but with room for everyone. I guess I was wrong.......

I agree with you. Who do these hosts think they are, Ansel Adams? Too important to be bothered by people who don't meet certain standards?

Every person who has won his/her first challenge did so by entering a challenge that did not have that pompous "must have already won" rule.

I think you both make some very valid observations, Midwest and Harveydad.

The facts that some seem to forget is that the Challenges are free to enter, judged by peers, using an iffy scoring system, with no prizes. There is absolutely no reason to pretend that they are, or ever were intended to be anything other than friendly and casual contests, with more in common with photographic show-and-tells between forum acquaintances than serious photo competitions.

As Midwest said, requiring that only previous winners can enter is pompous. The same applies to requiring frames, or anything else having nothing to do with producing and showing your photos. If a host wants to occasionally hold a "best of" the month, or year or whatever between previous winners, that makes sense.

But anything beyond that becomes an exercise in exclusivity, pushing the challenges way too close to an "aren't we special?" clubby mindset, with too few participants and a handful of show-running hosts.

Anyone who has followed this forum knows that nothing I've written is new. Others, including DPR managers, have mentioned the same, or very similar concerns over the past few years. The common sense approach would be to consider and implement some self-imposed changes in how the challenges are run, rather than wait until DPR either imposes what would most likely be much harsher changes, or pulls the plug on challenges altogether if things don't improve.

 

[Harveydad]

Good observations, Chuck. I would add one more thing: the Challenges are unlikely to change much, if at all. The Challenges are a part of a business, and the owners of that business will not change anything, as I would not nor would you, which could adversely affect the bottom line. In this business, I think probably "clicks" or visitors to the website, are what assists the bottom line. Were I in charge I would not change that - I would try to generate more "clicks", even through controversy, if that helped.......