Minimum no. of ratings for TRP display

Just an observation:

<p>

Wouldn't it be a good idea to restrict inclusion in the (now

defaulted) 'average rating' view of the TRP, until the photo has

received enough ratings to make the average meaningful?

<p>

At the moment, the #1 photo is<br> <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=2585276">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=2585276</a><br> with averages 6.50/7.00 (!!!) and only 4

ratings.

<p>

I am not bashing the photo, in fact I like a lot of the

photographer's work, but surely it is far from the best photo

submitted in the last 3 days, and the average quoted is hardly

representative. The 4 rating that have created this average are

probably those of friends or admirers of the photographer keen to

rate high whatever he submits.

<p>

If there was a minimum of ratings to be shown in the average view

enough to create statistical meaning of the average (say 10 or 20)

the early, unrealistic values like these would not end up on prime

display.

the problem with your idea is that with a higher minimum number of ratings this photo would continue to stay invisible to most while it might gather high rates only from friends and admirers until reaching say 10 rates. whereas once it becomes sooner visible on the default TRP to any member it can now be accessibly rated by all. note that as I type this the photo now averages 6.00/5.59 and 17 ratings.

Dear Nikos - perhaps you be even happier if your images when posted were zoomed

immediately to the top of the TRP?<p> I for one wouldn't mind this facility being offered

to earnest young men and women like yourself. Perhaps the site could auction off the

most 'visable' spots for a price <p>per minute/hour/hours/day/days/week/weeks/

month/months/year/years.<p>.This would be a very commercial idea no doubt. <p>

Certainly the dedication of some who shout look at me! look at me! could then be subject

to market forces and some pecuniary reward could be directly attributed to this wonderful

and priceless affectation that so many humble photographers so desperately desire. <p> I

have to apologise if my post sounds too severe, as I positively refuse to employ the use of

emoticons in order to properly convey my state of mind in this reply. George.

Peggy said it all. That one was obviously over-rated by his mates. We need to use low rating to stop them.

I agree with you Nikos, and consider George's observation totally out of place and very disrespectful. Ok, he's getting us used to his usually harsh comments, then who cares... :-/

 

I also think that the shot is far from the best in the last three days, but this is not THE reason to support your proposal, only part of it. I've been looking this behavior for almost a week and yes, that's what's going on. I wouldn't say that this is another case of mate rating, as Peggy stated, though. It's just the unrepresentative nature of the very first rates.

 

For a photograph to win the privilege to be shown on the TRP, especially the default one, should be better founded. And a minimum number of rates (say 10...?) probably would be a good starting point for a test.

 

BTW, this was the default way a couple of years ago, before the present 1-7 scale was introduced in replacement of the previous 1-10 scale.

If you have a DSL connection, you might want to see how many of the images in question have an RFC attached. As Nestor has pointed out, a minimum of ten rates used to be required, and several people figured out that if you uploaded an image and notified your friends immediately, you could get ten quick high rates without going through the list which, as you should know, tends to be more onjective by virtue of being mostly anonymous. It is true that now ratings are semi-anonymous, but that is more than countered by what Brian has called the 'halo effect'. The image in question got some lower rates, but last time I looked was still on the top page.

The new system is perfect. It gives those without a following a chance for some exposure. If a photo with 3 ratings is on the TRP and doesnt belong there surely it wont be for long.

<i>"The image in question got some lower rates, but last time I looked was still on the top page."</i>

<p>but is it now at the TOP of the top page? very few people bother to click 'next' or 'previous' page, and nearly as few likely don't bother to scroll down further than viewing the top 6 or 9 of the 21 on the top page. theoretical 'visibility' is quite relative to actual reality of things. the data is there and plain to see. 'views' in the hundreds of thousands (some in the millions!), 'comments plus rates' in the hundreds, if that.

for some not so clear reasons the thing doesn't work that way.

 

That's the cite of Brian's M. concept that Carl has used, the "halo effect": when an image is on the TRP, it seems to capture more high rates than it could catch if it wasn't there.

The bottom line is don't matter was Brian does and he has done allot. The resident rate crybabies will perpetually complain. So Brian congratulations, I don't envy your position of trying to appease the glass is half empty crowd who will never be happy and will find some fault in the system.

that's partially true, I usually think what you have just stated about the crowds constantly proposing changes in the rating system.

 

But I'm sure p.net staff is professional and grown-up enough to know the difference between a minor and major change, something that you seem to have forgotten.

 

We're viewers also, then a good system that shows up the best shots posted to the site is always necesary.

The idea that we should be knocking off images that don't belong when we could spend out time promoting images instead is similar to trashing ideas that you don't understand rather than saying something constructive based on actual experience.

Well put. There is way too much time exerted on knocking off images. There is a group here that is highly insulted to see not everyone shares the same opinions of their own. This group fails to realize photography is highly subjective.

"There is a group here highly insulted to see not everyone shares the same opinions of their own."

 

No, your insult is calling other crybabies and so.

 

Once more, you're wrong insulting us again.

 

If you don't mind, please leave the thread, obviously this is not of your interest, so why to bother reading and writting. Go and keep on admiring more shots of your subjective liking.

 

Some moderator out there to do his/her job?

I quite agree with Nikos original post... and an element of solution might be to let appear on TRP <b>exclusively </b>the Critic Requested pics. I thought it was the case as Brian explained few months ago but I realize that it is not.<p>Brian can you explain us what are the rules here, if any?

Peggy, you've got a point in saying that with a 10 minimum some people would be 'buffing up' their ratings before throwing them to highly visible places, perhaps some already do with the method Carl pointed out. (very observant, hadn't thought about this)

 

George: Did you even read my post, or did you just pop in to insult me with misplaced irony and arguments that have nothing to do with the topic I raised? You can troll all you like, but next time try to at least have a point. A valid one would be even better. Failing that, the absolute minimum is to read what has been posted and keep your trolls slightly relevant.

You're quite right. A RFC-only TRP is an important piece of the puzzle.

Nikos et al - please accept my most humble apologies - substitute YOUR name in my post Niko (that would be correct wouldn't it?) for anyone that wants to constantly tinker with what gets put on the top pages...via numerical currency - <i> this was the only point I was trying to make </i> in jocular mnner. <p> The best photos should appear on the TRP and the best photos froma range of 'genres' would be even better. <p> However, the 'best' photos idea is frought with ......all too much baggage. My <i> personal</i> response to the great amount of visual assault present in the TRP - is to largely ignore it. This is a bad thing for this excellent site. I note that many of the better photogrpahers don't even respond to people's critiques, which means that they aren't interested - before I will critique an image I have made it a policy to only engage with those photographers who recognise the time and effort it takes to actually pen something more than WOW/PERFECT .... however, there is no currency for decent criticism except the pleasure one gets from finding good images aor helping someone see better.<p> Amusing how people are so selfish about how their photographs are treated with regard to TRP - but so insensitive as to what <i> should</i> get there in the first place.George

...are both correct that RFC and TRP participants are not likely inclined to engage in meaningful discussion about their photos for many of the reasons they have stated, both here and on other threads. so why not put your verbal currency where participants are at least de facto inclined to be receptive to photo discussion? those who have requested critique without rates must be asking for something else, if not rates, no?

Landscapes are a good example of visual assault. I have quite a few landscapes in my private collection - they are ALL black and white shots and no not oen Ansell Adams. I am amused to see over satured (often composite) images with post card aesthetics rated as high or higher as some of the exceellnt work of say a Nana Sousa for example. <p> So if landscapes were allowed only X % of the gallery, and 'nudes' hahahahah now THAT is another story...were allowed only y% of the gallery - two things would fiollow<p> 1. The quality of the landscapes would improve as seen by the TRP <p> 2. The educational aspects of the site would improve by virtue of 1. <p> I firmly believe that schlock only works in context of schlock.

Hey Nestor did you whine to the teacher when you were bullied in school too?

Dan Manson Said:"Peggy said it all. That one was obviously over-rated by his mates. We need to use low rating to stop them."

 

Wow! You are kidding me. Are you Barney Fife or Barney the big dinosaur? You even sound a little like Batman. I think they should give you a super hero icon. You may want to consider getting a life. It may cure your acute case of identity crisis.

In the last 2 weeks Mr Dan Manson has changed his name 3 times. First from the fairy like charachter Robin Hood to the macho Dan Hood to the hockey player Dan Manson. What next big boy? Charlie Manson? Then you can say " Fruitcake to mass murderer in a single bound." What about this moderators? This guy says: "We must knock them off with low ratings," as he changes his identity every week. I think this is abuse. Isn't it?

George, the apology is accepted. Your quick-to-bicker temper seems to be complemented by the confidence to apologise where it's due. It is a rare attitude and I respect it, as it is harder than the boring playing-nice/PC nonsense that plagues our culture in general.

 

Here's what I've learned after several years using this site:

 

1. Any philosophical meanderings regarding the merit and worthiness of having a ratings system are already expired. The ratings system and the TRP are vital for the site.

 

2. Dismissive arguments need not apply. The site, due to its size, history, cost, etc has certain requirements that introduce intriguing complexities in this system. With the human factor dropping into the equation, the system can never be perfect. (if you're into philosophizing about it, define the perfect selection of best photos) But it HAS evolved and it has on many occasions solved several problems. This forum is for suggestions, discussions and identifiation of such problems. Saying "do not fix this problem, because the whole system is silly anyway" will not lead to something better. Something better is the only choice. Something totally different and new and radical is not an option at the moment. All arguments and discussions are meningful only if taking into account that the site cannot re-invent and over-haul itself overnight.

 

3. Most people come here and raise issues because they bug them personally vis-a-vis their own ratings performance. But this is NOT ALWAYS the case.

Hanna, you must have multiple IDs since you just join the forum couple days ago and you seems knowing 'everything'. Why do you 'hate' me when I might not rate any of your photo? I may have interest about those mating rate's work. You are one of them or their close friend, aren't you? When almost everyone know there are bunch of abusers around PN, you stand up for them, what's your agenda?