Ratings on the rise?

These people don't like it being pointed out to them either.

 

Just look at the comment at the end of my portfolio.

The ratings are way too high but the changes were made to accommodate the complainers on these boards. Now the same people will no doubt continue to find flaws. The old system was better. I have no personal interest in this because my photos do not qualify under any measure.

Mate raters are indeed killing the value and the interest of the gallery, and it is a case in many other photosite using ratings. As a result, I almost never look at the gallery anymore...<br> But my guess is that those mates are less numerous than we think as many of them just multiply accounts posting (or not) similar pictures, 'commenting' and rating almost exclusively each other...<p> thus, mate rating does not exist in reality, ... just another virtual world... better smile about it.. I reallly do sometime!! :o))

Whether going to a different ratings scale or not (such as using a limited 8 rating) as long as the TRP is based on *total average* score, you will be giving those that practice mate-rating top visibility. In the past, when the *number of ratings* was used for the default TRP page, those that mated each other with 7s (regardless of how good the work was) were really only given advantages on the TOP PHOTOGRAPHERS page and not the default TRP, which offers much more visibility. The mate-raters would only occasionally get on the TRP, and usually those images were reasonably good in my opinion. By changing the TRP default page back to total average score, you are only adding even more incentive to join this group since now they will have the greatest visibility on both the TRP and Top Photographers pages since both are now based on the highest average scores. This mate-rating group by the way IS only getting larger and larger since the rewards too are only getting larger.

 

The other problem here, is that you cannot even consider going back to the total NUMBER of ratings as the default page since that page would be filled with even more undesirable images for the thousands of people wishing to go to the gallery. Ever since they started categorizing nudes this has been a non-option.

 

The entire site just seems to be in downward spiral at this time from a photographers point of view. Since the best gallery images are often many pages down, and the top pages are often lacking in true quality, in time it could have an effect on the site as a whole.

"In the past, when the *number of ratings* was used for the default TRP page, those that mated each other with 7s (regardless of how good the work was) were really only given advantages on the TOP PHOTOGRAPHERS page and not the default TRP, which offers much more visibility. The mate-raters would only occasionally get on the TRP, and usually those images were reasonably good in my opinion. By changing the TRP default page back to total average score, you are only adding even more incentive to join this group since now they will have the greatest visibility on both the TRP and Top Photographers pages since both are now based on the highest average scores. This mate-rating group by the way IS only getting larger and larger since the rewards too are only getting larger."

 

AGREED.

"Whether going to a different ratings scale or not (such as using a limited 8 rating) as long as the TRP is based on *total average* score, you will be giving those that practice mate-rating top visibility."

 

DISAGREED. Think in mathematical terms about the consequences of having an "8" rating which would be limited to a certain number per rater. Think in mathematical terms and you will see easily that it would make a huge difference in the TRP, because mate-raters would no longer be able to spend hundreds of 8s per day or week - whereas they are now free to do so.

I probably do not have the capacity to think that far ahead.....

 

I would guess that I would use that number very, very infrequently if at all, while they (mate-raters) would all use it as often as is permissable, and only on each other. Would it change up the order of images on the top, let's say five pages??

John...A bit of a tangent yes maybe, but looking today i see 16/21 top pics are digital and over last year 9/21.

 

Whoever said the old system was better was right...at least then it was obvious who was pumping up the ratings or dishing out 1/1 as grudge ratings.

 

Why 8??...why not 10 and add decimals? Like a lot of pics are truly a 5.7 with todays system for example, and then given that thought you give it a 6 rather than 5, which is a bit undeserving. Thanks.

"A bit of a tangent yes maybe, but looking today i see 16/21 top pics are digital and over last year 9/21."

 

More photogs are switching to digital. Most film photogs scan/digitize their images for Photoshop. Few photogs display their scans unaltered.

Nothing new under the sun... aren't you tired to repeat the same thing?...:o))...<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005HI4"> PN is unbalanced </a> is an old thread and I can find hundred of threads like this in the past 3 years...with more or less the same people involved... for those who do not understand that they have to adapt or leave... since admin had made it quite clear about the site philosophy and priority.... or just may be the other sites around are just even worse.<p>:o(

you can also look .... <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00624s"> at this thread</a> or even <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0065Kt"> in this one (posted a year ago!!)</a>, at that time, Brian was quite clear in his answer..., then...

Marc, do you recall <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00624s"> this one too </a>? as I said... hundreds of them......

Sorry .. I meant <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004PUX"> this one</a>

John, your overall average is about .7 below mine. And even then neither of us are really an effect. You have 700+ ratings and I have 1200. Mine have been over the course of a couple years. I think the bigger argument against me is that I need to get more involved.

 

Seeing people with 12,000 images rated with and average over 6 is disturbing and a growing occurance. I see lots of 5,6,7+ thousand images with 6.3/6.2 average. That is a lot of 6's and 7's and as Marc mentioned it was handed out to anything.

 

Anyhow, my initial statement was just asking Brian if the average has been going up or down. Since there was silence, I am guessing it is about the same and Brian is just sick of threads like this.

Dave, I think your last sentence was unfortunately accurate...:o)<p> Not only the mate raters and cheap 7's fault, but also and firstly the wording behind the rate (such as 'bad', 'very bad', 'below average') has not been very cleverly chosen and is set to be conflictual.<p> I tend to rate and/or comment what I like and what I found interesting so that my average has increased since I officially joined PNet.... and to be honnest, most of the pictures I see on TRP are IMHO between 3/4 and 5/5...

<i>...most of the pictures I see on TRP are IMHO between 3/4 and 5/5...</i><p>That would have to include my latest, Jacques. Highly unoriginal, although aesthetics aren't too bad, imo. :)<br>I just wanted to point out to Dave that Brian's lack of response might be due to other reasons. No doubt, all of you have noticed that Rajeev had to fly back from NYC to <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009b5k"> reboot the DB server, </a> during Sunday. I would therefore suggest that Brian has not been available for a couple of days. Not trying to be an apologist for him, but you have to admit that most of the time, he's pretty good with responding to many threads in this forum. Privately, Dave and I have agreed a long while back that the ratings system has gone silly. But as Jacques pointed out with the various threads - it has been like that for a very long time. As before, I would recommend that people are more creative in browsing through the vast PN database. The TRP is only one of many, many entry points to the Gallery...

Dave, the ratings on the highest rated images (ALL) do not include nearly as many recent images as they did before the change to "anonymous" rating. Frankly, I'm not interested in averages, either by an individual or site wide. The effect of recent changes can be measured by looking at the number of views of recent uploads. Once they're off the last three on your member page, the number of views will only increase along with the others in your portfolio, sso the ratios will be constant. Check it out.

 

There's no reason why the site should encourage such a high concentration of images by the same group of raters day after day. We're still here because we've found less popular photographers whose images inspire us and whose critiques are worth reading, but it has been acknowledged that many have left, cut back, or stopped participating. It seems odd to me that we are willing to put up with a heavy dose of oversaturation, composites, Italian landscapes, etc., when there are so many good photographers who can offer us the variety that should be assumed to be the purpose of the site and should be reflected in the selection of the TRP.

Peter... please read 6/6 ... just for u!<p>but this is very jugmental appreciation as u know...

INDEED JAQUES! <p> Wakin'up ghosts...

Yes Carl, I think this site needs more photos of New Jersey constuction sites instead of those lanscapes.

It strikes me the rise in ratings is an inevitable reaction to making the front pages respond to the numeric rating instead of the number of ratings. Nonetheless, I think shifting the way the pages are selected has done a good job of bringing some new stuff to the fore, and one approach that could have an impact would be to shift periodically to other ways of sorting the pages (e.g., sum of ratings, originality only, etc.).

 

Since there isn't a juried panel, there will always be a dynamic driven by the behavior of a large and diverse group with different goals, many of which have nothing to do with rating. So, in this imperfect world, I just want to keep having tools to mix the pot with and see what I can find in here.

 

In the meantime, whenever I want a juried panel, I tend to look at the photos being commented on or rated highly by many of the people posting above, so as long as you guys keep finding new and interesting photographers, I'm OK.

I have to admit I'm somewhat relieved to read this post, as I thought it was "just me" with the mate-raters. In all honesty, I typically find the "top photos" of the gallery inspiring. It helps an amateur like me to see what's getting high marks - and then dissecting "why." It's a learning tool, essentially. But last Friday - and a few times since - I've wanted to write queries under pics to humbly ask WHY the photos was getting such high marks. Again, as an amateur, who am I to judge, right? But, after over a year on Pnet, I can honestly say some of the recent climbs to the top have stunned me - and yes, they usually are all taken by a regular group...even if the greatest thing under the photo as a critique is "nice texture," when the image is dull, un-inspiring, off axis, etc. And frankly, with that many supporters of the photo, I've been terrified of retribution to ask - even humbly - what it is in many's opinons that makes it such a great shot...that's all I'm learning from it:(

The solutions has been there all the time, it has been proposed again and again, it is mathematically guaranteed to work, and yet it has never been implemented:

 

Ratings quotas!

 

Simply enough, if you want rating to have meaning as currency they have to be limited to their proper distribution. Our current system is one where each member has the $100-bill printing machine.

 

There are a number of possible ways to attach real value to rating by quotas:

 

1. Provide users with ratings tokens in batches (1x1, 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 3x5, 2x6, 1x7) and don't give them a new batch before they use up the previous one. Users should be able to forgo use of symmetrical rating tokens (i.e. a 1 and a 7)

 

2. Allow users a maximum deviation from the average. For every 5,6 or 7 you hand out, the difference from the average (4) is subtracted from your quota. When you run out you have to replenish your quota either by waiting for some time (let's say you get a few points every week) or by contributing photos, critiques, etc to earn points. (this is what I had described long ago as the Kharma system) Unused and bogues accounts sitting there to accumulate points can easily be detected by software patterns.

 

3. Dynamically adaptive quotas across the site could adjust the number of high ratings available per user according to his/her rating behaviour and the rating behaviour of others. If site-wide rating inflation is occuring the software could choose to disallow rating higher than 5 from the N most active high-raters of last week, forcing them to step back and hand the reins of influence to other users who didn't have a rating-spree last week.

 

The principles in all of the above schemes are simple:

 

A. Restrict the handout of rating to the distribution pattern that gives them meaning (a lot of 4's versus few 1's and 7's)

 

B. Make users feel that their rating handout is a limited and precious influence, thus eliminate the mate-rating exchanges of something-for-nothing.

 

I agree with all the posters above who are foreseeing a downard spiral in the gallery. The quality of the daily selection is getting worse by the day, and the chances of honestly getting a little visibility and a few interesting comments are diminishing. There is only place left for the little peopl with the many cheap 7s.

 

Something needs be done, and it better be radical and serious. Tinkering with the order and the anonymity or not is not going to make any difference.

Sam-m: I agree with your last statement. The best findings are through the selections of individuals with good taste. But it's getting harder and harder for those individuals to find the good stuff in the first place. It's being buried deep by the little people with the cheap 7s. I used to spend hours in the gallery looking for gems. Go look at my highest rated pages and you'll maybe find some good stuff you never noticed. But it's all dated. Because it's getting more and more difficult to treasure hunt in the gallery these days, and many of the best treasure hunters are tired and gone. We're not just dealing with rating inflation here. The problem is far more serious and widespread.

Nikos, while I agree with your observations, your solutions create problems for all raters and for Brian.

 

Placing an emphasis on a particular ditribution of rate values and personal rating averages is asking for dishonest input. It does not benefit anyone to go find some 3s, 2s, and a 1 just to satistfy the need to find the best images. Ratings are not anonymous, especially for weaker images, so you create a lot of ill will and retaliation.

 

I do agree with you about the difficulty in finding hidden images worthy of more views. My point of emphasis is that the better images are on personal hard drives where they'll stay until the system is fixed. The talent pool here is considerable, but many of the best aren't sharing the interesting images that don't have popular attributes.