Jump to content

What is abuse?


gabrielma

Recommended Posts

I recently got the rest of my folder blind-rated by a certain user. I

deleted pictures that were both not worth reposting, and others that I

wanted refreshed. He/she soon comes back and re-rates again, even

lower.<BR>

If this pattern of harassment isn't abuse, then I guess it's all the

same; if it is, I'd like to know how it is that I can reasonably

report this sort of abuse, for there is no "specific evidence" for

there is no record of all different postings, at least not to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If it is somebody who review your entire portofolio giving systematically the same rate to all picture, whatever the level of rate, might be a 'blind' person or at least a person with low capacity of establishing nuances. Anyway useless for the photographer.<p>

If it is somebody who gives very low rate to all your portfolio without any comment, IMO it is an abuse and you should post an-email to pnet/abuse.com<p>

If it is a member who prefer to review the entire portfolio of one single photographer, IMO it is quite nice approach to understand your works and help you sorting it from an outsider point of view.<p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I browsed through the last 18 photographs in your folder. I counted exactly three instances of someone rating 3 on originality and found nothing below 4 for asthetics. I can't see how anyone could call that abuse. You've got some really good photos in your folder and I'd say the fairly high ratings you've received all well deserved but just because someone rates your work a FOUR is no reason to complain. Several photos in my folder have a 1,1 or 1,2 rating attached by someone. You have none of these, at least not in the 18 I looked at. Consider yourself lucky no one has truly abused you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just because someone doesn't like your work doesn't make it abuse."

 

You could argue that it is.

 

We're talking about a visit to YOUR portfolio - it's personal. We're talking about an impersonal approach - no comments. In this environment, we're talking about limited visibility unless you're willing to abuse the system by collecting mates to counteract such an unfriendly interaction.

 

The only process that does not encourage abuse is one where the promotion of images, not people, is permitted. As long as negative input is permitted - and I would argue that it's encouraged - you can expect to field questions like this from reasonable, sensitive, mature photographers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Bell said it well... ;-)<br>

Received some 1/1 ratings recently and I thought that it was hilarious! Thanks <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1316001"> E.C. Rice </a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2224660"> Neil D. </a> for giving me a much needed laugh. Ratings are for the site, comments are for the photographer. You might lie awake at night worrying about your overall (numerical) acceptance at photo.net, but the Sun will still rise in the east every morning. I actually like quite a few of your images, Gabriel. If you don't mind me, I'll be happy to leave some thoughts on them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erin gave you a 1/1 because she knew that in the context of a visit to your portfolio a year after the image was uploaded it would have no effect on it's visibility. That's true of most portfolio visits. Those rates are not for the site at all unless they're on current uploads.

 

. . . but you know that, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<em>You could argue that it is</em>

 

<p>

You could argue the sun will rise in the West tomorrow, but it won't make it true.

<p>

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

<p>

If opinions of strangers upset you, stay off the Internet.

<p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>I counted exactly three instances of someone rating 3 on originality and found nothing below 4 for asthetics. I can't see how anyone could call that abuse</i><BR>

Well, yes, the problem is that I removed about 6-8 of them, and I reposted four; he went on to re-rate with 4/4s in the next couple of hours; I redeleted one and posted it again, the one you see with 6/6s.<BR>

The ones that he had already rated he couldn't do anything about it, the ones that he hadn't seen he went with 3/3, 4/4 or a few 4/5; deleted them, and re-rated; to me that's very suspicious.<BR>

<BR>

But like Bob says, with his oftentimes sweet demeanor, if I don't like it, I should run away from it.<BR>

The other problem is, this rater that I'm talking about apparently feels protected from moderators due to comments such as these; and that rater feels the same way. He's very famous by the way.<BR><BR>

But I should only stick to speculate about things I know about, like was once suggested, and I do know that PN is <i>not</i> the Internet, it just happens to be part of it. But I shouldn't speculate further, for it is evident that commentary that does not agree with some moderators, it is summarily censored, and <i>that</i> is not a good message to send to people who actually want feedback and give feedback; one could argue that abuse comes in the form of persistent put-downs.<BR><BR>

Again, if feedback is too hot of a kitchen, one should stay away from that kitchen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, opinions of strangers do not upset me; that comment is condescending.<BR>

Suspicious patterns of behaviour which over time point to some "conclusions" (or speculation, unfortunately there is no scientific method for that) is what's upsetting. Thus my original question: "what is abuse?" in this context; it certainly isn't "why do strangers rate things?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody rated your photos as "average". He didn't appreciate the photos as much as you think fit, or as highly as others did. So what?

After you uploaded them again, he rated them again. Why is that any more a problem than you reuploading photos in order to remove ratings you regard as too low? If he didn't rate them the same the second time, so what? Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe the photos were on the border between two ratings in his mind, and he fell on one side the first time and the other side the second. Maybe he wasn't in the same mood the second time. Maybe he was irritated that you deleted photos and reuploaded them. This last might count as abuse, but no more so than you re-uploading the photos to get higher ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>but no more so than you re-uploading the photos to get higher ratings</i><BR>

<BR>I didn't know that repost made me get higher ratings; is there some formula to that?. Anyway, that is not the point. The point is the <i>behaviour</i> in this context, not the ratings themselves. Only reason why I haven't reloaded the other ones is because I want to leave as is; if I were to completely remove those pictures again then there would be some people saying "I don't see what you're talking about", which has already happened because I chose to delete some others already and chose not to repost.<BR>

<BR>

<i>"Funny if a photo is worth 5's and gets 6's and 7's nobody complains. But as soon as it gets some 4's or 3's it is abuse. I would say take your overly high ratings and be happy."</i><BR><BR>

Illustrates the miscommunication: that is not what I am reporting; it is the behaviour. I have also removed pictures that received blind 6s and 7s; when I reposted them, the main person in question re-rated. And <i>that</i> is the question: is this persistent, harassing behaviour abuse? <i>Not</i> "is a rating I don't agree with abuse?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Funny if a photo is worth 5's and gets 6's and 7's nobody complains. But as soon as it gets some 4's or 3's it is abuse."

 

You've heard the party line so many times that you mangled it. If it is WORTH 5s, 6s, and 7s, then, yes, something lower could be abuse, but more likely just ignorance. . . . . but we don't make that distinction here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"If it is WORTH 5s, 6s, and 7s, then, yes, something lower could be abuse, but more likely just ignorance"</i>.<p> ??? Quite a non-sense! I raise a question earlier abour 'what is a blind rater?' I should re-formulate it in 'what is a blind photographer?'.<p> One cannot handle other appreciation of its work should not post picture here I believe. There are sometime cases of abuse indeed but simply assume that a person who put a 3 or a 4 to picture when the average of past 10-20 ratings is 5.2 is an ignorant is just a pity to read... if you think you are so good then you will unncessarily hurt yourself when posting images here I believe, if you think people dont understand your art when they give you a rating below the average of the evantually past 10 raters, then Bob is right stay out of the kitchen in a safe and pink bubble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photo.net isn't the place to get a free professional level critique of your work. It's a place where anyone from a 6th grader to John Sexton can give a rating or comment with equal weight. The average rating is probably the result of 5 seconds study, maybe less.

 

The sooner people realize and accept this, the happier they will be, the less upset they will become with anything but praise of their work and the less they will worry about conspiracies against them.

 

If we wanted an accurate "rating" system, we'd put the images up for auction, and the one that sold for the highest bid would be declared "the winner". Talk is cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are any of you actually reading my posts?

 

I'm serious. I haven't mentioned my images at all. My argument is that given the six second glance - which I think is a bit generous - why are we supporting a system that encourages negative feedback? It is not an essential part of a system designed to separate out the better images from the thousand or so uploaded daily.

 

If you want a positive tone in the gallery, then design a system where you pick the ones you like and let the others go.

 

It's so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear . . . I'm referring to useless negative feedback in the form of numbers that affect visibility. Constructive criticism is always welcome . . or should be.

 

Bob, the problem is that the source of rates that you described is used to produce a precise ordering of the TRP. Don't you think a rotating group of images deserving of discussion would make more sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Are any of you actually reading my posts?</i><BR>

<BR>

I hear you, Carl. People are completely missing the point. <b>It's the behaviour <i>NOT</i> the ratings themselves of which I speak.</b><BR><BR>

I am not discussing the worthiness of certain ratings; I am discussing the harassing nature of some people whose activities are condoned by others because they get derailed into discussions about "worthiness" and "accuracy" of ratings.<BR>

I am talking about A-B-U-S-E. Is this <i>behaviour</i> A-B-U-S-E? <b>Not</b> "is a specific rating abuse?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel I am the one to have given an answer (read my first post) to your question.... but I agree it is a personal one ... some people are more sensitive than others to human contacts even thru web... and I am not in charge of the setting the rule here and management of this site!<p>

:o)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since abuse is when someone/something is treated in an improper manner, in this case as others, i would suggest its the rating system that is being abused, a common, one might even say every-day, event here.<p>

 

Id suggest <b>abuse is: ratings covering anything other than the photo quality. </b>That would seem to cover the multitude of "rate sins" include mate rating, excessive low/high rating and even rating with graphics off. A 7/7 should be a rare event (hmmm...) and a 1/1 should look like something the cat dragged in. In truth its going to be difficult to spot the "in between" abuse of the system, so much so that unless its obvious, (and it can be) and regular, its really not worth getting one's knicker's in a twist about.<p>

 

Harrassment is jsut an annoyance and needs to continue over a period of time to become abuse (of the poster), fortunately we mostly seem to have other lives.<p>

 

You do seem to have been minorly harrassed, Gabriel but as far as i can see not abused, even tho the return rates were a bit lower ... how different were they might be a pointer but more to the point how often has this happened, and in the scale of things ...does it really matter that much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"abuse is: ratings covering anything other than the photo quality."

 

Thank you.

 

It's pervasive in all the permutations that you listed to the point where it discourages many people from participating - rating, uploading, commenting or all the above - so yes, of course it matters.

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...