Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System

Speaking generally and not specifically in relation to Anna Pagnacco, I applaud Brian for his implementation of this new policy.<p>As to the debate about high ratings, giving high ratings is fine when an image deserves it, exchanging high ratings is simply <b>abuse</b>.

Carl, I did a little exploring and grabbed my ratings of Stephen Hickel and threw into the mixmaster of excel, which shortly thereafter blew up. : )

 

Aesthetics and Originality average was about 5.75

 

I picked ratings generally 5s and 6s, a few 7s, and maybe just one 4 for originality.

Brian, i am not sure how you and PN are going to set the practical rules but i do think that is an excellent initiative and encouragement for many photographers. <p>

So I decided recently to review one by one and with evidences (systematic and -as much as possible- consistent ratings), entire portofolio of some photographers. You just give power to that type of initiative, reduce the fear (because there are threats) of some to do the same and limit the risk of some ridiculous `civil war` in this site.

 

<p>Few bad loser, whom happened also to be IMO good photographer in average, (although there is nothing much to win, and in some cases it is just fake win of ego) called it a `crusade`. I am not surprised to see here the same people, who were wondering why I take rating so seriously, to be very seriously commenting with retaliation warnings and other usual pathetic threats.

<p>To pay a subscription have nothing to do with rating. You pay, you can upload a high number of pictures and benefit from extra services, but it shouldnt certainly be a guarantee of `cocooning` in a Hall of Fake.

Additionaly, moderators` decision is a constructive and progressive answer to <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005HI4">that thread</a> recently intiated by Doug.

I sent this as a personal e-mail to Brian before recognizing this thread. So am now posting it as public.

 

Dear Brian,

 

I am briefly writing you on the situation with Anna P. I noticed you cut her ratings today. I contacted her as to the reason, and if some warnings were given. Her reply is pasted below. I just have one very simple request....please give her a warning first. Give her the opportunity to correct her actions so that they are acceptable. If you told her that this situation was a mess, and you guys were tired of dealing with it, I am certain she would adjust. I believe this would be a very reasonable thing to do. As a moderator, you know and we know you can ban, edit, delete whomever you wish. I just think that some warning first would go a long way in maintaining peace and understanding. In fact many other users, may now be cautious about even defending their arguments because of fear the axe could come suddenly and without warning. In my opinion, she was attacked as much as she attacked. I would just suggest that for the sake of peace throughout the site, you consider giving her a warning, and another opportunity. This is totally on my own and not encouraged by her. I do believe her work is generally outstanding. Nobody else can put up close to 400 images and maintain the quality she has...nobody. By taking away her ratings her views will be minimized very significantly. I just ask that one warning be given first...that is all. Thanks for your time and attention.

 

All the best,

 

Vince

Robert, in the end there won't really be practical rules. If I could delineate reasonable rules, I would do so, and the software would enforce them. The problem is that any set of rules could be circumvented or would be overcomplicated and vexing for visitors to the Gallery.

 

So, we are deliberately leaving it vague, with the expectation that it will be a very rare thing to suppress rating of someone's photos. When it happens it will be based on seeing patterns in the database over time, observing the commentary on photos, messages to the abuse mailbox, what people tell us, etc, and none of that can, or should be, reduced to a rule.

 

The Gallery is supposed to be enjoyable and we have drifted too far from it being so, for too many people. At present, the way rating goes in the Gallery is very enjoyable for those fortunate to be included in the various mutual-rating grouips, but it makes many or most people feel that they are left out in the cold unless they play along, which many are not willing or able to do.

 

The site went from anonymous rating to the current system about two years ago because there was so much abuse from anonymous people and bogus accounts that the moderators needed help to identify it all. We hardly have those problems any more, and when some idiot trolls through the site with stupid ratings and sarcastic comments, it is very quickly identified and dealt with. Making a bogus account look authentic is also now a lot more difficult.

 

However, now that the ratings have become public they have become social currency within certain groups in the Gallery, which has become a kind of gift-giving economy. To the extent that this is allowed to continue, it renders the rating system meaningless for its intended purpose. That is what we would like to see end. If we cannot then we will need to go back to anonymous ratings and try to tackle that set of problems, because so far we aren't having a lot of success with this set.

Carl...I must back up a step here and apologize as I knew what you were attempting to say. I should have been more forgiving cause I knew you were totally screwing up in the way you were saying it.<p>And to clarify; I don't believe I'm favoring one person over another (unless you want to complain that I've rated 8 of Anna's photo's and only 6 of yours...).<p>An observation; I haven't critiqued very much in the past couple of months, for several reasons...one being I too do not like the way some things work. Interesting thing though is an awful lot of my photo's are still being critiqued albeit with a lot of 4's, & 5s (although maybe they really are average photo�s).<p>Two things to close...First I agree with Vincent; throw an offender in the photo.hell dungeon. Give them a public dressing down/warning, put them on probation, make them prove that they have seen their sinful ways�once�<i>one public warning</i>. If that doesn't work <i>then</i> take an extreme stance. And second, Brian...thank the Gods that photo.net has someone like yourself. Agree or disagree with what you do or your decisions, you still get a gold star from me.

if nothing, this measure would atleast enforce the principles behind the rating guidelines and reinforce the awareness among members, that one should evaluate photos objectively and award numbers in a much more responsible fashion. after all, these are the numbers that constitute the critical gears on the PN machinery, unfortunately or not, in deciding whether a budding newcomer, or a stunning work from a small-time player, fades into oblivion after gaining no attention or if every good piece of work gets the much deserved attention, and prevents things from taking the now all too familiar bias-ridden route that undermines the foundations of the site.

<p>

paying members should be exempted from this rule?

<p>

why? a rule is a rule and everyone obeys if they want to play. paying $$$ doesn't buy anyone special back-doors to work around a rule. furthermore, the very idea is disgusting. and how can a clean and a simple rule devised in the best interests of PN would work against its attracting membership. one of the best things i like about this site, from a ethical/phil. standpoint, though it may not make much business sense, is that it doesn't discriminate between paying patrons vs the non-paying members, unlike many many others that keep select privileges reserved for paying members and constantly bombard others with solicitations for membership. but that's not the case here, nor, given the popularity, did it switch gears to become acessible on a pay-only basis. and it makes a striking statement about the operating principles of the site, that it's not a mere money making commercial website, and that it's all about photography, although one wouldn't ever mind revenue to help keep the site running.

<p>

besides, the gallery section and TRP, no less significant entities in themselves, are only a <i>part</i> of what PN is and there is a wealth of information embedded in the forums and there's much, much more to this site. and it is run by people who are indefatiguable in their commitment to their vocation, from its day to day motoring to its grwoth and success.

<p>

as for the claim about how one may have had no control over what went on his or her pages and still may end up getting the axe, it's often the case that a photographer, who is showered with unreasonable adulations without consideration to the merit of the work in question, often, if not always, reciprocates the action in much the same way. and by doing that, fosters a polarization and a change of values that is totally uncalled for, and by doing so becomes accountable one way or other. i personally don't see any pitfalls to this rule, at all.

I have no problems with banning people, or their work. The simple fact is that some WARNING should be given first. Before Sunset Man was banished from the site, he was sent a warning that he was hanging by a thread. He broke that thread obviously, but at least the warning was given first. That was a fair and reasonable decision on your part to warn him. Where is the warning here Brian?? She can be fiesty, so what!! I can tell you this she never mate-rated me. She also never asked or even insinuated I do the same. She is banned from ratings because there was too much controversy as you say. This is certainly not justice nor reasonable actions in my opinion. A simple written email letting her know BEFORE you take such drastic actions would be the reasonable and kind thing to do. Now, whose next?? Can we defend our own images?? Is the axe waiting for me too next time I debate??

Sunset Man was banned because of specific behaviour on his part. This is not that situation. If it were, we would simply ban the person in question, perhaps after a warning.

 

This situation is one where there is a pattern of behaviour within a whole network of people, that results in excessive work for the moderators and produces an overall bad effect in the Gallery. What it comes down to is this, to be blunt: the person in question has made too many friends who seem to automatically rate every photo she uploads to the skies, within hours of them being uploaded. At the same time, many other people feel intimidated about rating the work "low" (meaning 4 or 5) or making critical comments, because whenever they do a bunch of people come out of the woodwork to rate their work low. The person has hundreds of photos uploaded, with amazingly different styles, genres, and subjects, and many of them are indeed exceptional, but many of them are only so-so. It doesn't make any difference: they almost all get super-high ratings.

 

In addition, there are about 20 accounts that concentrate more than 30% of their ratings on this one person, and I am not talking about accounts with just a handful of ratings. They are not obviously bogus accounts. Some of these accounts concentrate as much as 80% of their ratings on this one person. The moderators have spent the last year regularly deleting these sort of accounts and/or the ratings. More of them always appear. The person in question almost never rates another photographer more than once or twice unless it is reciprocated.

 

I just don't see how this is a situation that is amenable to a final warning. How would that go: "Stop hypnotizing people into rating your average photos high, but its ok if they rate your excellent photos that way? Stop whatever it is that you might be doing that is making people feel intimidated about rating your photos honestly. We don't want to see any more accounts where 40%, 50%, 80% of the ratings are on your portfolio. Stop complaining all the time to the abuse mailbox whenever somebody makes the slightest negative comment about your work." How would that work?

Vincent, I just read in your comment something I wanted to clarify. Anna isn't banned from rating or commenting or even uploading more photos.

 

Effectively, everybody else is banned from rating her photos, and all the previous ratings are hidden (not deleted). The reason for this is that I just I don't believe that between the fan-club ratings, and the ratings of all the people now out to make a point, that a high enough percentage of those ratings can be honest, objective ratings for me to want to showcase this work on the site based on those ratings. It is really that simple.

Well, an effective final warning in this complicated situation would sound something like your comment above. In other words you have to do something about this, or we will have no choice but do it ourselves.

Yes true Brian she can post, but the visibilty will drop like an anchor. When there was a glitch last week with the system, the number of views dropped very significantly because there was no "Top Rated Photos" to showcase them. The one image of mine that was in that mix has a much lower number of views than any other image....very significant differences here. I will also agree that this is much more complex than initially thought or understood. Still, when you take someone as talented as Anna, or anybody else for that matter, some forwarning or communication beforehand could possibly be quite effective as well as just be an old fashioned Goodwill gesture. It still appears she is the one being penalized to a large degree, for the actions of others. Thanks for being specific in your reply.

I wanted to clarify my previous comment. It should have said

 

"Well, an effective final warning in this complicated situation would sound something like your comment above Brian. In other words you have to do something about this Anna, or we will have no choice but to do it ourselves".

 

Just making it clear, someone else thought I meant the "WE" is us P.Net members, instead it is you the moderators.

People tend to rate what they like. Not everyone is like Marc cruising around to see what he can improve. I confess that I don't like the whole idea, and it offends me to see someone like Anna come under this kind of attack.

 

Sieg heil!

I don't rate images with no potential, but I figure I can best help

the site, and the site can best help me, by concentrating on

images that have some merit to start with, like the POWs. The

idea is to give the maker and other lurkers the opportunity to view

his or her work in a new light with helpful feedback from

thoughtful viewers. That approach should be the norm, but

instead it's still rare.

 

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Please

reread the rating tutorial.

Brian: I think you had a plan at one point to normalize an individual's ratings of others' work. Taking Anna for an example, she has rated 3423 photos with an average rating of 5.93 for originality and 6.03 for aesthetics. Photo.net would then take each of her ratings and multiply the originality rating by 3.5 / 5.93 and the aesthetics rating by 3.5 / 6.03. This would result in her overall ratings of others� work to be 3.5 for originally and 3.5 for aesthetics. Maybe this would take an inordinate amount of programming resources or too much computing power to execute. However, it would seem to force people to make thoughtful ratings and prevent the buddy system.

 

I�ve looked at a lot of the photos that Anna has rated 7/7 and it demonstrates the problem very clearly. How can a simple head and shoulders portrait be given a 7 for originality? It make a mockery of the rating system.

There was a time when there was talk of abolishing the separate rating for originality. Then, when the new system came out, there was still the old rating for originality. I think that many persons simply ignore it by tending to give the same rating. I don't personally think that the rating system is the core of the site, nor crucial for its survival. Abolish it and watch the site continue. Leave it alone and watch the site grow. But start making inferences about persons' motives for rating high or low and watch the place become unlivable again a la March, 2002. Let us all remove all of our pictures tonight and it will have tens of thousands more in a short period of time. Frankly, the entire discussion makes me sick.

Remember the "bannings" of March, 2002? This isn't as total, but it's about as irrational. I say bring Anna back with full rights.

Brian,<br>

Every member on photo.net can rate all photos in the range 1..7.

He can be a newbee or an experienced photographer. He can be

a person who has no idea of criteria how to estimate a picture, but also

he can be a experienced censor, or a low-rate-guerilliero.<br>

When somebody is excluded of rating on the portfolio of a

photographer, or the previous high scores are deleted,

the system can go out of balance.<br>

When a picture gets a high rate so it can be balanced by an other

lower rate. So the system remains balanced.<br>

That's why , there is no reason to intervene using an "Order by Muffti".<br>

For those, who enjoy to be on the top pages, every rating is a good rating.

The pages, having high number of ratings, are displayed on the top automatically.<br>

The temporary "war", between the "7/7 crowd" and the "honest censors",procreated

some unrealistic scores.<br>

Now, the day after the "Bomb without Warning", the intervention may have the effect that

the members of the so-called "7/7 crowd" will think "Oh I hope I'll be rated <br>

with a neutral 4/4 to prevent my former High-Scores

from being deleted, and may be my beautiful picture will still remain

at the top page " :-)<br>

So keep cool, don't be enthusiastic with 7/7, slow down by rating low.

Beware of concentration on special individuals. Be an objective lens.

Try to react on ratings like a digi-cam and pray not to get excluded

from the system.;-)<br>

Let the world know how generous you are, accepting critics from everbody and rating

from guerillieros ( having no pict published) )who enjoy downrating all.<br>

Conclusion:let the system remain self-regulating and "every rating is a good rating"<br>

best robertO ( still being in a good temper and enjoying the "beautifullness of life")

At the risk of trying to be helpful again and getting my head bit off

again....(I'm guessing you guys have been fighting over this for a

long time so become automatically defensive).<P>

 

<B>< Feeble > </B><BR>

Would it be helpful to make the "Top Photos" default something

other than "Top Ratings?" Say, "Sum of Ratings." How I see it

right now. Hypothetically, I can piss 50 people off, get them all to

1/1 me and voilà! Because it defaults to "top ratings" I'm at the

top because I have the most ratings. Of course they're crap. But I

have the most. So with Anna, she has "friends" AND the

"rating-balancers." The TWO groups put her in the top even

faster. I know my idea doesn't help with a bunch of 7/7s but it's a

thought (?)<P>

 

Sidenote: All I ever wanted when I joined was some good

feedback so I could improve my skills. I didn't realize that the

ratings were so important. I guess I just don't understand the

system either because I just can't figure out how to improve my

work with ratings. The gallery is no big deal to me. Critique

Requests, THAT's a big deal to me. That's what I don't get. I

make a request, I get rated. Never critiqued. Am I missing

something?:( Seriously. It doesn't make sense to me.<BR>

<B>< / Feeble ></B><P>

 

Brian will probably get upset at me for the second half so please

email me.<P>

 

Thanks!<BR>

JB

excellent move. You got my full support for this. Just as you said, the reason for the rating system is to help people find good photos. But there are some people who really don't need that help anymore. Anna's work is so well known and valued enough by enough people, they will surely find their way to her portfolio and can leave comments and Anna' can upload new pics. If I wanted to keep track of Anna's pics I'd add her to my list of friends and directly go to her page. No need to include her work in the top photos page and cause trouble for everyone. That's the place where I want to discover new interesting work.

 

Maybe you could set up a seperate page for those people who obviously transcended the rating system because of their constantly high appreciation beyond belief in the ratings system and rose to the Olymp of photo.net. This way their work would still be visible for newcomers and Anna and possibly other could still get input and appreciation through comments.

 

Again, congratulations, Brain you're best thing that happened to photo.net since I know the site.

The current "number of ratings for photos posted in the last three days" is flawed in my opinion. The problem is that it mostly allows photos that are "jumped upon" by mates to get on the top pages. Have a look at <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=1453212>this photo of mine</a>, not a masterpiece but not a horrible picture either. In the first three days it picked up 7 ratings and thus was very low in the ratings, probably at least not until page 8. But then the next day it was gone, poof, not interesting anymore. The day after, for some reason, it picked up steam a little and for a three day period, it had 13, good enough for second page any day and it being a slow week, would on the last day have been on the first. But it having been more than three days since it was posted, there was no way it would get noticed in the galery anymore.

<p>

In my opinion, this is a loss. There are many people who check out peoples portfolios for new stuff and rate it. This isn't "mate rating" per se, but it does make it harder for people without a following to show up, if you don't get the rates straight away, you can forget about getting up there at all let alone stay there for a little while.

<p>

I can't analyze rating habbits, but try to see what the effect would be of a query that does put a limit on how "new" a photo needs to be to be in the galery (say a week) and during that time take something like a "best of three days" poll for each photo. Although still open to abuse, it would need a bigger team of mates and a coordination effort of timing ratings (which I doubt many would be smart enough to do). It could gives people whose ratings don't go up that fast a better chance.

<p>

Just a thought,

I don't see that this is any different or worse than what the power brokers do to celebrities everywhere.

 

When a celebrity's mystique overwhelms the artistic work he or she created that drew all the attention to begin with, you can bet the power brokers (which includes the media machine) will drag them down a peg or two.

 

It helps keep things in check, reminds celebrities that they aren't in charge, and makes room for the Next Big Thing.

 

Who cares if Anna P. and Madonna are suddenly irrelevant? Make room for Pink and her equivalent in photography. Photo.netters are like the typical MTV crowd - in a week, they won't even remember. "Anna who?"

While there are problems with the current ratings system. Overall, it is just about as close as we can hope to "getting it right".<br>Although I am not new to this place, I have spent some considerable time filling my personal <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=729388&period=2000"> highest rated photos </a> in the last couple of days.<br>Eventhough, I am still less than half-way there, I hope to present everyone with the most diverse selection of the best that photo.net has to offer everyone...<br>How did I do it? Well, I used the ratings system to find some of the best and some of the more neglected images in this place.<br>Brian has made a good decision and we should all be thankful for this step foreward.