Midget Llamas.
now you woke up Anfa

Page 6 (the 6th response down) I gave you a pretty good response, and especially on page 7 (the 14th response)... you dismissed one and didn't reply to the other... I'd say... yes, yes you did gloss over this thread to suit your argument.

What I was saying then was: I've always been able to submit source pictures to PSC. PSC to my knowledge has never provided 365 days of source material. No... quite the opposite. PSC members provide and have always provided 99% of the sources. On rare occasion they may throw a outside source from some other place. 1% of the time... this was 2005 mind you. Back in what all the old timers consider the 'glory days'

Its one of the perks of being an advantage member. Its one of the reasons why this site is free to all to join and participate. IF PSC had to go and find 365 sources for us to chop, I hardly doubt that they'd be able to find that many (and different kinds *other than the contended Cars, Buildings & Statues*) over 7 years that were free. So PSC would have to pay for those, thus forcing their members to kick in a few bucks to have that privilege.

Again... When there were 60 members chopping, (in 2005-2006) and really if you look at all the entries, there are a few members posting 2 images daily... So lets say 55 actual members just for kicks... of those 55, maybe 30 of those members are advantage... and of those 30 maybe 20 are submitting pictures to PSC. That is probably generous. They were providing the site with 99% of the sources used. Quite frankly I couldn't care less if I was able to vote on source images, I didn't get to vote on them back in the day... My contention with having the right to vote only comes out of the knowledge of what Lurker said.... this argument isn't new... Back in the day before being able to vote, people were complaining that they were seeing too many Cars, Statues and Houses Example: badcop pointed out... You still had Cars, and Statues and Houses to chop and listed a ton of them to prove his point...

and thus the option of getting to vote for the sources (already PSC approved) was born.

But with more members submitting photos, you're going to get more variety in submissions. With only a handful of members submitting now, yeah... unless something like this thread comes up and you say hey guys... start taking different pictures... eventually we're going to get your dream "the corner of the house for the next 365 days to chop". Losing the right to vote only stops this from taking place


Which means all four of these pictures would be in queue eventually. Instead of saying... Fuck another statue? I'm voting for the books....

Look, I'd love to know when we were able to vote on images too. Cause then I'd be able to really say "you're wrong" but I cant. So I guess this will be my last entry in your Theory thread until that answer can be provided...

The facts I know... I know I wasn't able to vote in 2006, but I was able to submit pictures. PSC members have always provided the majority of sources even back in 2006 (the glory days) Even though we weren't able to vote on them. If they were approved stock, they eventually would be chopped.

You're going to need Grefix or someone who's been here forever and actually knows WHEN voting was an option (as a secondary approval method) to properly continue. Personally, I still don't think that's the root of the problem... But fine whatever, I cannot either prove or disprove your 'theory'. I still agree with Anfa, that when JMH (the original site owner) sold the place, it started the slide downhill to where we are today... This place had a ton more life, and it isn't because we're able to vote on source images that were already being provided by PSC members.

Back to 'your thread'... First I'd like to apologize for acting like a smartass and hijacking your thread for the first 5 pages before actually addressing your argument. I actually addressed your argument before you had your own thread... Where the hell is bunny? I believe I was the one who suggested you do so in the first place... May not have been what you wanted to argue about... But even then I was saying, the PSC members need to start thinking about different pictures/sources to submit. Because those are the facts. I highly doubt that PSC will ever provide 99% of the source material for us... Unless you'd like to see this go from a free site to a pay-to-play one.. So again that boils down to members taking better photos... regardless if we get to vote on them or not.

BUT when you title a thread "How to increase participation" to me... and I'm guessing, everyone else... that invites people to come in and give their opinions on either how to increase, or why they think it's decreased. Maybe you need to rethink your title to something along the lines of:
"Why I think site participation is down, prove me wrong"

Cheers.

Are they midget llamas or dwarf llamas? Anfa time for you to weigh in here. Maybe get together with Blue who is our midget/dwarf expert and get a consensus. This is important stuff and I want to know.

Thanks

Curious Seamus

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? We Advantage Members are also beings that appreciate variety, so our voting will reflect that, right? As would our image submissions. I just submitted photos that depicted subjects such as penguins, the ruins of an old mill, and a cemetery memorial. Variety. When I look at the source images to vote on, I go for the most interesting image with the most possibilities. Contextually, variety does play into that. A random generator would remove the critical element of selection. Sometimes my iPod plays three songs in a row by the same artist although I have 3,000 songs loaded. How random is that? I'd rather have us in the driver's seat.

P-Hed doesn't want a random generator.
(which is how the current system works, and has been for at least the past 7 years.)

What he ultimately wants to get rid of is the Advantage member voting on what ones go into the random generator... that part is fairly new... (I'm not opposed to this, I just fail to see what it will accomplish, other than everything getting approved by the mods and thrown in there) BUT here is the switch...

He wants an actual person (an admn) to choose 365 stock images a year for us. Thus getting rid of the advantage member shooting 99% of the source images which get approved by PSC, then get thrown into a random generator. (Which is again.. is how the current system has been running since at least 2005) only difference is now there's the extra step of the approved stock being screened by a voting system and then the winner getting thrown into the generator.

Cause one person can do a much better job of choosing for us than many...
Esp if his name is PotHed. He thinks its so simple, maybe PSC should allow him to do the job.
Everyone will come running back cause P-Hed is gonna make sure that only 1 car gets chopped a year.... and only one building etc.

what needs to switch and what I've been harping on since the beginning.
(IN THE OTHER THREAD)

A) WE as PSC photo submitters need to be more cautious on what we submit

B) MODS need to screen more diligently... just because it fits the criteria of being the proper dimensions & KB and its crisp enough....
doesn't mean it makes it into the dance...

neither of these things is going to bring back the people we've lost... but yet it will improve the over all sources that we vote on, and ultimately chop.

Sweeping generalizations are cool. People are terrible at self reflection. You're a person. You're terrible at self reflection. You stopped chopping for a completely different reason. No one answered that question because it was another pointless question to which the answer would be, sure, that's possible, but also not likely. My analogy was a hell of a lot better than any you've thrown out. It's a comparison to the participation of a site that has the same function. I guarantee you Worth1000 has significantly more than 24 members. Game shows, video games, the retirment study? All very weakly stretched to make your point. The retirement study makes sense, but in no way applies. Participation is down because of too much choice? I fail to see how I'm reaching when I say I don't think the frequency of any of the images you posted is a problem. Oh no, another old car! Just wait a day and chop the next image. It's been said before that no new person is going to be seeing the repitition of sources you're showing, so your argument for bringing in new people with a change is flawed. If people are really leaving because of the current source selection, fuck 'em. It's a really pathetic reason to quit.

Edit: Now I looked at some old Worth1000 contests. 50+ entries 9 years ago, 90+ entries 5 years ago. Similar old numbers to PSC.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Shaman. My most humble apologies. I lost track of what was what in this thread, and I'm fairly new here.

With that said, I suppose it would be possible to refine the random generator so that it recognizes subject categories or genres. It's very possible that the generator could be programmed to maintain a variety, so that one subject does not repeat too often. The problem would be generating a basic list of subjects that can be used to tag a submitted photo. For example, when submitting a source image, there could be a drop-down menu to select from (i.e. vehicle, statue/sculpture, architecture, human, etc.). That list could become fairly ridiculous and cumbersome, but it could work with an auto-complete entry feature. As images are submitted, maybe there could also be an alert posted for subjects that are underrepresented. For example, it could read, "We currently are in need of more marine life photos." Then we as submitters could go through our photo collections and submit accordingly. It could be done, and it could work. Do I think it's really necessary? Not really. I agree with Shaman that the responsibility of submitting better photos rests on our shoulders. I also like voting. I think that works just fine.

I'll reiterate that technology is much more mobile, and people just are not sitting at desktops like they used to. Ultimately, I think that is great. It takes a lot of time to chop well, and this new generation is not used to that. Everything used to take a lot of time. Now with Facebook, Twitter, and texting, people don't have the attention span. That's the way we are. As chopping becomes quicker and more mobile with new software, we may see a resurgence. Right now, I'm okay with number of people here.

No worries masked. I was just saving you the bother of being told you're an idiot

Funny, I was actually thinking the same thing about...


I do submit stock for another site called Shutterstock. As you submit pictures there, they reject ones on basis of having enough "flowers" right now... but they tell you this in an e-mail... So you know why. They also have on their page an area saying we need more abstract photos or we need more office building areas or naked statues!

Great Idea!

It would be nice if PSC could:
A) tell us why photos have been rejected..
B) tell us what photos we are lacking/have a great number of already.

maybe we need a thread asking what types of photos everyone would want to chop... I know I know... Cars, flowers, old buildings & statues!

I agree. The number is fine.

(Message written using an iPad, not a desktop.)

Yes, all of those! Got any valves or bridges?

I've got a valve in the middle of a bridge, will that work?!

Oh and just to follow up 3.5 hrs later



apparently no one wants to chop flowers anymore, but some still like statues

If I didn't have a ton of stuff to do today, I would love to Photoshop all of that into one convincing scene. I need an apprentice.

I was thinking of sticking an old car, a statue, and a house into the tree contest today.

Statues are my bread and butter. I've got all sorts of statue chopping techniques.