On Sun, 6 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I still don't think every photo deserves a public comment, or every
> contributor who requests a critique deserves a public critique. Maybe only
> the best should get a public critique. If 8 or 10 good comment threads
> started this way, it could be very informative.
Hmmm.... I think that good comment threads are useful for obvious reasons,
but I also feel that it's hard to choose the photos most likely to inspire
good threads. These are not always the best photos in a technical sense,
and sometimes it's even the comments themselves that spark the thread. I
can see what you're getting at, but I think it might be better served by
having the commentators comment on the photos of all the people who
requested this, and then we can see which ones inspire good threads. This
also saves us the trouble of having to choose certain images, which is
bound to upset some people.
> For the first 4-5 days, the pdml gets the rush of 'great photo John', or
> 'have you seen this one', or 'here are my 15 favorites', or 'these are the
> cave academe awards'.
>
> After the initial rush, the critiques start happening, public and private.
This raises a good question. When should the PUG comments appear on the
PDML? I've asked for them to be posted near the start of the month, when
the PUG first appears, but that was an arbitrary choice. Should they be
posted then, or should we wait a week or so to give people time to view
the galleries first? What does everyone think?
> At this point, you, Chris, could post a list to the pdml of the folks who
> want more criticism or feedback. Your pdml critiquers could then volunteer
> for specific photos where they felt comfortable giving feedback.
>
> You could then coordinate assignments. Specifically, you could pick 7-10 of
> the photos that were interesting or instructive for public critique. You
> might assign 3 or 2 people who are interested in a photo to give comments.
> But best of all, you might start 5 or 6 interesting discussion threads about
> the photos that we can all follow in detail and might want to add to.
>
> If you and the critiquer team were willing, you could also make assignments
> for private critiques. That way, you could assure each member submitting to
> the gallery who want comments received some feedback.
These are all potentially good and workable ideas, but I'm afraid they
require a bit more time and energy than I'm willing to put into the
commenting thing. Adn I'm still a little bothered by having to pick some
photos but not others to comment on. The idea behind the comments
originally was not to provide in-depth analysis of the photos but to make
sure that people who normally wouldn't receive comments would get some
each time they submitted a photo. I've now modified this to cover only
those people who specifically request that their photos by commented on,
but I still like the idea of commenting on all of the eligible photos
instead of a selection. The selection would be more apropriate to
individual comments, IMO.
I like your idea of having more than one person commenting on each photo,
however. It won't work if most of the PUGers want their photos reviewed,
but if only a handful do then it should work out okay.
> I guess I'm bothered that the current critiques are so fragmented and
> unfocused. I can't follow and keep mental threads going on 90 PUG
> photos. I could be much happier following along on 8 or 10 good
> discussions...especially when the photographer was a willing
> participant.
Now that we need the photographer to request comments, I'm hoping that
they'll all be willing participants. I understand what you're saying
about the difficulty of keeping up with 90 comments, but I expect that the
load will be significantly reduced now that the photographer has to
request comments each month if they want them.
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 .
