Originality Ratings

<em>Compare the landscapes above. If someone can find a better landscape shot than the one I chose, please post the URL and explain why you think it's better. If you can't find one, then you MUST give this 7/7</em>

<p>

That makes no sense (to me anyway). Just because I like an image and give it a "7" for aesthetics doesn't mean I can't give it a "1" for originality.

<p>

Suppose someone found Ansel Adams tripod holes for "Monolith - face of Half Dome". Suppose I think that's a great image. Suppose that same someone does an excellent job in reproducing that image. Suppose I really like it and rate it a "7" for aesthetics. It's a wonderful shot. Why would it not rate a "1" for originality? Suppose it was slighly different (the actual tripod holes couldn't be located). It would still rate a "1" for originality because it would obviously still be 100% the idea of Ansel Adams, not the photographer.

 

Originality also has to be taken in historical context. If photo.net had been around when he took the shot and if he'd posted it to the gallery, it would not look like anything anyone had seen before. In that case it might have justly received a 7/7, or perhaps a 7/6.

<p>

Mark makes the point "<em>Bob asked: how could it be LESS original. Well, I'd tell you this as an a answer: there is something WORSE than unoriginal, which is called SILLY</em>

<p>

But it's not a "silly" rating, it's an "originality" rating.

<p>

Mark continues:<em> if the photographer who took the picture Bob posted had waited till the sun would be hidden behind thick clouds and would appear behind this hill, then he would have completely misunderstood what this picture of his was all about</em>

<p>

And the aesthetic rating of the image would drop accordingly. However the originality rating shouldn't depend on technical execution. You could have a very original image with very low aesthetics and low technical quality.

<p>

As I see it, "originality" is about the idea behind the image. Did the photographer approach the subject in a way unlike other photographers have in the past? It's not about whether the shutter was pushed at the right moment or whether the exposure was right or the foucus was good.

<p> So from my understanding of the words "aethetics" and "originality" (and the dictionary agrees with me!), I'd say that aesthetics is concerned with the exectution of the idea and the aesthethic appeal of the idea, but originality is about the idea itself.

<p>

Obviously the vast majority of raters don't use this concept. They basicaly give one number and apply it to both aesthetics and originality, perhaps using "originality" as a "1/2 point system, so that if an image doesn't quite deserve a "7" for aesthetics, but is better than a "6", they'll give a 7/6 rating, even if it's just a good execution of an idea they have seen a thousand times before.

<p>

I don't suggest we change anything, since rating "originality" in my way needs something of a knowledge of photography and photographic history which many raters may not have. We all know what we like, so aesthetics is pretty easy. If the current system is really an aesthetics rating scheme with "originality" used as a "fine tuning" of the aesthetics score, it probably as good a scheme as we are likely to get.

Please think outside the box. Please.

 

Can you imagine wanting others to see an image that is not

particularly original? If you find tripod holes and have the

knowledge and / or luck to get the lightening dead perfect - as

good or better than anyone else has ever done it - then let's

promote the picture. That's all the rating system is supposed to

do - sort out the worthy from those that are less so.

 

This whole thread could just as easily have been about the

gross misunderstanding and misuse of 'aesthetics', so why

don't we concede that this system doesn't work very well and try

to be receptive to a more simple, direct, and honest way to

promote pictures that avoids using numbers to describe them.

 

Imagine how much more peaceful it would be and how many

more serious photographers might be attracted to this forum if

low rates were not an option.

One image I would promote if it was uploaded today for the first

time. Two of them I would not put in my favorites folder later even

if I liked them a lot because they're already easy to find in the

POW list. I'd like to see the favorites folder reserved for images -

and photographers - that some members, especially newbies,

may not be familiar with. The third image is a bit too contrived to

suit me. I wouldn't check it, but you would. Fine. That's how the

system would work.

<html>

<body>

<p><b>1 Multiple, major</b> flaws.</p>

<p><br>

<b>2</b> <b>Significant</b> flaw in <b>One</b> photographic aspect - otherwise,

OK</p>

<p><br>

<b>3</b> No significant flaws - <b>adequate technically</b> and <b>

compositionally</b>, but THAT'S ALL!!! Nothing particularly noteworthy. "Photo

just doesn't do anything for me". Can think of a number of improvements</p>

<p><br>

<b>4</b> <b>Technically good</b>. Showing some promise.</p>

<p><br>

<b>5</b> <b>Very good image</b>, but still has some minor improvements.</p>

<p><br>

<b>6</b> <b>Outstanding</b> - no technical or compositional problems.</p>

<p><br>

<b>7</b> Extraordinary, amazing, <b>WORLD CLASS</b>, can't imagine any

improvement</p>

<p>Above is a scale I adopted to give a points when judging a photo -

originality or aesthetic all fits in it. But yes, I am guilty on not using it on

photo.net. Yes, I was not rating weak images. Yes, I over rated some in the past

spreading the scale on quality in particular portfolio rather then whole site.

Yes, I practically stopped rating. The main reason to stop (not the only one) is

I don't want anybody rate me as the return favor or in hope that I will return

one (in 7/7 of course). It is better for me to not get rating than get a fake

ones - this is taking me nowhere.</p>

<p>When I came here over a year ago I thought I fond a "gold". I thought that

this is a finally the site were you can get honest opinion at least from a few

good photographers and you don't have to give them back higher rates then they

deserve for doing it. What a disappointment. Site IS dominated by group raters.

Just look at the top pages, look at the rating habits of those there. All mean

less. Some (if not all) the best photographers on this site like Emil Schildt,

Ben Goossens  (to name a couple for an example) are push down by some fake

kitsch done by people who throw 7/7 like mad man. Not mention it seems that they

really believe they are so good and every kitsch they produce is the best. The

only real benefit we can get from this site is to learn about our mistakes and

improvements. Unfortunately this is tied with getting on the top pages to be

visible. With honest rating it is fine - if you don't get any it says you have

to improve. There are sites handling the rating system much better - they let

the mob throw all kinds of crazy ratings but the final score and award is in the

hands of site judging committee. So mob is happy by giving all the 1's they want

but it has no impact for the final score. Unfortunately they not have writing

critique option what make photo.net superior to others.  Only if that

option was used here the right way.</p>

<p>Do I believe photo.net will change - NO. Do I have a hope? Yes - even if I

don't believe. I see a few possible solution to try to start with. OUTSIDE

judges  to rate every photo (critique on selected) presented by paid

members (yes, I can paid yearly few times more than actual duties for that

option). That I don't believe can happen</p>

<p>Group of twenty or more photo dot netters which can honestly accept mine or

similar scoring list and on daily basis apply those scores to as many

photographs as they can. No favors, no retaliation, no personal preferences in

genres, no trying to 'balance' the scores, no looking at the photographer's name

as a base to score, no fear of getting back 1's on their photos - rate one by

one photos  as they showing on the pages plus write a comments on some

selected ones. It will take less time then writing all those long discussions I

see all the time with no affects on the site. </p>

<p>Best Regards, Mark </p>

<p>I really still have a hope...</p>

</body>

</html>

You wrote:

<p>

"But it's not a "silly" rating, it's an "originality" rating."

<p>

followed by:

<p>

"...originality is about the idea itself."

<p>

My point is precisely that an IDEA can be SILLY. And again. let me remind you that the "originality" rating is also refered to, on Photo.net, as "cleverness" - which is a word I like better.

<p>

Yes, an idea might be absolutely new, never done before, and still I might give it a 2 or a 1, because it is not a CLEVER approach of the subject, and rather ruins the image completely.

<p>

And on the other hand, a picture might have been done a thousand time in very similar ways, and you would then rate it a 1 and me a 3. Because, to me, if the most common of all possible approaches makes sense, then it deserves a 4, and a 3 if it is quite boring. Basically, I don't like novelty for the sake of novelty, and if the novelty is silly then it is a failure in originality, though it is not "unoriginal".

<p>

And when you talk about aesthetics, not for a single line did I talk about aesthetics in my post. Waiting for the sun to be behind the hill will of course have bad aesthetical consequences, but it will first be AN IDEA, and most likely a bad one, therefore a failure in "originality/cleverness".

<p>

But again, I'm here just defending my own interpretation of this rating, and respect perfectly the fact that others will have their own. Though I would agree with Carl when he says that an originality rating should not turn into a preference of genre.

<p>

BTW, Carl, if you go to my favorite photos, on page one and page 2, you will find 2 landscape shots. Forget about the 1st one which was manipulated ina way that I find original and clever, and just look at the second one, on page 2 (by Jan Jensen), or at Jaap's POW landscape: these two represent perfectly what I would call a 7 in originality in the landscape category. Why ? Because of the unusual angle combined with amazing textures and light.

<p>

To me, if there is any originality at all in landscape photography, it's about a unique location, a unique angle, and a unique light, with a unique combination of all parameters. I do not expect any landscape would be ABSOLUTELY NEVER SEEN BEFORE. There have been landscape photographers for centuries and they all take pictures of hills, fields, mountains etc, so they have at least that in common.

<p>

Anyway, we all disagree on these issues and always will, and if Bob believes the best thing is to keep the system as it is because that's what works best, fine be me. Doesn't really matter. One may just observe that heavy Photoshop is all over the top pages nowadays, partly due to many 7s in originality, whereas a simple but subtle portrait with a very novel approach or a unique expression will rarely get more than a 5 in originality. Who cares anyway ? It's not a competition, after all...

<em>Can you imagine wanting others to see an image that is not particularly original? If you find tripod holes and have the knowledge and / or luck to get the lightening dead perfect - as good or better than anyone else has ever done it - then let's promote the picture. That's all the rating system is supposed to do - sort out the worthy from those that are less so.</em>

<p>

That's fine. You're basically saying that the originality rating has no meaning and no function and that users should more or less ignore it and just give a score that reflects if they think the image should be promoted in the system. If it's a good image give it a 7/7 since that will move it up. If it's average give it a 5/5, if it's really bad give it a 3/3

<p>

That's fine. In that case why do we have two numbers? Why don't we have just one? Why confuse people with a concept of originality if it has no function?

<p>

One possible reason is that we have what we have and it's too late to change it. That's fine too. Just don't expect people to understand the concepts of rating then. We have guidelines for aesthetic and originality scoring. Should we pull them down and just say, "give it a score that depends on whether or not you think more people should see this image"? Currently it says "<em>Give a photo a high rating for originality if it shows you something unexpected or a familiar subject in a new, insightful, striking, humorous, or creative way</em>. Is this wrong? And if not then if the image show you something you fully expect, in an old, familar way the surely you should give it a LOW score, whatever the aesthetic appeal of the image.

<p>

I don't expect the system to change, but let's not pretend it actually works in any meaningful way when it comes to originality. Basically pictures people like float to the top, pictures people don't like get lost in the pile. You're correct that that's the best we can hope for. In fact it's a reasonable goal and on the whole that is the end result of what we have.

<p>

I'd like to hope that if I selected images on the basis of originality scores, I'd actually see the most original images, but I don't expect that will happen. Just looking the current crop for example, there's a slot canyon image that's beautiful. It's just as beautiful as the million other slot canyon images I've seen. In fact in a lineup I don't suppose I'd be able to pick it out of the bunch. Aestehtics get a 7, but Originality? I couldn't give it more than a 2 at best and I'd be hard pressed to justify why I didn't give it a 1. It's been done a million times before and I'm sure it will be done a million times again.

<p>

There's not much point in arguing the issue. I think we've adressed Ross' question. There is no logic to originality ratings. There's no such thing as "less than not original". In any logical system an image which showed no originality and was just a boring snapshot or a good rendition of a cliched theme image would rate a 1 and a highly innovative image would rate a 7 even if you didn't particualrly care for it. However we don't have a logical system. We have a system where you give a 4 or 5 originality if you don't particularly like the image and a 6 or 7 if you do. Or in Carl's scheme you give a 6 or 7 if you think more people should see it and a 4 or 5 if you don't. In practical terms, this is fine. It works and the "best" (or at least most popular) images float to the top.

Who cares ?? It's not a competion??

 

We both know it IS a competion - for views, and that you really do

care a lot.

 

But I forgot. You mentioned finding another site recently that

gave you much better quality feedback, so perhaps the

separation is in effect from the PCF, even if divorce from the site

is not part of the plan.

BTW the following image is #7 in the all time list of the most original images ever posted to photo.net. The other 499,993 images must have been much less original.

<p>

<center>

<img

src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1620207&size=sm"

height=144 width=200 hspace=10>

</center>

"You're basically saying that the originality rating has no meaning

and no function . . . "

 

No. It CAN be a selection criterion and helps the site if you know

the genre.

 

". . . give a score that reflects if they think the image should be

promoted in the system.

 

No. Just a vote for promotion. No numbers. If you don't think it

deserves visibility in the daily rotation, leave it alone.

 

"One possible reason is that we have what we have and it's too

late to change it. "

 

No it isn't. Every goal that the site has, even 'normalization' to

some extent can be preserved. (Keep in mind that connecting

old images with new is not working now, so continuity is a red

herring.)

 

"Should we pull them down and just say, "give it a score that

depends on whether or not you think more people should see

this image"?

 

Yes. Please. The tutorial is useful if people would like some

guidleines on how to look at photographs ciritically. In fact I

would be glad to greatly expand the idea to give examples of

each genre, but you don't need to expand the tutorial

immediately, especially given that people select images for their

own reasons anyway.

 

"Currently it says "Give a photo a high rating for originality if it

shows you something unexpected or a familiar subject in a new,

insightful, striking, humorous, or creative way. Is this wrong?"

 

No. It's one of many ways we might want to look at an image to

consider if others might want to see it.

 

 

"And if not then if the image show you something you fully

expect, in an old, familar way the surely you should give it a LOW

score, whatever the aesthetic appeal of the image."

 

That's what's getting us into trouble, as these daily threads

surely prove.

 

"I don't expect the system to change, but let's not pretend it

actually works in any meaningful way when it comes to

originality. Basically pictures people like float to the top, pictures

people don't like get lost in the pile. You're correct that that's the

best we can hope for. In fact it's a reasonable goal and on the

whole that is the end result of what we have."

 

Except that far too many people are 'deselecting' images that

others wish to promote.

 

"There's not much point in arguing the issue."

 

It will come up again tomorrow . . . and tomorrow, until we fix it.

 

"It works and the "best" (or at least most popular) images float to

the top."

 

I would like to think that my system, with a few other

modifications, would give the better pictures more exposure at

the expense of the more popular, but arguably trite ones.

My conclusion after all this long poll: <br><br>

 

Use your biography space to tell other users what things you have in mind when rating for Aesthetics and Originality.<br><br>

 

I think theres no point of continuing this debate in the forum. Email would fit better.<br><br>

 

Best regards.

I use Originality to cover "quality of thinking". Almost everything has been done before, but has the phtographer put something into it ? <br> Michael Caine was doing an acting masterclass which was on TV some years ago and told the students "Don't try to be original. Steal. But only steal from the <i>Best</i>".<br> Tom Lehrer had a song with the words "Plagiarize, let no-ones else work Evade your eyes, remember why the good lord made your eyes, so don't shade your eyes, Plagiarize,Plagiarize,Plagiarize, only please always call it research".<br>

I've seen good ideas "borrowed", "re-used" call it what you will, and if the photographer has found a good idea, and Plagiarized it, if they have made a good decision about what is the "Best" to steal from, then I think a good originality score is in order. If its the same thing you see time after time, or if the photograpger just snapped it, then it probably doesn't.

<em>Use your biography space to tell other users what things you have in mind when rating for Aesthetics and Originality</em>

<p>

Doesn't this just make ratings even less "accurate" than they are now. If everybody rates on their own personal scale, the aggregate numbers are meaningless.

<p>

On the other hand, I guess that's pretty much how it works now...

<p>

I'm not saying the current scheme doesn't work, in fact it does an excellent job. However I don't think it would do a significantly worse job if the entire scheme was simply an "I like it" scale from 1 to 5. There's no need for change, since that's essentially what we have (except the scale runs 3 to 7). We just have the external appearance of something more complex and "scientific" and which can be a little confusing to users who actually think about these things - as the original question shows.

<p>

I'm not knocking the existing system. The idea is sound, but with a huge audience of untrained judges it just doesn't work well. The good thing is that it fails in a good way which preserves the original purpose - to make the better images more visible.

<p>

In fact what we actually have is this:<br>

<ul>

<li> 3/3 - It's bad (score of "3")

<li> 3/4 or 4/3 (score of "3.5")

<li> 4/4 - I don't like it but it's not awful (score of "4")

<li> 4/5 or 5/4 (score of "4.5")

<li> 5/5 - It's OK. I have no strong feelings about it (score of "5")

<li> 5/6 or 6/5 (score of "5.5")

<li> 6/6 - It's pretty good (score of "6")

<li> 6/7 or 7/6 (score of "6.5")

<li> 7/7 - It's great, I really like it (score of "7")

</ul>

Bob's example of what is rated as the 7th most original image on this site is exactly what gets my panties into a bunch. (It's just an expression, I'm not really wearing panties). And it's a perfect example of why the rating system is pointless, pun intended.

 

There are approaches to photography that are not overtly original in style but they are valid and appropriate nonetheless. Black and white portraits by window light have been done countless times for decades, and hopefully they will continue to be done countless times in the future because it is a wonderful approach to portraiture, and they can be extremely effective. The sad truth is that most people would view this type of portrait as being average in originality, so the photographer who chooses to work in this style is penalized. No matter how brilliant they are.

 

We all know that for many people the farther you push the hue and saturation slider the more ORIGINAL your image becomes. A nude photograph of an attractive woman always rates higher in originality than a nude man. Some people view every flower macro as being worthy of a 7 for originality, while others feel they all rate a 3. Lets just do away with the originality rating, it really is pointless. Pun intended. :-)

The problem with making any changes - even if everyone agreed on the changes and what they should be - is that you have maybe 1/2 million images which have been rated using the existing scheme.

 

People are very sensitive about where their images are in the rankings.

 

So how would you convert all the old ratings (using aesthetics/originality) to any new "single value" scheme? You could average A/O ratings I guess, but you'd have huge debates on whether that was "fair" (especially from people who went down in the rankings!).

 

Personally I wouldn't care since I'm not invested in ratings. Plus just about everything gets a x/x rating anyway, so the averge would be x. Some people wouldn't see it that way though. And maybe people LIKE giving two scores more than one scaore. Who knows.

 

The advantage of a simple, one numer scheme is that it would be much easier to understand and explain to people (bad, don't like it, it's OK, good, great). Everyone would be voting on the same basis - though it would be subjective not objective. The disadvantage is that it looks too simplistic - "you can't give a single number that actually means anything". The counter argument is that that is what we effective have right now and it seems to work OK for the purpose of sorting the good from the less good.

 

There's no point in programming for the sake of programming though, and if what we have now serves it's function (which it does), there's no urgent need to change it. Brian's done a great job with the gallery and there's no point in asking him to do additional work that (a) isn't really essential and (b) would result in all kinds of arguements that he'd have to deal with.

"People are very sensitive about where their images are in the

rankings. "

 

Actually only a very small minority feel that way. I'm sure you

recall the fairly recent, long, and rather acrimonious thread that

dealt with that issue.

 

The site has a choice to make. It can continue with a system that

rewards those photographers (and their images and comments)

many of whom manage their rankings, or it can convert to a

system that will attract new photographers and reactivate old

ones who have left who know that ratings are actually

counterproductive to the goals of this forum - to encourage

uploads and discussions of as wide a variety of good images as

possible.

 

You're acting as though converting to one number is a big deal.

You're still thinking inside the box, Bob. There is a long list of

excellent photographers, many who have made significant

contributions to this forum in the form of meaningful comments,

who want no rating numbers at all.

 

If you really think it's important to rank photographers and / or

images, then keep the number of views, as I mentioned earlier

in this thread.

Carl - just so you know, I have no more input on how the gallery is structured than you do. Brian makes all decisions with regard to the gallery and he does all the work and carries the responsibility. It's easy for us to make suggestions, but if changes are made that, in fact, don't work, there's a big downside. The system "works" now insofar is it enbles better images to get higher visibility.

 

It's a tough call whether any tweaks will make it better or worse in the long run, or indeed whether they will make any significant difference to the vast majority of users. Whether it's better or worse for a few vocal members matters much less than whether it's better or worse for the other 99% of the population.

 

The old adage that "if it ain't not broke, don't fix it" may apply. If the vast majority of users don't see it as "broke", then "fixing it" could be counterproductive.

 

These things are rarely simple. I expect that if at this point we were designing a new system from the ground up, and we had the hindsight we have now, that things might be structured a little differently. However that doesn't mean it necessarily makes any sense to try to warp the current stucture into a new one.

I know you have no say over what changes should be made. I do

appreciate your responses nonetheless.

 

The selection process proposal probably wouldn't help most

users' images, except that I'm convinced that it would attract

more of the kind of people who write meaningful comments

which benefit everyone. The vehicle that will help newer users

best was and still is the Critique Circles, but neither of us are in

a position to do anything about that at the moment, so let's keep

this discussion simple.

 

I'm well aware that you, and more importantly Brian, look at this

issue as a risk / benefit issue, and that I'm essentially playing

the game with your chips (pardon my mixed metaphors.) My

analysis of site behavior over the last year plus is that there is

virtually no risk at all. . . and the upside is well worth the effort.

Bob:'And maybe people LIKE giving two scores more than one score. Who knows.'<br>

why PN doesn't have a voting system? these days even weblogs have it, I think it would be interesting to have a vote box in the first page to know what majority thinks about changes before execution, rest of the times when there is no such questions it can be used to ask interesting questions about photography.

Well I guess one reason is that photo.net isn't a democracy, meaning if most people want voting system "A", but voting system "B" is 10 times easier for us to use, then voting system "B" is probably what we'll use.

 

Most users are unaware of the large number of issues that have to be considered for any site change.

 

The danger of a poll is that there can then be a barage of questions as to why the "top choice" wasn't used and accusations that users opinions are not listened to. I think we do listen to user input a lot and it's a very important factor in any decision, but it's not the only factor and sometimes other factors (such as financial issues and manpower issues) have to come first.

 

We could have a poll where results weren't visible to anyone but the photo.net administration, but then we'd no doubt get accusations that we were hiding results and demands for the results to be made public!

 

On the other hand non-binding "fun" polls do seem to generate interest and people like to vote. We should have something like that. For the first question I propose either "Is digital better than film" or "Is Canon better than Nikon". You get one vote, "yes" or "no". That should be fun...

 

I know there are some commercial packages that you can buy to run polls, but photo.net doesn't like buying anything if we can avoid it! If there are open source freeware "poll" packages that run on UNIX/AOL server, please point me to them.

I'm repeating myself, so maybe I'll repeat everyone else for a change.

 

"Originality" ratings -

 

1. Many viewers have a mental block about this.

 

2. Those who don't think they do, have an "opinion" on "originality".

 

3. Having an "opinion" follows from a subjective interpretation of

the image. Then ratings are used to justify opinions. However

without a comment, the opinion (rating) is not justified for the

photographer. Unjustified opinions are therefore the foundation

of photo.net's rating scales. (Boy I love my syllogisms too).

 

4. Scoring images low for originality is inevitable because viewers

use "convention" as a reference point for originality. Some

viewers are more conventional than others. Yet scoring an image

highly its reproduction of clone-like tendencies also scores high

for originality.

 

5. The function of "originality" therefore is very dubious, and seems

less comprehensible (i.e not understood well across the board)

than "aesthetics" which is also misunderstood.

 

6. Keeping "originality" as a rating will be the path of least

resistance for the administrators of photo.net , because there is

most resistance to original thinking i.e. commenting on an image

as the basis of mass preference for conventional images, rated

highly as "original".

 

7. Keeping "originality" as a rating also encourages mass appeal, and

a dominance of conventional genres of photography, without aiding,

facilitating and educating other photographers about precise

learning issues in photography.

 

8. The resulting trend is then for photo.net to become

less "critique" orientated and more of a gallery image with a

guestnote book appended. This is the emerging stereotype of the

typical photo.netter which a sociological survey might indicate.

Shame on the photographer who wishes to sincerely improve his

skills (being sincere just isn't good enough to survive on

photo.net).

 

 

9. The difficulty about changing the originality ratings is that

photo.net has its interests in people-pleasing most of the time,

rather than creating its own vision. There are economic and

extraneous factors dictating such a tendency, despite the fact

that photo.net has no such duty to preserve any members ratings

data.

 

10.The words used in this post have a function in "identifying"

and "clarifying" the confusion around originality ratings.

Comments and not the bullet numbers are used to convey

meaning.

 

There is no solution then to Ross's question - not until photo.net reconfigures its rating system; even better - dumps it - a consideration which is not on the mastermind agenda.

 

Slight impasse then for the minority (the majority just keep on getting in the way!). Ho hum.

 

Kind regards,

<em>a consideration which is not on the mastermind agenda</em>

<p>

No need to get sarcastic about it.

<p>

For all I know Brian has been up all night for the last two weeks working on a huge revision of the whole system! I know he is working on some aspects of the gallery presentation.

<p>

But let's face it. With who knows how many unqualified people judging images based on their own personal subjective standards it's a total waste of time to try to come up with any truely meaningful measure of image quality. And don't suggest dropping numeric ratings because the vast majority of people WANT numberic ratings and they do perform as a pretty effective selection filter.

<p>

There are ways we could have truely meaningful critiques of images, but no simple way and not in any way that would serve all users. Since there are vastly more people who want critiques than are qualified to give them, there's a problem.

<p>

Email me a CD of your images and enclose a check for $5 per image and I'll provide all the detailed feedback you want.

<p> Maybe if more people actually SUBSCRIBED to photo.net we'd be able to get staff to do this as part of photo.net, but most people are just along for a free ride and they more than get what they pay for. Some might say they get too much...

MAYBE like any other good business photo.net should offer more for the money paid then more people will subscribe. It is hard to pay first and then wait for �MAYBE� some improvement. I paid my subscription from the first day I signed, being on the second year now and don�t see much improvement but rather quality of the critiques going down as well as the value of the rating system. Make the good changes first and offer them only to paid subscribers. If the changes will work that will attract people to sign and paid.

It takes money to make money. Business starting with no investment but only promises usually doesn�t last long �

Looking over all these discussions, examples, complaints, philosophy about "originality", I start to worry <i>if there's any point anymore to take photos</i>. Soon there's no such place on Earth that wasn't photographed lots of times, (unless you're a national geographic coworker) so, for some people your picture won't be original, whatever you'd do!

<br>Cliche,cliche, at the dawn of our civilisation, the whole world becomes a cliche!

"And don't suggest dropping numeric ratings because the vast

majority of people WANT numberic ratings . . . . "

 

No they don't. They want meaningful feedback (we've discussed

at length here how numbers are pretty much meaningless) and

have always stated a preference for comments. More and more

people who have the ability to provide those comments have

expressed a distaste for ratings. My anecdotal evidence is at

least as compelling as yours.