Almost every picture on photo.net is perfect

A simple observation: I went to check just now the 1st page of the

top-rated images of the week (search criteria "average") and the LAST

image on this first page hade the following rating averages A:6.50 &

O:6.25, hich means that 20 pictures were rated higher than this

during a single week.

<p>

I could have posted the same sort of observation the week before or

the one befire that. My question is: what will photo.net do when

there will be, say, 100 pictures per week with average ratings like

6.9/6.9 or why not 7/7...?

<p>

Are there really so many perfect pictures, or in other words, where

does nonsense end ?

But it may begin or end here....

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1365191

 

For humour Marc....

 

....;)....J

I don´t know where it will end Marc, but what´s going on at photo.net is not different from other photographic sites on the net: at the beginning people do really critique and comment, but after a few months it´s all the same: ratings, the more the better.

 

Some might say that by getting a lot of ratings, your photos will be viewed by more people, and then there are more chances to get a very good critique (which is quite true, I think ) There are others, only interested in ratings, probably to sleep better at night, and this is the nonsense of this site.

 

Anyway, although you have to dive a lot to find great photos (apart from those very good images that are also displayed on the gallery section), photo.net is still quite useful to me as a learner. On the other hand, some time ago it was really, really difficult to get one image shown there, but now it is not... so that´s not a great challenge...

Any marking system where:

A) No specific standards are defined.

B) Marks are awarded for undefined attributes of photographs (other than aesthetics and originality.

C) There is no attempt to create some kind of equivalence between one persons mark and another.

D) And, from what I read when people get upset about it, there are all sorts of personal agendas underlying specific marks awarded.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the marking system seems to me to work by the marker plucking a figure out of the air which is impressionistic and says more about the marker than the photo being marked.

 

If people get encouragement from this scheme, that's great. But I hope it does not serve to discourage anyone.

 

Personally I think comments and remarks are much better.

I think a lot of people are just expecting too much from this site (or from any site like this). I used to be guilty of this myself, but I learned to adjust my expectations to more realistic levels. The bottom line is that to have a group of photos correctly ranked, we would need the same group of raters/critics, rating/critiquing the same group of photos. Only in these circumstances the rate/critique would be correctly given in relation to the relative average quality of the group of photos. Also, in any system of peer review there is an element of reward or retaliation that must be taken into account. The only way to address this would be anonymous peer review (but this wouldn't solve the first problem). Questions that people should ask themselves are: �Why is fair ranking so important to me? Why is it important that my (or any) photos are fairly rated/critiqued and ultimately ranked?� Answer these questions and find a way to address your personal needs using elements that you can control, as opposed to relying on the fairness (or lack of) of an ever-changing group of strangers that might (or might not) decide to rate your photo.

 

Nonsense ends wherever and whenever YOU want it to end.

Marc,

 

I fear that what You discribe is the case for all photosites. More general photonet is not different from any other internet forum. You have always two kind of people present on such forums. The polite ones and the rude ones. Anonimity of internet grows a lot of the second group. In discussion fora these groups starts yelling and launches personal attacks, on photo fora this group rate 1/1's and breaks down every photo.

 

Photo fora are in that different that real contributers do have interest in being polite. That could offer an higher appreciation of the own work. I fear that not photo.net or other sites are wrong but that you only see the reflection of human nature.

Even if I cared about the ratings, I would fail to see even a hint of a point here.

 

There are many thousands of photos uploaded every week. So 20 of them got ratings averaging at least 6.375. So what?

 

Even 7 isn't perfect -- it's just the best grade available. Do you have to be perfect to get an A?

<I>Are there really so many perfect pictures, or in other words, where does nonsense end ?</I>

<P>

I think you know that most people don't give out 7's to indicate perfection. They just honestly like the work in question a lot. We also know that many people misuse the system, as well.

<P>

But on the other hand, at least there is some stratification. On at least one other photo site, the top photos of any week all rate entirely top marks, with no variation.

<P>

But that's hardly the point, is it? To be blunt: there is no really good system of user rating that will satisfy all critics. It just doesn't exist. The only objective system would require all critics to be well-educated, thoughtful, and impartial judges - in other words, they'd have to be very qualified but couldn't be participating photographers themselves. [in direct opposition to some people's claims that people without posted images shouldn't be allowed to rate. In this case, they might have portfolios, but would be, um, "hors competition" as it were.]

<P>

Ok, that's impractical, at least on a large scale. What steps, then, could be taken to answer Marc's very real concerns about grade inflation and misuse of the rating system? Unfortunately, I don't know. Most of the ones that have been suggested in the past also have problems with them. But, in my no-authority-or-capability-to-actually-change-anything-around-here role as a regular user, I'm always open to discussing suggestions.

Marc, this isn't the only site out there that has so many 'perfect' images. I think we know different. How come this place seems to urk you so much and the others don't? I don't understand why you condemn something here and support it elsewhere...

 

I still think a comment only section would really benefit this place...

There is astounding perfection in the top photos, that is for certain. Rather than wondering you should step back and simply be humble, for your criticism is just jealousy.

http://www.photo.net/photo/2318509 .

Please read again what you just wrote:

<p>

"I don't understand why you condemn something here and support it elsewhere..."

<p>

Now ask yourself what it is very precisely that I condemn. Finally, if you wish to compare a site with another, be fair. You are here refering, I suppose, to Photopoints - right ? If so, which area of Photopoints are you refering to ? Area 1, points option, may indeed resemble PNet in many ways; but certainly, you wouldn't say the same for area 2 and 3, nor for the CO options. Evidence of it is that you suggest in your last line to have a comment only gallery on PN...

You wrote: "Nonsense ends wherever and whenever YOU want it to end."

<p>

I wholeheartedly agreed, and demonstrated your point by ending the nonsense a couple of months back. :-)

Thanks for this wonderful link: the thread was absolutely entertaining. :-)

I can't believe I just read through that link from Rob. That's a few minutes of my life that I want back. Not really entertaining. Far closer to banal, I would think. But at least tangentially off-topic. However, I'd suggest that we could all find images that we think are overrated or underappreciated, and there is NEVER going to be a change to that in a sufficiently large, user-rated system.

Rob, thanks for pointing us to that thread.

 

(Sadly) I took some time reading the comments you have posted to this site and my advice to you is to go find something better to do than posting tons of childishly pathetic comments on other people's photo threads. Ever thought of taking photos? I heard that it can be a fun thing to do.

 

g'day to you too.

How many images over on the other site had a perfect 5.0 rating last week? How many here had a perfect 7/7? Yes there are other areas there but it doesn't take away from the context of your original post. This silliness is everywhere. It is on PP, Here, Usefilm, you name it. I am glad that CO fits you so well on PP. That is great. It would be nice to have it here also as I stated but the silliness of ratings will not go away because of it. Infact it will just grow and eventually (like here) all the critiquing will vanish and all that will be left is "great shot heres some 7's for ya".

 

I have my own site with 6 guys on it who I enjoy greatly. We email each other back and forth with comments and criticisms. It works great for me. I also use PT here which is another great venue. There are options Marc. They might not have that big a crowd or a 'featured images/POW/whatever' section but they are as rewarding.

 

Just my 2 cents...

You can turn your question around and ask why are there no "bad" or "very bad" photos on photo.net? When last I looked, I don't think that there was a single image rated below 3.0, which is remarkable. Of course, you don't get flamed for giving 4's or better, either.

The thing I find very amusing about this site is how apparently offended some people get if you don't rate their photos with at least a 4 rating.

 

Most of the images I see on this site are worthy of 3, 4 and 5 ratings (in my opinion). I don't give out 6 and 7 ratings with total abandon, because the photographer really needs to impress me with their creativity and technical ability. I also don't give out 1s and 2s very often - an image has to be really bad to warrant those kinds of ratings.

 

If someone has a great image, both aesthetically and creatively, that deserves a higher than average rating. But if they neglected to color balance your otherwise excellent photo, expect it to be rated average. If its not apparent that its deliberately out of focus, expect an average rating. If its a subject that's been photographed to death and you haven't displayed it in a new and interesting way, expect an average rating. And be mature enough to accept it without attacking the person rating your image. Learn from the criticism of others and make yourself a better photographer instead of wallowing in self-pity.

 

Snapshots of pets, zoo animals, ducks, skyscrapers, flowers, pigeons, and the like have been photographed billions of times. If you�re going to photograph those things, make the image interesting so that people really want to look at it.

Bernie, I wish I knew the answer why there are no "bad" images on this site. I can only suppose that posters know when an image is bad and don't upload it to the database.

Pretty much in agreement with James Fraser as far as ratings go...

<p>

Talking about perfect pictures, here's another one rated an average of 6.3/6.7 about 30 times as I write:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/2341351

<p>

I'm still hoping to read somewhere what will happen once too many pictures will reach this kind of average - if that's not already the case, that is... What would the TRP searches return then...? Where will you find the really great photos then ? And how many great photos will be burried in the process ? What are photo.net's plans with respect to this issue...?

I'm guessing that "the really great photos" are out there but not necessarily within the PN gallery (though some are) nor are these necessarily "buried" anywhere else on the PN site. I'm also guessing that over time the photos that appear to look 'overrated' will sooner or later get more sobering ratings, so I think that PN need not worry about your 'concerns'.

one spot to look

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=362144

This is a public forum and there is no criteria for joining posting or having an opinion. Obviously therefore ratings and comments can and will be exaggerated on the one hand or ridulously negative on the other.

 

Unless we require that ratings/comments be reserved for the 'experts' only this issue will always be with us.

 

But I think the beauty of this site is that if you truly do not like a foto that everyone else seems to love you can rate it low or comment on it. Of course you will run the rsik of getting a retalitory strike on your photos. I personally prefer just commentary.

 

Possible soultion:

Have more categories for ratings thus hopefully compelling the person doing the rating to think more technically and artistically.

 

For example: Use of light, focus, composition,originality of subject, originality of technique, use of tone/colour etc...

 

This would compell the user to think more profoundly and it would eliminate the lurkers who are not being serious.

 

Have a review of the best foto of the week by a panel explaining why it was the best.

...my two cents

Hey Marc you should also cry about your own near perfect ratings,or are you pompous enough to think you deserve the 6 plus ratings and other dont? You should start a new club called the whiners club. Faith, Rob You and Carl Root could be charter members.

Faith Cohen , Rob Portnoy and Golarka Wyrocznia don't allow in order to any photos was perfect:).

Their hand of justice it will reach every to high rate photo,surely my photo.I think that we all should join to their crusader in order to change photonet in capitals of photographic justice.

This is splendid , every portfolio it will have a zero and one photo and every photos it will have a average 3Aestet and 3Orgin...

The tree persons systematically give me 3 and max 4 and sometime Faith give me 5(I am proud with her). I am happy because they often check my portfolio to give my new rate.So i think that they very like my photos.