Ratings on the rise? Not everywhere.

It has taken me a while to catch on but there are of course two ways

to get onto the TRP. This practice makes the current system unfair.

The surest way to get onto the top pages is not to go through the

shooting gallery at all, or at least not until you have first

achieved a lot of good ratings, and instead have a few of your mates

do you the favor of rating you. Once you have three, your there and

up at the top if your buddies are real sweet.

 

The shooting gallery meanwhile is inhabited these days by some rather

aggressive and frustrated low raters. At a minimum this practice of

entering onto the top pages without first going through the gauntlet

should be stopped. Ratings should not occur until after a request for

critque is made. Then at least everyone would start on the same

footing. I would be willing to bet that the ratings would be

lowered.

 

And the system would be further corrected by simply limiting the

number of ratings a person can give. Quit printing free money before

it looses all of its value.

write constructive comments, receive constructive comments, encourage

constructive commetns, IGNORE RATINGS. too much about ratings. this collective obsession with ratings is starting to hold this site back. eyes are on the wrong ball. ratings are a gimmick that draws people to the site, but those already here should focus on how to maintain a site that provides a high enough quality of feedback to make it worth posting. that's about constructive dialogues. ratings provide some diluted feedback, but they are largely about ego, not feedback. when are we going to focus on incentivizing constructive dialogue? like with words? thoughts? you know, like real people.

I agree Ben ratings in themselves are rather meaningless. The problem is that getting your work seen is currently based upon the ratings in that sense only they are very important.

yes, that is true. i lobbied hard for the nascent critique-only category, but when i post there i find the commments are intermittent and so, as a result, i post for ratings as well at times to get some feedback, any feedback. it is frustrating sometimes. but i submit still that the answer is in pulling hard for more dialogue and to abandon hope of the rating system becoming somehow more equitable or useful. the last several months, there's been an obsession on ratings by users and the site to the extent that i think a colder and more competitive atmosphere (we've all had our share of drive-by raters who leave no comments in the dust of their abuse) is forming at the site, one that i find increasingly off-putting. i am hoping, lobbying, imploring, for a change.

When will people accept that ratings and critique go hand in hand?

 

Unfortunately, without ratings your picture will have next to zero visibility. Also, although the ratings have been hijacked by the mate raters and the bogus account creators, overall they can still provide a clue as to how good your picture is. I know that, generally, the more ratings I receive for a picture, the better it is - even more so if they happen to be high ratings.

'More' and 'higher' is a measure of the popularity of the genre of the image. Is that really what you want?

 

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the photographers' top ten as chosen by the site raters and compare it to your personal ten favorites?! In my case, there would be no more than two or three on both lists.

 

I would be interested in knowing what others think who've had their images critiqued in other kinds of venues.

I think also that, currently, people are reluctant now to give ratings lower than 6 or 7 because, conceivably, just one low rating can now make a particular picture disappear completely from the top rated photos pages.

 

Unfortunately, this same rule has encouraged the sycophants to give even higher ratings than ever - one can now photograph a graffiti'd wall and receive nothing but 6's and 7's. If you were to rate the aforementioned picture honestly (i.e. a 3/3), your rating would stand out and you would be "punished" by the group.

Mark, i'm sorry, but i don't know what you're talking about. i've got my share of "friends" on this site i think, but my ratings have generally gone down since the institution of the anonymous rating system consistent with the statistical drop of ratings reported. this continual obsession with "fair" ratings is, in my opinion, about the wrong issue. the issue should be how to promote the highest quality feedback. that's not ratings.

If its bad give it the turd rating it deserves. Screw the top pages.

I agree with all of you here but all your doing about it is sitting writing in this forum. In reality i don't see you up there backing up your words....Of course they gonna gang bang your own ratings, but your lack of action speaks hypocritisism loudly. You say ratings aren't important and speak out...so get outta here and do that!!!!

 

Check this out...60 ratings and 50% say 7/7...read my comment.

http://www.photo.net/photo/2734485

 

Or check out Igors pic on page 1 also....same deal.

 

I am willing to speak out no matter how big this gang is, and will continue with the honest opinion. You see 1 other guy in those comments shyly, meekly, questioning that photo. All 30 can come into my port and rate everything a 1/1 who cares. I'm confident some of my stuff is top quality and know its real, with no smoke and mirrors and thats enough for myself and others that appriciate purism without the stuffed ballot boxes.

 

Mate rating only exists now because of anonimity, not like before, and it wasn't rampant like it is now. The system is suffering badly...and we the members are paying for our own destruction.

 

There is still a hole to expose whos mate rating its just not as simple as before..so why not bring back identification? The biggest disease on the internet today is anonimity. People take on an alter persona, are rude, abnoxious, lie cheat and steal...the exact opposite of their real lives. We just don't need this bs here.

 

Bring up the unrealistic ratings and take a screenshot..save the pic with the filename identifying the picture and photgrapher and number of 7/7's. Start saving them...soon you will be able to compare and identify.

I see you have discovered the mate rating ring that is infesting scores of images...

If its crap, I address it as such and do my best "to stick to the image itself" or the techniques used to take the image; problem is this gang has no checks and balances on it right now of ANY kind. To check this behavior, photo.net staff needs to step in. As I noted before, many of the intellectual technoids who can be found in the forums lack the fortitude to work the critiques and the ratings. Where is "AZ" when you need him? Also urgently needed is the pancake bunny.

I have three questions for PN members. Keep emotions at bay please while answering my questions. I am merely wishing to understand my fellow PNr's.

 

1. Why do people put so much weight into the ratings they receive?

 

2. What is the purpose for joining photo.net or any photography website/forum?

 

3. What is the expected payoff or gain from photo.net? Example: Will they receive a new career from their PN membership? Are members sending clients to view the critiques left for them on PN? What is the big payoff which feeds the burning desire constantly moan each week, and in some cases daily, about the critique and rating system?

1 - People like to "win"

 

2 - People like to "win"

 

3 - People like to "win".

 

Everything is a contest, from how much money you make to how good your photos are. It's ingrained in American culture.

American? Bob, the worst mate raters are from....Europe right now....but I think your basic observation stands...

I think the American obsession with winning has migrated to Europe!

 

Remember that in England you can still have a sporting event (cricket test match) that lasts for 5 days and ends in a tie...though 1 day matches with a guranteed winner are also now played :-(

 

I also have no doubt that "winning" on photo.net could boost sales for commercial photographers, and anything involving money inevitably leads to some people playing the system and taking advantage of any loopholes (whether "legal" and "ethical" or not) that they can find.

I see I am still naive to the business of Photo.net. I will try to take this more seriously for those who are looking to capitalize on the site's commercialibility?

 

(Is that a word or did I just create it?)

Bob, you respond to so many whiny threads. Why? Does it not get on your nerves after a while or it is just amusing for you now? :-)

 

I had to ask!

:-)

I propose that a new "Whining Forum" be created. (-:

Why? This old Whining Forum is doing just fine.<p>

 

VL

Venecia, Steve & TC. How curious that you would whine about whining.

 

Bob, unless you have started a negative thread, you seem to feel obliged to shoot it down in flames.

 

Paul, I'm not sure who you're attacking here but, if you look back at my threads, I've been very active in trying to out the mate raters and the bogus account creators. I've even got comments at the end of my portfolio now for questioning why Lluisa Obrador's photo of a graffiti'd wall received so many high ratings. They didn't like being called sycophants but that's exactly what they are. Because they can't think of anything constructive or honest to say to their "friends", they leave inane comments such as "I like clowns" or "I like graffiti" or, when they're really stumped, "nice colours!"

 

As I've stated before, the sooner people accept that ratings and comments go hand in hand, the better for everyone.

 

Paul, you suggest removing the anonymity of raters - a good idea but, contrary to what you believe, these gangs have been up to this since day one. Unfortunately Brian has told people how he runs the filter to pick this up and how it works - and so they've become smarter. When they invent a new person with some ridiculous sounding generic European name, all they do is rate a few other pictures as well: if only ISP addresses could be pinned down?

To David Robinson:

 

You are right all the way.

 

To TC Reed:

 

Here are my personnal answers to your 3 questions - hope they will help you realize a couple of things:

 

1. Because the system is such, that you need high scores to have your pictures seen and commented; and because I and others probably like their pictures to be discussed toroughly. Also because we like to read interesting discussions about photos rather than "wow! 7/7".

 

2. To read under our own photos and under photos uploaded by others interesting discussions about photographs. (Mate-rating has destroyed this possibility on most of the pages in the TRP).

 

3. There is NO big pay-off - or at least there has never been any for me. After being on photo.net for about 4 years, I haven't received a single email to order prints or anything that would lead me to earn a single coin. (I never thought anything like that would happen anyway, as I know well what serious photo-buyers are like.) The only pay-off I can think of: the interesting comments or discussions I may have read along the years - and which I rarely find anywhere nowadays, except for POWs.

 

Finally, the reason why some folks here keep on pushing for a rating reform may simply be their sense of justice on one hand, and their respect for really great photography on the other hand.

 

I would be truly happy to see the best photos in the TRP and great discussions in the TRP, rather than mate-rated photos with dog-fights and loads of empty praise underneath.

 

Yes, of course, every member on this site would probably prefer to have his work acclaimed rather laughed at, and the same for the critiques he writes, but at the end of the day, Bob Atkins is making here a caricature, which I find ridiculous and somehow insulting. Every photographer with a fairly straight mind knows that his pictures are not the world's best, nor the world's worst, and therefore there is a road for each and everyone to improve little by little: a road you walk with passion if you really love photography.

 

As if I and others would have written a few million words on this site just "to win". Perhaps it is time for you, Bob, to realize who is doing what and why, on photo.net.

1. Why do people put so much weight into the ratings they receive?

 

Depends on how long they've been on the site. Newbies think they have intrinsic value. Long time members know that the site uses them to determine image visibility, and, as Marc says, suggest improvements based on a sense of fairness and justice . . . . . another supposedly American value.

 

2. What is the purpose for joining photo.net or any photography website/forum?

 

In the gallery, it's to see and discuss inspiring images, and for some, to offer inspiring images of their own.

 

3. What is the expected payoff or gain from photo.net?

 

Inspiration and the opportunity to share a common interest with like minded souls. Those who are all about winning subvert the interests of everyone else.

 

Bob, you confuse mate raters with all image contributors and the photo.net population at large. You also don't see the extent to which creating winners has been made an integral part of fundraising. If he wasn't so afraid of losing popular uploaders (mostly mate raters), Brian would distribute image views more fairly.

Reasonable discussion but: One persons meat is another persons poison. (sorry, I left out some other species)

Bottom line: whatever rating system exists will be abused and corrupted by some. (Just a caricaturic parody of other comments)Now that the American and Europeans are involved, are the Australians next?

Best advice: shoot your best photos and earn yourself a trip to TRP, all expenses paid. Be happy if one of your images makes it. Stop whining and start shooting (pictures).