Ratings only by people who have posted photos

I wonder if it would be possible to either:

1) require that in order to critique photos you must have posted at

least one; or, in the alternative

2) provide ratings separately for those who have posted.

 

I interested in all criticism but I notice sometimes the people who

are way off on ratings (i.e. more than 3 scores) tend to have zero

photos posted. It would be nice to look at the work of people who

score you high or low so as to better understand where they may be

coming from.

 

Thanks.

Try not to get 'worked up' over the ratings.

 

 

 

 

 

Go out and shoot more images (film or digital) and practice. Once you have created the best you can -- then post it for a critique. [if the guidelines were adjusted for 1 photo to be the 'criteria' for rating other photos, someone somewhere would ask that it be '2' photos, then '3' photos, etc.]

<i>"Go out and shoot more images (film or digital) and practice. Once you have created the best you can -- then post it for a critique."</i><p> how is that considered answering the question? I don't even see how that can be helpful... <p>

David i feel your pain. After getting upset a couple of times I decided i will not even pay attention to ratings from people who have not posted any pictures (or that have posted garbage, which they may think is good). <p> try to ignore them too, since I can't see a change in site policy or an implementation of a new system... the moderators are too busy as it is.

Brian just answered this showing that the average ratings of those with/without posted photos were about the same with the non-posters being slightly higher.

Conni

<I> but I notice sometimes the people who are way off on ratings (i.e. more than 3 scores) tend to have zero photos posted.</i><P>

Gee....I thought I was the only one who was complaining about that. Add to that column; people who make inflamatory and ignorant posts as well. I call these's people ZUA's. Short for 'Zero' - 'Upload' - A...{expletive deleted}.

Actually, the point was not about being worked up about the ratings it was about the fact that those ratings which are "outliers" good or bad, in every case I have had, come from folks who don't post. That isn't good or bad...I want to hear their opinion. My point is that it is hard to judge their approach if they don't contribute works they themseleves think are good. I didn't mean to suggest I was upset about it or that I am worried about their ratings.

 

However, since it has been mentioned, I do think that ratings are important...if I didn't want criticism why would I post?

 

Thanks to the people who make the site great...looking at the "top photos" does, to me, prove that the ratings do work overall and are very helpful in looking for new approaches, ideas and techniques.

you may be interested to know that there are veteran users of this site who think otherwise about the top photos and the ratings. but I happen to agree with you. and behind those photos are some wonderful photographers who are happy to share details about their work, styles, and techniques. perhaps by visiting their portfolios and offering your own questions and comments these people will become interested in your efforts. seems worth a try? remember, that ratings are just numbers. you should be seeking comments, too.

I'll think you will discover that the keywords here are "I notice". This seems to be a psychological issue. When people get an "outlier" rating they go looking for the person's portfolio to see if the rating is "legitimate". If there is no portfolio, they think the rating isn't legitimate, feel somewhat aggrieved, and remember that case. The other cases, they don't remember.

 

From the database, which doesn't have a selective memory, it just isn't true that there is any difference in the ratings of people with and without portfolios uploaded, except perhaps that those without portfolios rate slightly higher.

Ed Schanowitz just put me on to the "Professional Photographs Portfolio" which he says is an invitation only web site that requires posting of 10 photos and a minimal rating by a jury rating before you can critique. Thanks for the invitation Ed, I'm putting together a protfolio now! I'm still looking forward to looking at the top rated photos here.

Who says they're way off?

 

Just because they don't have any photos doesn't mean they don't know how to rate a photograph. Perhaps what you're talking about are people that abuse the ratings system by signing up for an account then rating everything 1 or 2. But to require that only people with photographs be allowed to rate is wrong. When a "non-photographer" views a photo, he usually views it differently than a photographer. I think this is pretty valuable because sometimes it lets us see past things we just can't (we being photographers, although I use that term loosely in reference to myself). If you want advice just from other photographers, that's fine, I guess, but you're limiting yourself, I think.

 

I believe some of the problem is when you take a photograph, and you're so proud of it because you achieved something fantastic, but in a technical way. Other photographers agree because they understand it. However, JoeNoPhotos doesn't see anything special because he's seen that type of thing before in movies or magazines. If this is the case, maybe your photograph does deserve the low originality rating it got. (I'm not speaking directly about you, just in general example type way.)

 

If you ask me, instead of worrying too much about the ratings (like others have said), concentrate on comments. I think there should be a lot less focus on ratings and more on actual comments. In fact, I wouldn't care if ratings were entirely removed from the site. But that's just me.

Ever noticed a music critic who has composed a symphony / released a rock album ? How about a movie critic who has directed a film ? Book critic who has published a Novel ? Why do you think someone must be able to take a good photo to be able to see one ... it's much more informative to look at the number and average of scores, and what people have in their "highly rated" gallery.

 

Secondly. Given the propensity of people to revenge rate (i.e. respond negative words or scores of "below average" by rating a whole portfolio with 1s and 2s). At times I'd like to have 2 IDs one for critiquing and one for my portfolio. Even if someone can take a good picture they may not want to upload.

It gives me a headache to think there are so many people willing to accept ratings and comments by total strangers, that is why I agree with David Morgan on this point: if you want to rate and/or comment about my work, at least be obliged to show yours. But it's not going to happen.

The raison d'etre for the ratings is the Top Photos page and other venues within the Gallery where photos are selected for display based on their ratings. The ratings are intended to be just what it looks like: a method to rank the photos by popularity. They are not primarily a method of providing feedback to photographers; that is what the comments are for. (And in addition to 250,000 ratings per month, there are 53000 comments per month on photos.) The validity of the ratings system is determined entirely by whether the Top Photos pages present photos that people are interested in viewing -- more interesting, at least, than a random selection of the photos would be. I believe it achieves this goal. And considering that an order of magnitude more people visit the Top Photos pages than just the photographers who have submitted photos, it seems to work.

 

There is no claim that Top Photos represents the only selection from the submitted photos that would be interesting or valuable. But the rating system does have two virtues: (1) it is a democratic system, in which the selection is not made by arbitrarily chosen "experts", and it gains some legitimacy (as well as a few problems) from that. It isn't clear, for example, that 80000 people per day would be interested in seeing MY selection from the images; (2) making the selections does not require a great deal of effort from the administrators of the site, apart from dealing with the bickering about the system.

 

If someone is not interested in seeing their photos in the Top Photos, etc, I don't see why they would have a great deal of interest in ratings, except possibly for a few people whose goal is to sell their images and who see the ratings as a reasonable method of obtaining input on the marketability of their photos to "the public".

 

All of this is summarized by my mantra: the ratings are for the site; the comments are for the photographers.

The idea that somebody should publicly stigmatize one of my images as aesthetically 'bad' or 'very bad', and I should look at this as merely functional to the 'average popularity' of my image in the context of the Top Photos page - as if the ratings did not impinge on the photographer at all - says a lot about why the ratings debate on these pages seems to be never ending. 'Bad' or 'very bad' ARE critical judgments, and they are FOR the photographer at the receiving end. I may freely decide to undergo such 'democratic' criticism (for the thrill of it) but please don't tell me that it's not directed to me.

Seriously, in most cases, an outlier low rating just means that someone didn't like the picture as much. A couple of your shots have these outlier low ratings, David, though I only see one 1 rating, and though I don't really agree with the ratings, I don't see a pattern suggestive of abuse.

 

I'm like Scott and David in that I don't trust lowball ratings or inflammatory posts as much when they come from people who a) participate less (no images), and/or b) don't use their names. But they are what they are, and if one wants to know what the mass market thinks of one's work, well some of them will be like that. If all you want is consistently high ratings, you have to turn in "safe" work that looks like everything else there. Some of the work that is creative and different will not appeal to everyone.

 

Brian makes a worthwhile point that we can't blame non-image-posters in general, because in general they aren't "worse" raters. If there are individual cases of abuse or consistent mis-use of the system (and I'm sure that there are), they should be dealt with that way. Unfortunately, we're pretty short on resources for spotting and dealing with them.

I haven't had the opportunity to read the entire thread yet, but got a way off (from the other ratings) score on one of the few images I've submitted. I'm not that concerned, because I also realize that some are overly generous with their ratings, not fully understanding why the rating system is there, or just overly generous so as not to offend.

I think a couple very low ratings on my image is offset by the often overly generous ratings and might help to reflect a truer end result. When I got my first 3, I flt offended, but when I saw that it was out of 7 rather than 10, I felt a lot better.

We all, myself included' have a certain personal attachment to our work, which we wouldn't post if there were no feelings invoked at all. And sometimes our sense of personal attachment gets hurt when someone who doesn't really appreciate our particular style rates us on how the image comes across to them, myself included. Growing a tougher skin is all part of the game, myself included.

Hope that helps.

I also see images that I don't appreciate because the style is not something that I like. I tend not to rank these images, as I would be ranking by personal bias, rather than the photos technical aspects.

Brian D. Watters

"the ratings are for the site; the comments are for the photographers."

 

I'm trying to remember, is 10,000 times or 20,000 times you've said this Brian?

 

For the ten minutes it would take, why not change the ratings labels to read "Like/Dislike" and "New to me/Old hat". Regretably, until you do that, there will always be people too stupid to understand that the ratings system is a poll and has nothing to do with the notion of 'criticsm'.<div></div>

After hanging out in PN for awhile (and being one of those real "hard" raters) I finally got around to posting some photos. So those folks who have sent email saying I'm the lowest known form of life for awarding a "3" or (horrors!) a "2" *and* don't have the cojones to post any pics will now simply have to make due by casting aspersions on my ancestry. <GRIN>

Unfortunately, not all of us are blessed with sharp intelligence, holier-than-thou attitude and an ability for expletives. Love.

Leo writes: "Unfortunately, not all of us are blessed with sharp intelligence, holier-than-thou attitude and an ability for expletives."

 

I sorta kinda doubt that the latter two would be considered "blessings" -- at least the "holier-than-thou" stuff because really creative expletives can be entertaining (just ask George Carlin). It's the same old boring expletives we can do without.

 

Peace out.

Bernie - lol - I was not referring to your post. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. English is not my mother tongue, so I'm afraid I would not be really fit for understanding all the nuances in George Carlin's usage of expletives... But it's good you have started posting pictures. And yes, I'm all for creativity in any form of expression, expletives included. Ciao!

Leo -- I just had the great good fortune to spend a week in Sicily. I was witness to some very creative forms of expression: food, art, buildings, and talking with one's hands! Being relentlessly monolingual, I was amazed at the number of dialects spoken. Fortunately, people took pity on this poor American. But this is off topic, so somebody assign it a rating, quick!

Sicily is like the vast majority of Italy, in that every region has a whole variety of dialects - quite often unintelligible, in their true, unadulterated form... Bernie, it was nice meeting you. I hope we will keep in touch even if I'm not much on these threads. Just feel free to drop a line!

How about "worthy of further exposure for the purpose of discussion." Vote yes if you agree.

 

Comparing the current rating options to a vote is laughable. The list of differences is obvious. A fair and simple vote system would be a dramatic improvement . . . . but Brian's afraid that it wouldn't be as attractive an activity, thus reducing the anticipated increase in subscriptions.

 

"Ratings are for subscriptions." is the more honest mantra.

Perhaps folks should refer to the following: http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

 

I dunno but I've never received an email from anyone asking why I assigned a rating of 5 or better.