Comments
You have really interesting blog, keep up posting such informative posts!
Posted by: Marina, Sep 21, 2011 08:47:42 PM
The contest was really helpful for professional photographer. Thanks for the information.
http://contestphoto.net/
Posted by: Contest Photo, Nov 20, 2009 11:23:30 PM
The contest was really helpful for professional photographer.Thanks for informing who won the contest.
http://www.picturescontest.com/
Posted by: picturescontest, Oct 23, 2009 05:24:58 AM
When I SAW what happened to this photo "contest", I LITERALLY threw up. I threw up all over my keyboard, all over the wall, and all over my new "no-wrinkle" Dockers. You should all be ASHAMED of yourselves. DO YOU REALIZE how many people you have OFFENDED????!? PROBABLY ABOUT 3*!!!!!!!!!!! You think you are all high and mighty over there with your "CONTEST" and your "FULL TIME JOBS." I think every single one of you should RESIGN. What is this world without JUSTICE?????? All I can say is WOW. Wow. "WOW."
We are all going to cancel our subscriptions to your "magazine" which will cost you a total of $89.94 a year!!!!! TAKE THAT!!!!!!!!!
kthnx byeeeeeee
*3 is technically a "crowd."
Posted by: Kevin, Mar 20, 2009 02:06:04 PM
Out of curiosity I came back to see if anything had been done about this. It was surprising to me that the Washingtonian decided to ignore their mistake...wow.
Posted by: i.a., Mar 20, 2009 06:35:02 AM
what a blatant lack of professionalism among the washingtonian staff.. no wonder the magazine is going down the tubes! whoever was supposed to be monitoring the contest obviously dropped the ball. i’m sure the contest will only run a few more months, as the magazine probably won’t make it that much longer. fellow photographers- let’s find other photo contests to enter! Why enter a contest that is clearly improperly run?!!!
Posted by: former reader, Mar 18, 2009 09:19:15 PM
I think the Washingtonian photo contests area a waste of time. Find a better magazine!
Posted by: i.v., Mar 13, 2009 07:09:14 AM
If this "glitch" really was an accident, as you say, did you get the homeless guy a beer? You could at least follow the rules of his button.
Posted by: Boozewoozy, Mar 10, 2009 03:41:51 PM
ha.
Posted by: to jeff bridges: , Mar 05, 2009 12:21:49 PM
Next Month’s Theme: Take a picture of yourself ranting at a contest on Washingtonian.com
Winners will be alloted 20 pages of indiscriminate postings in the magazine - content will not be edited for coherence, logic, typos, or multiple uses of exclamation points.
Multiple entries are permitted, providing that they are entered under poorly disguised pseudonyms.
Voting remains open until it is arbitrarily closed. Good Luck!
Posted by: Jeff Bridges, Mar 05, 2009 11:34:31 AM
I also voted prior to the deadline and was curious to know who won, so I checked back on Sunday and noticed the poll was still open well into the day.
Seems weird that nobody at Washingtonian monitored the poll at midnight (their deadline) or even early the next day, it was just left open...
Posted by: Jess, Mar 05, 2009 06:36:01 AM
You asked that the voters play by the rules; yet you BREAK them. Playground won at the end of the contest; that is all there is to it. Awfully suspicious that it was extended- those of us who played by the rules would not have THOUGHT to vote after 2/28. To add insult to injury: you take an arbitrary stand; yes, made a mistake ; live with it- the incorrect winner will remain. The very least you can do is print BOTH with a sincere apology to the contestants and the HONEST voters. If you do not take the high road; I will personally tell everyone I KNOW; WHAT Frauds you are.
Posted by: 2nd time trying to post, Mar 04, 2009 10:27:57 AM
At the outset of this contest you asked all who voted to abide by the rules. Then, you yourselves BREAK those rules. To add insult to injury you take an arbitrary stand by your error. Playgrountd was the official winner & that’s all there is to it..... If you do not know how to run a contest; then GET out of the business..... You desrve to be reported to an honest press and to loose a whole lot of subscribers for your unprofesionalism and arrogane: I made a mistake & so what; WOW!!!!!!!!!The very OLEAST you could do is publish the winner at the official end of the contest & then @ the BOGUS end of the contest. DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Can not believe your nerve, Mar 04, 2009 10:18:32 AM
It is an honest mistake, but something can be done about it, instead they are ignoring it. If people want to cancel their subscriptions, so be it. I don’t plan to buy any.
Posted by: Surprised..., Mar 04, 2009 07:00:06 AM
Cancel your subscription to the Washingtonian? Verbally berating the editorial director via these comments? I mean, come on fellow Washingtonians- this was an honest technical error, and an executive decision had to be made. Nothing can be absolutely perfect at all times, and I would appreciate a little more tolerance and respect for Washingtonian.
Posted by: Sick of the disrespect, Mar 03, 2009 02:43:12 PM
I think we should take King Solomon’s advice.
Posted by: King Solomon wins, Mar 03, 2009 01:35:36 PM
"due to the technological glitch that was out of our control…the decision on this matter is final."
Wow! Great words from the editorial director of a "community" magazine. This really shows a flipant and disrepectful attitude towards the art of photography and the photographers. For the editorial director this may have been a piddly online contest, but for the photographers it was much more than that. I’m sure all of them put in a lot time and effort and all would have accepted the results if the contest had been conducted in a fair manner.
Posted by: Photography fan., Mar 03, 2009 01:14:23 PM
If the editorial staff was smart, they would publish both photos and make twice as many sales!
Posted by: Nathan, Mar 03, 2009 12:54:58 PM
isn’t there a homeless man in the playground photo? i think that one should win.
Posted by: steve jobs, Mar 03, 2009 12:25:36 PM
Catherine,
Seeing that you take this matter lightly, why would anyone waste their time and effort taking pictures and entering your contest to be treated unfairly? These photographers take pride in their work and getting a picture published is an accomplishment.
I was watching the poll Saturday night and The Playground picture was ahead by 1% at midnight. At this point, the Homeless picture photographer should not be penalized either but you should do something to publish both. How would the Homeless picture photographer feel if it was them?
Your company apologizes for the error, but does nothing about it.
Posted by: disappointed voter, Mar 03, 2009 09:09:28 AM
Catherine -- you too ought to be ashamed of yourself and your magazine. Your organzation lacks integrity and I will no longer purchase the Washingtonian. I am crossing my fingers that there will be many other "used-to-be" subsribers! Get yourself folks that know how to manage web content content and the glitches that will continue to arise if you don’t have the proper staff to handle such contests and deadlines. I hope you go out of business!
Posted by: One Furios Former Customer, Mar 03, 2009 08:50:26 AM
I still think HOMELESS was the best photo. I agree that there are glitches, however. We all know that there is no real way of knowing how accurate the voting is and whether or not each person that votes only votes once. Perhaps the judges should just decide the winner for each month on their own based on technical, compositional and thematic elements...
All that being said, base on those elements, I believe that Homeless was the best photo for this contest!
Posted by: concerned, Mar 03, 2009 08:44:36 AM
Hi everyone—we’re sorry that many of you are so upset over the results of the photo contest. However, due to the technological glitch that was out of our control, we had to honor the votes through when the poll was officially closed. We understand that this has angered some of you, and we apologize for the error. However, the decision on this matter is final. We hope you will continue to participate in our monthly photo contests, as we think the contest community is a lively and vibrant one, and does an amazing job of capturing unique scenes around Washington.
Posted by: Catherine, Editorial Director of Washingtonian.com, Mar 03, 2009 08:18:44 AM
Clearly, the only solution is to tear both of the photos in half.
Posted by: King Solomon, Mar 03, 2009 07:56:14 AM
Your photo "contest" is absolutely ABSURD! You label this "a contest" yet you don’t stand by the rules and restrictions that your organization puts in place. You, as a company, ought to be ASHAMED of yourselves!! Until you get your act together and make certain there are no "glitches" (RIDICULOUS) in your systems...then you should not run "contests" like this in the future. And HOW DARE YOU label the winner above when there was clearly another winner when the "real" deadline ended. As a result of your organizations (and your web services teams) incompetence you should, at the very least, award TWO WINNERS this year. Enough said!
Posted by: Your Organization Should Be Embarrassed!, Mar 03, 2009 07:31:11 AM
No disrespect to the photographer, but the homeless photo won by only 1%, if it was so much better than the playground photo, it would’ve won by alot more. On a contest this close, the Washingtonian staff should’ve paid more attention to their poll.
The winner should be the photo in the lead at midnight on 2/28, why set a deadline...
Posted by: anon, Mar 03, 2009 06:35:00 AM
I’m not aware of who was actually in the lead on February 28, 2009 midnight but obviously more people liked the Homeless photo. If the Playground photo was the number one photo then would it have not retained the lead?
Just a thought....
Congratulations to both photographers for their great images!
Posted by: think about it, Mar 02, 2009 08:56:15 PM
Why honor the polls through 3/1 when you KNOW it’s a glitch??
The winner should be whoever won at midnight 2/28.
I guess fairness and integrity doesn’t matter to the Washingtonian.com editorial staff.
Posted by: elcs, Mar 02, 2009 03:00:09 PM
I agree with the posting below. If you can not honor the picture that was actually ahead when the poll was supposed to end. Then publish them both!
Posted by: i.a., Mar 02, 2009 02:41:44 PM
Logic FAIL. The edititorial staff at Washingtonian was clearly as drunk as the subject of the "winning" photo.
Posted by: drunk again?, Mar 02, 2009 02:13:43 PM
I didn’t win. Again. This whole endeavor is clearly rigged.
Posted by: soar loser, Mar 02, 2009 02:01:26 PM
that service really does suck. i’m not surprised it broke.
Posted by: poll daddy fail, Mar 02, 2009 01:59:40 PM
Will this picture really appear in the March 19 issue? Or will another, less deserving one, actually appear two days later?
Posted by: gettingtothebottomofthis, Mar 02, 2009 01:54:49 PM
For those with integrity, a word Washingtonian does not know the meaning of, here are the results that I saw at 12:05 am on March 1:
Homeless - 33%
Bed Jumper - 4%
Lobby - 7%
The Playground - 34%
Green on Green on Green - 21%
Posted by: Extremely disappointed, Mar 02, 2009 01:33:12 PM
"Despite our intentions to close the poll on Saturday, we are honoring the poll results through March 1"
Does this mean that there were different results than the ones on at the official closing time? You know, the time clearly stated in the rules of the contest right before the speech about being fair and only getting one vote...yada yada yada. I wonder what attempts were made to contact Poll Daddy to see if the correct data could be obtained. The very least that should be done, which still isn’t fair enough to the actual photo that won, is to publish both photos.
Posted by: Alex, Mar 02, 2009 12:46:40 PM
Crazy! When I looked just after midnight it showed the playground in the lead!
Posted by: Cass, Mar 02, 2009 12:43:05 PM
We know who really won the contest!
Posted by: n. f., Mar 02, 2009 12:34:25 PM
| 
