7/7 PN Protocol

I am very much embarrassed with this PN Protocol not allowing me to give 7/7

for an excellent photograph, because the Author of this photograph I want to

rate gave me 7/7 in the past week!

So, PN forbid me to have a choice! they are restricting me without my

knowledge, without my willing, and I think it is not fair!

If I think that a photograph deserves 7/7 let me do it, I am the one here who

is rating, and it is not the system peer to peer, and even if it is so, why the

PN Administration cares about it!

We, photographers are rating other photographs, and not the PN Administration!

 

I opt that we vote for this Protocol to be not valid anymore!

I mean, it is allowed to everyone to rate 3/3 many time One likes it, and when

it is to 7/7 we have restrictions!

 

This is not logical! and not fair, whatever the PN Administration will say

against or pro!

 

Thank YOU,

Biliana

+1

 

and bring back the 1s and 2s too

 

please

We're not going to think about the rating system, which I don't understand at all, for at least another month or two. So hold onto your best ideas!

Haven't you been thinking about the rating system for the last few months? I seem to recall reading a long-winded discussion last year about updating the whole thing. But, i suppose with only three quarters of a programmer these things will take an inordinate amount of time to mull over...

Philip, I know that you are doing alot right now but honestly I am asking for a quick link to the rules of rating your friends and how you can get deleted. I understand the you rate me a 7 so I am not able to rate you a 7 even though I TOTALLY understand BILIANA'S plight as I too have wanted to give someone a 7 and had to wait well over a week to give them a deserved 7' (BILIANA in fact). <BR><BR> I would just like to know what the rules are as I would like to follow them TO THE LETTER without getting into trouble and would like to make sure they are spelled out for myself since I do have a husband on this site and do rate him when I feel the need too. <BR><BR>I am not ashamed to say I do! He is my husband and I am VERY proud of what he does! I am with him when he takes most of the pictures and I also give him critiques before he posts. <BR><BR>BUT, I know there are others out there that do not have the convenience that I have of having FOUR computers in their homes but share ONE computer in a common area and need to share time on that computer and they also do the same thing as my husband and I do, and that is uplift each other with their art of photography. <BR><BR>I have seen their work and it is AMAZING. I would just like to know what the rules are and have it justified before more people get deleted and felt this was the best forum here to say something. I am in fear myself of being deleted honestly.... I hate it! This fear! Because sadly I have rated my friends I have met on PN and I have rated my husband. <BR><BR>Please answer me by e-mail or by this forum. And... I would love it as BILIANA said: I think seven days is WAY to long to wait before we could rate a photo of someone we think deserves a 7!

I'm sure this site and it's administrators have more important projects than solving the ratings system. Don't get me wrong. I do think that the ratings system needs an overhaul, but I would rather see other improvements: the site layout, site functionality, more tutorials, a boost in commentary, etc.

If you really think about it, the ratings system isn't at fault here. The biggest complaints are anonymous 3/3s and mate rating. The ratings system is just that: a system. It's the people that use and abuse the system that makes it frusterating. If the ratings system changes, people will find new ways to exploit it.

Every action that people ask for regarding the ratings system will create an equal backlash in complaints from others who dislike the results.

 

Philip just said that we will be working on the ratings system in a couple of months. I don't see how anyone concerned with this issue can see that as anything but good news coming from the man who makes the decisions around here.

 

Nobody understands how unhappy some of the users are about the ratings system more than the staff and volunteers here. We hear about it every day. But that doesn't change the fact that there are other things to be done first. Recently, we have been working on the software upgrade, which is much more important to the site overall. However, it is pretty important to issues like this as well. Upgraded software gives us more tools, more tools give us more options to work on things like ratings.

 

Josh

 

photo.net Director of community

Hi Philip,

<p />

If you can remove the all time Photographer Avg (ego booster) search from the Top Photos, and replace it with Editor's Choice (hand picked by PN staff), the rating problem will be fixed. The ratings should only be used in those 3-day queries. Base on the 3 days activity, not too hard to figure out who are playing the game. Hopefully, the rating system will be fixed before Thanksgiving.

The problem with having the PN staff choose the photos, is that people will complain that we are playing favorites, or that we don't have a clue about photography, or that we are against photos of kitties and babies. See most any discussion about the Photo of the Week for further examples.

 

Not to mention the fact that I don't think photo.net has the money to be paying people to create a "top photos" list every week/month.

One of my recommendations would be to look for abnormal rating patterns and to bring them under control. This would be quite easy for even a beginning programmer. For example: Party "a" gives no less than TWENTY THOUSAND 6's but few others, giving that party a statistical rating curve that looks more like an EKG spike. The software (in the future) could then trigger the following. 1: Based on that party's ratings in other categories, the curve that would be there without the abnormality would be restored, i.e. those ratings falling outside the norm for that specific party would be removed, or invalidated. or 2: That party's ability to rate would be curtailed, just like it is for everybody right now in the "7" category(expand this rule across the board to the other numerical ratings as well). 3. A party's rating pattern of specifically only rating certain other parties, i.e. mate rating, would be curtailed. This type of software could easily run in the background. Once a party's curve has been "corrected" the software could either generate a report and

e-mail to said party, or just go on scanning. For basic ethical users of photo.net such a scanning package would make no difference whatsoever, for those whose have issues and hand out certain ratings as if they were depression-era Reichsmarks, the gig would be up.

What makes you think photo.net doesn't currently look for unusual rating patterns?

 

Also, it's a beauty contest, not a national election (though perhaps that's something of an unfortunate analogy...). It would not be worth the effort to verify the autheticity of every single vote. Think of it as "American Idol" for images.

Bob: Authenticity would NOT be constantly verified and if you read it closely, each vote would NOT be verified. And where the vote was placed would NOT be checked at all unless a certain condition would exist as explained below. And yes, it would be worth it, to make the netsite a bit more interesting and dynamic for everybody. (The CLASSIC CAMERA forum has been well worth it, even though the suggestion was initially not "worth it" either) The software would look for for abnormality within the ratings of each rater, and you know how statistics and bell curves work. For the proposal above, when a party has few ratings in any category except in the "6" category, where we suddenly see 20,000 plus, I would say that there is an issue of abnormality, and frankly, there are multitudes of these and Pnet software does not do anything about them. Once an abnormality was found, the software would just "trim" the spike, often called smoothing, or if the data is really egregious, trigger additional activity for tracing associated patterns. I am sure that photo.net probably has something working like this already, installed by Brian Mottershead, but it needs some fine tuning. To carry this one step further the algorithm(s) might do the following:

 

1. look only at sumtotal ratings of, let's say 3.000 or greater, so the vast majority of raters would not even be checked at all. So, we would have; if party n rating sumtotal is equal to or greater than 3,000, check the bell curve of the ratings.

2. If the bell curve in within a certain bracket of allowable parameters, or allowed runouts, do nothing, keep looking.

3. If a bell curve is found outside the parameters, then: Adjust the bell curve abnormality, and generate an E-mail message to the party.

4. If the bell curve is severely outside the parameters, open the customer's addittional information files and check the ratings curves of n associated parties for similarity in patterns. If a pattern is found, trim the curves and send warning messages to the required parties.

5. return to search. If the search is completed, and a given number of parties had to have their ratings corrected, store the data and use it to recheck those parties. If the pattern re-occurs, generate a data report for the netsite administrator.

Let's get this straight, he is upset because he wants to give a reciprocal rating to someone

who told him he is perfect, she is upset because she can't give her spouse a 'perfect' rating

she believes he merits because she is proud of him? Gosh my heart is bleeding.

 

Most of the problems with the rating system have nothing to do with the software

programming or administrators workload, they stem from members' absurd sycophantic

tendencies, casual use of the word perfect and awarding perfect scores, or using the

lowest score possible as an insult or tool. The highest and lowest scores possible should

realistically be given on rare occasions or the whole scale becomes perverted....which

leads us to where we are, it has become corrupted by people who insist on turning what

should be honest critique into a feel good session or an opportunity to vent their spleen

on humanity. Maybe the answer is to make all pictures anonymous so you can't decide

how much you like an image based on who made it, then you will get something

constructive. Like the administrators keep saying, whatever reform they make, someone

will be disgruntled, so look at your own motivations for rating the way you do as a place to

start if you want things to change for the better.

Thank you to Philip Greenspun and Bob A. and the whole PN Team for their constant work and nice work on the new LOOK of PN :D)

 

I have only one more suggestion regarding the Rating System!

I suggest NO Restriction at all!

We are the ones paying and displaying our photographs to be seen here, so I would like to be able to rate as I am pleased with free will and no restriction!

Why anybody botheres about the peer-to-peer rating, as we are here a Community of photographers and also Friends, so why a friend cannot rate a friend!

I suggest that you, when the time comes for the rating system to be re-done, that you authorize all kind of rating - from 1 to 7 and without any restriction please!

I want to live in a free world and to be free to rate as I like here on PN.

 

Thank you Dear PN Team for your understanding :)

 

And keep up the good work!

I like how you have put this "Answer window" just after the thread, cause I can go back above to see the comment and answer them!

Superb stuff!

 

Biliana

Jay, your said<BR><BR "Let's get this straight, he is upset because he wants to give a reciprocal rating to someone who told him he is perfect, she is upset because she can't give her spouse a 'perfect' rating she believes he merits because she is proud of him? Gosh my heart is bleeding." hello... I never said I wanted to give him perfect mark don't give him a big head ~ EEEEK! ~ I don't even like some of his stuff... (shhh don't tell him)

<BR><BR><BR>

First off, I will say this ~ I have given my husband more 4's and 5's than anyone else ~ when I looked at them ~ at least more than BILIANA ~ who happens to be a female. I am HONEST with the ratings I have given him when I have given them as the people that have I'm sure look at the ratings have noted. I also DO NOT RATE ALL HIS PICTURES! <BR><BR> And, frankly my question was if I would be DELETED as others have been for rating their FRIENDS high marks. I have I think only given my husband a few 7's on origionality (a while back). I have, however given others 7's because they are WAY BETTER PHOTOGRAPHERS. <BR><BR>

 

Take for instance your picture "WHERE ELSE IS THERE?" a GREAT picture worthy of HIGH marks because of the message and the great tones and contrast that you took it in. I am a fan of B&W and this kind of picture therefor I look for them. I also am a fan of this kind of documentary. I hold NO grudges and judge a picture on its merits. I expect NOTHING in return from you. I would say a kind comment about your picture just like I said now and be on my way. I would probably look at a few more pictures to see if you do other things that I like and that is it.

 

<BR><BR><BR>

 

What we are talking about here is IF I WANTED TO GIVE YOU a 7 on this picture and then you came back to my folder and saw something you liked you couldn't give me a 7 back (NOW, I am not in your league so I am not worred about ME ~ ok so this is not for my arguement ok, but others who have 7 work out there). I also understand the rule for constantly giving 7's back and forth as that would REALLY hurt the bell curve but one 7 would not. There has to be a better way of the system handling it then seven days. That was all Biliana was bringing up.

<BR><BR><BR>

I just wanted to say MY concern is where in the rules does it say the "tit for tat" about rating each other and maybe getting in trouble for it. That was all. I just wanted you, JAY, to understand that.

<BR><BR><BR>

 

I also like this new window, I just noticed it after BILIANA said something... THANK YOU! <BR> Also thank you all for listening and not being harsh with our concerns as I feel you are really trying to figure all these things out and I know it takes time.

<BR><BR><BR>

Again, I do not mind my answer being e-mailed to me as I would not want some of this to be a started in a forum I just did not know who to e-mail my question to.

<BR><BR><BR>

 

Thank you,<BR>

Micki

Sorry, Jay ~ after you said I only quoted this ~ <BR><BR>

 

Let's get this straight, he is upset because he wants to give a reciprocal rating to someone who told him he is perfect, she is upset because she can't give her spouse a 'perfect' rating she believes he merits because she is proud of him? Gosh my heart is bleeding.

<BR><BR>

I guess HTML didn't like the quote marks...

I really don't personally see the point in expending huge amounts of effort on what are utimately meaningless and essentially useless numbers. The numerical score someone assigns to an image won't help you take better photographs, and that is the stated goal of photo.net. It's not a photo contest, even though many people see and use it as such.

 

However the whole gallery and ratings sytem will likely be reviewed at some point after the new ACS software has been installed and is running properly. Until then, nothing is likely to happen.

Dear Bob, you have your point with this - numbers are useless - but you said also "essentially", but, but ...

 

We all know that with more higher NUMBERs/RATINGs, the Photograph goes on the first 5 pages and then those, good/great/marvellous/excellent Photographs are viewed more than others with low Rates! - that is the fact on PN! no?

 

I would like that you cancel all the rating system so we dont have to rate each other, cause you know dear Bob, that the section - critique only is not so popular - that is another fact on PN! no?

 

So, I am only suggesting to cancel all kind of restrictions regarding the rating system, and let people rate who they like and still what is wrong if I rate a friend who gave me previousely 7/7? as the NUMBERS as you said it yourself is "meaningless"!

 

So if it is the fact that those ratings/numbers are meaningless why are PN is forbidding us to rate as we want?

 

Of course, we have friends here, and MICKI is my friend, and she likes my photographs, and she is honest in her rating, but me, as her friend, I am not going to give her automatically 7/7, but I will give her a better honest feedback!

 

I am very satisfied that I can give as much 6/6 as I like, as you said Dear Bob, this is not a competition, that is why I am giving 6/6 with full hand and big heart :) and without restriction!

 

And also, I dont like the restriction that we are allowed to give only 7 times 7/7! There is more then 7 photographs per days which deserve to be highly rated! That is the fact on PN too! no?

 

So, please, when you have time dear PN Team, try to cancel all rating restrictions, as this is not a site for competing, but for learning!

 

Thank you dear Bob and all PN Team for all your recent efforts and understanding :D)

 

Sincerely,

Biliana

Many simple good solutions exist. 1) anonymous ratings to anonymous photos for 24h in the critique forum 2) 3/3 and 7/7 MUST have a usefull comment like the ones Photo.net pursue for newer photographers to read and learn 3) Min-Max rates per person per month (avoiding both hate&mate rating) 4) It would be nice to get critiques from photographers with 20+ years of experience and have them as critique writers with their rates having a bigger "weight" on the total score (of the same subject-style if possible). For Instance Art Meripol could be the lead critique man and the second could be the best already rated photographer for concerts category having the obligation of this "position" to write a few words on EVERY photo in concerts category. If not obligated then payed to be a critique person? Then a duscussion on a technical level could start on to where or what some photos could have better so the newer ones could be improved.

 

Anyway Bob is right. Learning to take good photos is not the subject with this numerical system. Nevertheless they have thought of it and many will be happy, after some time...

Bob is absolutely correct in stating that a numerical rating will NOT help you take a better photograph. But, this topic is not about taking better photographs, its about the toleration of unethical manipulation of a database and taking measures to check the manipulators.

To me, comments are more valuable than ratings, so why not give a detailed critique on those images you value highly and go back later if you truly want to rate it? I just don't set much store by ratings any more and hardly ever go look at those on my own images.

 

I look forward to seeing what kind of change will be made, although I really don't know how they will do something "better" because you just can't please all of the photographers, all of the time.

let me refresh your memory. Do you recall <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BpaS" >this forum thread</a>? To make it brief, you and others like you forced the old Administration to curtail reciprocal-7 rates because of unrestrained and flagrant ratings abuse. You were partly to blame for the situation that we are all now enjoying. What is so remarkably sad is that you still refuse to stop abusing the system. <p>

 

Hundreds of other members would like to have their pictures displayed in the gallery's Top Pages but will not because of the ratings abuse that cliques such as the one that you are now a part of insist on rating each other as highly as you can (just to be "friendly", of course). Don't you and Fergi understand that what you are doing is damaging not only the integrity of this once great site but is also insulting every other member who is not a part of one of your ratings cliques? But you don't care about that, do you?

Bos, Just so as not to be confused with my husband let me introduce myself, I am micki, Fergiswife. My husbands name is fergi :) ~ I am NOT FOR reciprocal 7's. I am however for letting go of the 7's earlier than the seven day's as I think that is what Biliana is asking for. I do not want this to be a you give me 7's I give you 7's game and if you look at what I am asking for (and it has been VERY IGNORED) I am just asking for the link to how NOT TO BE DELETED if you do give your friends high marks consistantly as several people in several small communities in small towns that have been doing that very thing giving high marks to their friends have been deleted. That was why I chimmed in here. I DO NOT expect to honestly get HIGH MARKS at this stage of my game as I am still in the learning proccess and am an ARTIST learning the craft of photography to go with my talent of art. I do NOT want this to become a you give me a high mark so I give you a high mark back game. I DO NOT DO THAT, I give marks to what PICTURE I LIKE. I just agree with the fact that their has to be a better system too. Nothing is going to work correctly and no matter what everything is a popularity contest in the end. I understand that. Now I don't just rate within a circle of people Bos. I have my favorite people who I follow but I search out and reach out to many new PN people and love to look for interesting pictures that I find unique. Since I have been here I have bought several gifts of memberships, one to someone who was brand new here to PN that I felt had great potential to become a great artist. I don't feel like I am part of a clique at all (havn't said that since I was in eighth grade). I do always find it interesting when someone like you talks about the all this yet doesn't post any pictures for us to see. Not even one for us to admire. Regardless, I admire you for bringing up the point that is very much still on the mind of everyone and that is to NOT make the bell curve so one way and that is towards the TOP. Rest assure I think Bob said it best that they will be working on it. <br><br> Thank you for the gentle reminder ~ Sincerely, Micki (aka ~ fergis wife, someday... maybe a 7 :)

Mr. Falkenstine is spot on. The actual issue here is ratings manipulation with the ultimate goal being postion in the TRP. I have been here for a number of years and have witnessed all manner of abuse: revenge lowballing, indescriminate drive-by lowballing, mate rates, high-ball fishing, email notifications for mate and hate rates, automated bot rates: you name it, I've seen it. The resultant composition of the TRP has become one in which hundreds of the very best and most creative photographs that this site could offer the public are now invisible because they are so far down the list. What was once a somewhat viable system has, over the years, become a festering sore on PhotoNet's backside and a real pain for the administrative staff.<p>

It is unrealistic to believe that the present situation can be attributed to any particular person. The devolution of the ratings system to today's state of decrepitude had the help of many past and current members, some being simple, unknowing pawns in the games of others. Many of the <i>worst</i> offenders are still members, and are still quite active, regardless of the purging alluded to above by Mrs. Ferguson. <p>

In an attempt to counter this systemic decline the administration had instituted over the years various modifications to the rating "engine". One such change was the imposition of a short waiting period between high rates. Another was limiting the number of high rates available per day. Personally, I do not mind waiting a little. Like Kim said above, if someone visits you and gives a high rating go back to them and reciprocate with a good solid honest critique; one that points out what is right and, much more importantly, what is wrong with their work. By doing that you learn how to communicate ideas in a visual medium. <i>That</i> is how you learn how to create good photography. And, by the way, that is also how you make good friends. Regards.

Thank you Walter, well said and I think you have made the best point of all of us. ~ I have only grown because of the constructive critiques given to me! Good AND bad but mostly the ones that told me what I needed to improve on and NOT the ratings themselves. ~ thank you for your input. ~ micki