mg Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Bob, Brian, or anyone... Here's a question for you... <p> If a member rates less than 30 shots on the site on the day he created his account, and if more than 50% of his rating are submitted on one single photographer's work, and these ratings (the 50% that are submitted on the same account) are either a) all 6 and 7s, either b) all 2s and 3s on images that all have an average above 5.5/5.5 after 25 ratings at least... is that called abuse or not ? <p> I'd be really interested to hear your answer. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay belton Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Actually I'm interested on why I can't rate myself and why the past ones were deleted. Letting everyone know how I feel about my own shots is not appropriate? I just started doing this and now I'm wondering what the harm was? I rated a 5/4 on one and 4/4 on the other. What's the big woo here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Now THIS is without question abuse: Niels Kaagaard I didn't think there were "trolls" on photo.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 <<"Niels Kaagaard has not created any custom data fields. Photo Ratings This member has rated 44 photos on this site, with average ratings of 3.43 for originality and 3.7 for aesthetics. You can browse some of the highest rated photos by this member. Recent Comments on Photos">> ___________________________ Come on !! That's abuse. _____________________________________________________________________ -I really think the site managers should make the membership fee mandatory. If we can afford to develop a b&w roll of 36.... we can afford the $25.00 fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 How is an average of 3.43 and 3.7 abuse? That's reasonably close to 4/4 which is average. It suggests he's rating very fairly to me. Confused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Marc, we delete the ratings of people who have excessively concentrated their ratings on one or two people. But you can't tell this for a while. After one or two sessions, it might look pretty concentrated because one photographer caught the person's eye. It the person never comes back, or the ratings are still concentrated after several sessions (that is, the person logs in repeatedly and only ever seems to rate a couple of people), then we would probably conclude that it is a bogus account, or somebody's friend/enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 <html> OK... maybe it's not abuse. I just have a difficult time understanding why a person would leave a 2/2 on a serious photograph withouot leaving a comment as to why. -Just really "miffs" me. I read this topic when it was first posted and thought "just let it go, dude". Now that I've had a taste of it, I can see how frustrating it is. <br> <br> (albiet, as was said before... one man's art is another man's trash) ...ya really think that this photo <A href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=005sV1&photo_id=1717558&photo_sel_index=0 ">(Link my 2/2 rated photo)</A> warrants a 2/2. Personally I reserve 2/2 for the absolute shit of shit... I don't think I've even ever given a 2/2. If ever I give a low rating I at least have the courtesy to offer a comment as to why. (Same goes for rating high). -But that's just me. <br> <br> <br> ...Ugh! I'm getting too carried away with this. What do the ratings mean anyways?! </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 I see... Thanks for your answer, Brian. I have observed many cases on the site of these people who concentrate a lot of either high or low ratings on certain folks upon arrival and who never come back after that. I think it may be worth questioning your computers to get a list of people that fits this description. Of course they don't leave many comments or none at all and post at most 3 photos but often just one or even none. Most abusive behaviors seem to have this sort of profile, and one can easily figure why: it's simply the easiest way. Create a fake account in 5 minutes, slam 50 shots, or boost your friends' or your own ratings, or do a bit of each, and then disappear. And do the same the next day or an hour later under another name... <p> I remember you once wanted to get rid of all these dormant accounts with less than 100 ratings or such... Well, too bad it didn't happen, if you ask me... Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Geoffery- As you know, i complained long and hard about this, and have come to the conclusion that very low raitings in BOTH A and O AND they do not leave a rating the citique generally knows very little, if anything about the art of photography and what differntiates a picture from a photograph. After my post on this topic I began looking around at who all left very low scores in both fields of various photographs, If they uploaded anything at all, they tended to be nothing more than glorified snapshots, many of which were poorly exposed. If you take these glorified snapshots, that's great, more power to you. But do not just go around rating photographs low because they don't look like your pictures. I think often times people are like "yeah so, it isn't pretty. what is the point". They do not have the capicity to understand any other emotion beyond what is invoked by their own photographs, and theirfor say that the photograph is bad. I have seen many pictures that do nothing for me but are completely original, and many pictures i find very attractive that are not original at all. Unlike these people, who should not be allowed to critique if only there was a way of weeding them out, you and I take into consideration the meenings of these words. They do not, because originality and aesthetics is the essentials of what art is, if it is neither, the image is worthless, which you have pointed out, a fairly rare thing. I did have the oppertunity the other day to rate a photograph as 1/2, perhaps it was fueled by such a low average. I do not rate people who rate me low, as i do not feel it would be objective. This was an image of some rocks in the ocean with the waves crashing up from behind. It was too contrasty, the rock far too dominant, the waves too recessive, this particular rock has been photographed by many tourists and beginners (including myself when i was like 12, before i knew what a photograph was) the shot looked like it was taken off the walking path, with no effort to frame it. It was clearly a snapshot, he only waiting maybe 3 seconds for the waive to hit the rock, likely took one shot and walked away... the entire transaction? 5 seconds at the most. (PS- I did not rate yours because I did not know how to interprit it, again, I think some photographers would mistake that for a low rating. I know it's a good photograph, I just do not know how to score it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Marc, in fact I do delete suspect ratings by running various software heuristics every three or four months, although these are pretty conservative, and only delete automatically the most egregious cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Thanks Anno. -No worries if you didn't rate my pic. -Just 'cause ya look doesn't mean ya hafta rate. (2/2 = bad/bad, come on! LOL! Maybe I just don't see it though... maybe this guy has a much better eye than you, I... and everyone else) Usually if someone drops a bad rating on me that I feel was too low (I'm actually not THAT stuck up... I know that most of my photos suck!), I'll go and check out their portfolio... look through all of their pics and put it out of my head that they gave me a crap rating that I feel my photo didn't deserve. I'll take an objective look at their photos and rate a few of them just as if I were looking at the "Most Recent" Gallery. -Possibly dropping a comment or two. -I don't know why I bother with this. I've never had anyone turn around and go: "Woah!... I didn't expect that that guy would like this photo after I rated him so poorly" and then they turn around and go offer a critique on one of my photos. Not once has that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Geoffrey, your reaction to the ratings given by Mr. Kaagaard illustrate why I no longer participate in the numerical ratings system. On your own photo you wrote: "Very interested in hearing what people think of this photograph, - Positive, negative.... I'd like to hear your thoughts. What do you think of the composition?" Now, like it or not, the numerical ratings system *is* a shorthand form of a critique or commentary. Mr. Kaagaard told you his opinion of your photo in numerical shorthand, an opinion you openly solicited. And *now* you complain that he didn't like your photo enough? Puh-leeze. Isn't it enough that the one person who, so far, has given you perfect ratings for that photo also took the time to leave a comment? I'd offer thoughtful, if tough, and constructive criticism on more photos on photo.net if it didn't provoke so much whining. As it is the constant whinging about ratings "abuse" has completely undermined any value the system might have had. Where's the AZ-formerly-known-as-Bailey-Seals when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livvie Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 There seems to be a lot of arrogance going on here - the "good" photographers who feel that lesser capable beings should not be able to rate them untill their rating/photographic skills reach a similar level to their own.<p> <i>it's just annoying to get and see such low reviews on others from people who take such putrid photographs</i><br>sorry guys but I seem to have missed that skills test to determine my level when I joined up. <p> Furthermore if you are comfortable you have reached a certain level of achievement why the heck are you getting your knickers in such a twist over one low rating, or the low rater for that matter. Low rating/scoring might be abuse - it depends on the (honest) reason for the low rating. Personally I very rarely see anything here that rates lower than a 2 (bad). <br>anno - the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/528403" target="_blank">sea shot</a> looked pretty average to me - I suspect from reading it your 1/2 had a little more behind it than honest critisism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 <"Now, like it or not, the numerical ratings system *is* a shorthand form of a critique or commentary. Mr. Kaagaard told you his opinion of your photo in numerical shorthand, an opinion you openly solicited. And *now* you complain that he didn't like your photo enough? Puh-leeze. "> I agree with you to some extent... but a comment and a rating are NOT the same thing. They are both opinions but that doesn't make 'em the same. I guess that I should have been more specific in my critique request??!?! -Maybe I'm "whining" maybe I'm not... just that to me... bad/bad = "I hate your picture". I'd like to know why. <"Where's the AZ-formerly-known-as-Bailey-Seals when you need him?"> Chill, Bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 "Marc, in fact I do delete suspect ratings by running various software heuristics every three or four months, although these are pretty conservative, and only delete automatically the most egregious cases." <p> Thanks for the info, Brian. <p> My belief is that there are MUCH more abusive ratings to be deleted on the site, than what is being deleted regularly. There are (high and low) abusive ratings that are so flagrant to me that I just have problems to understand why they have survived so long. But you know that already, and that's just me. <p> Reminds me of a research I once did many months ago on this issue - remember...? Well, I'd say that the kind of abuses I found back then has been multiplicated by 3 at least since I did this little research - just an estimation, for what it's worth. Whether this estimation is correct or not, I don't know, but what if it was correct...? And what if new kinds of abuses would appear during the 4 month laps between 2 searches ? I suppose new abuses would need new detection criteria to identify them as well. <p> I understand abuses as being a sort of virus that not only develops, but also modifies itself along the way, to be able to continue the invasion. Anyway, I'll leave this topic alone. <p> I believe abuses are and have always been the most serious problem on the site, and the reason is quite clear to me: rating averages determine visibility and averages are averages - easy to push up or down - and human beings are human beings. <p> I have in the past proposed potential solutions or at least improvements, I have even offered my help : good or bad, that is all I could possibly do, and it's perhaps time for me to quit harrassing the forums about it. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Marc- I do not know what makes people think that they should routinly rate low. As i have said, I find the quality of work from people who rate low and have actually have photos posted is quite poor, atleast in my opinion, and it may not be a stretch to assume that those who do not post are either ashamed of their work or are self-proclaimed art critiques, but, in fact have no idea what art is. So may i conclude that the problem is that abusivly rating low is a bully tactic made to make them feel smarter, better and more talented by saying "ehh it's not that great". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markplawchan Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Anno---I have found a few (very few) individuals whose main pleasure seem to be "raining" on others "parades"..No uploads, no comments, just low ratings- sometimes as many as 5 "slots" lower than other ratings..just let them go back to their "ever-so erudite, and pendantic discussions of Arabian Nights"..and leave the rest of us to living a full life, and taking a few O.K. shots along the way.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g. Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 What ever happened to that thing where you couldn't rate a 2 or below or a 7 without leaving a comment. Why was it taken away? What was the flaw with that system? ___________________________________________________________________ I think I'll be following Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins, lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Geoffrey, read "Critique: Bad Scores for the sake of Bad Scores" Brian went over this, but i am left feeling that he was defending his choice to lift this, rather than providing a solid reason. No offense brian. It seems nobody who thought feedback should be mandintory for low and hogh ratings was satisfied with his reasons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niels_mulvad Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 I am the infamous low-rater. I didn't give Geoff M. a 2/2 and I have no idea how it happened. BUT: I think sending me an e-mail with the text "fuck you and ya motha!" is kind of abusing. And maybe a bit childish. If thats your general attitude Geoff, I don't think youll get higher ratings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g. Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Childish? That's a tad presumptuous for you to claim that I sent you such a nasty e-mail. (If one was even sent to you at all). I would suspect that you feel a need to "get back at me" or something because you feel that your name was tarnished. If that's your general attitude. I don't think you're going to get very far in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now