jhenry Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I recently read a lot of complains regarding the gallery' pages... mate raters, low raters, anti PhotoShoppers,...<p> I would just put a couple of very simple ideas that could make things much easier for the various style of people:<p> - 1 - why not set up the <b>default page for TGP simply as the last 7 days uploads (for which the photographer made a critic request)</b> ranked by date and time of up_load? <p> - 2 - why not set up gallery's filter by name of raters. We have already a personal list of 'interesting people', lets make a personallist of <b> 'uninteresting raters' </b>, then the sort of database will not include the rate of those people? <p> - 3 - Category would be also a great use although implementation is a bit too recent IMO to be of a useful use right now. Thus, I would just suggest to set a category filter such as <b> 'uninteresting categories' </b> by which the member could decide to keep or eliminate, for instance 'nude', 'portraits', 'manipulated'...<p> ... then each of us could get a very personally filtered view on the great PNet photo database and this would sharply reduce the vain and no-end dispute that pollute the site. We live in a virtual and flexible world with great tools to de-multiply it, so let's use them to satisfy the maximum of taste without imposing one in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattvardy Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hi Jacques,<p> You have some very creative and interesting ideas here, though imo they aren't necessary:<p> 1. If you don't like mate-rater and low-raters than you'll have to live with it and ignore their ratings.<br> 2. A filter for "uninteresting raters" makes no logical sense to me. Such a filter would only [even further] promote mate-rating or high-rating. You have to admit that some images really do deserve lower ratings; by allowing the photographer to block these lower ratings you are allowing him/her to receive only high ratings or block those who rate their images honestly - thus loosing all useful/truthful feedback and creating a false sense of success. The site would simply fall apart.<br> 3. If you find some categories more or less interesting than others, than view them accordingly. Don't view nudes or digital manipulations if you aren't interested in them.<p> We should be able to "personally filter" the site for ourselves by using common sense, knowledge, and [when necessary] discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 and do not mistake my words, I deliberately chose to select 'uninteresting' because as a negative choice I suppose that it will certainly be far limited in number... thus easier to set<p>:o))<p> but may be we will loose the most entertaining part of the PNet show!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith_cohen Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 "We should be able to "personally filter" the site for ourselves by using common sense, knowledge, and [when necessary] discretion." - Matt Vardy Too many of us in the real world live filtered lives. The filtered view is what the current U.S. administration promotes as "good for us." In the end this amounts to censorship and censureship. Here in PN users want only glad-hands and high ratings. There are those who say they want their photos visible for critiques but they don't want criticism and only "nice going" or "wow". My highest compliments go to young Matt for his thoroughly mature approach to the subject! P.S. to Brian: rotate the defaulting TRP to provide a richer variety of image/photographer views. This would help educate PN users to do their own searches into the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 To Matt (BTW my second comment was posted before reading your answer):<p> I think you TOTALLY mistaken my points ... I'm not talking about my own pictures, or each one pictures, but I am talking about the visibility of the database which is, upon various point of views, polluted, some think that pollution comes from low raters, many thinks because of mate raters, few think that nude or landscapes are over represented, other estimate that top pictures are always heavily manipulated... so I just proposed tools that does not bother anybody and bring more comfort to the viewer to select/deselect, using very basic and modern tools, the criteria of database selection.<br> Same for movie or books critics, I am sure that there are some magazines you don't rely on for helping you to select your evening programs...<br> So, why not use the power of existing technology to help this manual selection process (which is actually quite impossible), both in terms of quickness and efficiency. Sorry to say but looks quite timorous approach ... with internet and programming, we now have tools to make the world wider and flexible without bothering anybody. If I have those selection tools set up, I wont care anymore about mate rating or low rating, they won't pollute my visibility anymore, I'd identified and deselected those people/categories then my visibility on the world would be closer to my expectation, at least according to my own subjectivity. Free to the other to proceed differently... we are not living in the real world here, people can get several life, remain anonymous (what is an e-mail?), ... WAKE UP!<p> To Faith: probably those tools will put you under early retirement and you could concentrate on your real talents as great photographer too... don't you think so?!<br>:o))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith_cohen Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 As Matt smartly suggests, one can take full advantage of PN's selection menus to find "interesting" images, however slowly. But I wish there was ability to jump to the middle pages (go to page #) rather than search/wait via "previous" or "next"; okay, another to-do list item, Brian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith_cohen Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 As an example of how usably rich this site is, as a change of pace I searched the recent critique requests list of "street" and noticed one entry with a novel photo title that attracted my curiosity, and so I found a hidden photo gem (though it might have been just as easily categorized under "children" or "sports"): http://www.photo.net/photo/2752440 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattvardy Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Thanks for the compliment, Faith, and I agree that browsing certain areas of this site (namely the TRP) can be tedious and time-consuming. 'Previous' and 'Next' navigation (of dozens or hundreds of pages) really sucks - especially on dial-up lol! The searches are a little frustrating aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 Mechanically, <b>we can't ignore it (some raters or some categories) if we can't properly deselect it as ignored parameter ... </b> <p> and I don't need to live with since tools can be set to afford to live without...<p> Faith, I agree on your suggestion too but I've made a similar suggestion of 'goto to page XXX' <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006gjw"> here </a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006JR3"> here </a> last year, but without much success.<p> we have to live without it too :o((( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 may be because i am not in the market anymore, Peter ...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cristina_fumi Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 what I actually do is take some more time and go through the pages. I guess most people stop at the second one! I think the more we see the more we learn and appreciate photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Who cares what people rate if they don't say anything? 1/1 is as good as a 7/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midhun Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Low rates will be there for any photographs. There are few photographs which many people find very interesting but they donot appeal to me. I leave a comment or rate according to appeal. I expect the same thing from other users too on my pictures. If they found my photograph not interesting to them they should be very much free to say so or even rate so. I would greatly appreciate if they leave a comment. I usually leave a comment for sure as to what made the photograph not so appealing to me. The basic rule I follow when rating is whether I enjoy looking at that picture for some time. A good picture is something which I can STARE for long. A bad picture is one which I dont want to see again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now