Should members with no photos cretique

The aloof card was expected.

You, and Jeremy too I'm afraid, have fallen into the statistics trap.

It isn't how many, or even how often, but what the purpose is. I

like to talk about images, and also like to talk about ways that we

could encourage others to do the same.

 

"Nyah Nyah, You can't make me." shouldn't get the same weight

in your statistical analysis, should it?

Carl, I'm afraid that I do not understand your last comment. Statistics trap?

I was definitely 100% out of line with the name calling, and I regret doing it very much. Its not your fault. My frustration just boiled over. I will live with the situation and have taken the staff comments under consideration.

Both you and Brian have fallen into a statistics trap regarding

your assessment of who is an ideal rater. Mostly you're

delighted that someone departs from the more common abuses

of high mate rates or the 24-hour low rates due to either

anonymous revenge or computer game mentality. You want the

rating process to work because it is seen as a site benefit, yet

almost no one approaches it the way you wish they would. So

rather than make significant changes, you find someone whose

numbers look good on average and who logically might not have

an ax to grind. The fact that so many people find Bailey's

singular approach to be offensive and obviously no help to them

makes no impression on you . . . because you like the numbers.

Actually, Carl, I suspect that you are wrong in your assessment of how many people approach the rating business the way we "want them to." I do not have the data that Brian has at his command, but I believe that the great majority of raters do indeed rate honestly and with considerable care. I believe that it is the dishonest minority that constitutes the cadres of mate-raters and other special-interest raters. In the absence of data, you and I have come to quite different views of what is going on; mine is more optimistic than yours. I do not know which is correct, but I hope it's not you. My reason for that wish is not that I dislike you; it is that I prefer to hold a more charitable view of my fellow p.n members.

 

Please note also that I hold that view still, after more than a year and a half of being the abuse moderator! (Let's see, how does that go? Oh, yeah -- the glass is half full...)

I'm not saying that most people are abusive. I will say that a far

greater percentage have a somewhat less sophisticated way of

viewing images than I would wish for. I know that gets us into a

tricky issue of who determines that, but let's just say that I don't

share Brian's view that the top rated pages are all that good.

There've been many threads, including one recently, on what

constitues a critique. I tend to give more credibilty to someone

who can articulate what it is they like and don't like about an

image, but even more important, how they think the

photographer might improve on what they are trying to

accomplish.

Carl, before you or I ever joined photo.net, there was a time when (on a scale of 1 to 10) "2" and "3" were very popular scores...<br> You know as well as I do, why I used one of them 'arwful' emoticons with my last comment. Just being cheeky.<br>You must have also noted my absence from the Help and Feedback forum in recent months. I grew weary of all the same things being asked/discussed over and over again. You and I have only been contributing here less than two years. I wonder how we will be going, some years from now, when we have "done time" as long as Brian, Jeremy, Bailey, et al. I hazard a guess that we will become less tolerant of ignorance. Those who take offence to AZ's singular approach ought to look further than that 4/4 they might have just received. I think Jeremy called it "sober reflection"...<br>My view is that <b>anyone</b> who cares to look at ratings they receive has fallen into the so-called statistics trap.

Carl makes the same 'suggestion' time and time again, and he can't figure out that

just because he asks doesn't mean someone must do what he wants. After the 20th

time of a 'surely you could' suggestion, he mistakenly calls it aloofness when I don't

snap to and follow direction. Har.

Peter, What do you mean by 'popular'? Three on a scale of ten

isn't very good. If everyone decided that most uploads were

subpar, then I wonder what they considered average? Things

were very different back then when nearly every image got

feedback because there were so few members, but times have

changed, and as you well know, so have the dynamics.Do you

really feel you will have a better understanding of what's going on

six months from now?

 

I saw the sober reflection comment. If nearly everything gets a

4/4, then it has little meaning, does it?

 

OK, another interpretation of the statistic trap is that rates really

do have meaning. The site wants it both ways, as in 'don't place

any meaning on them, but the computer will.'

 

Bailey, you put so much effort into not responding and by now

you've boxed yourself in. I don't expect you to actually answer a

question because I or many others have asked it, but because it

seems appropriate given the nature of the photo critique forum

as understood by quite a few of us. If everyone did what you did,

there would be no forum. John is right.

<i> you've boxed yourself in</i><p>

 

Uh huh. You want me to upload photos -- I don't. You email me to 'instruct' me on

how to rate properly -- I ignore you. You tell me to stop rating your photos -- I don't.

You pop up to repeatedly 'suggest' that I do what you want -- I don't. <p>

 

Yeah Carl, you've got me all boxed up and tied in a bow, doncha'.

Try telling the truth. When was the last time I emailed you, or

asked you to upload images or even had any kind of direct

exchange with you on this site before this one?

 

You have boxed yourself in by your repeated aloof responses to

everyone, not just me.

 

It's Thanksgiving; I'm done here.

During 2001, it was quite common to see ratings like <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=229940&results=all"> these </a> and this isn't even one of the best examples available. Anyway, that is what I meant with 'popular' scores...<br> Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

I am awfully embarassed to admit that I actually read this entire thread. Now if it had been daylight I could have spent that time outside taking photographs. That is my suggestion for the team. Remember have fun and f8.

I certainly have no problem with AZ rating my photos. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. What I DO have a problem with is the undeniable fact that the moderators of this forum protect him from criticism in return. In a recent thread where someone complained of an unnames poster who 'stalked' his portfolio I responded by saying "AZ has run thru my stuff too; who cares, as his critiques are worthless given he doesnt show his work and thus gives no standard by which to judge his credentials." Next day, my post had been deleted from the thread.

 

Hows that for 'open, free discussion?"

Addendum-

 

I actually think AZ rates appropriately. No problem with his ratings; they're fair IMHO

I am also awfully embarassed for checking back on this forum thread, but then again, it adds weight to my point made above. Why would anyone want to waste their time in this fashion (on the Help & Feedback Forum), when they could be out with their camera(s)?<br>Photo.net is like a lovable swamp, just when you thought you got out of it, it pulls you back in...<br>Thanks <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=526972"> Andy </a> and thanks <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=274350"> Picture This. </a> I recently told a good friend that I did not want to spend another minute on this particular forum, but (unfortunately) I just can't help myself trying to show some kind of interest and attempt to make this a better place for everyone. As much as you go out with your cameras, you still can't help yourself either, but come back for more... ;-) <br>BTW, have you ever considered photography after dark? Of course you have! Strongly support your message - go out and have fun and try to shoot for yourself, as opposed to shooting for photo.net!

An invisible, nonconfining box that only Carl can see -- Carl bought the Emporer's

New Crate! <p>

 

<i> Try telling the truth.</i><p>

 

Try not calling people liars. <p>

 

I think that some people are noticing how you always jump into threads in which my

name is mentioned, Carl, always to make the same gripes about me and how you

want photo.net managed. Clearly you are still upset because of your old and

continuing grumbles about me: that I refused to follow your dictate to stop rating you

or your command to upload photos, or your insistence about critiquing, or that I

wouldn't accept harassing emails from you. Please Carl, just get over it -- that

invisible box covering your thin skin does not make a pretty picture.

<i> I recently told a good friend that I did not want to spend another minute on this

particular forum, but (unfortunately) I just can't help myself</i><p>

 

'Every time I'm out, they pull me back in!' - Godfather 3

I wasn't going to post on Thanksgiving, but you've misrepresented what

I've said, as is your usual practive.

 

Why did so many people change their names to an AZ permutation

recently? There are many times when your name has come up and I've

decided to let others help clarify this issue for the newcomers that

post the same thing over and over again. Why do they do that? It's

not a conspiracy. They don't read earlier posts on your

participation. Yet they all come to the same conclusion. They are

offended by your impersonal aloof interaction. The cloak of

nonconformity does not make your interaction any more useful.

 

You're trying to leave the impression that I've complained about how

you rate my images neglecting to mention that that's ancient history.

In the eleven months since we had a similar on and offline exchange,

the site's policies have changed so that your rates no longer reduce

what visibility I and some others have. So yes, I will make

suggestions from time to time about how to make improvements in the

photocritique forum because more than once my ideas have been

supported by others and acted upon.

<p> <i>I wasn't going to post on Thanksgiving, but</i><p>

 

Try telling the truth, Carl. [snorfle] <p>

 

<i>You're trying to leave the impression that I've complained about how you rate my

images neglecting to mention that that's ancient history.... yes, I will make

suggestions from time to time </i><p>

 

Months is not ancient, Carl. And the fact that you constantly, repeatedly, consistently

jump onto threads where my name is mentioned -- from the time I complained to

your ISP to today -- demonstrates that you have a festering grudge, one so severe

that you take yourself away from a holiday celebration you honor, even after saying

that you had finished posting because of it, a grudge that apparently will cause you to

check this thread throughout the day, even. <p>

 

Oh, how you've boxed yourself in, Carl! ;-) <p>

Carl,

 

If moreso than mildly and transiently, meds need adjustment.

Are you referring to Carl's meds, or yours? [grin]

 

- A[loof] Z.

Carl's, and mine too should my stimuli-outrage curves get as totally miscalibrated. (On the other hand, agonizing death is well-deserved for people who try to get into elevators before a crowd of others can get out.)

<i>agonizing death is well-deserved for people who try to get into elevators before a

crowd of others can get out.</i><p>

 

That's what you get for shopping on Thanksgiving.