Disqualifications and Farktography

[schnee]

(I debated where this should go – here or in a moderator board)

When Farktography.net “calls” a contest, disqualifications are identified and removed from either the winners or the runners-up. This is a manual process and has been relevant 3 or 4 times in the past month or so’s worth of contests.

The FSM can provide a list of the top N finishers to Farktography.net, but those finishers are exactly as represented on FARK. Editing that list would still be a manual process, which, in my mind, reduces the value added by having the FSM auto-call the contest (somone would still have to make a final edit).

I’ve contended for quite some time that the best place for DQs is on FARK. I understand that the FARK Powers That Be won’t delete/remove voting from an entry on “our” say-so. However, back in the daybreak contest, I pointed out to Educated/Tea a repeat entry, and that Farker asked a modmin to take down the entry. Farktographers won’t do that every time, but still, a precedent has been set.

If we can “trust” the FARK.com data, then the process of calling a contest would be completely automatable. The issue is trusting the data.

I’d like the farktography community to adopt two strategies:

1) Call-out – in the FARK.com thread – the disqualifiable entries and politely ask that the entrant get a modmin to delete/de-vote the entry. Everyone do this – a repeat should be called out repeatedly. Rules are rules and it seems good for the Farktography program if Farktographers are publicly (i.e. on FARK, not here) on record for adhering to the rules. If you read the PSAEF, you see many people pointing out potential issues in Photoshop threads. I read the Scarlet Letter – public humiliation can go a long way.

2) Don’t worry about strict adherance to the rules. If a repeat or an HDR slips through every once and a while, roll with it. Relax and realize it is just Farktography.

The more we do #1, the less #2 is likely to occur. And then we could automate more of the process, which would relieve people from having to spend part of their Thursday nights doing administrative tasks (for which, I add, they are uncompensated).

I’ve got some ideas about how to get FARK more on “our side” and maybe help us out with enforcing the rules, but we can only go so far with those. I also have some really draconian thoughts about DQ’ing a FARKTOGRAPHER for repeated violations – either a timeout or a permanent ban from the FSM. I don’t want to do that, but the seed has been planted (and there’s actually a bit of a precedent from the now-deprecated Spotlight On feature).

[mikemikeb]

I debated where this should go – here or in a moderator board

I’d say it was best here, as it allows for even unregistered people to know about what could go wrong in the future if they break the rules. Thank you for your logical and topical message.

P.S. I have an additional thing or two to say about possible cheating by exploiting broken links. To explain my point (not to accuse her of cheating!), GalleyWench has long used Photobucket to host her photos, and it shows on her FSM page. I could see someone else that would want to repeat an entry take advantage of a broken link…

One of the reasons that I try to use image hosts that keep images up long-term from the precise original address is so there’s no doubt that I’ve not repeated an entry. Last I checked, mine is spotless.

[Klahanie]

I debated where this should go – here or in a moderator board

I’d say it was best here, as it allows for even unregistered people to know about what could go wrong in the future if they break the rules. Thank you for your logical and topical message.

P.S. I have an additional thing or two to say about possible cheating by exploiting broken links. To explain my point (not to accuse her of cheating!), GalleyWench has long used Photobucket to host her photos, and it shows on her FSM page. I could see someone else that would want to repeat an entry take advantage of a broken link…

One of the reasons that I try to use image hosts that keep images up long-term from the precise original address is so there’s no doubt that I’ve not repeated an entry. Last I checked, mine is spotless.

There is nothing wrong with Photobucket. I have removed those photos from my account. The only photos of mine that you still see up after a contest are the ones I have on Flickr.

[schnee]

There is nothing wrong with Photobucket. I have removed those photos from my account. The only photos of mine that you still see up after a contest are the ones I have on Flickr.

Exactly. GW, as the artist, has control over her portfolio. She doesn’t have to petition the FSM to take down an entry. mikemikeb chooses, as the artist, to keep the images on display. Artistic control. That’s one reason why the FSM doesn’t store images.

(Note that broken links are not isolated to the FSM’s portfolio pages. If someone viewed the Fark.com contest thread, those links would appear broken as well)

P.S. I have an additional thing or two to say about possible cheating by exploiting broken links.

I think I need a corollary to my #2. “Cheating” is a harsh word. I’d bet that almost every instance of a rules violation is a mistake.

As and aside, LE gave me an idea on how to detect exact repeats by storing a hash of the image. Existing broken links represent a missed opportunity, and I don’t know when/if I’ll get around to doing it, but eh, “its just Farktography”.

[Elsinore]

I think this is as good a place as any to discuss this, and I think what you say has merit, for sure. I think what it comes down to is every Farktographer feeling empowered to call out entries that should be DQ’d. I know for a long time I didn’t feel like I had any business (and certainly no authority) to say anything, and only recently started gingerly asking about entries that were possible repeats. But like you said, the PS’ers do this, so taking some initiative ourselves sounds reaonable.

[Author]

Posts