That's too bad. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind on this,
but I liked it for two reasons:
1. Personally, I wouldn't comment on images that don't do much for me. This
forces me to be critical of images that I might not otherwise comment on,
which I think in turn helps me with my critical skills (such as they are!).
2. It's good for me to see critique on my submissions, some of which might
escape comment because they are neither good enough or bad enough to garner
anyone's attention. I may or may not agree with the comments, but it's alway
helpful to hear what someone else thinks.
Keep in mind as well. that the critique that brings this on was unsolicited in
any event, and most likely would have been made, regardless of whether our
"structured" critiques were in place or not.
Like I said, I'm not trying to chance anyone's mind here, but I thought I'd
put in my two cents.
regards,
frank
Chris Brogden wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2001, Dan Scott wrote:
>
> > Why don't we do it the other way around? If I recall correctly, the
> > critics pretty much volunteered themselves--why not let the people who
> > want criticism volunteer to receive it? All they would have to do is
> > include an "I'd like criticism on this submission" in the text of
> > their PUG submission letter.
>
> If we're going to abandon the structured comments, then the best way would
> be not to dump more work on Bill's head. We could do it like we did
> before this experiment. If something about a piece really catches your
> eye, comment about it. If, as a submitter, you want your photo commented
> on, send an e-mail to the list asking us to do it, and I'm sure some
> people would be happy to oblige. That's simple enough, rigth?
>
> Personally, I don't care whether we keep the structured comments or
> not. I thought they might be a good way to get the list talking about
> photographs instead of just equipment, and that they would show that yes,
> people are looking at the photos. But if the people submitting photos
> feel pressured because of the comments, and some commentators themselves
> are feeling like it's a school assignment, then it's just not worth it.
>
> If it was just Shel's comments that bothered people, then we could
> probably find some way around it. But since several people have come out
> and said that they don't like the whole idea of commenting on photos that
> were originally just meant to be displayed, then let's stop with the
> comments and go back to the way it was before. I think the comments were
> a fun experiment, but if it's not working out then it's a stupid thing to
> divide the list over. I'm sure we can find other things to fight about
> instead. <g>
>
> So, beginning with the June PUG, I won't be coordinating the comments any
> more. If you want to talk about any photos that catch your eye, feel free
> to do so. If you want people to critique your photo, just ask the
> list. Some people have mentioned that the idea of critiquing every photo
> on the PUG violates its open nature, and I can see the point that they're
> making. The point seems to be that the PUG is more of a place to share
> photos that interest us, and that critiquing all of the photos is against
> the open spirit of the PUG. So... less work for me. :) Consider the
> experiment officially dead as of now.
>
> chris
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
