Post to the PN staff

I want to ask you a question that I've asked you before via e-mail,

and that has never been answered. I thought, it might be a good idea

to ask you at this forum.A member with ID (deleted by moderator) has given 4500

ratings to 2090 different photographers, so the average is 2 rate per

one photographer. Me, and few other members photos, have been (down)

rated by this user at least 40 times,which is more than 50% of our

photos, also a member with ID (deleted) prefers such behavoiur.I'm

truly happy, that they look at my portfolio all the time, and if I

get at least one rating, the next one is usually given by one of

them,but I can call this behaviour "a molesting", and this is

molesting with your backing.If you happen to delete this post, hoping

nobody has seen it, it will only be a proof that I was right.Of

course, I'm aware that tomorow or a few days later, I can be thrown

off Photo.net, as one of my friends (...) was.

 

 

probably farewell to all of you...

Best Regrads BartekB

well, i think i know what Bartek means. I've been reading his previous posts about the user with ID=(deleted) is behaving at least not fair, and I'm shocked, that you (PN staff) allow such behaviour. What I've noticed, is that this guy keeps downrating photos of selected members, and I have to add that these members have very good photos. Allthough this guy never rated any of my photos, I'm afraid he can start doing that any time. Behaviour of this user is irritating and should not happen on a respectable site like PN. Regards.

Bartek B, Hasta la Vista, Vaya con dios, Syonara, Fare thee well, Mach Schnell. Be sure to take your circle of 'friends' with you.

"and I've sent You, sheeps, amongst wolves"

Please do not discuss the behaviour of other photo.net members in the public forums. It is a violation of the forum policy. It is also impolite -- to say the least. If you send the information to abuse@photo.net, it will be studied. Include concrete evidence.

 

However, most complaints of "down-rating" are just cases of people with a different understanding of the the rating scale than you think proper and different responses to photographs than you are accustomed to. That is just too bad for you. If you can't tolerate different views and tastes, you would do well to depart from the site.

 

While there are certainly cases of abuse, which we appreciate being reported (privately via email), there are as many cases (or more) of people complaining unjustifiably, and at this point it isn't clear to me which is the more serious problem -- the abuse or the bad-faith complaints about abuse.

The proof? hmmm with my selfportrait?;-)

This abuse of the abuse system will have to stop. Complaints about abuse of the abuse system should be directed to abuse abuse email address (which we haven't set up yet...).

 

It's certainly possible that someone who rates lower than the average simple has better developed critical faculties, and/or uses a less inflated rating system. and/or has different tastes to you and the rest of your group. It's certainly not automatically abuse, though if you piss him/her off enough by complaining about him/her in public, I can see where some sort of bias might just creep into his/her ratings.

 

If email to abuse@photo.net doesn't result in action or a response it doesn't mean it's been ignored. It could well have been read, evaluated and judged not to be a valid complaint. I doubt the abuse moderator has the time or inclination to answer every single abuse complaint with a personal response and explanation.

Bartek B,<br>I don't understand the problem. You've received 3592 ratings from 931 different names and of those 3592 have been 7's and only 10 have been 2's.<br>So it seems to me that 2 possibities exist, either the person you're complaining about is totally wrong, in which case his/her opinion can be safely ignored, or that s/he is trying to introduce some sanity into the rating system.<p>Whatever the reason, I don't know what you'e complaining about. I've had both 2 and 7 ratings on the same photo. So what?

Garry , At almost every your photo and every day , the same members gave a opposite rate .?I understand, i got a low rank it's normal but everyday two the same members?

Bart, I just looked at your 'self portrait.' . . . .

 

The damage mate rating does to this site is considerable, but it pales in comparison to the damage it does to the photographic growth of those who participate. Most who receive daily sevens actually believe that their images are excellent. Bart, it's a form of prostitution . . give them what they want, and you get compensation. The fact that so many pariticpate in this form of prostitution does not give their rates any more validity.

 

Start another account under a different name, upload some new images . . . . . . and DON'T RATE ANYBODY. Let your images stand on their own.

Thanks for all comments.

Carl i understand you ,but you don't see that when a few members gave a downrate then also a few members gave a highrate. You try tell me ,that here is a downrate system because photos has a too high rates?;-) I understand also high rate problem but why always a the same members?!!!.

Bart, you seem to be using the many high rates as a justification that the low rates are not deserved. They may be honest low rates, or they're just playing a compensation game of some kind. I don't know. What I do know is that if you didn't offer so many high rates to so many people, your images wouldn't receive so many high rates (and probably wouldn't attract the few daily low raters that you mention).

 

Please explain this to Hanna.

Maybe yes ,maybe not but you don't be sure;-) . You understand what means below average?.Do You noticed ,that these photos which has a highter rate ,get a lower downrate ?

I rest my case . . . . .

 

Well on this thread anyway.

"The damage mate rating does to this site is considerable, but it pales in comparison to the damage it does to the photographic growth of those who participate. Most who receive daily sevens actually believe that their images are excellent..." -Carl Root

 

I could not agree more with you here Carl! In fact when I tried to make honest suggestions on one such person, I got egg in the face so to speak. It limits ones potential for a certainty, and possibly does serious damage to any hopes of going further. Furthermore, the better images are buried down on the TRP pages. Nothing good comes with mate-rating other than a few tight groups of friends IF ones conscience allows.

 

As for the lowballers: Yes Bartek you are correct, they exist, they are here to try to even the score a bit and offer no valuable feedback whatsoever. However, you should keep something in mind here... they rate practically everybody! I get the same visits, so does Carl and many many others. So really, in the end it all evens out. It was no different when Z did the same thing, rated everybody lower than others. Eventually, it got to the point where it did not bother me one single bit. In fact I counted on those visits. My advice to you would just try not to worry at all about it. Those same visitors WILL visit you in the future, myself and anybody that has some measure of success. I would also respectfully suggest to be sure that when you do hand out a pair of 7s, that the images involved truly deserve those ratings. Not simply because they handed the same out to you. Again, as Carl mentioned above, it does more harm in the long run than most people ever realize.

Carl Root: Good job of stating the problem. Bartek: What you're really saying is that this "party" isn't buying into overrated images like yours? After looking at your posting and then your images, I think I will rate them accordingly as well....

Carl Vincent and I are not always on the same side of the table but here I very much agree with Vincent agreeing with Carl <i>"The damage mate rating does to this site is considerable, but it pales in comparison to the damage it does to the photographic growth of those who participate. Most who receive daily sevens actually believe that their images are excellent..."</i> and with Vincent saying <i>"In fact when I tried to make honest suggestions on one such person, I got egg in the face so to speak."</i><p> Happy also to read Carl finally recognizing that <i> "using the many high rates as a justification that the low rates are not deserved" </i> is somehow wrong. Each of us is entitled to have and express an opinion. <p> Firstly 4/4 or 4/3 are not bad ratings. The problem here is the visibility: if a photographer respecting the critic process here (i.e. request a critic), receives a couple of 4/5 to start with (as it is mostly the case), this picture will be very shortly and surely buried in the TGP ... this mostly because of those who, at once and without going through the official request procedure, get a bunch of 7 out of nowhere and will artificially squat the 3 front pages ... <p>Then, IMO, Bartek, the most boring member is the one who systematically gives the same rating to same photographer whatever his production is; always 7/7 or always 4/4 from the same rater is meaningless and not helpful. Things being subjective and purely judgmental in art critic, I would rather prefer the one who can sort my images according to his taste using the full scale of rating (from 7 to 1 - agreed that at least 1 or 2 should be justified by a comment)<p> I have to admit that, due to this, I tend to rate what I find interesting to rate (and which is not too overrated) and I prefer commenting. Also I tend to look at Top Pages less and less whilst I keep surfing on 'interesting people''s comments, W/NW forum and other side of PNet (but then I think that TGP could be a magnificient democratic and representative tool if not broken by an active minority) . Nowadays, TGP look like the Site-1 of PhotoPoints where on a rating scale of 1-5 only 5 is used, a matter of number of mate (or aliases) you can get, and if you put a 3, either they block you from giving rate (they can) either they (more often their mates/aliases) retaliate like a clouds of grasshoppers... funny enough you find almost the same people rating the same pictures overthere (plus some extra who have been banned from PNet).... they should remain there I think.

Wow. How can I say this - any thread that throws me into Brian M.'s camp is certainly

special.

<p>

I'll confess two things. I am fascinated sometimes by ratings I get, I watch the numbers

dance by and try to figure out what someone may be thinking. On the other hand, I

stopped rating and feel guilty I can't return the rating attention to others - but I try to go

and add critiques - I lack a coherent rating system and felt very inadequate so stopped.

<p>

But beyond that I have a real hard time investing much emotional energy into ratings. Go

out and take some pictures. This isn't real life (ratings that is).

It seems like ratings of one to three are considered insults. Its as though there is a de facto four level rank system which one day will lead to ranks of four or five becoming insults and so on. If there is anything not to complain about, its getting a few scores in the one to three range. Everything will be O.K. No one in the world cares about the rank so and so got on an image on photo.net.

<i>"It seems like ratings of one to three are considered insults."</i><p>

 

John, your absolutely right. Could it be a result of the terminology: <i>"very bad"</i>, <i>"bad"</i>, <i>"below average"</i> etc.? Most people <b>would</b> be offended if they were told, in person, that their work was <i>"very bad"</i>.<p>

 

Regardless, I agree that ratings shouldn't be taken seriously. They can be misleading, inaccurate, and inflated - sometimes all at once. Hope for legitimate critiques and keep shooting.

I think it stems more from a person's inability to look at his own work objectively. No one WANTS to get ratings that are poor and I find it doubtful that anyone posts a photo to be rated thinking, "This will receive 2's and 3's." And I can certainly understand people being upset with ratings from 1 to 3, they should be if they really want to improve. I'm more alarmed by the number of people who find 4's and in extreme cases even 5's offensive. Everyone should always remember that everyone has their own opinion on every photo and to think that 30 (or even 10) people would rate a photo and no one will find it average in their eyes in unrealistic.

*IS unrealistic. Sorry

To Vincent - you've written that ..... (razor) gives ratings to many people. But this is only a cover, because he rated more than 2000 members, and we all know why - to bring up such reasons as these written in the posts above. Furthermore, 2000 people vere given one rank, and a few others more than 30 ranks. Why doesn't he give 1? It's simple: he would give us a proof that his behaviour is an abuse. Why does he give 7? Of course, to bring up arguments that he's not only downrating.

I've got really nothing against low rates, never mind if there are followed witha a comment. But we all know the way these two members are giving ratings, and you have changed the point of my post for your own comfort.

Bartek- Not that I have much to add, what with all the wonderful comments above me, but what would the world be without a few dear john's, a little Luv, an ounce of Faith and then there's just plain old Good Luck? (That's what I call them). A better place? Maybe not! Please don't let them upset you so. I certainly hope no on throws you off PN for asking a question.

 

Since the powers that be have been throwing out some of the 1/1's, if they are deemed inappropriate, at least they have been giving 2/2's, or 3/3's, and even some 4/4's. Questionable improvement.

 

I agree with the above comments about the problems of mate ratings. I much prefer comments to ratings any day of the week, even bad comments. Makes my brain work better. Thanks John, I really do enjoy you!

Bartek,<br>

 

With respect I think that it's you who is missing the point.<p>

 

Ratings, whether they work well or badly, are <b>supposed</b> to reflect an honest assessment of a photograph.<br>They are not supposed to repay friends on a reciprocal basis, nor are they supposed to help these friends to achieve pie-in-the-sky prizes for 'winning' a non-existant competition.<p>People who abuse the system by indulging in mate-rating, 'extra' identities and rating inflation do harm to the principles and good intentions of this site. People who want to behave in this way would help honest members by migrating to one of the sites on which this type of behaviour seems to be considered to be acceptable.... No, forget I said that, the other sites require them to pay subscription fees, and that would never do.<br>I only wish that the PN administrators shared my personal views and did something effective to curb this abuse.<p>If my views have touched a raw nerve with anyone please feel free to mark all my photos with a '1' or a 2.