Jump to content

Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System


mottershead

Recommended Posts

one doesn't have to produce masterful work in order to appreciate the works of a master. none of us would be able to utter a squeal about works of the Masters then, because in order for someone to say that he or she could care less about, say AA, he or she should surpass AA in terms of excellence and perfection.

<p>

one doesn't have to excel in <i>producing</i> art in order to <i>appreciate</i> it, as long as one is not talking through his/her hat, ofcourse. and as long as a rating or an opinion is backed by a solid logical and technical reasoning, there's absolutely no need for further questions or a need for the critiquer to prove his artisitc credentials by showing his own work. and also with the new "highest rated photos.." link one can always decide whether to listen to someone or not. besides, one may fully know the technical nuances and what it takes to make a good shot and still may have not yet attained the results that he or she wishes, but that doesn't stop him/her from saying what he or she thinks is an imperfection or showing excellence, in a given shot.

<p>

besides, the level of work posted here at PN is hardly 'complex' artistically, excepting a few photographers. and i sincerely think anyone can express their opinions.

<p>

this thread has meandered into subjects that have hardly anything to do with the topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 368
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<table cellpadding="10">

<tr>

<td colspan="4">

<blockquote>

<p>Vincent, the text of your reply has brought credence to my assertion,

that posting a low rating will by consequence call out the dogs against

you. There are few with the courage to be consistent in expressing unpopular

low ratings, I agree, so it will naturally appear to be a small number

of individuals on a mission. However, there are plenty that would agree

with them, however, they choose not to vocalize their opinions because

they haven't either the fortitude to withstand the onslaught, or don't

care to express an opposing view possibly out of politeness or some

other cultural or personal preference. </p>

<p> I reject utterly and entirely the position that masters of photography,

or photographers of unquestionable talent, are the only ones qualified

to issue low ratings. Arguments in opposition to this idea are legion.

It does not require a Master's talent to be able to recognize an image

of low quality. All it requires is an understanding of what photography

is, and how photography is performed: The quality of a photograph's

sharpness, composition, color, lens choice, etc, are all objectively

determined, for the most part. However, the ratings system requests

a subjective response: Does the image work? What does the image convey

to me? </p>

<p> In a sense, we are not even asked to evaluate the <i>quality</i> of

an image, but rather the <i>effectiveness</i> of an image. Aesthetics

is a subjective issue. I don't think it can be defined, and if it could,

you would have as many definitions as you have members. Originality

is a subjective issue. What's original for one person is old for another.

What, for example, is original about photographing a horse? Renditions

of horses on cave walls comprise the oldest art in human history. </p>

<p> Although there are many aspects of a photographic image that are objective

and can be scientifically measured, the ratings system does not call

for a scientific measurement. It calls for a reaction. Unfortunately,

reactions by definition, are subjective. </p>

<p> I ask: What if Ansel Adams, Joel Peter Witkin, Henri Cartier-Bresson,

and Richard Avedon were members here and part of a panel of experts,

curators, who were tasked with setting the standard. Would their ratings

be consistent? </p>

</blockquote>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1582163&size=sm" width="162" height="132"></td>

<td><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1582630&size=sm" width="136" height="192"></td>

<td><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1586870&size=sm" width="200" height="115"></td>

<td><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1515005&size=sm" width="167" height="199"></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="4">

<blockquote>

<p>Above are the four top rated images from today's TRP under All/Average

Rating. Would the four experts cited abouve rate each of these images

identically? </p>

<p>I don't think so. Each of these individuals have different aesthetics,

and a different sense of what is original. In fact, I would argue that

the only difference between a 3 from either of these four masters and

a 3 from the average photonetter is that the work of the masters is

uncontestable. Suppose Avedon rated the portrait a 2 in aesthetics,

and a 4 in originality. Suppose also that I posted the exact same rating.

Is my opinion wrong and his right because he's got more experience,

or more talent, or a bigger name? What if I posted a 2/4, was called

into question for it, and then Avedon came and posted the exact same

score? Is mine suddenly right? Has it been vindicated? </p>

<p>Of course not. My posting of a 2/4 in this example is as right and

honorable as any 7/7 or 6/6. My posting a 2/4 may hurt someone's feelings,

or raise a few eyebrows, and I may or may not post out of consideration

for that, but it is within my privilege as a member to post a 2/4 on

any photograph I don't like, regardless of the quality of my own work,

or whether I have any work posted at all. </p>

<p>The problem is not, in my opinion, with those that post the low ratings

out of a sincere dislike for an image. The problem is with those who

receive them that can't tolerate the idea that their work is not universally

appreciated. With that understanding, I would rephrase your final sentence

as follows: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting that people [whose work I consider] average ... feel

so compelled to go through the folders of those [whose work has been

rated] above average [even if those above average ratings originate

from a fraction of a fraction of a fraction* of the total membership.]

Kind of Funny, actually!</p>

</blockquote>

<p> *as of April 2003 the site had 225,000 registered members. An image

with 100 ratings represents only .0004444 of the membership. (1/2250)

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>  </p>

</td>

</tr>

</table>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I value ALL that take the time to rate and share opinions, ideas suggestions etc etc. And yes, of course you and every other Photo.net member can express any rating and opinion desired, on mine or any other persons images. What I want to make clear however, is that when another GROUP of members (and the SAME ones at that) go through the entire folders of others, rating practically every single image significantly lower than the average of 25-60 other members, then YES, you do wonder about a hidden agenda or improper motives. Actually it is no different that the claims and accusations made against the mate-raters. (in which I agree does exist, though as Brian M. stated above, is also overblown in my opinion) If the mate-raters have an agenda so to speak, and are clearly being questioned, then how about the "Balance Brigade"?? I simply disagree that your purpose as a group is to rate honestly, rather it is to bring ALL ratings down. Specifically those that have high ratings....usually from the beter photographers. You need not know Rocket Science to see the truth!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has always been some debate about how we are supposed to

integrate technique into the aesthetic / originality options. Some

seem to feel it can not be integrated at all and I have a '1' in

aesthetics on an image where the rater said it deserved a '7' for

technique. I think that's a misinterpretation and that technique must

be considered an integral part of the evaluation process.

 

What photography is is the capturing of light, yet there are many 'top

rated images' where that very basic aspect is not handled very well.

Sometimes the colors are off, sometimes the highlights are blown out,

sometimes the composition is awkward, sometimes the DOF choice is

suspect, and on and on. Sometimes these are conscious artistic

decisions which some viewers don't find appealing. Other times, it's

less subjective.

 

Does it require some sort of master title to recognize these things?

No, but neither is it inborn. There are a boatload of people rating

each other's mid day shots high while boatloads of other members know

very well that the shot would have greater impact at a different time

of day and with a different shooting anlge. Put the same shots side

by side and there would be little doubt, but without these similars

next to each other, a lot of people don't see it. The 'balance

brigade' understands this, but how much the mate raters understand

this is not clear because we can't tell if they are unable or

unwilling to consider the images' flaws.

 

From what I've seen, many of the 'balance brigade's images have a

greater chance of being published or otherwise having value in the

real world compared to some of the mate raters' images. Any challenge

to this assumption would have credibility if it came from someone who

has a habit of including critical analysis in their comments that show

that they understand what aspects of an image contribute to it's

strengths and weaknesses.

 

Much of this is arguably beside the point of this thread. Regardless

of how much you like someone's portfolio, Brian has made it clear in

earlier posts that he wants us to use 6s and 7s very, very rarely -

like once a week and once a month respectively. If people don't

volutarily change their rating habits to conform to that frequency,

then you can count on some significant changes in how we view images

on this site. . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore in my opinion. The real motivation behind this movement, is that this group significantly receives low ratings themselves. They are rarely on any of the top rated pages. Sure there is some truth behind curbing the mate-raters...but I seriously doubt those are the only reasons here. As I have looked carefully at the work of these "lowballers", I am quite surprised at how very average and even poor their work truly is. In other words, how can a photographer, whose work really is only average, feel compelled to go through entire folders rating low and giving their negative opinions. A few images here and there perhaps, a more humble approach maybe, but when they speak as experts as well as form a clan doing the same thing to ALL whom they visit (and I am not talking about just my folders, but MANY others) then the motives of such ones in my opinion is NOT sincere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margaret,

 

I simply looked at his images the same we he did mine. He invited me to do so, by going through each one of my images. Your point is what??

 

Carl,

 

I disagree with you so thoroughly about whose work would get published it's meaningless to debate. You are speaking into the wind. No offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aloha Vincent, when you come back, this sentence needs clarification:

 

"I simply disagree that your purpose as a group is to rate honestly, rather it is to bring ALL ratings down. "

 

Speaking for my self, I don't belong to a group that purposes to lower ratings. I do, however, belong to a group of 1 that purposes to express my opinion about photography, whether the photograph in question is "good" or "bad." If others happen to agree with me, and express their opinion at the same time, that doesn't mean we're in a "group"

 

But, suppose it were true. Suppose there were balance brigade? My answer to that is that if there is a "group" of members that promote an image (mate raters), wouldn't it be natural for there to be a "group" of members that feel the opposite? If not natural, then how about appropriate? Why can one group exist and be excused, and not the other? If Mate Rating can exist, yet be denied by those who practice it on the grounds that they are simply rating images they like, what is wrong with a Balance Brigade doing the opposite to the same images because they don't like them? How can one accept and excuse the one and condemn the other? The answer is because one can benefit from one, but not the other. And so anyone not liking an image is accused of being jealous, or of having a grudge, etc. It's not always the case that one is jealous, or has a grudge, etc. Sometimes they just don't like the image, or the portfolio.

 

I agree with you here, Vincent, that it is natural to wonder about these things. But the dynamics are more complex, I think. The issue is not that these low raters have an agenda, it's just that it's unpopular to be negative, and so it's not practiced. When it is, it gets a lot of attention. Some of this attention is in the form of retaliations, portfolio lynchings, challenges, etc, and some is in the form talk, forum threads, etc. I don't think the problem is in those that give the ratings so much as it is in those that don't like to receive them and take measures to even the score.

 

I don't believe there are "mate rating groups" that meet in secret to determine to elevate an image to the top with overly generous ratings. Likewise, I don't believe there are "balance brigade groups" that meet in secret and determine to bring an image down with overly negative ratings. I can't speak for anyone else except myself. I have rated images low that I felt were worth low ratings.

 

And this statement: " I am quite surprised at how very average and even poor their work truly is" is strictly your opinion, and needs to be stated as such. It is not a FACT that the work you have in mind is average or poor. It is your opinion. Just as it is the opinion of any one who rates a work high. Being a top rated photographer on Photo.net is, in my opinion, no great honor and I am quite surprised to find reasonable people defending it as such. When the top rated photos have over 1000 ratings each, then I'll listen. But to show in the TRP with 30 or 40 ratings, even twice that number, and then to think of myself as the best is self delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another way of looking at photographs that will help one to accept a low rating is to understand that all photographers are not after the same thing. We're not all after the same "market." Our goals are different and so our output is going to be different. For some of us, work that Vincent would call "average" is more than adequate. For others, work that Vincent would consider excellent is useless. I always chuckle when someone claims their work is more valuable, or better, because it has been published, or purchased. That's ridiculous, in my opinion. All it means is that someone with money liked it. If it's still being published in 50 years, that's a different thing, but because it's published once, or twice, that's meaningless.

 

I would say that the measure of photography is whether it appeals to the viewer. If 40 people say yes, and 1 person says no, what's the problem? It just means 40 people saw the same thing, and one person saw something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Furthermore in my opinion. The real motivation behind this movement, is that this group significantly receives low ratings themselves. They are rarely on any of the top rated pages. Sure there is some truth behind curbing the mate-raters...but I seriously doubt those are the only reasons here. As I have looked carefully at the work of these "lowballers", I am quite surprised at how very average and even poor their work truly is. In other words, how can a photographer, whose work really is only average, feel compelled to go through entire folders rating low and giving their negative opinions. A few images here and there perhaps, a more humble approach maybe, but when they speak as experts as well as form a clan doing the same thing to ALL whom they visit (and I am not talking about just my folders, but MANY others) then the motives of such ones in my opinion is NOT sincere</i><p>

 

Out of curiosity I went and checked both your and Marc`s folders. I agree with I think is Doug who expressed that the "average" work is <b>your opinion</b>. Both of you are certainly talented photographers, but if I was to "rate" a folder, Marc would beat you hands down, he has demonstrated abilities in portrait, lanscape, modeling fashion etc, while yours are merely landscapes, albeit well done landscpaes but not very original.<p>

 

I have to admit I am a B&W photographer and color does not do much for me so I am basing my opinions merely on "aesthetics and originality" whatever that means. You certainly have some winners in your folder, but so does Marc. I was amused to find that Marc has some of the POW that I was really impressed with and which "stuck" with me. Even if I did not pay attention as to who did them.<p>

 

But see, here is the thing, and I think the problem Brian has. Given a cross section of "tastes" and opinions a folder or image should really have an "average" of ratings if the ratings are done impartially by a cross section of the membership. IOW some might say...wow what a great pic, 7/7 and I would give you more if they had bigger numbers. On the other side others might say....Ah, boring..just another calendar sunset shot...3/3.. or 2/2. And then your Folder/picture would balance at around 3,4 or 5. But to see a folder or picture that only has 7/7 it is meaningless.<p>

 

Your taste does not run to the kind of pictures Marc takes, and I imagine neither does his taste run to the kind of pictures you take. But to call his pictures "average" or ordinary just because you dont like them is unfair. He sure has some great shots and so do you, but by all means not all of yours are great and neither are his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is the kind of nonesense that you're going to get when you have 200,000 or more photographers on a site, each with an ego and a personality all their own.

 

And don't everyone say "who, me?" Yes! YOU! Each one of us is posting here (admit it) because there's a part of us who wants to be praised and wants to show off. Of course, there's a lot of us who also want to learn and do want honest feedback, but come on... getting those pats on the back and those 7/7's and being a top photographer here, where you can tell yourself "they really like me" is part of why we're all here posting photos, or at least commenting on them.

 

Given all that, I'm surprised the system works as well as it does. In fact, I'm a little surprised it works at all - but it shows that, contrary to what people might believe after reading some of the posts I've seen lately, most of us here are adults (or at least can act that way) and have reasonable expectations of what we want to get out of photo.net.

 

When I get a rating that's good, I think to myself "cool." I think "VERY cool" when they comment on why they think it's good. I'll look at their portfolios and try to rate honestly, but it's hard to kick someone who's just said how much they like your work.

 

When I get a rating that's crap, I think "ugh." If they've not left any comment, I get fairly annoyed. I'll look at their portfolios and try to rate honestly, but it's hard to be generous to someone who's just told you that your work is no good.

 

Either way, it's mate/revenge rating. I try to avoid it, but it's a tendancy that exists in people. The natural back-scratching built into people so I won't try to say I'm totally innocent of it. I don't think many people are.

 

I'm not sure I agree with Brian's action concerning Anna P. and removing her from ratings - but he's got the right to take action on anything perceived as a problem. But he's certainly right in saying that when someone's portfolio has become a battleground between mate-raters and the "balance brigade" the ratings become meaningless. Neither side is rating honestly or fairly.

 

Someone who's impacted this way doesn't like it? Try to resolve it. If you can't? Make your own site. That's what freedom of speech on the internet is really about people. It doesn't mean that you can do or say anything you want on photo.net - it means that if the administration here does something that doesn't sit right, even if it is within their rights, you can go to one of photo.net's competitors or - if you want - make your own website. No one's going to stop you.

 

I don't think that mate-rating and the "balance-brigade" is anything like organized movements, so I'll agree with you on that Doug. I think that they're just tendancies that happen - and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it except to try and continue to remind people to be as honest as possible in their critiques - both negative and positive.

 

There's a tendancy to be positive. Most of the portfolios I see have people who rate generally "above average" - If this is understood, I don't think it's a problem. I don't jump for joy every time I get a five, because I know the rating is a little generous as a rule.

 

Anna is, in a sense, a victim of her own success. She's posted a lot of good photographs - some are VERY good. She's rated and commented on a lot of photographs, and people have a tendancy to respond to that by rating and commenting on a lot of hers. She has a tendancy to rate very good (5.93 for originality and 6.03 for aesthetics) - which is higher than most people I see on photo.net - so she probably gets a fair amount of ratings goodwill in return.

 

Is this conscious? Probably not. Does excluding her from the rating system seem unfair? Somewhat.

 

Does Brian have the right to do it? Certainly. He's dealing with a problem, and there isn't a way to do it that isn't going to seem a little unfair. No matter how you cut it, it means limiting someone's right to do something. We can't rate Anna's photos - her photos cannot continue to receive ratings, and ratings effect visibility on the site.

 

But it comes to this - Brian's letter that Anna quotes says that there seem to be accounts made who's sole purpose exist to give positive ratings to photographers. Whether Anna's responsible for them or not isn't the point - when stuff like that happens, things have CLEARLY gone too far.

 

The thought that some kind of legal action may be (or perhaps has already been) taken over this sickens me (and I already have a nasty cold).

 

Everyone's going to have their own opinions. To expect that people won't take that into account while rating is ... unbelievable. That being said, I think people need to be a lot more conscious about just why they're rating things, and try to limit their rating to the work. I'm an optimist in such things, so I try to believe that most people do that.

 

Make no mistake. If anyone bears the responsibility for these rating messes that occur from time to time, it's US - the photo.net community. It is going to happen, too - so when it blows up like this, it shouldn't come as a big surprise.

 

Just keep the lawyers outta it if you can, people... Right or wrong I like this place too much to see it get buried under legaleze and legal fees, and I like to think there are a lot of people who agree with me on that, if nothing else... and it wouldn't do anyone's reputation any good to say they sued photo.net and shut it down or damaged it cause the defense cost too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be ridiculous!

 

So there. :-)

 

Money is not an inconsequencial measurement of value, and you know I

didn't suggest it was the only one. You say it's simply a matter of

what one viewer thinks, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt -

something you didn't do for me - and assume you meant that the viewer

is hopefully not carrying any baggage that prevents them from being

influenced by anything other than the picture itself. One could argue

that we all carry baggage, but the whole point of this discussion is,

or should be, that mutual rating makes objective viewing far more

difficult than it would be otherwise. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What I also find very ironic, is that the work of these lower raters (also called the "balance brigade" by Brian) is really not very good at all."

 

That's a very bold statement Vincent! And a rather broad statement as well! Of course you realize that if even the most photographically inept member of "the balance brigade" started rating all the right people with a constant flow of WOW! 7/7's, that they would find themselves as one of the top rated photographers on this site within a month! And if you don't see this then you aren't really paying attention to what's been going on around here.

 

"The real motivation behind this movement, is that this group significantly receives low ratings themselves. They are rarely on any of the top rated pages."

 

???

 

Vincent you are making out like Photonet has been attacked by a group of jealous snap-shooting photographically inept babies out to take revenge on the true geniuses of our little community. My motivation Vincent is to rate what I feel to be truly good work higher than I would rate what I feel to be lesser work. Period. You may want to write me off as a jealous hack, because I'm sure it would be convenient for you to do so, but you would be wrong. It appears you are all to willing accept all 7/7's as true statements on your work, but are all to quick to assume that 4/4's are a result of jealousy. Very convenient indeed. The world is full of different people with different tastes. My tastes are no less valid than yours, or anyone else's.

 

As for the top rated pages that you mentioned? Well I've addressed the issue of being a top rated photographers with you before Vincent, so to save some time I've copied and pasted a portion of my previous comment here.

 

"Laying claim to the title "Top Rated Photographer" does not come with an insurance policy against honest critiques, although some people seem to think so. Being considered a Top Rated Photographer could indeed be a measure of achievement, it all depends on how it�s achieved."

 

How can one achieve the title of "Top Rated Photographer"? Well that is painfully easy and does not require very much photographic skill at all. I posted my recipe for becoming a top rated photographer earlier in this thread. It's a very simple recipe, and it never seems to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, no insult intended. I apologize if it sounded that way. What I mean is that the difference between much of what is published and much of what is not published is the simply the wealth of the publisher, not his or her taste or ability to identify quality work. I've seen the idea many times here on photonet as if it is to say that a work that is published is all of a sudden a work of unquestionable quality. I've had plenty of work published because the buyer has a deadline, the buyer doesn't care, the budget is shot, there is a space to fill, etc. The point is that published work often has little to do with the quality of a work. The same is true for purchased work: It's not the quality of the work that sells it, it's the appeal the work has in the eyes of the buyer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comments, but certainly mostly expected. I think Doug basically summed up my point very well he said the following.

 

"Suppose there were balance brigade? My answer to that is that if there is a "group" of members that promote an image (mate raters), wouldn't it be natural for there to be a "group" of members that feel the opposite? If not natural, then how about appropriate? Why can one group exist and be excused, and not the other? If Mate Rating can exist, yet be denied by those who practice it on the grounds that they are simply rating images they like, what is wrong with a Balance Brigade doing the opposite to the same images because they don't like them?"

 

I can agree with your comment in both principle and as a current fact Doug. Let's at least call a spade a spade here and agree that the balance brigade DOES rate to balance the mate-raters, NOT just to rate honestly. Fine if you wish to balance it all out, I can accept and live with that. Some high rated images are overrated. Mate-rating exists and is wrong as you say....I agree. So then, the balance brigade is wrong as well...dong the exact same thing but the opposite way. However I wish ALL would be upfront with what the brigade is truly doing here. You might for example see an image that in your own opinion deserves a 5/5. Yet because the mate-raters have given some 6s and 7s, the temptation will probably cause the balance brigade to give this a 4/4. NOT an honest rating....perhaps on both sides. My argument is that this balance brigade movement is also not rating with complete objectivity. THAT is my point exactly. At least Doug is agreeing that's the case!

 

I also agree with different backgrounds and personalities seeing images differently. I personally like some of Marc's images and have rated plenty of them with high ratings. However, because he did go through my entire folder with a host of significantly lower than average ratings with often very weak comments, I felt compelled then to look at ALL of his images. I said to myself, let's see what makes him such an authority. Normally, I will not rate an image I think is not very good. In his case, I simply returned the favor of commenting and rating each image in the given folder. I also rated honestly...WITHOUT bitterness, or with the motive of getting him back. I personally was surprised that in my opinion his work was really not as good as I had originally thought. Some are truly outstanding, many were very ordinary. If others think it is better than my own, I am not at all offended, and fully respect that opinion as well. I make a living doing this full time. I have prints in over 135 galleries and gift shops throughout the islands, websites and online galleries in other countries, as well as stock agencies. I do not need high ratings to make a living in this profession. I post to showcase on Photo.net. Many images have over 50,000 views and I have indeed recieved many offers and actually signed contracts for stock simply because of posting on this site. In turn, I try to comment with meaning and will share secrets, opinons as well as take the time to make adjustments to an image and upload to show somebody another idea. Perhaps my opinions have little meaning to someone else, but I am a full time professional doing what I truly enjoy. Maybe it's worth something to a few, but that is my contribution to the site....for what it is worth.

 

As for your comment Bob, you stated

 

"How can one achieve the title of "Top Rated Photographer"? Well that is painfully easy and does not require very much photographic skill at all."

 

So are you saying Bob that all 50 or so raters that make an image a highest rated image and perhaps a top rated photographer, are ALL full of hot air and mate-rating?? If this is indeed how you feel, it is sad, but nevertheless again proves what I have been saying all along, that top rated images and top rated photographers are the ones that are being targeted solely with the sole purpose of bringing them down. They are minced meat according to your stated opinions Bob. I doubt you truly feel this way but perhaps I have put a few on the defensive with my sourgrapes comment. I can ammend that as well and perhaps back off to a degree. Perhaps Doug's comment above is the real reason....to balance out. I guess the images of those in the brigade are not that really that poor. But when I look at images like Anna, Ken, Yuri (who was bumped from number one to OFF the entire fisrt page) Valter, Ivan etc etc, I see a great creativity that I simply do not see with the Brigade. THAT is simply my opinion. Yet, if you look at the ratings, it is the opinion of many others as well. I do encourage ALL to rate honestly. If an image deserves a 7 give it a 7. But I deserves a 5 lets give it that 5 as well. Regardless of what happens from here on out we have already lost...a true artist is leaving Photo.net permanently. That is a shame and certainly not in the best interests of any site. Aloha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric makes some good points, especially with regard to human nature and the feeling one experiences when rating the work of someone who has just rated them either high, or low. I agree it's hard, if not impossible, to be objective with a portfolio by someone who has just rated half your work with 3's......or 7's . It has to influence your ability to be impartial.

 

For this reason, I seldom rate anyone who has recently rated me. In fact, I am probably considered rude by many who have rated my work, yet I have not returned the courtesy. It's because I find myself experiencing the very things Eric has observed, a desire to reciprocate. As a result, I tend to avoid many that have rated my own work, especially if their ratings have been with very high, or very low. I agree that a trip through someone's folders is suspect, but so should be any reciprocal action. That is, if an initial visit to a folder can be construed as jealousy, then any return ratings below 5 should be considered retaliation, if one were to allow the same logic to be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right Vincent, and this is why the word is "balance" and not revenge, or attack, etc. Both "groups" strive for objectivity, but are subject to human nature, so if one rates high by virtue of fallible human nature, then the other's being low by the same virtue is still a balance. The result should be a more accurate assessment of an image's true worth, I would hope. As it is, thinking in terms of groups or teams, the Mate Raters have little to be afraid of as the Balance Brigade is woefully out numbered and the affect of one or two balancing opinions has little overall effect on a portfolio.

 

I agree with you also, Vincent, that the loss of even one member is a pain we should all feel. It is a drastic measure and hopefully one that will not be repeated. But bear in mind that the expulsion was a result of Anna's reaction to being taken out of the ratings game, not as a result of anything else, so far as I can tell.

 

You mentioned Ivan in your comment. I'm not sure of the exact facts concerning what I'm about to say, and I admire his work, but Ivan's position on the top page occurred overnight by the deletion of a significant portion of his portfolio. One day he had, I don't know, 50 photographs, then the next day he had 20. What had happened was that he had deleted all of his lower rated images. The software did the rest and PRESTO, he's on the TRP. I could do that, too. I could delete all of my lower rated images and catapult my name to about the 2nd or third page, depending on how many images I axed. If I did this on a continuing basis: Delete any image that doesn't rate at least 6/6. I would have less work visible, sure, but I would be higher in the rankings.

 

The difference is that the rankings are not all that important to me and I have chosen to leave the images I like online, rather than to tailor my portfolio according to how it is received and rated. I notice that some of the top rated photographers only leave their best work posted, and this is fine, but it is not an accurate portrayal their abilities as a photographer, rather it is a reflection of their abilities as an editor, and sometimes, as a shmoozer. Your work is overall very good, in my opinion, but I haven't seen any of your portraits, or still lifes. I haven't seen any still life's or journalism from Ivan, only landscapes from Valter, etc. Would variations in subject matter make a difference?

 

Is there anything wrong with this, with a portfolio that only showcases pretty girls, or Tuscan landscapes, or Hawaiian landscapes? No, of course not. We're allowed to post what we want. As examples, Valter, Ivan and yourself post your forte' work, that which you're best at doing. That's great and I'm glad to see it, and I enjoy evaluating it. Keep in mind however, that others are posting for different reasons. I post a lot of work that I admit is average, but it is beneficial for me to do that, reason being: The ratings are not the primary objective. Feedback is. I have today over 180 images posted. You have about 50. Are these images the best work we've ever done? I don't know about you, but these 180 are not the sum of my life's work. Nearly 100 are from my first year with a camera! Over half of the remainder are from testing a new camera. Still others are experimental in other ways.

 

My point here is that the TRP are easily manipulated and that they foster their inhabitants with a false sense of worth. In my opinion, a little shaking of the TRP is healthy for the site as a whole, so long as it's done without malice, and so far as the shakers are not struck on the head by any loose coconuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Would it be possible NOT to delete the accusations posted here by Vincent Tyler against what has been called "the balance brigade" ?

<p>

2) Would it be possible NOT to delete the personal attacks posted here by Vincent Tyler ?

<p>

3) Would it be possible for me to give a comprehensive and factual reply to Mr. Tyler's accusations without having it deleted either ?

<p>

I am prepared to put some time to collect the data necessary to prove a few points. But if I spend that time, I would like to have a guarantee that I won't spend it to see my reply deleted together with Vincent Tyler's pamphlet within 5 minutes after my next posting in this thread.

<p>

What I would post here are facts that would speak for themselves. Once and for all, the site at large deserves to know the truth about the things we have read in this forum so far. If truth is never told and if accusations of all sorts prevail without any solid facts to back them up, I don't see how this community could possibly understand what's going on. And meanwhile each and everyone may tend to believe what ever they read, whether right or wrong - and I believe that just isn't right.

<p>

Do I have photo.net's permission to go ahead. Can we for once play with all the cards on the table ? If the moderator grants my requests, I'll go ahead and look for the facts we need. If not, fine by me, and I'll just let the water flow under the bridge. Some people may for ever want to accuse each other back and forth, but I personally won't jump on that train again. Time for facts or nothing. <p>

Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Cindy. Instead of a point by point rebuttal of one person's opinions, lets try to keep the dialogue focused on the issues, rather than the person, or people, behind the issues. If it will bring fruit from discussion, I'm willing to take a few insults in order to further the conversation. No one here is perfect and I would hope we are all willing to absorb a few mischosen words in favor of the greater good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Marc, you have my permission. By the way just for the record, it is Tylor, not Tyler. Go get em tiger! Find your data.....

 

In the meantime I do appreciate your reply Doug. I believe a happy medium has been reached that would agree that there is too much mate-rating, and also lately a bit of lowballing to try to even things out.

 

Ivan e-mailed me personally, (I personally pushed him to come over here a few months back, so we occasionally keep in touch) and told me he simply cleaned up a few images that he wanted to get rid of. He could not believe he went to number three. I truly believe him that it was not done intentially. Even if so, no big deal if you ask me....a bit more visibility cannot hurt. I am a total fan of his work, and do not mind saying so. I could delete about 7-10 images and be number one myself if that was my intention....which it is not! Perhaps one thing that makes some photographers higher rated is that they have a specialty. Emil, Jorge, Ivan, even myself. I do try florals and lately seascapes along with some wildlife. Portraits, NO WAY! I did two weddings that were simply not what I enjoyed. I quit that job permanently! Aloha for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...