I don’t think the badge idea will make any difference in getting more people to comment. It’s just not enough of a reward for the effort of writing critiques. Most people pay little attention to badges. Most people feel proud of themselves without a badge. I think that’s the wrong direction.
Let’s face it people sign to NPN to receive critiques - not give them. That’s NPNs main selling point. Nobody signs up to NPN to write critiques. Of course critiques don’t come from nowhere. Someone has to write a critique. We can’t all just eat dessert, someone has to do the cooking. Nobody is paid to write critiques.
I’ve always felt that critiquing is actually a better learning experience than being critiqued. I don’t think photographers are aware of that. You learn more by finding problems than by being told what they are. Active learning is more educational than passive learning. The modern educational system is based on that. Somehow we need to educate members that when they do a critique they get a greater benefit than when they receive one.
But how do we do this? I would pursue the problem from that angle rather than the punish/reward one discussed above. How do we show members the value to themselves of critiquing? At the very least I would add to the NPN main page listing it’s benefits “Improve your photography by critiquing images’.
Critiquing isn’t a ‘task’ that needs to be rewarded. Rather it contains a reward within itself.
Motivating people to provide critiques is a challenge. I try to make between 3 to 5 critiques for every image that I post. The kudos type of comment are important, but less valuable than constructive critiques. Some photos are excellent at the start and providing reasons why the image is top notch is also constructive. I have to think more about this, but this type of discussion is valid and should pique the interest of fellow nature photographers.
I am also a beginner here at NPN. I agree with Michael Tomcal when he said: “I feel this reason the most when critiquing another’s work especially when someone has obviously much more experience than myself. There has been a few times where I seen some work that I knew what critique I would say but held back.” And also with Lon Overacker. I fall into #1 “not qualified” and #2 “intimidated”. I appreciate what Igor Doncov said about the difference between “critiquing” and being “critiqued.” Critiquing helps me define specifically why i like - or not - an image. The hard part for me is putting it into words that would be helpful to someone else, who in many cases has a lot more experiences than myself. I did read the articles on giving critiques, just still feeling hesitant to comment. Any thoughts on how to begin giving meaningful comments would be welcome. Thank you.
Even if you are unable to give inputs to the artist on how to “improve” the image, letting them know what you like or how you respond to the image is helpful to them (at least I find it that way). I usually have a tunnel vision on how I see my images and reading how others respond to them is very helpful.
In my opinion, when it comes to write a critique/feedback, it’s best not to overthink it. I could only remember a few occasions when I found the feedbacks/comments/critiques unhelpful and they were only unhelpful because the critiques were written in a nasty way. Even then, after letting myself cool down a little bit, I was able to gain some benefits from them.
How we “see” and how others “see” is a very valid point Adhika and one I tend to forget from time to time. Also, I do tend to way “overthink” everything (including how to respond to your kind comments). Thank you for taking the time to help me.
For me, the issue here is getting more reciprocal participation. I see nature photographers.network as a sharing site. We share photographs. We share critiques. This is how I think many people are learning how to be better nature photographers.
It’s the old: “you can lead them to water but you can’t make them drink” scenario. There will always be overachievers and underachievers. And of course everybody has different expectations about the site and what they derive from its use.
There have been a lot of different issues expressed here in this thread with regards to participation. And perhaps the question is: is there a middle ground that will not offend anybody.
Perhaps rewards and punishment approach that I had suggested earlier (a certain ratio of comments to posts required to qualify for the weekly pick) is too extreme.
I understand that for some, critiquing the photos of others is difficult.
I see posted on the site a suggestion of five comments to one post.
In the past (NPN version one) for the monthly gallery one of the qualifications was good participation.
So what is good participation? That is rather ambiguous but there were some historical guidelines. If I remember correctly, most of the people chosen for the monthly gallery had at least 3 to 1 ratio of comments to posts. (Just something I noted anecdotally and cannot backup with actual data.)
I think everybody agrees that the goal here is to increase participation. There are several items here which make a case for active participation. Please review.
