A Ratings Reform

Wow! Brian, looks like you've hit a nerve with alot of people. I am a user who is new to the system. Already I see your point and agree with your propositions. However, I would like to propose that the rating system have a larger span. @ times I have truble decieding between the #'s because...well there's so much to consider. A picture is worth a thousand words isn't it?(sorry if someones already used that...:0). I would propose that we use a 1-10 or 1-12 system. Then when you get a 10 or a 12, it's for a reason...not simply because some rookie(like me) thought that it really caught his undeveloped eye. Thanks for listening Email:nathansawatzky@email.com (check out my folder..I coud use your opinion.) It's not that bad..I have got some 7's...:).

How about a new concept, Brian.

When I see an image that I find interesting, I click on it to make it larger. Sometimes I even revisit an image a second or third time (maybe more for the exceptional images). Simply count clicks to show interest - with all pictures placed in catagories. This would give some indication of the interest level a picture generates and would be relative within the catagory (a very useful feature). I noticed with most of my pictures the interest level seems to be in the tens of thousands (and higher). This would indicate to me that this would be a VERY hard thing to distort!

 

If photo.net wishes to have a means of rating pictures so others do not have to wade through hundreds of thousands of family snapshots, this might be a way to do it. As a rating system has no real value to the photographer or the viewers OTHER than assisting the viewer in finding interesting pictures (as opposed to boring) to view, this would certainly do the same thing as our current rating system only without the cliques and anamosity - and without bruised egos! I can't eat 7s (and my ego is probably too big anyway) but I certainly would like to know which of my images others find interesting enough to click on and enlarge.

 

Of course comments and critiques would still be welcome to aid the photographer. As photo.net is the grand-daddy of all photo sites, there are a couple dozen clones - all doing the silly rating thing. Perhaps photo.net could start another trend?

 

And thanks for taking the time to revisit this issue.

It would be interesting to have the same statistics as above for may 2004... Possible...?

<pre>

DAY K A A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

----- ---------- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

05-01 9872 5.13 22 73 575 2043 3173 3177 809

05-02 8217 5.29 13 75 376 1379 2468 3027 879

05-03 9323 5.23 22 89 400 1693 2994 3243 882

05-04 9129 5.26 25 56 379 1528 3060 3222 859

05-05 11330 5.19 48 78 500 2149 3881 3639 1035

05-06 10709 5.24 35 83 517 1864 3355 3849 1006

05-07 10925 5.16 20 109 625 2163 3523 3347 1138

05-08 8434 5.28 11 52 354 1448 2762 2839 968

05-09 7652 5.23 47 114 419 1287 2211 2670 904

05-10 4909 5.30 19 44 182 866 1464 1749 585

</pre>

I don't see much change. Am I missing something?

Let me qualify that: no real change in the averages. There's certainly a lot more ratings this year than last, reflecting, I suppose, growth in the popularity of the site.

First, people vary enormously in how many 7's they give out. Some people print 7's like the currency of a banana republic.

 

This is one of the funniest things I have heard in ages! =)