Photo Gallery Format Discussion

[FWLR]

Where would that be Philip. Is it "Photographs" or is it somewhere else. I am not that observant obversely..

[philipy]

[FWLR]

of course it is.Thanks Philip, it was a dumb question to ask really......

[philipy]

Well, despite the 18 people who thought there should be changes to the way the Gallery is run, there have been remarkably few actual suggestions.

However, the suggestions made so far ( with only a couple of days still to go) are:

1) Increase the visibility of the Gallery -- Now done, the Gallery has it's own Heading.
2) Make "Announcements" for the Quarterly Gallery - I will do this, going forward.
3) The forum management team should be barred from entering.--- There doesn't seem to be any support for this idea.
4) Entries should be anonymous -- This is not feasible in the forum software.
5) A suggestion that each Quarter should have 3 themes suggested and one picked by a poll.-- There is a fairly wide feeling that this would be cumbersome and difficult to think up enough ideas.
6) It was suggested that perhaps we need more reminders during each quarter -- I'm not 100% keen on this idea myself since it would fill up the thread with reminders ( not to mention, making more work for me)! However, it may be that the intended future "Announcements" will achieve similar publicity.
7) Identify winners with a note on their forum avatar -- I have asked Rik & Steve to look into this. However, although I was initially in favour, I've changed my mind to reduce the chances of a few members being seen as a "winners clique".
8 ) A suggestion for anyone to submit theme ideas to a pot, and one would be picked at randon each quarter. --

So, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are dealt already by one means or another.

That leaves 7 & 8 to be resolved, plus of course, any fresh suggestions submitted in the next couple of days.

[Peter Butler]

Well done Philip for giving this so much of your time, it has become clear that it hasn't been easy threading through the different opinions of members who don't see this as a fun activity with participation as the main objective. Whether it is called a 'competition' or not there is still a winner, along with 'supporting acts', all of whom enter just for fun and are happy to try again next time. There is certainly no reason to be embarrassed by this as we are never critical of others and encourage everyone to share their photographs. I believe I have entered each time but won only once, for which I am perfectly content and will continue to enter in the future. I have also been in the position of receiving no votes cast, but that's life!
The matters raised appear to have been dealt with adequately, items 1 - 6 are sensible and workable solutions. Item 7 is one I raised myself, but only because it was done during the earlier 'competition'. If it is not desirable I am perfectly happy with that too.
Item 8 raises one issue for me..... If a subject is chosen at random from a 'pot' of suggestions, would the previous winner be barred from entering? I don't see how that can be justified, even if it was their own theme.
Most importantly....... it is all intended as a fun activity with the intention to unite our membership, we should lighten up a little.

[philipy]

Item 8 raises one issue for me..... If a subject is chosen at random from a 'pot' of suggestions, would the previous winner be barred from entering? I don't see how that can be justified, even if it was their own theme.

Thanks for your thoughts Peter.
Re your question, I would see the pot of ideas as removing the bar, because nobody would know who had submitted the idea or how long before. As I suggested when I first floated the idea, if we got 2 dozen themes submitted, it would be 6 years before we got through all of them.

[ge_rik]

Another possibility is that members could be allowed to submit more than one photo.

In favour - it might encourage more entries. It will also help if a member is trying to decide which of several to submit

Against - one member might flood the gallery with loads of pictures and discourage others from entering.

Just a thought.

Rik

[Jimmyb]

Another possibility is that members could be allowed to submit more than one photo.

In favour - it might encourage more entries. It will also help if a member is trying to decide which of several to submit

Against - one member might flood the gallery with loads of pictures and discourage others from entering.

Just a thought.

Rik

Rik, I do see the pros and cons to this, and in theory it would be a good idea, however if one entrant had 91photos and 9 others 1 each then the odds are the entrant with 91 of the 100 would win. However a compromise may be to allow up to for example 3 entries - just a thought.

[philipy]

Another possibility is that members could be allowed to submit more than one photo.

In favour - it might encourage more entries. It will also help if a member is trying to decide which of several to submit

Against - one member might flood the gallery with loads of pictures and discourage others from entering.

Interesting idea. How does anyone feel if we tried it as an experiment by allowing 2 entries per member for the next gallery ( starting beginning of July for two months)?
My own thought is that I wonder if it might give a 'good' and/or prolific photographer, an advantage?

[FWLR]

I personally think we should keep it to the same format. It's going to be even more work for Phillip and it would discourage members I feel if now members think they don't have any photos that they feel are not good enough, yes I agree it should be fun and not something that is so serious that it gets to the stage of a separate forum that is only interested in putting photos for a 'competition'

The format that has been going now for quite some months in my mind be really successful, so why mess with something that works.

I agree with Phillip on so many points, one of which is the question of allowing more than one ie: 2 for a few months or longer. Doesn't the forum have limited photo storage and therefore it is reducing the amount left for members to put up on other threads. Leave it as is, it works perfectly now. Let's just get on with the gallery like it was, this as been going on for to long now, so let's start to enjoy the photos that are displayed....

I think I may have upset a few members again, but hey, it's a discussion for all members isn't it.

[-steves-]

Doesn't the forum have limited photo storage and therefore it is reducing the amount left for members to put up on other threads.

Hi Rod

Not sure if you have read the recent announcement, but our hosting company have dramatically increased the number of files we can store. We have now upped the limit on how many pictures can be on one post because of this. Hope that helps.

[FWLR]

Hi Steve.

Thank you, I hadn't seen the announcement, that is good news. I think a lot of members will be happy to now that. Does it mean we can put more photos on our threads without going to a third party.

I will look at the announcement and find out....

[FWLR]

Just seen it....... that's brilliant. Well done Steve, you're a STAR......

[Jimmyb]

Interesting idea. How does anyone feel if we tried it as an experiment by allowing 2 entries per member for the next gallery ( starting beginning of July for two months)?
My own thought is that I wonder if it might give a 'good' and/or prolific photographer, an advantage?

I think trying out your idea (i.e. a maximum of 3 entries per member) for the next competition is a good way forward. Can I also suggest that all three entries should be on the same post i.e. you can not have 3 entries on 3 separate (or even 2) posts.

[philipy]

Interesting idea. How does anyone feel if we tried it as an experiment by allowing 2 entries per member for the next gallery ( starting beginning of July for two months)?
My own thought is that I wonder if it might give a 'good' and/or prolific photographer, an advantage?

I think trying out your idea (i.e. a maximum of 3 entries per member) for the next competition is a good way forward. Can I also suggest that all three entries should be on the same post i.e. you can not have 3 entries on 3 separate (or even 2) posts.

Yes, thats a good point about them being on one post, Jimmy, thanks.

However, from a purely personal/administrative pov, I would still prefer to limit it to two rather than three pictures, to begin with at least. It does already take some considerable time to go through the entry posts and separate them from the various subsequent comment posts, download each picture and collate it with its title, then upload them all again onto the voting thread and then construct the poll. Going from one to two pictures each will more or less double that, and going to three will triple it!

[Peter Butler]

I have to admit I'm struggling to see any advantage in this idea, there are two possible outcomes.... those who enter two (or three) pictures might have some advantage over those who enter only one, or the possibility of splitting one person's vote amongst their own entries could deny them the win they might otherwise deserve.

[Jimmyb]

I have to admit I'm struggling to see any advantage in this idea, there are two possible outcomes.... those who enter two (or three) pictures might have some advantage over those who enter only one, or the possibility of splitting one person's vote amongst their own entries could deny them the win they might otherwise deserve.

I would see this as a vote per photo, one person one vote, and the photo with the most votes wins, surely that is how it currently works

Interesting idea. How does anyone feel if we tried it as an experiment by allowing 2 entries per member for the next gallery ( starting beginning of July for two months)?
My own thought is that I wonder if it might give a 'good' and/or prolific photographer, an advantage?

I think trying out your idea (i.e. a maximum of 3 entries per member) for the next competition is a good way forward. Can I also suggest that all three entries should be on the same post i.e. you can not have 3 entries on 3 separate (or even 2) posts.

Yes, thats a good point about them being on one post, Jimmy, thanks.

However, from a purely personal/administrative pov, I would still prefer to limit it to two rather than three pictures, to begin with at least. It does already take some considerable time to go through the entry posts and separate them from the various subsequent comment posts, download each picture and collate it with its title, then upload them all again onto the voting thread and then construct the poll. Going from one to two pictures each will more or less double that, and going to three will triple it!

My error, I (mis)read it as two additional pictures, not two pictures

[philipy]

I would see this as a vote per photo, one person one vote, and the photo with the most votes wins, surely that is how it currently works

Yes it is, but I think Peter's point is that a person with two very similar entries that got, say, 10 votes each, would be beaten by somebody else who got 11 votes for one entry, when, if the original entrant had only entered one, he might have got 20 votes for that one.

[Jimmyb]

I would see this as a vote per photo, one person one vote, and the photo with the most votes wins, surely that is how it currently works

Yes it is, but I think Peter's point is that a person with two very similar entries that got, say, 10 votes each, would be beaten by somebody else who got 11 votes for one entry, when, if the original entrant had only entered one, he might have got 20 votes for that one.

Ah, I see that now, but that would be up to the individual to manage their entries, and could be the advantage of a single entry, at the individuals choice.

[BorisSpencer]

If we really believe there will be people submitting entries, and subsequently voting tactically, in order to boost their chances of winning a quarterly competition for which there is no reward or prize then I wish them all the best.

This thread seems to overestimated its own importance by a factor of "considerably".