Photoshop Contest Forum Index - Brain Storm - How to increase participation - Reply to topic
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 ... 27, 28, 29 Next
PotHed
Location: San Antonio, Tx
|
 Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:12 pm Reply with quote
The-Masked-Layer wrote:
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?
No. Not at all.
|
PotHed
Location: San Antonio, Tx
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:50 pm Reply with quote
TheShaman wrote: formerPotHead wrote: Sorry, you don't get to point to a post you made in response to someone else 15 pages into a thread and pretend like that means I've been getting valid responses the whole time and have just been "glossing over" them. I haven't failed to realize any of that. I asked and was not told because people were too busy giving me bullshit responses.
If some pictures are not making it into the "queue" because they haven't received enough votes, then that makes my freaking point. Just because you put "(say a car)" doesn't mean that cars are likely not to get into the queue.
That voted-on images appear in the queue randomly does not mean that the content of the queue is not decided by the voting system.
How much work does it take to download 365 random stock images once a year and have them appear automatically?
Here's a question that no one has answered yet:
When did PSC begin allowing Advantage members to vote on images?
I quit pot back in 2004, by the way.
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 350 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.
Find a stock photo site, let them advertise on here in exchange for 365 photos a year. That way, PSC doesn't have to do the legwork of "finding 365 sources to chop" and it doesn't cost them anything except a little ad space.
Quote: 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.
I'd still like to know whether badcop's selection came before or after voting was implemented.
Quote: 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
What's the problem with getting images from stock photo sites and having them appear randomly? So far, the only negative response I've gotten to that is that it will be a lot of work or cost a lot of money, which I believe is nonsense. Give them ad space, get the pictures. Everybody wins and you're not asking PSC members to devote more time to running around taking pictures.
Quote:
Which means all four of these pictures would be in queue eventually. Instead of saying... Fuck another statue? I'm voting for the books....
Which is why I am personally in favor of the majority of pictures coming from stock sites.
Quote: 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.[/Quote]
At least you acknowledge that the "glory days" were the days prior to voting. That's correlation, not necessarily causation, but it's a start.
Quote: 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.
I really don't think it would be productive to simply ask members to spend more time taking photos, especially given that the common counter-view has been that people are leaving because they simply don't have the time.
Quote: 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"
Perhaps.
Cheers.[/quote]
|
PotHed
Location: San Antonio, Tx
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:54 pm Reply with quote
TheShaman wrote: maybe we need a thread asking what types of photos everyone would want to chop... I know I know... Cars, flowers, old buildings & statues!
lol. That's exactly what would happen. When you put it into the hands of members, you're not going to get many pictures that surprise us, that force us to think outside of the box, that make the contests interesting.
|
TheShaman
Location: Peaksville, Southeast of Disorder
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:08 pm Reply with quote
PotHed wrote:
At least you acknowledge that the "glory days" were the days prior to voting. That's correlation, not necessarily causation, but it's a start.
Yes, in 2005 we didn't have the opportunity to vote.
Is that a direct correlation to the 'glory days' and to why this place is failing? I think that's a bit of a stretch.. but yes we didn't vote in 2005 and they were the 'glory days' of PSC. Different feel... different owner.
I would be nice for you to acknowledge that we were supplying all stock to PSC at that same time, just as we are now... difference being more members = bigger variety.
really, you want to take away voting from us? I really don't care. Take it... But realize... One less thing for me to do around here...
and quite frankly I have no clue how much a stock site would end up costing.
But I can't imagine they have that much different stock then what we could provide if given the opportunity.
I love using my camera. I'd have no problem if PSC would have a Photo shoot thread.
and in it they would say This is what we're looking for in means of source...
make a prize contest out of it... I'm sure it would draw (at least current) members in.
|
Werdnaibor
Location: Albany, NY
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:21 pm Reply with quote
PotHed wrote: The-Masked-Layer wrote:
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?
No. Not at all.
You're quite the hypocrite.
|
PotHed
Location: San Antonio, Tx
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:32 pm Reply with quote
Werdnaibor wrote: PotHed wrote: The-Masked-Layer wrote:
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?
No. Not at all.
You're quite the hypocrite.
How so? If you're implying that I'm a hypocrite for answering his question without substance, rather simply a "No" then you're wrong. My perspective is stated clearly in the OP, which he clearly didn't take the time to read.
|
PotHed
Location: San Antonio, Tx
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:45 pm Reply with quote
TheShaman wrote: PotHed wrote:
At least you acknowledge that the "glory days" were the days prior to voting. That's correlation, not necessarily causation, but it's a start.
Yes, in 2005 we didn't have the opportunity to vote.
Is that a direct correlation to the 'glory days' and to why this place is failing? I think that's a bit of a stretch.. but yes we didn't vote in 2005 and they were the 'glory days' of PSC. Different feel... different owner.
I would be nice for you to acknowledge that we were supplying all stock to PSC at that same time, just as we are now... difference being more members = bigger variety.
I'd love to, but I don't know that. I also don't know where PSC got its images all the way back to 2003 and beyond.
Quote: really, you want to take away voting from us? I really don't care. Take it... But realize... One less thing for me to do around here...
If it helps the site, so be it.
Quote: and quite frankly I have no clue how much a stock site would end up costing.
It could be free in exchange for ad space.
Quote: But I can't imagine they have that much different stock then what we could provide if given the opportunity.
We've been given the opportunity.
Quote: I love using my camera. I'd have no problem if PSC would have a Photo shoot thread.
and in it they would say This is what we're looking for in means of source...
make a prize contest out of it... I'm sure it would draw (at least current) members in.
So, is this a photoshop site or a photography site?
On the one hand, some argue that people left because the site became less about photoshop. On the other hand, we have people who want it to become more about photography.
On the one hand, some argue that people left because they didn't have enough time. On the other hand, they suggest that people spend more time taking better pictures.
These are the inconsistencies I find troubling. But no doubt they will be rationalized.
|
TheShaman
Location: Peaksville, Southeast of Disorder
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:20 pm Reply with quote
PotHed wrote: TheShaman wrote: PotHed wrote:
At least you acknowledge that the "glory days" were the days prior to voting. That's correlation, not necessarily causation, but it's a start.
Yes, in 2005 we didn't have the opportunity to vote.
Is that a direct correlation to the 'glory days' and to why this place is failing? I think that's a bit of a stretch.. but yes we didn't vote in 2005 and they were the 'glory days' of PSC. Different feel... different owner.
I would be nice for you to acknowledge that we were supplying all stock to PSC at that same time, just as we are now... difference being more members = bigger variety.
I'd love to, but I don't know that. I also don't know where PSC got its images all the way back to 2003 and beyond.
I'm telling you from experience. I was submitting photos to PSC in 2005 that we (as PSC members) were chopping in daily contests... I cannot tell you before 2005 because I wasn't here... but if the glory days were 2005 (when I got here) that is FACT... Members were submitting more than 90% of the photos used in daily contests in 2005.
a more direct correlation would be this site started going down hill when I joined 
|
The-Masked-Layer
Location: White Noise
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:21 pm Reply with quote
PotHed wrote:
Participation has clearly been lacking on this site for a while now, and I can't speak for everybody, but for me, based on my experience and my observation, it can be attributed to the image selection.
You don't have to take my word for it, however. If you sift through the contest archives (you may have to manually input the page value into the address bar), you'll see that there was greater participation back when there was a greater diversity of images. That's not to say user images never made it into the mix, but they were chosen by the admins, sparingly without notice. When a user image did come up, it was like a surprise, manna from heaven.
YourTaxesAtWork AKA PotHed
est. 2003
Clearly I did take the time to read your original post. Tell me how you are not building an argument based on a correlation between participation and source image variety. I realize that you're tying it to the user selection of images, but that is weak and you have been challenged to support that theory. All I see is a series of tantrums. Granted it is entertaining, as evidenced by the number of people twisting your ear to hear you squeal.
|
shane.e.randall
Location: Indiana, PA
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:12 pm Reply with quote
Quote: Clearly I did take the time to read your original post. Tell me how you are not building an argument based on a correlation between participation and source image variety. I realize that you're tying it to the user selection of images, but that is weak and you have been challenged to support that theory. All I see is a series of tantrums. Granted it is entertaining, as evidenced by the number of people twisting your ear to hear you squeal.
Where is that like button
|
the burning couch
Location: I don't know, but it sure is dark in here
|
Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:45 pm Reply with quote
beings this topic is still going, here's my 2 bits.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE IS...it's whether or not your brain can work with, around and/or through it....and if it can't..move on to the next one. I don't think the (present)variety of source images have anything to do with participation being "on the wane".....but lack of inspiration and time, do.
*!!*
_________________
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.~ Mal
|
Eve
Site Moderator
Location: Planet Earth
|
Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:37 am Reply with quote
Listen, things didn't go south by offering Advantage members the chance to vote for sources. It was the 30 days Advantage sources that soured things. Back in the day, before the demise of PSC, we were given 7 images with which to work.
23 additional sources ruint everything! 
Pothed, I'm guessing the changes in allowing Adv. members to vote for source images came about when Procyon was the owner. Ppl didn't like the bright white background, format, etc, etc. There were lots of forum threads...lots of differing ideas.
I've exceeded my thread wor
_________________
If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!
thank u Tawiskaro
|
PotHed
Location: San Antonio, Tx
|
Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:20 am Reply with quote
The-Masked-Layer wrote: PotHed wrote:
Participation has clearly been lacking on this site for a while now, and I can't speak for everybody, but for me, based on my experience and my observation, it can be attributed to the image selection.
You don't have to take my word for it, however. If you sift through the contest archives (you may have to manually input the page value into the address bar), you'll see that there was greater participation back when there was a greater diversity of images. That's not to say user images never made it into the mix, but they were chosen by the admins, sparingly without notice. When a user image did come up, it was like a surprise, manna from heaven.
YourTaxesAtWork AKA PotHed
est. 2003
Clearly I did take the time to read your original post. Tell me how you are not building an argument based on a correlation between participation and source image variety. I realize that you're tying it to the user selection of images, but that is weak and you have been challenged to support that theory. All I see is a series of tantrums. Granted it is entertaining, as evidenced by the number of people twisting your ear to hear you squeal.
Clearly you didn't read it if you didn't take from my argument that allowing voting diminishes variety.
|
shane.e.randall
Location: Indiana, PA
|
Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:20 am Reply with quote
I figured out why participation has diminished.... Apparently there is this new drug on the streets called crack and everyone is smoking it all the time.. Leaves no time for Chopping
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 ... 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
|
