Utopia of Critique Forum

[Chiller]

I think you covered all the angles we came up with. Now it comes down to polls or what? I want this to be something that the whole forum can pretty much agree with.


As long as they are under my spell....boooohooooaaaaahhhhhh! (For you Chiller)

I agree...everyone has to have a vote, or some sort of input, and it has to be without a long dragged out fisticuff over egos. Leave em at home.

As for the spell... I have more spells on members there then ya think. Some are losing their hair as we speak.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Quick question: There will be 12-15 critiquers at the outset. Are they 'appointed for life' (unless they withdraw or are replaced for having missed deadlines)? Any other proposed method for getting some occasional 'new blood' on the panel?

People who are willing and able to do the job will not be plentiful so barring silliness I don't see why they can't do it for as long as they want to. Natural wastage will remove them now and then.
We could just add more as people volunteer.
The pool could be of any size, really, and we don't have to use them all every week.
The random selection bit would mean that you could make quite a few submissions before you got the same person again.

 

[elsaspet]

All you can do is hair...?


LOL, JK....but maybe not really....
booohahhhahahahahhaha

 

[smcaskil]

Holy moly...y'all are way down yonder in the US of eh. After seeing that amazing list work, our company are cheap arses, and would never pay for work like that.
Well done man. Good luck on finding work.

I would be more than willing to work from home. It's too damn cold in Canada anyway. Plus your baseball teams suck. :lmao:

 

[Antarctican]

People who are willing and able to do the job will not be plentiful so barring silliness I don't see why they can't do it for as long as they want to. Natural wastage will remove them now and then.
We could just add more as people volunteer.
The pool could be of any size, really, and we don't have to use them all every week.
The random selection bit would mean that you could make quite a few submissions before you got the same person again.

Good points. Longevity can lead to consistency of procedure, more could be added to the panel as suitable volunteers come forward, and with the random selection it means frequent posters won't likely be getting the same reviewers (not that they'd know anyway, if the reviews are anonymous). I think that voting every 3 months on panel members is going to be unworkable due to voter apathy, so your suggestion gets around that.

 

[kundalini]

Another thought occurred to me that has been prompted by this thread. It seems as if this thread was started in an effort to regain the Critique Forum. However the forum was pulled, in large part, due to bad behavior by a minority contingent. As the excitement began to build for a positive change with exceptional brainstorming ideas and means of implementation, I witnessed these contributing efforts gelatinize those participants. This certainly made my heart feel happy. I prefer collaboration.

As the discussion began to center around on methods of executing the ideas, decisions or whatever, that’s when the thought hit me. The core of this issue needs to be addressed by the administrators, in a chorus of disapproval to the community at large, of what is unacceptable in response to posts. There should also be a statement(s) of consequences for violators. I am not concerned with what is already in place, let it stay there. I felt that if for a brief period of time, this is somehow unavoidable to miss upon logging in. Acknowledgement to the populous that a bantam coalition exists and in an effort for the forum to remain welcoming, family friendly, educational and entertaining a notice has been composed with the rules that are applicable to all that enter. I have no suggestion on how this can be done; the web geniuses can figure that part out.

In a previous life, I was a pub manager. The act of banning a customer for bad behavior was embraced by me and my staff. This was my house! I chose a tiered system that centered on the severity and the frequency (yellow / red card; 3 strikes rule). The amount of time to which privileges were revoked usually ran for a week, month, six months and life. In this vein, if the active members really got on board and were to heavily police ourselves, I feel the transgressors will be short lived, eliminated is a pipedream.

Just a thought.

 

[Chiller]

What do you think?

I like what you have done Hertzy. I have always agreed with, that exif/and the intentions part. :thumbup::thumbup:

 

[Chiller]

2. Set of rules for submissions[/B]

1. Once monthy submission limits​

2. Anonymous​

3. Include the skill set (I say this needs to be a list if possible, so folks can't just put garbage in there that makes no sense and so we have clear definitions.)​

a. Professional (Either trained or being paid for photography)​

b. Pro-Am (You have done a few small shoots, possibly for free, but still are more amateur at the moment)​

c. Amateur / Hobbist​

d. New Photographer​

4. Specific critique requests. Something along the line of 'I'd like to know how I could have posed this person differently to account for the lack of space.' This won't limit the kind of critique they receive, but will make sure if they have a specific question, it is answered if possible.​

5. Information on what they were trying to convey from the photograph or why / for whom they took the picture. This means things like, 'I wanted it to look slighly out of focus to give it a more fill in the blank look.' That way they don't get a critique about something they meant to "do wrong." This would also include Hertz's ideas of Reason and What you were trying to do.​

6. The OKE / Not OKE is a good idea. Sometimes it is great to see what someone else could have done in editing. The one problem I see is that many folks, especially new photogrpahers, don't have the software required to do the edits, so you need to still include a critique, not just 'here's how I fixed your picture.'​

7. EXIF Data or details if using film​

8. Type of equipment, especially lighting used​

​

4. OTE or no OTE, depending on what the poster is looking for, and provided details of any edits are well spelled out.


These are right on. I like what you have done. I like your other ideas too, but did not want to copy the whole post. :thumbup::thumbup:

 

[Chiller]

Another thought occurred to me that has been prompted by this thread. It seems as if this thread was started in an effort to regain the Critique Forum. However the forum was pulled, in large part, due to bad behavior by a minority contingent. As the excitement began to build for a positive change with exceptional brainstorming ideas and means of implementation, I witnessed these contributing efforts gelatinize those participants. This certainly made my heart feel happy. I prefer collaboration.

As the discussion began to center around on methods of executing the ideas, decisions or whatever, that’s when the thought hit me. The core of this issue needs to be addressed by the administrators, in a chorus of disapproval to the community at large, of what is unacceptable in response to posts. There should also be a statement(s) of consequences for violators. I am not concerned with what is already in place, let it stay there. I felt that if for a brief period of time, this is somehow unavoidable to miss upon logging in. Acknowledgement to the populous that a bantam coalition exists and in an effort for the forum to remain welcoming, family friendly, educational and entertaining a notice has been composed with the rules that are applicable to all that enter. I have no suggestion on how this can be done; the web geniuses can figure that part out.

In a previous life, I was a pub manager. The act of banning a customer for bad behavior was embraced by me and my staff. This was my house! I chose a tiered system that centered on the severity and the frequency (yellow / red card; 3 strikes rule). The amount of time to which privileges were revoked usually ran for a week, month, six months and life. In this vein, if the active members really got on board and were to heavily police ourselves, I feel the transgressors will be short lived, eliminated is a pipedream.

Just a thought.

One thing Im happy with is the open discussion, with all this info being available for all to read. Im sure a few will not read a thread the size of a dictionary, but everything we are discussing is out for all eyes.

You have some very valid points with rules. On the non photo forum Im on, we use the three strike rule. Basically..be nice , or you will end up in ice. It is not a regimented be good or else, but the first warning is issued with common sense....like..."o.k guys girls...this is officially your first warning, clean up your act" Not the exact words, but just a light hearted warning. Most get it, but with some of the people here, it might be harder sell....they dont get it.
Another thing I agree on is the placement of the rules. All to often, someone will just post. They want a reply, without all the details of reading. I cant remember who, but somebody mentioned a pop up window, before you post.

Sorry...im starving and thinkin out loud. :mrgreen:

 

[Antarctican]

One big difference between the Hertz version and the smcaskil version is whether submissions can be made every week or every month. Suggestions on a saw off? Some would include:
-splitting it down the middle and allowing submissions every two weeks;
-submissions can be once a month, with several crits coming down each week to keep up with the workload (or maybe that was the idea anyway)
-start off by allowing weekly submissions and bumping it back to every 2 or 4 weeks if it gets unwieldy
-any other version people want to suggest and can live with

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The frequency of submissions should depend on a) how many we get a week and b) how many crits are done a week.
If we get lots then the frequency could be fortnightly/monthly.
I prefer weekly in all cases though.
We will only be critting a small percentage and members might feel justifiably miffed if they are not picked and then have to wait a whole month to try again.
I was using the Lottery as a model. One chance per week seems acceptable.
The PM box suggestion would limit the total number of submissions to 99 anyway...

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Well we seem to have pretty much covered the submission and selection of the 'panel' side of things, short of actually agreeing exactly which model is to be followed. I think that we are still short of some guidelines for the 'panel' members themselves though.

I think we're taking it as read that they already know how to provide a meaningful critique. This may be the case in the main, but I'd have some concern about consistency across the board. Does anyone know of something that could be used as a reference, or who could write something succinct for that purpose?

I could potentially offer up something that was presented as part of my OU course, but that could be:

a. OU copyright
b. a bit on the noddy side
​

Possibly something more useful might be a couple of worked examples to get the panel into the swing of things.

 

[Antarctican]

We will only be critting a small percentage and members might feel justifiably miffed if they are not picked and then have to wait a whole month to try again.

That was my thought exactly.

And presumably they can resubmit the same image if it wasn't chosen?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Well we seem to have pretty much covered the submission and selection of the 'panel' side of things, short of actually agreeing exactly which model is to be followed. I think that we are still short of some guidelines for the 'panel' members themselves though.

I think we're taking it as read that they already know how to provide a meaningful critique. This may be the case in the main, but I'd have some concern about consistency across the board. Does anyone know of something that could be used as a reference, or who could write something succinct for that purpose?

Give me a day or so to think about it.

It is a fact that any forum of this kind will only work if everyone pulls their weight - and I mean everyone.
And the quality of any such forum will be directly related to the quality, commitment and ability of the Forum Mod and the individual panel members.
The Forum Mod is in fact the key member. The model I proposed with random selection should ensure that members submitting pictures for a crit have as good a chance of getting a 'good' panel member as have of getting a sub-par one.
I do not expect all panel members to be brilliant - and any ones that aren't up to the task will have to improve quickly or go. Although the members will not know which panel member has done a particular crit, the Mod will.
The open sub-forum will provide feedback and it will quickly become obvious if any panel member isn't up to the job.
The Mod will then tell him/her to shape up and if they don't (or give a damn good reason why they haven't) they will be asked to step down. If they don't the Mod can remove them from the selection pool anyway.

 

[smcaskil]

I think that we are still short of some guidelines for the 'panel' members themselves though.

I went back and read through some of the posts, namely from HvR and found what might be the start of a template of sorts that the panel members could use in writing their critiques. This by no means a firm list, and something like this might not work, at least not in every case. But it is something to discuss.

Technical

Exposure
Color balance
Depth of field
Sharpness
Lighting

Structural

Composition
Color
Tone
Texture

Intellectual

what does it mean and why am I doing it?