DA Photo Contest Forum / Welcome to DailyAwards.com / Ask Questions / Wrong category / Latest Posts

RE: Wrong category

Tonka — Sat, 03 May 2008 05:02:12 GMT

lol....

But seriously, maybe this is being over thought..
I mean I could actually debate, and feel justified, if I said that all the manipulated images ...like HDR should only be in digiart..

hmm this discussion is also in another thread but I will reply here cuz it is not off topic to this one...

anyway, there was an issue a little bit ago about a certain style of image in landscapes..the photog was told they should be in digiart..the images were clearly of landscape in subject....if HDR could stay in landscape why not "painted" landscapes? I had to agree with the photog. in my opinion, I thought; "why not? there are very heavily manipulated images in this category all the time"
When I first joined geez I thought half the images belonged in digiart..to me minimal editing is a photo, maximal editing is a creation...(okay I still think that but my opinion has broadened and come to appreciate different aspects since I hope I have learned a little something about photography);)

what I am getting at is that we are all going to interpret things the way we do...I think a discussion is fine ,perhaps a change can come from it but perhaps things can stay as they are for a time..It is not necessary to vehemently try and make everything concrete...there really is no fun in that now is there? I mean that really is creatively stifling..wouldn't you agree.? ......Bubba? ;) :P

RE: Wrong category

diamondskier — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:33:28 GMT

Ooooh, I like that response. Especially, if you do say what category you think the picture might be better suited for.

Tonka, your response made me laugh! I think I had to read it 3 times just to keep up with it. I absolutely agree that no subject should be off limits. I really think its all about how they're depicted.

So for my reflection picture, it's not about the ground and the water, it really is that the reflection looks more like a hole and not a lake. In fact, the first time I saw the picture I couldn't quite figure out why it looked so strange until I realized that there was a lake with a reflection - and I'm the one that took it!

Sandy, I think you've hit the nail on the head with "The category "needs" a DA style slant and clarification".

RE: Wrong category

Sunnyside Sandy — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:32:07 GMT

Good on you!! And please keep on doing it!

A good response would probably be:

"Does not meet [i]my interpretation[/i] of the Category - as per the Category Description"

Little else needs to be said - no matter how technically excellent the image appears to be - if it does not meet [b]"your"[/b] expectations of that Category then you'll be providing honest and fair feedback.

At least, until such time as the Category Descriptions are more clearly defined.

RE: Wrong category

Cblank — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:41:08 GMT

I think we could all benefit from clearer category descriptions. I have only been on DA for a month, but one of the first things I did was read the current category descriptions. I would guess that other newbies rely on it as well.

However, I really do believe that there are a fair number of voters who do not take into consideration the category when voting. For example, I received a 5 on an image that I placed into the abstract category. When I did a RFC, the reply I received stated that they gave it a low vote because they could not tell what it was a picture of :) I have also noticed that my scores for images I place in the abstract category in particular tend to be far more ranging then other categories I enter. This has lead me to the conclusion that there are instances when people only look at the image and vote, without looking at category or even description.

When viewing the images of others, I have never checked the wrong category button but I do give a lower score if I think it is in the wrong category and often leave a comment like "I think this would be great for the _______ category."

RE: Wrong category

Sunnyside Sandy — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:27:50 GMT

Hey Zzzonka

I think that you've just (unintentionally) confirmed what others were trying to put across - the specifics of the Category are [b]not [/b]strong enough - voters do not know what to expect from the Unexpected Category!

The category "needs" a DA style slant and clarification - few members and voters will, or do, observe the type of submissions on the link connected to the Unexpected Category description.

Basically, it's too much hassle for the majority (especially on a regular basis to enable them to keep up) - so they form their own opinions on what[i] "The"[/i] DA Unexpected Category is all about.

Totally understandable - but at the same time scoring is very much inconsistant as a result. The balance of judgement isn't there.

There are other Categories that require more specific guidelines too - probably something that the DAGC ought to address very soon........ as such things are probably considered as "basics" to many current and prospective members.

This isn't a go at you Zzonka! Just an attempt to assist and highlight the need for further clarification and better descriptions on the majority of Categories. Some, such as the Unexpected Category need it sooner than others methinks!

Otherwise, voting within such Categories will continue to be eratic....at best! and the value of Awards within those Categories will continue to diminish.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Hey Ho.

RE: Wrong category

Tonka — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:24:05 GMT

I honestly do not know if anyone can possibly be right with what they, personally, expect to be in unexpected...

Even the mundane is unexpected, this was in File Magazine..

You cannot say animals are not unexpected and you cannot say that reflections are unexpected, after all, I do not expect to see birds touching beaks normally unless they are being fed,,and quite honestly, I expect to see my reflection in a pool of water just as I do mountains in a lake......I do not expect anyone to say either....such complex expectations...for the unexpected category..guidelines, sure

but rules barring rodents? rules including only reflections?
NAW...

For me...every image in the unexpected category is unexpected because I just do not know what to expect..

hee

RE: Wrong category

diamondskier — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:47:42 GMT

Thanks for taking a look and affirming that I'm at least not too far off track with my thinking. It is a category that can easily be mis-interpreted I think. In fact, until I took a look at the FILE Magazine website, I don't think I really got what this category was all about. Even then, I think it's still difficult.

Kathleen

RE: Wrong category

SkyBlueRose — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:06:40 GMT

Hi Kathleen,

The link worked and I would have to agree with you. I think that is why your votes are so all over the place. It seems voters took into consideration the category it was put in when they voted higher and voting it down when they didn't consider the context. It is good you wrote a description and that helps some but I think voters don't always look closely at the category it was in, especially when it is one that could easily and more likely have been in another category. Your example is perfect. Some would argue it should be in Landscape but by your description I can see why you put it in unexpected and feel it's appropriate. Some may not notice the category and vote as if it was in landscape. I wouldn't be surprised if I accidentally have voted on an image with preconceived assumptions on its category if it didn't have a description; and I'm someone who does considered the category when voting. I'm sure there must be some who vote without considering the category the image is in at all.

Linda

RE: Wrong category

diamondskier — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:46:25 GMT

Alan,

"Do you actually believe, squirrels, flowers, and so on belong in Other or Unexpected. Even you know better then that, don't you?"

Peace dude! Let's not be attacking now. Ya' know I'm pretty sure you just called me stupid.

No, I have not done what you are talking about, but you still included me in your generalization whether you meant to or not. That's the thing about generalizations, they're well... general. Perhaps, a better way of saying it would to have said something like "...people that have been told, but continue to use the wrong category..."

As for your experiment, the only problem with it is that it just reinforced what you don't want to happen. As a new member, I would look at what's in the category to help me decide what to put in there myself. I took a look at the birds kissing photo and I could see it in the Unexpected category, afterall two birds kissing seems awfully Unexpected to me. HOWEVER, I understand that this isn't the type of Unexpected that is intended by the category. Typically I would not expect squirrels, flowers and so on to be in this category, but it really depends on how they are shot doesn't it. If they are treated in unexpected ways such as alternate takes, unconventional observations, odd angles, etc. then that is certainly keeping with the definition.

Maybe DA should add the phrase "the photographs in the collection reinterpret traditional genres" to the definition of Unexpected (taken from the FILE Magazine website). Perhaps we could go so far as to say... If your photo is not in keeping with those on FILE Magazine, then don't put them in this category. I don't know if this would help or not. If, indeed, people are putting things out there just to get wins, then it doesn't really matter what the definition is.

Finally, I truly believe that the bigger problem is with the voters, not with the people putting the images into the wrong category. If, when voting, you (not YOU) took into account the category then perhaps that would achieve the result that you (you this time) are wanting. But... as long as people are going to give "beautiful" pictures high ratings and "weird" (excuse my adjectives) pictures low ratings I think the true intent of the Unexpected category is doomed to fail.

Take my photo of a reflection which I put in the Unexpected category which I believe is in keeping with the definition of the category. I don't know if you can see this but here it is (http://www.dailyawards.com/members/imgstats.aspx?ImageID=121407). It's not doing that great vote wise, particulary compared to the photos that have great colors, blurred backgrounds, etc. I'm not saying it's a great photo, but I also don't think people have looked at it in the context of the intent of the category.

So... basically I think you and I are saying roughly the same thing, but we're approaching it differently.

There you have it.... Sorry for the book I wrote.

Kathleen

RE: Wrong category

Sunnyside Sandy — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:54:57 GMT

If the truth is to be told - the Unexpected Category is NOT defined clearly enough and is too open to an individual's personal interpretation. Not really a good thing as it devalues the Category, in my opinion.

The Other Category is much more competitive - though it is also very much abused too (as indeed the Unexpected Category is) - People being people try to abuse the system by placing their photos/images in such Categories to try and gain from it.

But people being people (mostly) - don't like to highlight or score down an image that fits perfectly well within another Category because they don't want to offend anyone or make enemies....especially if they are a new(er) member. Totally understandable!

Ignorance is one thing........but many that "should know better" is another thing!

Solution? Still trying to work it out myself - guidance always appreciated and valued.

RE: Wrong category

Alan — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:45:06 GMT

Kathleen,

Have you done what I have spoken about? If not you are not being generalized against. And I do understand that some of the new people may put things into the wrong category by mistake which is not a problem. It is the ones that continue to put images in the wrong category on a consistant basis, it's the only two categories they use. And these people know who they are. Do you actually believe, squirrels, flowers, and so on belong in Other or Unexpected. Even you know better then that, don't you?

A couple of weeks ago I put two birds kissing into Unexpected to see how fast I could get a Sig award, well it took two days and I had 2 points added to my weight. Well they did not belong in Unexpected because there was nothing Unexpected about it I see them do all the time. The image was deleted by the way.

I very rarely see people with less then a month doing this. It is the ones getting discouraged because they are not getting awards in other categories. I have been discouraged also and that just means I have to try harder and pick everyones brain that will let me.

Alan

As always thanks to all the members at DA that have made my photography better.

RE: Wrong category

diamondskier — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:02:20 GMT

Interesting and (imho) unfair generalization

"What I have noticed the people that do this are usually a lower weight and are trying to get quick weight because there is not as much competition in those two categories and you can get awards with lower ratings."

Could the reason possibly be that those with a lower weight (perhaps you should define this) might be newer to the site and may have made an honest mistake simply because they're new?

I am new to DA and to photography for that matter, and for the most part I really like the site. The quality of the photos is excellent, the format of the site is great. When I have asked for help, I have usually gotten it. I try to be respectful so that even if I don't agree with someones response (of which there's only been one) I remember that I'm the one that asked the question. The one thing that I have found (and perhaps I'm naive) is that there is a strong propensity to assume the worst of everyone. I hate being lumped into this category (and actually feel offended) when I consider a sense of fairplay to be a core virtue.

Again, I'm new, I don't have the history that many of you do, so perhaps I should just shut up and color.

Kathleen

RE: Wrong category

Alan — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:26:03 GMT

[quote][b]Kai (5/1/2008)[/b][hr]How many of you check the "wrong category" box when voting?

I'm getting tired of seeing squirrels, flowers and other subjects in the "Other" category. My attitude is, "They have their own, use them."[/quote]

Well here is my take on this. When I first started this site I put things in Other or Unexpected because that is where I believed they went at the time. Well I learned the hard way by getting slammed and any other abuse that could come along. So now I am very careful to make sure that I'm putting the image in the right category.

Now when I see something in the wrong category such as other or Unexpected I leave a message on the image of what I think and also knock it down a point, and also mark it wrong category. What I have noticed the people that do this are usually a lower weight and are trying to get quick weight because there is not as much competition in those two categories and you can get awards with lower ratings. Now these are just my thoughts and opinions.

Alan

And as always thanks to the members of DA that have helped me improve with photography.

RE: Wrong category

The Newf! — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:24:19 GMT

I always check but seldom find one in the wrong cat, some fit in more than one!

Wrong category

Kai — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:28:12 GMT

How many of you check the "wrong category" box when voting?

I'm getting tired of seeing squirrels, flowers and other subjects in the "Other" category. My attitude is, "They have their own, use them."