rationale for separate "rate" and "critiques" buttons when viewing individual photos

i've searched through past threads for about 25 minutes and cannot

find something addresssing why, when a viewer clicks on a thumbnail

and pulls up a photo, it is a two-step process to rate and critique.

it would seem to be no harm to the rating system, and would seem to

make it easier to comment, if when a person selected rates when

viewing an individual photo, they also had the option (not the

requirement) to leave a comment. is this a programming issue? a

policy issue? if there are past threads on it, i'd appreciate

someone directing me to it. (i know it is different in the critiques

forum; i'm talking about the two-step process to rate and critique

when a viewer clicks on a thumbnail and pulls up a photo). thank you!

'course, if anyone knows the reason, please feel free to state it here . . .

I could be wrong but I believe that the overriding consideration is to maximize typical image size viewability as opposed to crowding too much information into one module at the expense of image size. As it is when you either rate or comment you cannot simultaneously view technical details. It's been advised by a few that a good user method is to right click for each of these activities in order to create window views of everything, including the root gallery page by which you arrived at viewing (and rating, and/or commenting on) a particular image. While all that really isn't easily intuitive, it should be a workable method for those who (like yourself) can devote the time to the task.

thanks faith. i appreciate your response. i'm wondering though, could one put a box for writing a comment (and make it an optional choice) below the ratings buttons when the RATES function is chosen, rather than having a list of all the comments made followed by a choice to leave a comment? just having such an optional box with the ratings functions would take up a minimal amount of space and make it a one-step process to give all feedback to an individual photo.

Ben - I was on the verge of writing the same question. It seems with the frames format that this site has taken, Ratings and Critiques could come up together, allowing the user to do one or both.

 

One writes a critique and forgets to rate and visa versa. Or just doesn't want to click back.

 

And then rating new photos is a chore to the point I just don't do it. The size of the "form" relative to the image, half the image hidden - it should be redesigned.

 

Anyways, good point.

thanks charles. having heard only from faith, perhaps one of the site's administrators could take a quick moment to say if there's a reason for keeping them separate?

well, having heard nothing further, i can only hope this separate function will be reviewed and reconsidered.

 

this being the most recent of over a half a dozen feedbacks thread i've started or contributed to regarding how to generate an enthusiasm for providing more feedback than just ratings to which the site's administrators have not replied, i'm also reaching the unfortunate conclusion that it is not a priority for them. i think that's a very unfortunate perspective, as i think the best way to generate a large base of photo posters, who are the most likely to "buy in" to the site, is to maximize their opportunities for feedback. because of the growing obsession with ratings that has become the dominant cultural norm of this site, a broad "middle class" of committed, competent photographers looking not to make the trp, but for feedback, are discouraged after awhile from participating in the site and drift away. that will leave the site with a harsher culture of posters who take less risks, and post more of "what works" for ratings.

 

but to be honest, as i write this, i realize i'm virtually talking to myself in this virtual world.

just because Brian (really the only person who can officially speak for 'administration') doesnt answer doesnt mean he doesnt read or consider suggestions. and just because you post suggestions doesnt mean he is obliged to respond. imagine if he did then he might have to do nothing else but respond to any and all manner of speculative stuff not to mention debates about them to needlessly tax his time

 

as for "culture of posters who take less risks, and post more of 'what works' for ratings" there are probably more who jump on the high rate bandwagon of the latest risky looking thing (so they can appear to be leading PN lights) and soon what was risky last week becomes banal soon enough as a result, but your point is valid since rarely anything gets fostered, highlighted, or promoted for 'why' discussions outside the POW

spaghetti, i agree with both your points and appreciate your responding. brian has repeatedly not engaged on the "comments improvement" subjects i've discussed in numerous posts, though, including others besides me have asked his thoughts or intentions, and the only effort to improve the situation that i know about in recent memory is the adding of critiques-only forum. i certainly hope he is considering the suggestions i've made; at the same time i'm sort of giving up on making suggestions about the photo.net system cuz of the lack of response (while at the same time he makes numerous responses when there are inquiries and complaints about ratings issues). but whatever. if something comes to mind that makes sense, i've thought it worthwhile to point it out. i don't need a response, but for example on this issue, understanding the reason for the separate buttons, if any, would help me and others presumably to understand why things are the way they are, and consider how to improve them.

 

what keeps me hooked into making suggestions is that i think photo.net and similar sites are quite revolutionary in the history of photography, potentially at least. they can expand and accelerate enormously the art of photography around the world in a way never possible before. but that impact is more so if the site is willing to devote energy to the education of the viewers and posters; reducing photos down to numbers, which themselves are of questionable value, really dilutes the potential feedback that could accelerate the learning curves of all concerned.