Photoshop Contest PhotoshopContest.com
Creative Contests. Real Prizes. Essential Resource.
You are not logged in. Log in or Register

 


Photoshop Contest Forum Index - Brain Storm - How to increase participation - Reply to topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 27, 28, 29  Next

PotHed

Location: San Antonio, Tx

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:10 pm   Reply with quote         


Werdnaibor wrote:
PotHed wrote:
The-Masked-Layer wrote:
PotHed wrote:
The-Masked-Layer wrote:
PotHed wrote:
The-Masked-Layer wrote:
PotHed wrote:

Read my OP and you'll know how.


There is nothing there but speculation based on your own personal observations. Start a poll and maybe you'll have something.

Yes, because starting a poll would get to the bottom of everything. Rolling Eyes


It would get you something other than your own inner dialogue. You have nothing right now. Other people's opinions can actually help you build a case. Perhaps you have realized that it would only hurt your case. As for the images, did you peruse Shutter Stock? What are you getting there that is different? It seems we'd have to genetically engineer a new species to please you.

Read my OP.


Well, you have a complete lack of self-awareness, and the debating skills of a child. I should have stayed out of this and spent more time chopping. It's fun. You should try it sometime. Goodbye.

Yes, you should have stayed out of this if you didn't have the energy to read the OP.

I can't believe I have to do this a second time. He read it. Nowhere in your original post is there an argument that links the voting to the repetitious (not even that repititious anyway) sources. He countered that concept with logic. You ignored it and pointed back to a nonexistent argument. You have no answer about why advantage members have some unique criteria for selecting sources. He showed what random stock photos would be like. You have no response for that either.


His initial statement was "Your argument rests on the assumption that people innately crave variety to maintain interest. I do agree with that. So... voting on source images would be the ideal solution, right?"

I had already explained in my OP why voting is not the ideal solution, how voting leads to repetition, and gave an example of voting leading to repetition elsewhere in order to support my argument.

So he clearly did NOT read my OP.




TheShaman

Location: Peaksville, Southeast of Disorder

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:15 pm   Reply with quote         


My God do you even listen to yourself?
Why even bother then?
Nothing will ever be good enough for you... This site has a contest 365 days a year.
Even if PSC did everything you've asked, eventually you'd still run into the same problem.

I'm not being 'intellectually dishonest'. I'm just growing tired of your bullshit... and the fact that you cant even give a straight answer without trying to act smarter than everyone else...

so why don't YOU go run along, and find something better to do with your time...




_________________
T-shirt Designs: http://www.cafepress.com/TheShaman
Help fight breast cancer by becoming an enabler: http://www.cafepress.com/Pinkaholics
PotHed

Location: San Antonio, Tx

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:22 pm   Reply with quote         


TheShaman wrote:
My God do you even listen to yourself?
Why even bother then?
Nothing will ever be good enough for you... This site has a contest 365 days a year.
Even if PSC did everything you've asked, eventually you'd still run into the same problem.

I'm not being 'intellectually dishonest'. I'm just growing tired of your bullshit... and the fact that you cant even give a straight answer without trying to act smarter than everyone else...

so why don't YOU go run along, and find something better to do with your time...

I started this thread. If you don't like it, GTFO.




Werdnaibor

Location: Albany, NY

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:23 pm   Reply with quote         


PotHed wrote:
Werdnaibor wrote:
PotHed wrote:
The-Masked-Layer wrote:
PotHed wrote:
The-Masked-Layer wrote:
PotHed wrote:
The-Masked-Layer wrote:
PotHed wrote:

Read my OP and you'll know how.


There is nothing there but speculation based on your own personal observations. Start a poll and maybe you'll have something.

Yes, because starting a poll would get to the bottom of everything. Rolling Eyes


It would get you something other than your own inner dialogue. You have nothing right now. Other people's opinions can actually help you build a case. Perhaps you have realized that it would only hurt your case. As for the images, did you peruse Shutter Stock? What are you getting there that is different? It seems we'd have to genetically engineer a new species to please you.

Read my OP.


Well, you have a complete lack of self-awareness, and the debating skills of a child. I should have stayed out of this and spent more time chopping. It's fun. You should try it sometime. Goodbye.

Yes, you should have stayed out of this if you didn't have the energy to read the OP.

I can't believe I have to do this a second time. He read it. Nowhere in your original post is there an argument that links the voting to the repetitious (not even that repititious anyway) sources. He countered that concept with logic. You ignored it and pointed back to a nonexistent argument. You have no answer about why advantage members have some unique criteria for selecting sources. He showed what random stock photos would be like. You have no response for that either.


His initial statement was "Your argument rests on the assumption that people innately crave variety to maintain interest. I do agree with that. So... voting on source images would be the ideal solution, right?"

I had already explained in my OP why voting is not the ideal solution, how voting leads to repetition, and gave an example of voting leading to repetition elsewhere in order to support my argument.

So he clearly did NOT read my OP.

Just because someone disagrees with your weak argument doesn't mean they didn't read it. Apparently you didn't read the rest of his statement. He knows you don't think it's an ideal solution, he's stating that logic would indicate that it would work. You completely ignored that. Your example is really shitty. In no way is that proof. The map choice relates to playing style. Crappy players are more numerous, and they choose the shitty map that they won't completely suck on. It does not relate to source image selection in any way.




TheShaman

Location: Peaksville, Southeast of Disorder

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:33 pm   Reply with quote         


PotHed wrote:
TheShaman wrote:
My God do you even listen to yourself?
Why even bother then?
Nothing will ever be good enough for you... This site has a contest 365 days a year.
Even if PSC did everything you've asked, eventually you'd still run into the same problem.

I'm not being 'intellectually dishonest'. I'm just growing tired of your bullshit... and the fact that you cant even give a straight answer without trying to act smarter than everyone else...

so why don't YOU go run along, and find something better to do with your time...

I started this thread. If you don't like it, GTFO.



No I like it... It's good to 'talk' about this stuff...
but its pointless to argue with you... you either retort with "you're stupid" or "you're gay"

Being so intellectually superior, I'm surprised that you haven't taken over the world yet.
Why stop with PSC? Maybe you should email the leaders of the world and solve all our problems.

With that huge brain of yours, something so simple as repetitive sources should be mere child's play.
You should be able to wow us with your amazing talent without even the slightest effort...
Alas...

and to the Mods... this thread should have been locked PAGES ago.




_________________
T-shirt Designs: http://www.cafepress.com/TheShaman
Help fight breast cancer by becoming an enabler: http://www.cafepress.com/Pinkaholics
PotHed

Location: San Antonio, Tx

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:49 pm   Reply with quote         


Werdnaibor wrote:

Just because someone disagrees with your weak argument doesn't mean they didn't read it. Apparently you didn't read the rest of his statement. He knows you don't think it's an ideal solution, he's stating that logic would indicate that it would work. You completely ignored that. Your example is really shitty. In no way is that proof. The map choice relates to playing style. Crappy players are more numerous, and they choose the shitty map that they won't completely suck on. It does not relate to source image selection in any way.

"Logic" would indicate that it would work, how exactly? By definition, the best way to ensure variety is to leave it entirely up to third-party sources, chosen entirely by chance. No bias.

But he didn't use logic, he used common sense. His idea is that if the users choose the images, then the users will get the images they want, and therefore everyone will be happy. That's a nice common sense approach, but it doesn't reflect reality.

I was a TA for my philosophy professor (formal logic) and I studied analysis under the former Senior Intel Analyst, Joint Staff, Pentagon. I know a little something about good arguments and bad arguments. I know a little something about real logic and what passes for logic in the minds of idiots.

But if you really think you and your little friend have a better grasp on logic than me, great. Have at it, hoss.




TheShaman

Location: Peaksville, Southeast of Disorder

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:56 pm   Reply with quote         


PotHed wrote:


I was a TA for my philosophy professor (formal logic) and I studied analysis under the former Senior Intel Analyst, Joint Staff, Pentagon. I know a little something about good arguments and bad arguments. I know a little something about real logic and what passes for logic in the minds of idiots.


and yet you work where again?




_________________
T-shirt Designs: http://www.cafepress.com/TheShaman
Help fight breast cancer by becoming an enabler: http://www.cafepress.com/Pinkaholics
Werdnaibor

Location: Albany, NY

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:56 pm   Reply with quote         


PotHed wrote:
Werdnaibor wrote:

Just because someone disagrees with your weak argument doesn't mean they didn't read it. Apparently you didn't read the rest of his statement. He knows you don't think it's an ideal solution, he's stating that logic would indicate that it would work. You completely ignored that. Your example is really shitty. In no way is that proof. The map choice relates to playing style. Crappy players are more numerous, and they choose the shitty map that they won't completely suck on. It does not relate to source image selection in any way.

"Logic" would indicate that it would work, how exactly? By definition, the best way to ensure variety is to leave it entirely up to third-party sources, chosen entirely by chance. No bias.

But he didn't use logic, he used common sense. His idea is that if the users choose the images, then the users will get the images they want, and therefore everyone will be happy. That's a nice common sense approach, but it doesn't reflect reality.

I was a TA for my philosophy professor (formal logic) and I studied analysis under the former Senior Intel Analyst, Joint Staff, Pentagon. I know a little something about good arguments and bad arguments. I know a little something about real logic and what passes for logic in the minds of idiots.

But if you really think you and your little friend have a better grasp on logic than me, great. Have at it, hoss.

The logic was that if everyone wants variety, they will tend select varying images, as has been shown by the current voting. Actual proof, not shitty analogies that don't even come close to proof. He showed what random stock images look like, and it wasn't great. There goes that idea. If you're so great at logic, why did you just use a logical fallacy? Because I learned from this person, I am right. That doesn't fly with me.




PotHed

Location: San Antonio, Tx

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:12 pm   Reply with quote         


Werdnaibor wrote:

The logic was that if everyone wants variety, they will tend select varying images, as has been shown by the current voting. Actual proof, not shitty analogies that don't even come close to proof. He showed what random stock images look like, and it wasn't great. There goes that idea. If you're so great at logic, why did you just use a logical fallacy? Because I learned from this person, I am right. That doesn't fly with me.

It doesn't mean I'm right. It just means I have a better idea of what is actually logical and what just sounds logical. The fact that only a few people actually vote on the images, the fact that people have a bias to shit that looks cool already, the fact that we have example of voting contributing to repetition are not considered in the "Well, if we let people vote for what they want, they should be happy, right?" argument.

No.

Just a hypothetical example, let's say we had the following images to vote on:

Source 1 gets 2 votes
Source 2 gets 3 votes
Source 3 gets 1 vote
Statue gets 4 votes

Most people (6) can intentionally avoid voting for the statue by voting on any of the other three, but statue will still win by weak majority (4-3,2,&1). This is an example of how voting can inhibit variety EVEN IF the real majority tries to avoid repetition.




PotHed

Location: San Antonio, Tx

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:17 pm   Reply with quote         


TheShaman wrote:
PotHed wrote:


I was a TA for my philosophy professor (formal logic) and I studied analysis under the former Senior Intel Analyst, Joint Staff, Pentagon. I know a little something about good arguments and bad arguments. I know a little something about real logic and what passes for logic in the minds of idiots.


and yet you work where again?

I'm a student. Before going to school, I worked in the film industry (On set- Battle: LA, Drive Angry 3D. VFX studio- The Expendables, The Mechanic). Before that, I was in the Army. Even when I was deployed in Iraq, I still competed here, which is one of the reasons I don't buy the "life got in the way" argument. If people enjoy the site, they will make time.




Werdnaibor

Location: Albany, NY

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:31 pm   Reply with quote         


PotHed wrote:
Werdnaibor wrote:

The logic was that if everyone wants variety, they will tend select varying images, as has been shown by the current voting. Actual proof, not shitty analogies that don't even come close to proof. He showed what random stock images look like, and it wasn't great. There goes that idea. If you're so great at logic, why did you just use a logical fallacy? Because I learned from this person, I am right. That doesn't fly with me.

It doesn't mean I'm right. It just means I have a better idea of what is actually logical and what just sounds logical. The fact that only a few people actually vote on the images, the fact that people have a bias to shit that looks cool already, the fact that we have example of voting contributing to repetition are not considered in the "Well, if we let people vote for what they want, they should be happy, right?" argument.

No.

Just a hypothetical example, let's say we had the following images to vote on:

Source 1 gets 2 votes
Source 2 gets 3 votes
Source 3 gets 1 vote
Statue gets 4 votes

Most people (6) can intentionally avoid voting for the statue by voting on any of the other three, but statue will still win by weak majority (4-3,2,&1). This is an example of how voting can inhibit variety EVEN IF the real majority tries to avoid repetition.

The last time I checked near the end of voting, seventeen people had voted, with a clear leader. You state there's a bias like it's a fact. I'm going to need to see evidence of that. That inside of a hardhat sure was cool looking, right? Same with the close up of those wooden poles. Your analysis is the example? It's weak. It's not very repetitive, except for the three weeks with cars. The other view of that is, it's only a three week fluke. A blip in the year. Another hypothetical based on no facts, made by you to suit our argument. I already provided the facts that disprove that at the beginning of this post. Your analysis does not show significant repitition, and at best is correlation.

Edit: The current vote total for today's source selection is seventeen, with the leader being five votes ahead of the next closest image.




PotHed

Location: San Antonio, Tx

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:36 pm   Reply with quote         


Werdnaibor wrote:
PotHed wrote:
Werdnaibor wrote:

The logic was that if everyone wants variety, they will tend select varying images, as has been shown by the current voting. Actual proof, not shitty analogies that don't even come close to proof. He showed what random stock images look like, and it wasn't great. There goes that idea. If you're so great at logic, why did you just use a logical fallacy? Because I learned from this person, I am right. That doesn't fly with me.

It doesn't mean I'm right. It just means I have a better idea of what is actually logical and what just sounds logical. The fact that only a few people actually vote on the images, the fact that people have a bias to shit that looks cool already, the fact that we have example of voting contributing to repetition are not considered in the "Well, if we let people vote for what they want, they should be happy, right?" argument.

No.

Just a hypothetical example, let's say we had the following images to vote on:

Source 1 gets 2 votes
Source 2 gets 3 votes
Source 3 gets 1 vote
Statue gets 4 votes

Most people (6) can intentionally avoid voting for the statue by voting on any of the other three, but statue will still win by weak majority (4-3,2,&1). This is an example of how voting can inhibit variety EVEN IF the real majority tries to avoid repetition.

The last time I checked near the end of voting, seventeen people had voted, with a clear leader. You state there's a bias like it's a fact. I'm going to need to see evidence of that. That inside of a hardhat sure was cool looking, right? Same with the close up of those wooden poles. Your analysis is the example? It's weak. It's not very repetitive, except for the three weeks with cars. The other view of that is, it's only a three week fluke. A blip in the year. Another hypothetical based on no facts, made by you to suit our argument. I already provided the facts that disprove that at the beginning of this post. Your analysis does not show significant repitition, and at best is correlation.

Is my hypothetical implausible?

So which is it? Is there significant repetition, but it's always been that way so it's nothing that can be attributed to voting, or is there no significant repetition? I've gotten both responses, but the parties involved don't seem to be willing to confront the other's assertions. Funny how that works. Rolling Eyes




Werdnaibor

Location: Albany, NY

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:41 pm   Reply with quote         


PotHed wrote:
Werdnaibor wrote:
PotHed wrote:
Werdnaibor wrote:

The logic was that if everyone wants variety, they will tend select varying images, as has been shown by the current voting. Actual proof, not shitty analogies that don't even come close to proof. He showed what random stock images look like, and it wasn't great. There goes that idea. If you're so great at logic, why did you just use a logical fallacy? Because I learned from this person, I am right. That doesn't fly with me.

It doesn't mean I'm right. It just means I have a better idea of what is actually logical and what just sounds logical. The fact that only a few people actually vote on the images, the fact that people have a bias to shit that looks cool already, the fact that we have example of voting contributing to repetition are not considered in the "Well, if we let people vote for what they want, they should be happy, right?" argument.

No.

Just a hypothetical example, let's say we had the following images to vote on:

Source 1 gets 2 votes
Source 2 gets 3 votes
Source 3 gets 1 vote
Statue gets 4 votes

Most people (6) can intentionally avoid voting for the statue by voting on any of the other three, but statue will still win by weak majority (4-3,2,&1). This is an example of how voting can inhibit variety EVEN IF the real majority tries to avoid repetition.

The last time I checked near the end of voting, seventeen people had voted, with a clear leader. You state there's a bias like it's a fact. I'm going to need to see evidence of that. That inside of a hardhat sure was cool looking, right? Same with the close up of those wooden poles. Your analysis is the example? It's weak. It's not very repetitive, except for the three weeks with cars. The other view of that is, it's only a three week fluke. A blip in the year. Another hypothetical based on no facts, made by you to suit our argument. I already provided the facts that disprove that at the beginning of this post. Your analysis does not show significant repitition, and at best is correlation.

Is my hypothetical implausible?

So which is it? Is there significant repetition, but it's always been that way so it's nothing that can be attributed to voting, or is there no significant repetition? I've gotten both responses, but the parties involved don't seem to be willing to confront the other's assertions. Funny how that works. Rolling Eyes

Implausible? No. It doesn't reflect reality though, so it's useless. You failed to address any of my points. Instead you pull up what other people say and ask why I'm not arguing with them. That's a good argument. Your education is really working well here. (That's sarcasm)




PotHed

Location: San Antonio, Tx

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:51 pm   Reply with quote         


Werdnaibor wrote:

Implausible? No. It doesn't reflect reality though, so it's useless. You failed to address any of my points. Instead you pull up what other people say and ask why I'm not arguing with them. That's a good argument. Your education is really working well here. (That's sarcasm)

So it is possible for a voting system to put an image forward that does not reflect the desire of the majority? Awesome.

Pointing out that a person is arguing with you just for the sake of being in opposition is not a bad argument. If you were concerned with figuring out the truth of the situation, you would have responded to them. But since an enemy of your enemy is your friend, you elected not to.

Either repetition is a problem or it isn't. If it isn't, take it up with EVERYBODY who says it is, not just me.




Werdnaibor

Location: Albany, NY

Post Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:02 pm   Reply with quote         


PotHed wrote:
Werdnaibor wrote:

Implausible? No. It doesn't reflect reality though, so it's useless. You failed to address any of my points. Instead you pull up what other people say and ask why I'm not arguing with them. That's a good argument. Your education is really working well here. (That's sarcasm)

So it is possible for a voting system to put an image forward that does not reflect the desire of the majority? Awesome.

Pointing out that a person is arguing with you just for the sake of being in opposition is not a bad argument. If you were concerned with figuring out the truth of the situation, you would have responded to them. But since an enemy of your enemy is your friend, you elected not to.

Either repetition is a problem or it isn't. If it isn't, take it up with EVERYBODY who says it is, not just me.

Great, it's possible, but it's not happening. Read the whole statement. I'm not arguing for the sake of being in opposition, you're just throwing that out to dodge the points. Yes, it's a terrible argument. I don't think a repitition problem exists at all. It would be a problem if it happened with significant frequency and with a complete lack of difference in the similar sources, but that is not the case. You have ignored numerous arguments. How did you like the random stock photos? What do you think of the FACT that people are voting in significant numbers for unique images?




Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 27, 28, 29  Next

Photoshop Contest Forum Index - Brain Storm - How to increase participation - Reply to topic

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Navigate PSC
Contests open  completed  winners  prizes  events  rules  rss 
Galleries votes  authentic  skillful  funny  creative  theme  winners 
Interact register  log in/out  forum  chat  user lookup  contact 
Stats monthly leaders  hall of fame  record holders 
PSC advantage  news (rss)  faq  about  links  contact  home 
Help faq  search  new users  tutorials  contact  password 

Adobe, the Adobe logo, Adobe Photoshop, Creative Suite and Illustrator are registered trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Text and images copyright 2000-2006 Photoshop Contest. All rights reserved.
A venture of ExpertRating.com