Andrey Voitsekhov, no.... here everything is simpler - there is not enough PHOTOGRAPH... but if you wish, you can add whatever you want to the coloring book)
Alexey Nikolaevich Alekseenko, It's impossible to explain anything to this crowd within a comment. Statements like these only anger them. Out of bewilderment. Are you prepared to write an article to explain your point of view in detail and with reasonable arguments? And I'm sure the Master would be happy to post it on the website. That's when it would be useful, in my opinion.
Alexey Nikolaevich Alekseenko, You're wrong... There's absolutely no point in this here. It's best not to scratch that blemish: it'll end in psoriasis, and there's no stopping it. Do you need it?
Andrey Voitsekhov, no.... everything is simpler here - there is not enough PHOTOGRAPHY... but as you wish, you can add whatever you want to the coloring book)
Alekseenko Alexey Nikolaevich, ... That's what I'm saying - Simple Ordinary Landscape - and SO many statements from the "master"
Andrew Kud, regarding the article, that's a good point. You saw there's even a section here—abandoned. But the issue isn't that, it's the lack of a way to compare different platforms. I mean, yes, some people might dig through the comments, but most are too lazy and don't need it. A summary is needed, yes. I support the idea.
Malakhov, My next suggestion to the Master would be to establish a more thorough order in the "categories": - Art; - Reportage; - Fashion; - Calendar photography (for calendars, landscape photography, consumer goods, "get in, hurry, buy art") - etc. and, finally, - Consumer photography That is, there can be no "landscapes" (or "animals," etc.) outside the division into art, consumer goods, or consumer goods, if we do it wisely. Then, whether we like it or not, lovers of such nonsense will have to think about it.
Andrew Kud, basically, yes... But the amateurs will think about it, and they'll leave and move on to the defocused areas. And what about traffic? The admins will think about it... It's a double-edged sword here.
Andrew Kud, not yet. Not ready. Sometimes you avoid explanations, limiting yourself to statements, knowing the author doesn't need it, and will demolish a detailed explanation simply out of a desire to ruin the opponent's work.
Alexey Nikolayevich Alekseenko, well, Alexey Nikolayevich, it's not about writing an article here. It's about making it an article in itself, about creating a stir, not about making a big deal out of it.
Andrew Kud, I remember there was a negative rating system on Photocritic that was generally acceptable. I remember seeing this kind of scribbled mess, sometimes climbing up the rankings in seconds... I'm glad someone decided to clean up the site...
Alexey Nikolaevich Alekseenko, Anti-rating is simply a vital necessity for the site today. And in general, the rating system adopted here is destructive. It's impossible to imagine anything worse. But this isn't the place to start a conversation about this. I think if I explain the horror of this system to the Master and suggest something more reasonable and useful for the site, he'll agree.
But the amateurs will think about it and then leave.
But such things will happen (not people, but business nuances) that the site will be simply in shambles. And the photographers from the HF section will be too. Remember the idea that started EKS? It was a powerful idea. But Aksyonov ruined it.
Malakhov, no, more powerful. Significantly. But this conversation is completely inappropriate right now. And not the right time. For now, we need to clear up some basic nitpicks.
Anti-rek is a vital necessity for a website today.
Anti-rek has been around for a long time; it's the "No" button next to Recommend. This button sends work to the home album provided the anti-rek weight is greater than the recommendation weight.
The weight of anti-rivers is greater than the weight of recommendations.
Are these weights calculated equally? I remember there was a peculiarity with rivers—an anti-honey thing, perhaps—that the more often we love a woman, the less she likes us. So, regular rivers from one author to another have less and less weight. Does the same thing apply to the red button?
Dear Andrew Kud, Malakhov, and others wishing to "restore order."
The administration acted very wisely by allocating a sandbox for those with a "special view" and "HF" where they can frolic as they please and develop their own value system. I urge you to calm down and stop spitting in the neighboring sandboxes. Keks Photo died not so much from poor work as from rudeness, bad manners, and a lack of culture. The same applies to some other sites from which you now recruit individual bankrupt photo claqueurs, who became "famous" mainly for their gang-like attacks on newcomers and each other, which eventually led to them all falling out. Write articles, educate. It would be nice if you took some useful photos yourself. If you still don't like it, the whole gang should go to HE. No need to make that Libya thing. The people here are slow and polite. Belarus. A ragtag bunch. Hello, SV
You're calling out individual bankrupt photo claqueurs
Excuse me, but you'll never reach the level of photographic mastery and the level of understanding of the philosophical aspects of the photography phenomenon of those you've dubbed "claqueurs," even if you worked your ass off.
If you still really don't like it, then the whole gang should go to HE.
And these people forbid me from picking my nose! And they even allow themselves to hint about lack of culture. Unable to organize their own thoughts, they take it upon themselves to call and proclaim...
You'll never reach the level of photographic mastery and philosophical understanding of the phenomenon of photography of those you've dubbed "clackers," even if you work your ass off.
Wow!
That's why I urge you to limit yourself to the allotted sandbox. Educating fools is fine, but starting wars with them isn't a sign of intelligence. As for me and ordinary people, those who prefer to wear pants rather than jump out of them in public, we certainly come to society in pants, and for cultural interaction. No amount of genius would make me, for example, communicate with someone who jumps out of their pants in public. I imagine you find that equally disgusting. Everything you write is essentially witty and informative. Leave wars with idiots to idiots. Speaking of philosophy, did you also study at Moscow State University's philosophy department? I'm glad if so. Hi, SV.
Malakhov, Your complaints are received with sympathy. Take comfort, we love you. Even if you decide to go to HE, we will not let you go under any circumstances. You will be mistreated there.
Valeriy Sviderskiy, what does this have to do with it? It's simply a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff, without bias or discrimination, which is what art photography websites are for. For everything else, there's Yandex Photos, etc. We're not talking about aggressively squeezing them out; they'll die out on their own when the environment that breeds kitsch, mass appeal, and bad taste disappears.
Valeriy Sviderskiy, I don't fight idiots, but the list of people I don't intend to interact with here grows regularly. You're among those vying for a place on it. In fact, you spat shit at people I respect (and in the wider photography community), and now you're hiding behind empty words instead of simply apologizing for your obscenity. Do you even understand the difference between who you are in photography and who, say, Dima Orlov is? No?
Andrew Kud You see, I didn't mention anyone by name, but you immediately identified the characters by the essential characteristics I mentioned. So, these characteristics do exist! So, I was right in noting them as the most recognizable (essential), typical of these individuals. I have nothing and no one to apologize for. If anything happens, apologize to them yourself, assuring them of your (unnamed) respect. It's your right.
Who are you in photography, and who, for example, is Dima Orlov? No?
I don't know Mr. Orlov's pedigree. I know mine. I don't know any masterpieces by Mr. Dima Orlov. There are two good ones. + 12,000 "comments" on the topic "ah, landscape again", "tired of amateurs" Boring. IMHO
Andrew Kud, if you add a picture, you'll be able to negatively report, write articles without fear of being deleted, and have somewhere to contact you if needed. Well, that's an option.
Sviderskiy, backing you into a corner with all your naive cunning is a task for a first-grader. Yes, you didn't name them, but you claim
You're now calling out individual bankrupt photo claqueurs
It simply follows that you know by name these "individuals" I'm calling out and about whom you've allowed yourself the epithet "bankrupt photo claqueurs." Or how should I understand you? Do I mean that you DON'T KNOW who I'm calling out, who exactly I'm talking about, but you claim they are such and such? But that's the position of an idiot. Let's assume you're not an idiot. Then who is? *** You're on my list, Svidersky. From now on, you're gone.
The rating is calculated in a really complicated way here. It could go down (which happens regularly for me), or it could even go to zero, so to speak...
Drop that Jewish arrogance of yours—life will be easier. You won't surprise anyone here or gain any credibility. I haven't written you off anywhere; I listen to your thoughtful comments, which, alas, have begun to be drowned out by the noise of the squabbles flaring up around you. And one more piece of advice: don't try to catch me out with sophistries and other cheap tricks. We're in different weight classes. Sincerely, SV
Unfortunately, I can't crop the diagonal, so I'll use the sum of the areas: View crop + View crop. A pink-green "Milky Way." Well, it's better to flip it. I don't recommend it.
We've all just heard the anti-reaction formula – it absolutely doesn't work against mutual recrimination! And to hell with it!
Now it's much more important to create, as VS puts it, our own sandbox, where it's interesting and vibrant so much so that authors from other sandboxes won't want to leave the site, but rather look within themselves for their own reserves – isn't that the great power of art? Including HF
Well, it's really boring to respond to certain phrases and to certain authors
PDG, I generally love this author, "secluded in a pillar" And in the last photo posted, it's not just the little prince – look how the space around him seamlessly transforms from a dirty windowsill into something ethereal and fairytale-like.
ytrewq, well, it's not really a story... When Andrew Kud says that a critic should first and foremost talk about their platform (express their paradigm in words) - he's a thousand times right!
Dan70 is an artist by profession.
and simply an internally harmonious person, with his own philosophy of life...
...back then, under photographs, people talked only about photography. That evening, his self-portrait "received" the attention of all the club's critics.
Everyone knew "how it should have been" - about the lighting, the angle, and the framing. Just like the fable "the elephant artist."
But unlike Mikhalkov's character, Dan70 didn't listen to anyone, he didn't stop expressing his thoughts on the photo screen, he simply turned off the sound.
Andrew Kud, yes, a certain minimum author rating is needed for it to appear. Initially, recommendations were fully weighted, and the rating was based simply on the number of recommendations, and it was possible to simply register 10-20 empty accounts and periodically build up rivers. Then this system was changed, and rivers were given a WEIGHT, which depends on the author's rating; this weight ranges from 0.2 to 4, I think, and the total weight of recommendations is the works rating. Thus, rivers created by empty accounts became meaningless, and this system has been successfully operating for a long time. (Plus, yes, there are some amendments that reduce the river's weight based on the number of mutual recommendations.)
Sending works to DA acts as a counterweight, and for a work to go to DA, the weight of "anti-requests" must be greater than the weight of recommendations. So even if you do have this button, the weight of your rec (and anti-rec) will be minimal, unfortunately. This button has been around for a while, but unfortunately, few people use it, and often you have to submit to DA manually.
There are several other problems with anti-recs. Firstly, if you give someone permission to submit works to DA, it will soon turn out that 90% of the works there don't meet the special criteria. Secondly, my personal belief is that anti-recs and other downvotes should be handled very carefully. People (for the most part) usually don't care about proper ratings or any other thoughtful filtering of works, but they will happily use downvotes out of revenge, which completely destroys the image of objectivity and introduces even more chaos. Therefore, in my opinion, a good practice is a system of recommendations, upvotes, etc. – either they recommend it or quietly pass it by, or they mark the work as artistic, and everyone is pleased
Master, what about the fact that Andrew Kud has a work and the works have a rating, but the author has a rating of 0.00? Is the problem with the new HF category?
Master, weight-counterweight, a system of leverage—that's understandable. But why don't you want to strip the red button of anonymity? Are you afraid of vindictiveness? As for me, a minus from a reputable author is no less informative than a plus. And it opens up the opportunity to continue the party by asking him about the reasons.
Master, weight-counterweight, a system of levers—that's understandable. Why don't you want to strip the red button of anonymity? Are you afraid of vindictiveness? As for me, a minus from a reputable author is no less informative than a plus. And it opens up the opportunity to continue the party by asking him about the reasons.
Malakhov, as I already said, almost no one uses this button. If we strip it of anonymity, the number of times it's pressed will drop to zero.
If you strip her of her anonymity, the number of her clicks will drop to zero
Master, the number of anonymous clicks will drop)
Everything has been tested on Exe long ago – the personalized "+"s and "-"s work. There are also few downsides, but they are open, informative, and in themselves are not a topic of conversation.
It's impossible to explain anything to this crowd within a comment. Statements like these only anger them. Out of bewilderment.
Are you prepared to write an article to explain your point of view in detail and with reasonable arguments?
And I'm sure the Master would be happy to post it on the website.
That's when it would be useful, in my opinion.
You're wrong... There's absolutely no point in this here.
It's best not to scratch that blemish: it'll end in psoriasis, and there's no stopping it.
Do you need it?
My next suggestion to the Master would be to establish a more thorough order in the "categories":
- Art;
- Reportage;
- Fashion;
- Calendar photography (for calendars, landscape photography, consumer goods, "get in, hurry, buy art")
- etc.
and, finally,
- Consumer photography
That is, there can be no "landscapes" (or "animals," etc.) outside the division into art, consumer goods, or consumer goods, if we do it wisely.
Then, whether we like it or not, lovers of such nonsense will have to think about it.
they'll leaveand move on to the defocused areas. And what about traffic? The admins will think about it... It's a double-edged sword here.Anti-rating is simply a vital necessity for the site today.
And in general, the rating system adopted here is destructive. It's impossible to imagine anything worse.
But this isn't the place to start a conversation about this.
I think if I explain the horror of this system to the Master and suggest something more reasonable and useful for the site, he'll agree.
Remember the idea that started EKS?
It was a powerful idea. But Aksyonov ruined it.
But this conversation is completely inappropriate right now. And not the right time. For now, we need to clear up some basic nitpicks.
I don't have that button.
The administration acted very wisely by allocating a sandbox for those with a "special view" and "HF" where they can frolic as they please and develop their own value system. I urge you to calm down and stop spitting in the neighboring sandboxes.
Keks Photo died not so much from poor work as from rudeness, bad manners, and a lack of culture. The same applies to some other sites from which you now recruit individual bankrupt photo claqueurs, who became "famous" mainly for their gang-like attacks on newcomers and each other, which eventually led to them all falling out. Write articles, educate. It would be nice if you took some useful photos yourself.
If you still don't like it, the whole gang should go to HE.
No need to make that Libya thing. The people here are slow and polite. Belarus. A ragtag bunch.
Hello, SV
And I'm glad that such important voices as yours, Phoenix, and others are coming to life on the site.
Excuse me, but you'll never reach the level of photographic mastery and the level of understanding of the philosophical aspects of the photography phenomenon of those you've dubbed "claqueurs," even if you worked your ass off.
That's why I urge you to limit yourself to the allotted sandbox.
Educating fools is fine, but starting wars with them isn't a sign of intelligence.
As for me and ordinary people, those who prefer to wear pants rather than jump out of them in public, we certainly come to society in pants, and for cultural interaction. No amount of genius would make me, for example, communicate with someone who jumps out of their pants in public. I imagine you find that equally disgusting. Everything you write is essentially witty and informative. Leave wars with idiots to idiots.
Speaking of philosophy, did you also study at Moscow State University's philosophy department? I'm glad if so.
Hi, SV.
Your complaints are received with sympathy.
Take comfort, we love you. Even if you decide to go to HE, we will not let you go under any circumstances. You will be mistreated there.
Are we going to put a star on the back?
I don't fight idiots, but the list of people I don't intend to interact with here grows regularly.
You're among those vying for a place on it.
In fact, you spat shit at people I respect (and in the wider photography community), and now you're hiding behind empty words instead of simply apologizing for your obscenity.
Do you even understand the difference between who you are in photography and who, say, Dima Orlov is? No?
So it seems my opinion can't be trusted.
Maybe it's for the best.
You see, I didn't mention anyone by name, but you immediately identified the characters by the essential characteristics I mentioned. So, these characteristics do exist! So, I was right in noting them as the most recognizable (essential), typical of these individuals. I have nothing and no one to apologize for. If anything happens, apologize to them yourself, assuring them of your (unnamed) respect. It's your right.
I don't know Mr. Orlov's pedigree.
I know mine.
I don't know any masterpieces by Mr. Dima Orlov.
There are two good ones. + 12,000 "comments" on the topic "ah, landscape again", "tired of amateurs"
Boring. IMHO
Well, that's an option.
Yes, you didn't name them, but you claim
It simply follows that you know by name these "individuals" I'm calling out and about whom you've allowed yourself the epithet "bankrupt photo claqueurs."
Or how should I understand you?
Do I mean that you DON'T KNOW who I'm calling out, who exactly I'm talking about, but you claim they are such and such?
But that's the position of an idiot.
Let's assume you're not an idiot.
Then who is?
***
You're on my list, Svidersky. From now on, you're gone.
Drop that Jewish arrogance of yours—life will be easier. You won't surprise anyone here or gain any credibility.
I haven't written you off anywhere; I listen to your thoughtful comments, which, alas, have begun to be drowned out by the noise of the squabbles flaring up around you.
And one more piece of advice: don't try to catch me out with sophistries and other cheap tricks. We're in different weight classes.
Sincerely, SV
View crop + View crop. A pink-green "Milky Way."
Well, it's better to flip it.
I don't recommend it.
And to hell with it!
Now it's much more important to create, as VS puts it, our own sandbox, where it's interesting and vibrant
so much so that authors from other sandboxes won't want to leave the site, but rather look within themselves for their own reserves –
isn't that the great power of art?
Including HF
Well, it's really boring to respond to certain phrases and to certain authors
I just saw the work you recommended.
I really liked it. It feels like it's not a sheet of paper, but a little prince...
Here's the photograph. And at the top is a frame for 18 recommendations.
PDG, it's a shame the author of that work disabled comments.
And in the last photo posted, it's not just the little prince – look how the space around him seamlessly transforms from a dirty windowsill into something ethereal and fairytale-like.
When Andrew Kud says that a critic should first and foremost talk about their platform (express their paradigm in words) - he's a thousand times right!
Dan70 is an artist by profession.
and simply an internally harmonious person,
with his own philosophy of life...
...back then, under photographs, people talked only about photography.
That evening, his self-portrait "received" the attention of all the club's critics.
Everyone knew "how it should have been" - about the lighting, the angle, and the framing.
Just like the fable "the elephant artist."
But unlike Mikhalkov's character, Dan70 didn't listen to anyone,
he didn't stop expressing his thoughts on the photo screen,
he simply turned off the sound.
Respect!
Sending works to DA acts as a counterweight, and for a work to go to DA, the weight of "anti-requests" must be greater than the weight of recommendations. So even if you do have this button, the weight of your rec (and anti-rec) will be minimal, unfortunately. This button has been around for a while, but unfortunately, few people use it, and often you have to submit to DA manually.
There are several other problems with anti-recs. Firstly, if you give someone permission to submit works to DA, it will soon turn out that 90% of the works there don't meet the special criteria. Secondly, my personal belief is that anti-recs and other downvotes should be handled very carefully. People (for the most part) usually don't care about proper ratings or any other thoughtful filtering of works, but they will happily use downvotes out of revenge, which completely destroys the image of objectivity and introduces even more chaos. Therefore, in my opinion, a good practice is a system of recommendations, upvotes, etc. – either they recommend it or quietly pass it by, or they mark the work as artistic, and everyone is pleased
Everything has been tested on Exe long ago – the personalized "+"s and "-"s work.
There are also few downsides, but they are open, informative, and in themselves are not a topic of conversation.