Ratings on the rise? Not everywhere.

Carl's got it right when he say" If he (Brian)wasn't so afraid of losing popular uploaders (mostly mate raters), Brian would distribute image views more fairly.

 

Brian certainly has every right to make this a financially viable site and competition helps do that. But this back door channel to the TRP is unfair and inappropriate. Efforts to keep the competition fair is in everybody's best interest, including Brian's.

To all of you who whine about whinners: don't confuse whinning with someone is offering constructive feedback. According to your world view don't change anything, just accept it? Actually I want a better site for photographers, and I am willing to put forward suggestions.

It's a shame there's not a "Ratings Rants" archive going back several years so people could review how beaten-to-death this topic is, and where they could see that people have always fervently complained about the rating system, and they have always fervently complained about any changes that have been made to the rating system.

 

Seriously, threads just like this one come around at least forty times a year. If you were an administrator who had listened to constant bitching for several years no matter what you do, how motivated would you be to leap into action every week when another rant came along?

I think I have already answered this Mike, and I hope you enjoyed your whinning -- it was very good.

More laughing and rolling my eyes than whining, but, yeah, it was kinda fun . . .

<em>"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"</em>

<p>

Both really. Whatever is said has been said before so on the whole it's a little boring. It's a bit like listening to the presidential debates. I'm sure some of what's said is important, but you hear it so often it all starts to sound like "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" after a while!

<p>

I think many people see deeper motivations in and attach more importance to subjects like rating than is objectively reasonable. In the end it all boils down to either money or self-gratification. I think you learn more about psychology than photography when studying rating patterns and comments. Basically people like to win and like praise and attention. Trouble is that everyone can't win. When they don't win then they complain that things aren't fair. Sometimes they're right - but even if they were 100% fair, they still probably wouldn't win.

<p>

There's always a better way to do it. Nobody will ever be satisfied and there's always some simple tweak that will improve things. If they were doing the programing they'd make some simple changes and all would be well (or at least better). Trouble is when you make the tweak, half the people prefer the old system and half figure out ways to exploit the new system. The other 90% don't care or don't notice. Pleasing any of the people any of the time is a significant achievment. If the system is so bad, it's amazing that it's so popular...

<p>

I should add here that I have NOTHING to do with running the Gallery, ratings or comments system and that I have ZERO input on policy decisions in that area. I'm just speaking for me, NOT for photo.net. Brian makes ALL the decisions regarding the gallery and ratings/comments system. It's not an enviable task and the fact that he does an excellent job of it while staying sane is quite an achievement!

I'm submnitting this here as a paraphrased and clipped version of a posting I sent a few days ago, but I think parts of these bear repeating here...

 

First and foremost: I'd just like to take a few minutes to thank Brian and everyone involved with the site for providing and maintaining what is IMHO the foremost site on the net for photographers...ALL photographers - despite the somewhat understandable, emotional ups and downs of some PN users with regard to the whole ratings issue (more on that to follow). The site is a true microcosm of the world around us - international in scope, sometimes exciting, frequently beautiful, at times frustrating, thought provoking and inspiring - all this from a collection of photographs - every day I find something or someone that just makes me say 'wow!'

 

I run informal classes in photography and have used PN as a resource for many topics, including how to critique an image. With this in mind, my only comment regarding the most recent spate of 'mate rates' is that it has made illustrating objectivity in evaluation very difficult. I personally find it amusing, but at the same time increasingly frustrating to see some of the images which should really only be a 4 or 5 at best get ratings of 7/7, and many thousands of views in only a few days.

 

The members I really empathize with are those newer members who are also new to photography and really want legitimate, instructional critiques of what they are doing. It is unfortunate that many (myself included) tend to gloss over a lot of images for whatever reason and look for only outstanding images.

 

I don't have a solution to the rating issue, nor it seems does anyone else. If someone really feels the need to get around the system it seems likely they will.

 

I urge you all not to become discouraged with some of the silliness, this is still an awesome forum for photographers, and the small amount of 'noise' is totally outweighed by the real content here.

 

--Rich

I just enjoy photography tremendously and I suspect the frustrated folks above including Bob Atkins and Brian do as well...which a lot of mate ratings don't seem to do. Photography for them is just another tool for manipulation and to display personality problems. This week weather in Arizona has been BEAUTIFUL and the weekend promises the same. Absolute "must" weather for photography. Screw the ratings, take pictures and post them. The mate raters will burn out anyway.....

David Robinson is absolutely right about the "pre-rating." This certainly would be an easy thing for Brian to fix. But that's just a part of the problem.

 

I've been on Photo.net for about three years and have learned a lot here. Obviously, ratings have always been a problem area. However, at this juncture, the mate-rating is far worse than I can remember it in the past. As suggested in other threads, TRP pages based on views worked better and made it a little more difficult for the mate-raters (the current crop of which has a distinctly European flavor) and their seeming sea of 7/7's.

 

Over the years, there have been a number of viable suggestions put forth by various members to make the rating system more fair (limiting ratings, normalizing ratings, etc.), but Brian seems unwilling to make major changes. I think going back to number of ratings and not allowing people to pre-rate would be small changes that would go a LITTLE way in making the rating system more fair. At this point, those changes would be better than nothing.

 

We need to repeat the mantra: ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter even though they do

The best suggestion I have read in these discussion pages would be for Brian to program the defaulting TRP view as a continuously rotating one, with no fixed parameters that users can "game". I don't understand why this can't be implemented since just about any "top" 12 photos view (if not logged in) or 21 photos view will suffice to entertain and entice visitors to explore the site more deeply.

My basic idea on the whole thing would be to re-install the basic concept of enjoyment, intellectually stimulating imagery, and perhaps more on the technical aspects of photography and how important the mastery of the technique is in order to generate a good image. The automation of cameras could be contributing factor to some of the problems. (It certainly has put a LOT of camera stores out of business in the last few years)The problem I note is that parts of photo.net that discuss imagery and equipment appear to be to a large extent divorced from the section where images are posted and critiqued. I readily understand that cash flow is needed to make the whole thing work, so I feel that the section where images are being posted and critiqued needs constant attention and "cultivation" to bring across a concept that attracts photographers of all kinds that have an interest in PHOTOGRAPHY. Right now, I feel that the mate raters are clogging the very small entrance to a potentially very LARGE ROOM. Others, including some excellent photographers, like Floris Andrea, have also commented on this phenomenon.

"Right now, I feel that the mate raters are clogging the very small entrance to a potentially very LARGE ROOM."

 

John (and others?), you don't think that rotating the defaulting TRP view would make much difference then? Perhaps not. They might then flood each others' pics with volume rates, high rates, volume comments, and multiple reclicked views to cover all the bases. But at least they might burn out faster at the "game".

It certainly is worth a try.

And Brian has <i> <b> zero </i> </b> interest in any of this discussion or any suggestion about change.<p>

 

VL

"And Brian has zero interest in any of this discussion or any suggestion about change."

 

How could he at this point?

Faith, please stop moaning, it is getting real old. For someone who has no photos you are the number one crybaby on this site. Brian has made many changes but is doesn't matter what he does because Faith, Venezia, Nestor and John will perpetually be unhappy. I apologize for not mentioning all the complainers. The list is too long.

How wonderful the many perspectives on what people expect from their participation in Photo.net. I enjoy reading the many interesting and humorus comments as well as the more aggressive perspectives. I find it intriguing to read the many different ideas and problem solving approaches tossed about by so many individuals on any given topic being posed.

 

I certainly hope none took offense to my questions or my teasing comment which I couldn't resist tossing towards Bob. I am truly interested in each opinion and perspective on how we all enjoy our time and experience with PN. I hope we all continue to enjoy such interactions.

 

I would also like to thank the people who keep PN running smoothly with so few problems ever occurring. I see for myself how much work the many different individuals put into our enjoyment and can only imagine how many others are working behind the scenes and in so many capacities.

 

Thank you everyone for making my PN experiences so educational and so pleasurable.

 

With warmest regards,

TC Reed

Carl Root,

 

I respect and admire your direct answers to my three questions.

 

Your answers closely reflect my personal feelings for being a member of PN.

 

 

For those who may have misunderstood my teasing Bob Atkins, it just so happens that my introduction to PN was slow and the only welcoming feedback came from Bob Atkins. Bob took the time on one of my first uploads to explain how to look at my subject with a more thorough eye and to consider the lighting more carefully when choosing my settings.

I purchased a books on natural lighting and photography as well as composition and have been reading various books on photography since.

I don't mean to give Bob more credit than he deserves, nor do I mean to imply that he is one of the main decision makers for PN.

However, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. He was a huge influence on my decision to join PN and is still a huge influence in my approach to problem solving and conflict management. He may not always be right (;-) but he certainly tries, for the most part, to put his best foot forward. He does a fine job of being courteous and fair to everyone. Even when he is joking back. Not to mention, he is a great listener. Sometimes I enjoy attempting to lighten the load a bit. Though, I see that not everyone will read and interpret the words in the same way.

 

Now, who mentioned a new whining forum?! Can we do that? :-)

I think Mike Dixon best understood my making lite of the "constant whining". :-)

 

By all means, keep giving the feedback! We really do enjoy reading it and commenting on it!

 

Now, is "Rant Room" taken by anyone? Cause, I think that would make a fine name for a whining forum. Who's idea was that?

Re: RICH EVANS

 

You make a good observation, Rich. I too am guilty of perusing the gallery and stopping at the photo's which stand out for me.

 

I shall immediately cease that attitude and adopt a new one. I know first hand what it is like not to get the constructive feedback I am looking for and do not wish to commit the same error against another any longer.

 

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. And, please keep reminding us through the year.

 

Sincerely!

Robert, I like your mantra!

 

 

ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter ratings don't matter

 

 

:-)

How about we change the topic of discussion to .............

Flexibility and Business?

 

Ooooh! That sounds like a fun discussion! :)

Venecia,

 

Many thanks for replying on Brian's behalf. I had no idea you were standing in for him.

 

Once again, in response to accusations of whining (or whinning, as a lot of people insist on misspelling it), improving the ratings system is of no personal gain to any one individual, but to the Photo.net society as a whole.

 

If an individual were complaining about their own ratings, an accusation of whining may be just, but when he/she speaks out for the good of everybody, the accusations are unjustified.

p.s. for a definitive example just look here http://www.photo.net/photo/2745637

RE: MARK LUCAS

 

Mark, I can appreciate honest communication, but I have to tell you, I went to the link you left for us and when I read your "constructive" comment I was disappointed by your lack of compassion and your poor communication approach. In fact, I could feel your disgust by the other PNr's and their high marks and you chose to take it out on the photographer in a slightly hostile tact.

 

You went out of your way to insult this person who took a crappy shot of a kitten in boot. Why not be short and to the point without the dramatic personal attack? And, why go back and add the after thought of a P.S. How about a direct approach.

 

Example: Your photo's compositional quality sucks! The colour is poor, the subject is looking away and it is a reflection of a lack of compositional thinking. Let's put more time into the next one.

 

See how simple it can be to say, your photo sucks.? And, there is encouragement in the last sentence.

 

People may not remember what you say, but they will damn sure remember how you made them feel. Let's try to not take the personal attack approach in the future.