Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System

Have been following this 'drama' from the sidelines this week. Not many took any notice of the fact that I had expired and departed from photo.net.<br>Innocently answered an AP question about who picks the POW and next thing, there is this incredible storm raging in this thread - obviously necessary, but very sad, PN!<br> Laura is correct in pointing out that many of the great photographers go unnoticed in this place. Not everyone has the necessary time (or friends) to solicit feedback by leaving comments (and ratings). Have all but given up on the idea of rating, comments usually attract far more feedback because they are more visible in your workspace (for instance). Sometimes I get a surprise to discover that one of my uploads received some new ratings. You won't know unless you check the numbers game regularly. Conclusion, just ignore the numbers and carry on commenting. I never came near AP's work much, figured plenty of others were there to give her attention. Ever since the Hot Links initiative, I continue to search for newbies and neglected folders. Oh, and visiting the portfolios of my army of friends at PN! Have a great day all...

What does avoid rating mean? That they want to say that they

don't like it but fear revenge if they rate or something?<P>

 

Oh no. I hope that's not what it means because I was teasing

someone in that manner that I felt to be a friend. This sucks. I

hope I didn't piss him off. I didn't know there was a clique

meaning to this... :(<P>

 

I need to write him now...

I received about 3 or 4 of these avoid ratings and didn't think anything of them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was just a transalation problem, that it means "abstain from rating" because of a lack of understanding concerning the intent/meaning/aesthetics of an image. You know, you see one that is just so different from anything you've seen before that you can't decide whether it's great, or terrible. As in, I will avoid rating this because I don't understand it sufficiently to judge it.

OK, yeah that's how I personally meant it plus teasing. But I

wrote him anyway just in case. You know how us artists can get

easily rattled sometimes. I'm one. I admit it. :)<P>

 

Ok off to see my shrink now. Toodles!

Hmmm... I saw these "Avoid rating"s and thought them to be something much more deliberate. In fact I saw it as an instruction to the minions to not rate these particular photos good/bad because either way they'd potentially rise to the TRP.

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it... which could come from spending too much time trying to get meaning out of slight photographical implications. I better go do some real work.

I absolutely agree..

 

Lawyers? Anna, please get back on planet earth, come on, can't you understand any reasons more than those of your self-centered world?

 

Freedom.

Lets go to the National Gallery and let us rate the pictures. And then tell me what an "objective meaning" is.

<i>Hmmm... I saw these "Avoid rating"s and thought them to be something much more deliberate. In fact I saw it as an instruction to the minions to not rate these particular photos good/bad because either way they'd potentially rise to the TRP.

<br><br>

Maybe I'm reading too much into it... which could come from spending too much time trying to get meaning out of slight photographical implications. I better go do some real work.

</i><br><br>

This was my comment, and I was mistakenly logged in to the Picture This account when making it. I do not speak for the group as a whole and apologize for any confusion this may have caused. If the above comment has been deleted (as I requested) when you read this, Its place was 3 comments up from here.

It's very sad, very demoralizing, very disheartening, to observe that an American site of photography is the exact opposite of freedom, democracy and free expression of art.............I'm a new user, but this will be the last time for me, I believe in art, I love photos and i can't bear to share this site with such a DESPOTIC MANAGEMENT.

Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laura you are right. What they do is censorship of our ratings. And what is "objective meaning"? Their "objective meaning" or mine "objective meaning"? I prefer to look pictures who I find interesting, pictures I like. And then I want to rate them high.

Laura if you had been here long enough I think you'd have more mixed emotions. While I don't regularly partake in the ratings system, it's fallen apart and the poor Photo.net elves are trying to find a way to fix it.

 

How they go about that I don't know, perhaps dropping the ratings system entirely, or a drastic redesign. Maybe each number 1-7 could have a description. For originality 1 being "seen it too many times before" and 7 being "wow, I've never seen this in my life!"

 

Calling this a lack of freedom and against what America stands for is silly, it would be good though if we could find away to get everyone to play fair and by the rules. Photo.net has rules to play by but many people have ignored them deliberately and thats why the ratings system has broken down. If you've got a great idea on how to fix it then that would be great but unfortunately Brian still hasn't found something that works and every time he tries something someone comes out and complains. Even if photo.net held a site wide vote on what to do, only some would come out and everyone else would come out of the woodworks thinking they should get to complain even though they didn't vote or add to the idea pot in a constructive manner.

 

Seems to me it's not the administrators that are the problem, it's some of us.

Now it's like this little britches; All you gotta do is look for the bare neccessities.

Laura, first of all I think you ought to see photo net as the global site that it is, and being located in America doesn't mean anything to the users that visit from elsewhere. Secondly, I think you ought to look up 'democracy' in a dictionary; it is about governments being elected by the whole population. This however, is an independent internet site run by overworked programming staff and not elected politicians. I have seen the current administrators participate on threads, ask the members views, improve the system, improve it again etc etc, but at the end of the day all they can do is try to find solutions that will please all of the people all of the time. It is simply impossible. So, apart from your misunderstanding that this is a public sector property run by elected representatives of the American people, what would you like to see change here specifically?

ps Laura, I forgot to add that I love art too, but my understanding is that this decision appears to have been made on the basis of both statistical data, and on the observation of behaviour from participating members in an <i>interactive</i> community. Democracy does not mean freedom for the individual at all costs, to behave how the individual should like regardless of the greater good, of the aims, the people of the community, or it's future. Where I come from that kind of "freedom" philosophy that dismisses the wider community is known as "out for number one", ie <b>ME.</b>

The only criticism one might level at the administration of this site

is that it has been naive. It assumed a level of maturity and an

understanding of the role each member was being asked to play towards

realizing the goals of this site. The notion that you can spell it out

in numerous threads and somehow word will get around is only now being

seriously reexamined.

 

Too many people posting on this thread don't understand that the photo

critique forum is about making a conscious effort to spread bonafide

critiques around to as many people and images as possible. This is

not the same thing as rating the people you think are the best. And

it sure as hell isn't about drawing attention to your portfolio using

every trick you think you can get away with.

Laura, I see that you've been a member since 2 June 2003! Do you really think that you have actually discovered what photo.net is all about? <br>I think not... If you're mainly interested in the artistic/aesthetic side of photos, rather than photography in general, I suggest you go to a 'real' gallery, or museum. This is an online community, you have to <i>participate</i> to appreciate its value. Get the feeling you haven't given it much of a chance.

Carl (the other one) Root, I think you're right. They didn't anticipate or maybe didn't want to what would happen. Personally I think I wouldn't have accounted for the inability of the public to "play fair."

 

As it is I think that the admins here have done a superb job with what is really a huge site and are still trying to work the kinks out. If the site didn't keep growing it'd be easier to handle the problems but this site hasn't stopped and doesn't seem to plan on stopping in the near future.

Peter, what's the difference betwenn gallery and "real" gallery? 90 % of the people using PN show you every day with their comments and ratings, that they don't want what a minority wants.

Peter and tell me what is more important than artistic/ästethic? WHEN THIS IS UNIMPORTANT WHY ARE WE ASCED FOR ORIGINALITY AND ÄSTHETIC? Good night when we don't need photo's with originality and/or ästhetic.

I can see a little higher up this thread that you agreed with Laura's statement, so it comes as no surprise that you have picked me up on my last comment. The choice of words in my last contribution could perhaps have been a little better, but essentially I was trying to address these words Laura wrote:<p><i>I'm a new user, but this will be the last time for me, I believe in art, I love photos and i can't bear to share this site with such a DESPOTIC MANAGEMENT.</i><p>Very assertive words, but it doesn't add up. Photo.net is MUCH more than just a Gallery (eventhough it accounts for the majority of site traffic). Like Laura, you have only been here for just one month. There are some extremely helpful and educational features/columns/presentations/forum threads to be found at this site. So, I am NOT convinced that Laura has done herself any favours by concentrating on the DESPOTIC MANAGEMENT. If new members would spend some time searching and reading through the forums, there would be a major decrease in the number of Help and Feedback forum postings.<br>Mind you, there are many fellow PNetters, who are very happy to volunteer some of their time to help out new members and point them in the right direction. After all, this is not just a Gallery it is an online community. If censorship of ratings troubles you, I suggest you just ignore the ratings and concentrate on commenting. Stick around for the next 12 months and you might get an appreciation of the difference between photo.net and a 'real' Gallery. Never said that artistics (originality), or aesthetics are not important. You take these aspects into consideration when you compose a comment, or leave a thoughtful critique. Handing out numerical values on images doesn't require a lot of skill - unless you were Bailey Seals (R.I.P.)!

"Photo.net has rules to play by but many people have ignored them

deliberately and thats why the ratings system has broken down. If you've got a great idea on how to fix it then that would be great but unfortunately Brian still hasn't found something that works and every time he tries something someone comes out and complains. Even if photo.net held a sitewide vote on what to do, only some would come out and everyone else would come out of the woodworks thinking they should get to complain even though they didn't vote or add to the idea pot in a constructive manner. Seems to me it's not the administrators that are the problem, it's some of us." - Carl Smith.

<p>

I agree and disagree at the same time with this paragraph, Carl. Yes, some of us are the problem - those who are not using the rating system as it was meant to be used, for what ever reason that may be. BUT, in every school, when the kids don't play by the rules,

they get told once, twice, three times if necessary, what are the rules, then if that's not good enough, they get punished, and after a few punishments, they might even be "excluded". Please note that it is exactly the same in our cities, no matter where we live.

<p>

There will always be complains BEFORE ANY proposed reform and AFTER the implementation of ANY reform. But how does this surprise us ? IT'S NORMAL ! IT HAPPENS WORLDWIDE AFTER ANY REFORM OF ANY KIND.

<p>

"At the end of the day all they can do is try to find solutions that will please all of the people all of the time. It is simply impossible." - says Geraldine...

<p>

Solution: stop trying to achieve what's impossible to achieve !

<p>

Each time management tries A REFORM to solve these problems created by a few, SOME people complain. Then PN says "WE CAN NEVER WIN". (How many times have we heard this...!?) Well, in life, you can't have it all anyway: why expect photo.net to be any different ?

<p>

Photo.net administrators, stop worrying about pleasing all people, because, generally speaking, YOU ARE RIGHT ! Plain and simple.

<p>

1) You are right to try to get the rating system to be fair.

<p>

2) YOU ARE RIGHT TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME !

<p>

YOU JUST CAN'T !! Full stop. SO, WHAT...?

<p>

Here's the good news: YOU DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF US ALL THE TIME !!

<p>

Does the government of a country care, SHOULD it care if 2% or even 25% of the population disagrees with a new law ? IMO, THE ANSWER IS NO. Or else nothing ever gets done and it leads to anarchy,

and at the end of the day, we'll need the police force to "exclude" some citizens - which is just another kind of problem, that will of course generate a few complaints as well...

<p>

PN can never win indeed for as long as they worry about 3 or 10 or 30 complaints posted in the forum. They have to analyze the situation globally and find a global solution that's logically sound : it doesn't matter if a small percentage is unhappy with the reform, as long as a majority of folks don't mind the reform.

<p>

ADMINISTRATORS, DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT. LISTEN TO OUR OPINIONS, BUT IF WE DON'T CONVINCE YOU, IGNORE US AND EVERYTHING ELSE. Chances are that doing what's right will anyway get you the consent of the majority. That's exactly the responsability of any government: nobody has the right to blame you for making decisions - especially on a private web site.

<p>

PN administrators need to understand that they CAN'T satisfy all the people, they need to ACCEPT that idea, and they need to make editorial and structural decisions ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT, not based on any vocal minority, or silent majority, or whatever.

<p>

Photo.net is not a democracy, and it shouldn't become an anarchy. Photo.net's government has to rule and set the rules, and that's not despotism: it's called government. Governments rule, people complain - that's life...

Please note that my previous post is meant as a GENERAL comment about management philosophy. Brian has ignored most of MY opinions for ages, and it doesn't bother me. I've said what I thought, so did others, and at the end, it's up to Photo.net's administration. Then each member is free to decide whether he wants to be a member of this community or not, and to decide to what extent he wants to participate in this community. And it ends there.

<p>

And I believe Photo.net's management should stop worrying that any new rule or reform may cause some people to leave. That may well be the case, but for each reform, a person (perhaps even a suscriber) walks out and another one walks in. If this reform is good, chances are that more people will walk in than walk out. That's at least the faith any government should have imo.

Well, well...human definitely imperfect....unlike rating system... Just to explain for 125th time how to use the system and it should work... If not? Just get rid of all mate raters and everybody, who looks suspecious. That's simple. And, eventually it should work!

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. For openers, your rating

average is 5.83 / 5.9.

Some of the best photographs on the site get 3's and 4's. Robert Frank would get low ratings from some idiots here. Just because Ansel Adams isn't within the mainstream of my interest, does that mean I can justifiably pronounce his work crap?

Wonderful photographs are spoiled by accompaniment of a 3 rating, given by someone who doesn't have an education past pop photo aesthetic. People should be able to share their work without it being accompanied by a judgement of an averaging system of the lowest common denominator. A photograph should be looked at with the only judgement being in the mind of the person doing the looking. I wonder if some of the people who spend hours of their time rating photos can even articulate why they feel what they feel.

 

Ratings and comments should be requested or allowed for, not imposed.