Are we ever going to have a bot-free PhotoNet?

What does the volume of rates have to do with 'sustaining' the gallery?

Carl, I suppose you realize that the more you complain and the more you appear to be upset by raters, the greater the incentive for the ratingbot writters, mate-raters and other abusers to keep on doing what they're doing.

 

If they poke you with a stick and you don't react, it's no fun. If you squeal and yell, they'll just keep on poking...

 

The very best way to deal with abuse would be to keep all mention of it off the site, report it to abuse@photo.net and let Brian quietly deal with it.

 

If I were a bot writer, I'd live for threads like this one.

i agree with bob, although these really are the only interesting threads on this forum. its amazing how hyped up people get about ratings and the visibility of their photos to a bunch of strangers as generated by high ratings. they all seem to say that they want comment feedback but claim that ratings are the main avenue to accomplish them. what nonsense. they just want the high ratings and the fawning comments that go with them. and the mate rating types are constantly on the hunt for new recruits by showering corruptingly fawning comments on the unsuspecting serious photographer who is simply looking for honest feedback

That's a great one Bob! Blame Carl for the nonsense. If you think about it long enough, perhaps we can find a way to blame him for the mate-rating too. How about the financial concerns? His fault. In fact it's ALL his fault. I say banish him! Carl must go....

Asking questions and offering constructive criticism is not the same thing as whining, Bob. You said something insightful about what motivates people to do these sorts of things, but then take a step in the wrong direction. I don't think the people who do these things care at all what I say. As you pointed out, it's the results that are its' own reward. Sometimes the goal is to have a negative impact on particular individuals or genres of images. That's all on the record, even if we're so baffled by those motivations that we refuse to recognize them in anything but a blatant form.

spaghetti, you know nothing about the subtlties that do or don't generate attention to gallery images since you have none to show us. Nor do you know what motivates us to participate in this forum.

 

Nor do I know why you comment on this issue.

 

So many unfathomable motives. . . . . :-)

"...Sometimes the goal is to have a negative impact on particular individuals or genres of images..."

 

which genres of images? you have a habit of generalizing about this stuff. why not be specific? seems all genres of images make their way to the TRP at some point so i dont understand what it is that does not for the nefarious reasons you imply. perhaps some genres of images simply have more visual and emotional impact than others, but thats how photo contests go outside of PN so i dont think theres funny biz goin on in that respect

A few points on the issues arising since my previous post

 

First, whether non-subscribers should be allowed to post images or to rate other people's images are separate things. You could stop the latter without preventing the former, so it doesn't necessarily follow that the Gallery would collapse.

 

Second, whether the model of subscriber-only rating is sustainable or not presumably depends on where the advertising revenue is actually sourced from. Do we know whether subscribers are more likely to respond to advertising on the site- I'd expect that they would demonstrate a greater affinity? Maybe subscribers only account for 20% of ratings, but a much higher proportion of revenue from advertising. Just a guess.

 

At the root of all this of course is the question of objective. The things you'd do to have a *better* rating system aren't necessarily the things you'd do if you primarily wanted a *bigger* rating system, and indeed there is probably a conflict between these objectives. If what Photo.net wants, as a priority, is to increase the volume of rates, then maybe this could be clarified and expectations managed accordingly?

Perhaps you would find it instructive if you put some of your money on the table (as in subscribing for a couple of years) and then posting some photographs for critique. Photographs that you spent a good part of your lifetime making. As it is, your "investment" in this site amounts to 9 mundane comments in the Gallery, and some 130 forum comments, mostly all in response to rating issues. As it is, your balance sheet is not showing me any kind of positive cash flow, if you get my drift. Regards.

There is a lot of people without pics and are non members that DO rate quite fairly and concistantly. The abusers seem to be a very small percentage but stick out a whole lot when the total number of rates is low.

 

Nobody is too concerned about a 3/3 if they have 60 rates on a pic and the only way to do that it seems is have a lot of friends, which of course unbalances the purpose of the whole deal.

 

Its claimed the ratings are only to serve the system, not the members, but in my view its the #1 "paycheck" for almost every member here. Constructive comments that are truly aimed at improvement seem to be very rare, most are praise or what the other party would prefer. If a total stranger drops a 6/6 on your image, you know its cause its on the merit of the pic itself, and high rates dictate the path in further shoots...for me anyhow.

 

Theres a lot of very good pics sitting back on page 3 and back for days with 4-5 rates total...theres really not very much rating going on that is random and not mearly back scratching in relation to number of views.

 

Is it possible to envoke a policy that in order to upload 1 pic you would have to rate 10?...not on the spot, but maintain a minimum average of something like that. 100 pics..1000 rates.

 

There couldn't be much of a downside to this and it might serve everybody well by drowning out the mate raters and low raters just by volume.

carl and walter. your disrespectful and veiled ad hominem attempts at innuendo and belittlement fascinate me about as much as your shopworn habits of beseeching brian to do things FOR YOU rather than trying to be inventive about the topic :-)

<em>Asking questions and offering constructive criticism is not the same thing as whining, Bob</em>

 

<p>

I agree. My point is that the botwriters want to cause trouble and disruption. The more threads there are about them, the more they like it. It's fun. It's a game. Every time they provoke a response, they win.

<p>

Obviously most people just cannot keep quiet. They know that. They win again. I imagine that they are smiling right now as they read this - and the numerous followups. It makes their day.

spaghetti, I'm responding to concerns in ways that I think will benefit the serious users of the gallery. It's the integrity of the process that will attract quality of both uploads and discussion.

 

Bob, you're convinced they're fascinated by forum discussions. I think that's low on the list of motives, with manipulation of TRP visibility and sheer boredom being much more likely.

Carl has put it best (several times):<p>

 

<i>"You see [bots] as something you can't control and therefore define them as acceptable".<p>

 

"Ratings and gallery participation are not synonymous. I'm sure there are several members who can explain in detail how some of the other sites work, but I'm pretty sure this one is the least restrictive. "<p>

 

"Rating should be a priviledge earned by making a contribution to the site, be it financial, comments, uploads. . . . whatever."<p>

 

"spaghetti, you know nothing about the subtlties that do or don't generate attention to gallery images since you have none to show us. Nor do you know what motivates us to participate in this forum.

Nor do I know why you comment on this issue." </i><p>

 

I think we all know that it is definitely not humanly possible to make 1100 ratings, comprehensibly, in one day. And even if it is possible and being done, this site doesn't need those rates. Not because of their unfavourable numeric value, but because they are without any meaning at all. No one wants ratings from a machine (with or without human features) designed to rate spiratically without logic. Why we continue to argue and let this happen is beyond me. We acknowledge their existence, yet we continue to issue them free admittance...<p>

 

That being said, I'm sure Admin are doing all that they can. But it seems like you put one fire out, and the next one starts. Something needs to be done to put an end to this madness.

<em>Bob, you're convinced they're fascinated by forum discussions. I think that's low on the list of motives, with manipulation of TRP visibility and sheer boredom being much more likely</em>

<p>

Possible I guess. You'd have to believe that if keep posting about them. I think they're the equivalent of forum trolls. They know they'll get found out and deleted. The only motivation I can see that makes sense is mischief or seving as "agent provocateurs".

<p><small><em>

An agent provocateur is a person who facilitates unrest, debate or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing their own interests. In general, agents provacateur seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.</small></em>

 

<p>

For example if I thought the system was broken and needed fixing, I'd do my best to break it in order to prove it was broken, and so get it fixed in the way I wanted. The more discussion the better in that case. It would serve my purposes well. That's how hackers get Microsoft to fix holes in Windows.

<p>

The other explanation is, of course, the bot writers and ratings abusers are just wankers.

Ms Western, as I recall my original post at the top of this thread referred not to mate rating, nor to low ratings, nor to high ratings, nor to fawning comments; all subjects that you are brought into this discussion. The topic was about dishonest rates from someone or thing that I presummed to be a robot (or acted robotically). The solution to that topic is necessary for this site to remain viable. Mr Mottershead responded to the topic and deleted the account with praiseworthy efficiency. Where do we need to be more "inventive about the topic"?<p>

 

If I offended you by "looking at your books", so to say, I appologize. A plus for you is that you do not rate. Regards.

<p>"<i>There are easy ways to defeat a bot.</i>" (Bob Atkins)</p>

<p>Really? Do you thing that all those ways that Brian pointed out are EASY to check? I do not think so. To me there is ONLY ONE SOLUTION: <b>let only paying member's rates to be valid for all the statistichs actually used on the site</b>. All other rates we will stored as well but they should not be used for statistics on the photos. Just like this way all bogus accounts will disappear. </p>

Slept on the issue last night, and I came up with a couple suggestions:<p>

 

1. Why not make a limit on the number of ratings a non-subscriber (which would include most of the "bots" etc.) can make per day. Say, 100-200 ratings per day - a fair number but also one that will decrease a bot's activity.<p>

 

2. I also thought what if moderators (likely Brian), or the database, could tag "suspicious" users with some sort of symbol, something like a circled 'S'. Users who rate 1000+ images per day would also receive e-mail notification of their suspicious, unwanted behaviour "...The photo.net webmaster has marked your behaviour as suspiscious because you have rated over 1000+ images in one day. We understand that you may be an enthusiastic rater, but this number is far too large. Please slow down your compulsive rating habits and limit yourself to __ ratings/day. If you fail to comply, the database will automatically delete your account in 2 days..."<p>

 

By sending the e-mail, you'll give these super-humans (if they exist) a chance to slow down. By tagging them with a "suspicious" symbol, you will take away the anonymity factor that bots frequently exploit. If the suspect is "innocent" they'll have a chance to redeem themselves. If the suspect is a true bot, they will automatically be removed once they are identified as such.

<p>

Just thought I'd throw out some ideas, maybe they will lead to some effective way to solve this re-occuring problem.

People are getting way too involved in this minor problem. There is no need to change the fundamental systems of the Gallery to deal with extremely isolated cases. Since January 1, we have had a handful of cases of new subscribers rating a lot of photos in their first few days on the site in a pattern that looked "robotic". All of those accounts were deleted within days.

 

In the three years before that, I know from personal experience that we didn't have any such cases. I doubt we did in the five years before that either. In the last 3 months for example, we have had only about seven cases (apart from the ones already deleted) where someone had more than 500 ratings in the first few days. This is out of tens of thousands of people who have registered on the site and rated photos during that time. That level of "problem" is easily handled by manual means.

 

Really, this is trivial problem and not one that justifies all this discussion, never mind the various drastic actions that have been suggested to "counter" it. I deal with all sorts of problems ranging from trivial to important. This one is at the trivial end of the spectrum, dealt with routinely. If you guys were running this web site and reacting like this to every little thing that happens, it would have spiralled into the ground years ago.

 

Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here.

walter - what i meant by getting 'inventive about the topic' was more generally about how members acting in concert can by their own actions generate more useful feedback about photos among themselves without constantly 'asking mommy' to fix things for them

 

and here is a current good example of what i mean

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AiVy

 

right. time for all of us to 'move along'

Brian, the Photo.net community is so fortunate to have someone like you at the nerve center ... your calm sense of perspective under stress is quite remarkable, as is your ability to communicate the grace notes, so to speak. Those are qualities for which large organizations pay top dollar. Stick with us for good while longer, OK?

>>Most real raters don't rate every photo; they skip some<<

 

True. Case in point: immediately after posting my last ROLL I have received a 5/5 rating on *every* photo of the folder...a sign of bot-like behaviour.

to whom it may concern - you know that your deleted posting this morning that violated site policy (re putting members on public trial) was not precisely what i had in mind about getting "inventive about the topic". hope PN sent you a well deserved warning email about doing that sort of thing again and that you will take this contritely to heart