PROFESSIONAL status level

[Xenedis]

IMO, competitions measure people's ability to succeed in competitions. They aren't representative of one's worth as a photographer.

[ameerat42]

If you ran WinZip over this...

IMO, competitions measure people's ability to succeed in competitions. They aren't representative of one's worth as a photographer.

you could extract at least a few thousand meanings, IMO.
Am.

[Steve Axford]

That has to be one of the most cryptic posts I've seen. What do you mean?????

[Kym]

Can't use the Normal distribution as a measure because the data is integer values, the Normal or Gaussian distribution is analogue, ie., for real numbers.

If you have 20 dice and roll them 1000 times, and plot the results you will have an approximation of a normal curve.
Do it with 200 dice and 10,000 times, the plot will be even closer, etc.

Given we have only three grades, the distribution approximates the normal curve in a crude sense, i.e. the intermediate group is the biggest.
Which is the point I was making, not giving a lesson in statistics.
Putting it another way, the probability that a randomly selected member is intermediate is much higher than beginner or advanced.

Don't mess with the site Tech Admin's maths skills

[Steve Axford]

to ask a stupid question. Why should the competition categories relate to a normal distribution?

[ricktas]

to ask a stupid question. Why should the competition categories relate to a normal distribution?

Its about the spread of members across the three levels, how many beginners, how many intermediates, how many advanced.

[Ezookiel]

I'm pretty sure that if I posted ALL the shots I take, it wouldn't take long to convince you all I'm actually a beginner, it's just that I only post the 1 in 100 that came out ok, which makes me look a whole lot better than I am. I'm definitely not going to be reaching professional level any time soon, so it's probably just as well you don't have that level, it's going to take me long enough to get to advanced. I think if I can get my "keeper" ratio down to 1 in 10 then I'll upgrade myself to advanced

[Kym]

I'm pretty sure that if I posted ALL the shots I take, it wouldn't take long to convince you all I'm actually a beginner,

So what? That's exactly what 'pros' do as well.

[Steve Axford]

Its about the spread of members across the three levels, how many beginners, how many intermediates, how many advanced.

But why would you want the distribution to be normal rather than linear? Why should there be more in intermediate than in beginner? Surely it is your choice, not some immutable law of nature?

[ricktas]

But why would you want the distribution to be normal rather than linear? Why should there be more in intermediate than in beginner? Surely it is your choice, not some immutable law of nature?

Umm. I don't choose what levels members enter when they join the site, they do. We upgrade members based on how they perform in the competitions and review their photo and other posts on the site. I don't want any sort of distribution and that is not a consideration when upgrading someone. They are upgraded purely on their merits and photographic improvements.

But when people join up we do see more people choose to set themselves as intermediate upon registration than either beginners or advanced. I suspect that is due to the type of person who seeks out photography forums, rather than anything else. But it is not within my control, or choice, as you state.

[Steve Axford]

Ah. I see.

[geoffsta]

So..... Out of all that has been said above... Whether your a beginner, intermediate or advanced. Depends on the roll of a dice.?
Should it be like an equilateral triange. Were all sides are equal. As in a fair distribution of numbers on all three sides.?

[ricktas]

So..... Out of all that has been said above... Whether your a beginner, intermediate or advanced. Depends on the roll of a dice.?
Should it be like an equilateral triange. Were all sides are equal. As in a fair distribution of numbers on all three sides.?

No, cause there are other factors. If when people joined the site, we randomly applied a level to them, yes, you would expect the spread of members to be even across all three levels. But in reality, the levels are mostly set my you, the members. Yes we upgrade people when their competition results etc show they should be, but whilst all those members who join the site choose their own level at registration, it will not be 3 equal groups.

You have to take into account who would seek out a photography forum to join.

Here are some stats:

Since 30/11/2012 members who joined AP chose (as they joined)

Beginner 228
Intermediate 117
Advanced 34

Now if this was to be an even spread it would not look like that. This is outside our control (the mods and I). All we can do is upgrade members as we see their photography shows they need to be. 2 people got upgraded today. We are constantly on the watch for people to upgrade and it is an ongoing process.

The other thing to consider when looking at the comps and participation is, beginners often don't enter the competitions, whether that is cause they feel their photography is not up to standard or for other reasons. Intermediates like to get competitive, they probably feel more confident with their photography and thus enter more readily. Advanced members enter comps, but often the professional photographers on AP do not enter every week. Maybe their businesses come first?

In the end the competition participation is higher at the intermediate level. This is not something I or the mods can control.

We have:

5876 beginners
12034 intermediates
958 advanced

I understand the concerns regarding how the intermediate competition has more entries and is thus harder to win, but ultimately if there are 5 entries or 100 entries in a competition, if you have entered an amazing photo, you will win. Treat it as a challenge to improve. This is not about the mods and I trying to make it harder for intermediates, it is about the type of person that joins a photography forum and it seems that most are intermediate level photographers. I would hazard a guess that most of them join cause they know their photography is quite good, but want it to be better. So sites like AP attract people who have good base skills, more than any other demographic out there on the net.

[geoffsta]

5876 beginners
12034 intermediates
958 advanced

What about something radical......
What about instead of adding a professional level, add a "New to photography" (NEW) level (Which is sort of in place anyway)
How about expanding the NTP. I think it depends on a time period (I could be wrong), not on the level of your abilities.
Could then the intermediate, beginner and the (New) New be spead more evenly.

Just a thought...

[ricktas]

What about something radical......
What about instead of adding a professional level, add a "New to photography" (NEW) level (Which is sort of in place anyway)
How about expanding the NTP. I think it depends on a time period (I could be wrong), not on the level of your abilities.
Could then the intermediate, beginner and the (New) New be spead more evenly.

Just a thought...

But where does it stop?

New
Beginner
Semi intermediate
Intermediate
Semi advanced
Advanced
Semi Pro
Pro

I just cannot see the justification for adding another level, cause then we start a ball rolling that could see us with umpteen levels, and managing them all would be a nightmare

[geoffsta]

But in fact, you wouldn't be adding a level. There is already NTP. Why not expand on that, which is already there.

[ricktas]

But in fact, you wouldn't be adding a level. There is already NTP. Why not expand on that, which is already there.

which is beginners.

The other option is that I do what all the other photography forums do, and have one level for everyone.

[mechawombat]

I was surprised I got upgraded to intermediate TBH. I suppose I still feel like a beginner in a lot of respects but it was also a big ego and confidence boost.

As for any more levels I dont see the need to add any more.

[Warbler]

I get the impression from reading many of the posts on this thread that some folks feel there are some burglars here, to steal a golfing term. We all like to quote a lower handicap to boost our self-esteem, but want to play off a higher handicap at the course.

I always thought it was an advantage to be an amateur with no commercial imperatives or time constraints. Just turn up and shoot whatever I wanted. Sometimes just go home without even shooting if the conditions weren't just right. The only real advantage I see for pros is that they all gave to know something about post-processing.

The difference between pro and am (no not that AM) for taking landscape and nature shots would be negligible. People and sports would be another matter.

I'd leave them as they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, you could reduce it to two categories, Beginner and The Rest. Beginner comps could be all about teaching skills and The Rest could be open slather. Beginner comps would all be themes like "Shallow DOF", "Long Duration Shutter", "Flash", and the like. That would help some of the beginners to practice their technique. You'd still have a few burglars, but it wouldn't take too long to weed them out. Some folks will still win more than their fair share of comps, because they're really good photographers. Others will know they're competing against the best and either rise to the challenge or not, but that's life.

Not exactly an all consuming national issue of life and death though, is it.

[Steve Axford]

On a careful review of your data, you have
5876 b
12034 I
958 a
For total members.

But the entries reflect are quite different.
13
52
43
This would imply that you have two distributions overlaid and to assume that the final result is a normal distribution just because it looks a bit like it ( which, in fact it doesnt) would be wrong.
Now I know that this is essentially irrelevant to the thread, but it has come up and it would be unfortunate to leave people with the impression that statistics can be applied in such an arbitrary way.