Photo.net is UN-Balanced

Oh Maria, you are such a pathetic person. I don't know what is your mission in life, but it definitely sounds like you want to go out of your ways to aggrevate people. Why do you do that? You throw out those 1/1, 1/2 to a lot of innocent folks in the Gallery who are just trying to have some fun and excitment. But all you care is to make sure you dampened their spirit. Why? Do you have a very miserable life? You are now saying it is your civic duty to give out these low ball figures because you want to save photo.net, what lies! Instead, why don't you show us how to shoot a good picture. Oh, you can't, is it because you don't know how? Or you have insulted enough people that you worry about retaliation? Such foolish excuses.

You have glorified yourself by saying this is your way to save Photo.net. If this is true, then we are ALL in trouble. Do some good deed, just learn to keep shut and stay out of other peoples lives, nobody will miss you. So pathetic...

I cannot say that I have read all the discussion posted, but this is my humble opinion.

The only way to get over the problems introduced by the rating system, is to implement a way of statistical weight.

What I mean is, that a photo with 5 ratings and an overal 6 out of 7 has not the same weight as a photo with 20 ratings and a 5 out of 7. The reason is obvious.

Also the "Revenge error" and the "Bad rating" error are things that can be avoided. The way is not that simple, ratings that deviate (have a great distance) from the mean value greatly should be ignored. So,let's say that ratings on a photo with 10 ratings give a mean value of 6 out of 7. But someone who is a poor judge, or wants to get even, places a rate of 1 or 2 ( I have seen that on a great photo). That is a distance of 5 from the mean value, so it should not be included on the mean value calculations.

Matters like that can be solved with statistical analysis, but the fine tuning is to be done by people.

In my opinion, people are to make judgements, and bad characters are to loose if we all make good judgements without passion for revenge or prejudice.My personal standing is to make judgements on all photos, good and bad, in order to have people ( like me) who make bad photos improve...some may upset, but that is the way life is!

The following is a work of fiction. Any similarities to any real persons is purely coincidental, and entirely a product of the author's imagination. Some use is made of existing locales, landmarks and institutions, but this use is fictional in nature and intent, and is not to be misconstrued as an attempt to disparage nor to recommend.

<p>

To m sv in particular and all other PNetter in general, I would propose to look at those 2 posting attentively and to evaluate them according to your personnal criteria. Objective here is not to critic taste but to question consistency, external and influential bias...

<p>

First posting<div></div>

The following is a work of fiction. Any similarities to any real persons is purely coincidental, and entirely a product of the author's imagination. Some use is made of existing locales, landmarks and institutions, but this use is fictional in nature and intent, and is not to be misconstrued as an attempt to disparage nor to recommend.

<p>

Second posting<div></div>

The following is not a work of fiction...

<p>

Now how would you appreciate this one...

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1207737">romanticism</a>

<p>

Like in many fictions, there is a morality ... so I leave you with your set up your own conclusions.

Speaking of balance, I thought this was an interesting

comparison.

I haven't read this thread in it's entirety so if I repeat anything that someone else has already said,,, my apologies. I am responding to the original post. The question was, why are photos that I (D. Burgess) would consider mediorce showing up with high ratings with little or no opposing commentary. Where is the balance he asks. That is a para phrase but I think I got the jist of it.

My first response is... just because YOU consider them mediocre doesn't mean they are. One (or two or three )person's opinion (s) shouldn't dictate what is or isn't "good" on this site. Just because you don't think a photo belongs on the high rated pages doesn't mean others agree. I rarely think that every shot I see on the high rated pages is a "superior" shot. But then again, I don't presume to set myself up as any kind of expert. In fact I don't think there is any such thing as an expert... I think we are all entitled to our opinions and I don't have to like every image for it to be considered worthy of top ratings. Ratings are purely subjective and are just like opinions.... everybody has one.

Second, sometimes a cigar is a cigar...By that I mean, perhaps there are no opposing comments because no one is opposing what others have previously stated. I don't waste time repeating what another comment aready has stated. Do you??? I dont' think too many "ridiculously low quality" images are reaching the top pages... and... WHO AM I TO SAY anyway?? Am I a "mate rater" simply because I consistantly rate a photographer who's work I admire with a 5-7 rating? Couldn't it be that I just plain old like that persons' style of work?? ( A cigar could just be a cigar!) Do I have to give an image a low rating when I don't really want to just to ensure people don't think I am mate rating?? And if I prefer not to rate certain shots that I consider worthy of a low rating, does that mean I am wrong because I don't rate them at all??? Isn't that my choice?????????? To rate who I want, when I want, how I want??? IF WE ALL SAW EVERY PHOTO EXACTLY ALIKE, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF THIS SITE???????????

What have we done to Photo.net? It is an evolving site. Ever changing, keeping up with the times as best it can and when it is at it's best (in my opinion-for what it is worth) it is progressing with minimal interferance. NO ONE should be allowed to be abusive or harrassive in comments or ratings.... but rating who I want, when I want, and what I want... should not be dictated. If left alone to our own devices, I think things WILL balance. It doesn't take people long to figure out what they want to get out of the site: you get out what you put in just like everything else in life. Garbage in... garbage out.

I think there's a big difference between liking a pretty picture and

doing a critical analysis of a photograph. Those who have not

been trained to do the latter may think that the former is all there

is to it. That's why the top pages are loaded with pretty and often

kitschy subjects. Those of us who would like to see a much

greater variety of styles, including those that are more of an

acquired taste, have a right to beleive this is the kind of site

where those images should be visible. Doug is absolutely right

in asserting that there are a fairly large number of experienced

photographers who are able to do a critical analysis of any of the

top images, but the political climate discouraged most of them

long ago.

We're trying to take back the site. Our way of looking at images

is more in line with stated site policy then what currently passes

for criticism on most of these pictures.

I agree there is a difference Carl. But this site is for ALL who want to be involved. At least I thought so. As far as I know they are not turning away subscribers who don't post a professional resume or take a ctitical analysis ability test first. I for one am no pro who would never professe the ability to give professional critical analysis of a photo. But I know what I like. And it is ok to like what I like. It is a site open to the public and I am free to express my opinions (within non abusive restrictions)here. Is your (or anyone elses) opinion or critical analysis more valid than mine? I guess you would say it is. So does that mean I shouldn't be able to rate photos? Isn't there a section on the main page that shows high rated photos by certain chosen subscribers like Mary Ball, Bailey Seals etc. Should there be a separte rating system for people like me? Or none at all? Whould you prefer that I not rate or critique your images since I am not a professional? The idea of that saddens me. I would have thought a great photographer like yourself would be open to all thoughts, no matter how unlearned they may be. That is exactly what I like about PNet. How very much I learn from all ratings and critiques I read here - the good and the bad.

You state that "we" want to take back the site. Am I not included in that "we"? Is "our" way of looking at images superior in some way to mine? Probably, but who is to make that decision on what is presumably a public site? Just like all ratings and critique, you take the good with the bad when you open a photo up to the public. You then can use your better judgement of what is a "true critcal analysis" and what is just some idiot who likes to give high ratings to "pretty pictures".

If you only want to be rated by a chosen few.... then you shouldn't post publicly.

Just my opinion (which appears to be growing more and more worthless all the time) sigh....

Maybe you have not seen this yet.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005O1i

You've extrapolated my remarks way beyond what I've said.

The focus here is on critical analysis, not merely adulation. You

do agree that the most visible images rarely were subjected to

the former until Doug's recent plea, right? Everyone has equal

access to images on this site and an equal opportunity to do a

critical analysis as best they can and to present their

observations.

Drop by anytime. Maybe we'll both learn something.

Well, I've been reading through the thread, and although there's much to be commented on, I'll just comment on the first post, which was the original question. Where is the balance, and what have we done to photo.net. Well, at least one reason why people don't low-quality rating is, as it is aptly named "revenge-rating". I too rated some photographs low in the beginning, and made a point of justifying my rates through the comment field. I *tried* to help the photographer see what was wrong with his photograph (even I'm not good myself, you just sometimes spot things that ruin a picture). The result of this was that those people started rating my pictures as bad, mostly without leaving any comment. So now I only rate pictures that I like, and that I can give high rating. If there's something that can be improved (all IMHO off course) I won't fail to mention it, but I keep back from rating low. Another factor, more then towards unbalanced pictures, which I started a thread on earlier, but which got deleted (!) is the snapshot factor. Digital cameras are getting cheaper, and more and more people have one. They just press the button, see a somewhat blurred picture of their desk, think it's artistic, and submit it. Or the 'parent' factor. Of course, parents always think their kid is the cutest of all, and any picture, even if it is technically bad, or just a snapshot, is promoted to a almost divine status because their oh-so-cute kid is on it. It's ridiculous. So in my believe, there are quite a lot of people on photo.net who don't even have the slightest interest in photography as we see it. And some (frustrated) people who don't even have a single photo uploaded, fill their days with thrashing other peoples work, because they fail at it themselves. Might be that my pictures aren't any good, but a lot of work goes in them. I take them in my parents living room, with rented equipment, so it's always a lot of work to set up, and I do the makeup myself. All I ask for, just like most people, is for an honest comment and rating. No good? Ok, tell me why, or even better, what to improve. Good? Ok, but please tell me why also.

So, to answer your questions Doug:

Where is the balance? I believe it's down the drain, washed away in a flood of people who don't care as much for the art as you do.

What have we done to Photo.net? I believe nothing, it's just happend. Cheap digicams and broadband connections have brought in a bunch of people who don't really belong on a serious website as this.

What to do about it? I don't know. Maybe there could be a feature to have your photos rated/commented on only by members? I'm not one myself, but would become one if I could filter out Photo.Net down to its core, where I know motivated (therefore not expert !) people are posting pictures and comments.

Best regards to all of you who are honest and sincere Photo.netters.

i have had two POW evaluations deleted. in one, i simply state that the selection was ridiculous, i.e. did not deserve recognition for excellence and/or merit aesthetic preoccupation. ok, i can see that a bare bones type comment may be unacceptable. in the current week's (august 17-24) selection, i found the photo so bad, so lacking in any artistry whatsoever, i panned it in the following words: ""the composition, if so it can be called, is perfectly summarized in the tilted horizontal sliding so amateurishly through the image's background: blurred bystanders lose face or turn entirely away to avoid either the object of the photographer, or the photographer himself, perhaps disdaining both. the accordion unfolds some dubious, laconic tune, to which hussy and husband grimace in a caricature of rapture; one's eyes are drawn to the haggard frolic of the female with a quiet revulsion, shocked, despite the typicality of the expression, into a prurience both brutal and banal in its implications. everything reeks of bloated indulgence (is it the photographer's?, isn't it?), even to the accordionist's violent mouth and hostile gaze. to complete the instamatic character of the scene, a hot square perches in the background, winking at the viewer, offering a coda to the poorly structured visual disharmony it is uncomfortably a part of, and, in its poorly digested position, recapitulates the lack of aesthetic elements anywhere in the image. everything is disheveled, out of balance, unfocused: expectable, perhaps, in a neophyte's renditions, or a devil's, but unacceptable in any kind of art. as one is not permitted to question the aesthetic sentiments(!) of the gnomes (elves), nor use words like "bad", "ridiculous", or "ugly" to describe a photograph, i'm scanning a thesaurus for similar, albeit less emotionally charged synonyms to describe what i see. a man is compelled to lie voluminously these days, not only about his ethics but also his aesthetics. the more artless the specimen, the less it strives, the more diminished its attainment, then the more apt it is to receive high recognition, and trumpets full of hosannahs.

if this be so, then let me huzzah! for god's sake, let me huzzah! for, by any true measure of design, poetics, or dynamics, this "snapshot" entirely begs another justice.""

it is true that the POW guidelines for prohibit "vicious" attacks upon the photographer; apparently the gnomes/elves feel it permissible to allow the photographer to make "vicious" attacks on MY sensibilities, however. i do no regard this as a "vicious" attack, but as a summation of the qualities of this image that beg both compositional and technical competency--after all, POW insists that the selections are made on compositional grounds; and to my mind, that's precisely what it lacks, and i described it. i examined this year's POW's, and found that an unusually large number (by hasty count, 14 of 30) of them are black and white cameos of miserable, ugly, socially disregarded, or otherwise depraved folks, presented in a style ala bresson. there is a panoply of photographic styles and genre: why, i ask the panel of auditors, is it your prerogative to place such undue valence on what is one among many categories? and why is it your prerogative to both stifle disagreement among the viewers by censorial fiat, and by providing an abbreviated rating scale as well?