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

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.

"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

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.

If you want the rainbow - you gotta put up with the rain.

A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel sooooo good!

"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