This is getting ridiculous!

<b>Mark, </b>my point being..... if I go away as you suggest, do I get my money back?

The going away part wasn't my suggestion....but you realised that?

"Make complaints about the rating system off-topic in this forum"

 

Geez Brian, what kind of remark was that? Shaking my head! David & Mark, I think you're right, maybe we should demand our money back! Or maybe we should call B&H or Adorama. Maybe they'd like to know our opinions!

David McCracken: yes it tells me that some people are dissatisfied enough with the rating system to complain if given a place to do so easily. I'm not surprised by this, since the system is a set of compromises, like any social design.

 

So what? I am sorry to be rude, but so what? The number of distinct people complaining is a fraction of a percent of the total number of people participating. Moreover, many of them are the same people all the time, and it is not exactly difficult to complain. Not much of an effort is required. The complaint level is more or less constant, and despite that level of complaint, the photo.net Gallery is growing at the rate of about 100% per year.

 

Overall satisfaction, participation, subscriber revenue, and the overall quality (by my eye) of the photos in the "Top Rated Pages" are the only things that I care about it. The level of complaints is not a key success factor for me, especially since I facilitate complaints (which is probably a stupid thing to do). If you were running an operation, would you turn it on its ear based on the complaints of less than one percent of the "clients"? Besides, even assuming that it made sense to listen to these complaints, the people complaining don't agree among themselves as to what should be done.

I paid my $25 to open myself up to more opportunities to have my pictures critiqued. It doesn't offend me at all if somebody doesn't like one of my pictures and gives it a low rating. I'm actually appreciatave if they explain why.

 

The problem, in my view, is that pictures that average a rating of less than 5/5 don't get ANY comments. So, when I post a picture, I hope that at least the first few ratings average to better than 5/5, otherwise the picture is destined for the backend of the TRP and, therefore, total anonymity and obscurity. I gain nothing from the experience of posting the picture. When a few malicious non-paying subscribers blanket rate photos with a 1/1 or 2/2, it puts my picture in a position to not get seen, and not get commented on. And, it irritates the crap out of me and makes me feel like I wasted my $25.

 

As somebody mentioned, the real problem to pnet is PERCEPTION, and my perception is that the atmosphere for learning at pnet has dramatically deteriorated over the past few months. For that reason, I haven't been posting. And, for that reason, unless things change, I'll likely not re-up.

I have a suggestion, why not email all the paying and non-paying members with an over all PN satisfaction survey. Maybe most don't complain because they feel intimidated or fear retaliation or just plain don't feel the urge to rock the boat! I feel PN may be out of touch with it's subscribers. Send us a survey, find out what the majority of us think.

I have a suggestion, why not email all the paying and non-paying members with an over all PN satisfaction survey. Maybe most don't complain because they feel intimidated or fear retaliation or just plain don't feel the urge to rock the boat! I feel PN may be out of touch with it's subscribers. Send us a survey, find out what the majority of us think.

"If you were running an operation, would you turn it on its ear based on the complaints of less than one percent of the "clients"?"

 

If you foresee it as a problem that can grow and cause damage it is the ONLY time to turn it on it's ear.

 

Any later is a formula for disaster. Of course you have to see it as a threat and as you have made it abundantly clear, you don't.

Brian,

 

I've complained three times at my local supermarket recently about them selling out of date produce.

 

You know what? The Manager never told me "so what?" He never told me "don't shop here then", and he never told me "I don't care".

 

Each time he told me how he would take my complaint on board and how he would strive to ensure the problem was rectified. He never once told me that he has 10,000 customers a day through his door and they never complained.

 

Now, he may not actually do anything about it but,above all, he wasn't rude.

 

We all know that, whilst a large percentage of people can be dissatisfied with something, only a small fraction will actually do something about it and complain.

 

If you want to know the true level of feeling about this from people that pay towards the upkeep of this site, have a vote on the front page asking whether rating should be a privelege of paid members. (Of course only paying members should be able to vote on this)

<b>Brian, </b> you say, and I quote, <b>"the people complaining don't agree among themselves as to what should be done....."</b><br><br>What do you think of my suggestion to allow everyone to rate, but to insist that non paying members have to enter a code.... <b>OOPS! Sorry! You don't care about that!</b><br><br>People complaining on this site do so because of their dissatisfaction and their complaints generally relate to their own images. What I have suggested is not perfect but is fair to <b>ALL.</b><br><br>To quote you further, <b>"... the photos in the 'Top Rated Pages' are the only things that I care about it."</b> Isn't it great to know that the images in the TRP are not the best and <b>you are happy with this......... </b>

<b>Brian, </b> you say, and I quote, <b>"the people complaining don't agree among themselves as to what should be done....."</b><br><br>What do you think of my suggestion to allow everyone to rate, but to insist that non paying members have to enter a code.... <b>OOPS! Sorry! You don't care about that!</b><br><br>People complaining on this site do so because of their dissatisfaction and their complaints generally relate to their own images. What I have suggested is not perfect but is fair to <b>ALL.</b><br><br>To quote you further, <b>"... the photos in the 'Top Rated Pages' are the only things that I care about it."</b> Isn't it great to know that the images in the TRP are not <b>necessarily </b>the best and <b>you are happy with this......... </b>

Sure, Dave. But the complaint level has remained constant for the 3 years I've been working on the site, and the nature of the complaints has basically stayed the same.

 

During that time, the Gallery has increased by about 500%, and the growth is accelerating, not dampening down. Some of the complainers have been doing so for two years, while continuing to participate steadily! So, you might see why I am pretty jaded when it comes to complaints about the rating system. Finally, I've said in this forum many, many, times for at least the 18 months that I don't pay attention to complaints about the rating system and that people complaining about it are basically wasting their time -- that the last thing that will drive evolution of the Gallery design is complaining in the Site Feedback forum. So my attitude can hardly come as a big surprise to anyone.

End of story? So where does someone complain that you actually listen Brian?

<b>Brian, </b> To quote you again, <b>"I don't pay attention to complaints about the rating system and that people complaining about it are basically wasting their time..."</b> so why place this comment at all? I think the key word in the above is <b>'basically'</b>

Is Pn a product that you make a living off of?

Jayme's suggestion about a customer satisfaction survey is a great idea. You have the subscriber's email addresses, Brian; a carefully crafted survey could give you direct information, which *might* be more reliable than the inferences you make from statistics (e.g., 100% growth in the gallery year-to-year, etc.).

 

Of course, if the people who generally don't take the time to complain or participate in the Site Feedback forum don't do so mainly because of apathy, then they will not submit to the survey, leading it to fail. It might be worth the effort, however.

Brian, irrespective of your thoughts on rating system "reform", it makes a lot of sense to take away the ability of automated mechanisms to rate and comment. And that's what most of the people here are trying to say.

Oh, I forgot one very important aspect of my store manager story - he NEVER ignored me!

I listen to many complaints, problem reports, suggestions, etc in the Site Feedback forum. As concerns abuse, we have an abuse email box and we respond to specific cases of ratings abuse that are reported to us by email. Generally, we delete abuse reports that are made in the SF forum.

 

The photo rating system is the exception. Basically, you don't have any input on the rating system because experience has taught me that:

 

(1) most/many of the complaints are from people who would like to have higher ratings on their photos, or avoid low ratings, or keep other people from getting "undeserved" high ratings; or have other suspect reasons for complaining. Most people do not see the big picture, but simply are reacting to the ratings on their own portfolio and their own standing in the system, or to isolated incidents.

 

(2) the few people who do see a big picture, see the wrong big picture. That is, they think the Gallery should have different goals than it actually has, and their complaints are not based on its actual goals but on the goals they believe it should have. In general, these people are a lot more elitist than I am, and want more restrictions on who can rate. photo.net has been successful by not having a lot of restrictions.

 

(3) people don't agree on what should be done about the system, and even if they did all agree, they wouldn't be responsible for the consequences if they are wrong. I've had experience of implementing ideas that people proposed before. That did not stop the same people that proposed changes from complaining about them once they were implemented.

 

So, when it comes to the photo rating system, there isn't anywhere on photo.net where you can complain with the commitment that you will be listened to, and most probably your input on the rating system will not be listened to. If your enjoyment of the Gallery hinges on your having a say in how it will be designed and how it will evolve, you are in the wrong place. Just so you know.

I know all of this must be so frustrating, and I am not here to complain. The problem with ratings is that they are done by people, but that is the last of my editoralizing. I have one little suggestion. You may either discarded if you don't like it or put into the back of your mind to be pulled out when you update the gallery system if you do. You know those randomly pulled images of a alphanumeric code that you get when signing into some sites or, more often, when signing up for a free e-mail account? You may want to use a system like that. I know, anyone with enough free time create and use 5 or 6 accounts to rate won't see it as much of a problem, but it may slow down abusers and stop any use of macros to carpet bomb a photo. I also don't know how much work it takes to impliment or system resources it takes to run.

 

Thanks for all of your work on the site. I know that there is no way to make people stop being people (see above. all of the above), but figured my little suggestion was worth 5 minutes of typing.

Your rude!

Here is my input from my perepctive. It's a business issue and a quality issue.

 

From a business perspective as long as the gallary is growing then revenue is growing and that's the primary purpuse of the site, grow revenue and grow particiaption.

 

From the quality side, the better more serious image makers will drift away over time moving to other competitive sites. The current system does not take into account the human equation where ego drives behavior.

 

It is possible to grow revenue and participation while seriousley decreasing the overall quality of submissions. We could be 10 times as big in five years with a million or so mediorce images.

 

So what are the goals? Are the members goals and the site managers goals in alignment. Here a fact. The majority of disatisfied customers do not complain they just go away. So be very careful with the assumption that only the same few complain about the rating system so things are okay. Just ask all the Business Icons that have closed their doors over the last 10 years.

"The majority of disatisfied customers do not complain they just go away."

 

It's worse than that. The majority of dissatisfied customers go away and tell all of their friends about their bad experience.

 

I preached the virtues of pnet (specifically the value of the TRP) to two of my friends who recently got into photography. Now, I'm embarrassed to have recommended it because the TRP gallery is such a joke.

John, I was just looking at the summary of the ratings you have received, and it looks to me like a fairly normal distribution. What exactly WAS your complaint? Is there a specific photo in question?

Dave N. makes one of the most driving points here, Brian - that the TRP is - or at least often seems to be - dominated by the ratings of a very small percentage, whose dedication is fueled by getting each others' photos there. . .This is important as it's knocking back many that don't agree with that perspective, and burying others' photos on a larger percentage rate than would be if that weren't the case.

 

<p>This "Mate Rating" circle is permitted to exist, and hey really, who gives a flip - if these guys (and a few gals) want to tell each other how great they are, they can sit around and blow each other all day for all I care.

 

<p>But the problem then becomes, as mentioned by Carl and others, that newbies - who surely ARE rating more frequently - will likely never see their own work grow - because their photos will get less visibility as it's buried at the end of the TRP - ergo, fewer constructive criticisms. And that is, imho, one of the best facets of the Gallery pages. What I propose, to enlarge your statement's ramifications, is that the newer members rate more frequently because they have yet to be FRUSTRATED and DISCOURAGED.

 

<p> You could find out how they really feel if you did on fact perform a survey. I mean seriously, Brian - it's a valuable tool. You say that the gallery is growing regardless...but what if, through a customer satisfaction survey, you found you could make it grow THREE TIMES as much? Think about it. How many people take the time to complain vs. how many take the time to rave about the site? Or, are you judging log-ins as positive-only? What's the criteria?

 

<p> It's really speculation on your part that only the small vocal vote is dissatisfied - it doesn't account for those who silently push away from their keyboards, too non-computer savvy or clever enough to figure out how to voice their opinion, dismayed, their newly-posted photo devoid of constructive comments and buried by "the elites" with mediocre rates. I have worked in customer-focus oriented jobs enough to know that surveys really do give you valuable information. Again, what IF you could have the site grow even more, but didn't know it? What if you were suddenly handed stats that would open up all sorts of new possibilities, from advertising to member retention?

 

<p> And finally, in response to your assertations about the motivations of the people actually DOING the complaining here...I don't see your 1-3 argument as wholly valid:

 

<p>1. "Isolated Incidents?" You've got to be kidding - I despise math, yet the patterns have been crystal clear to me for months. You've got Mate Rate Clubs, vengeance raters, and dummy accounts everywhere - now even Bots. It's no longer "isolated." It's becoming the institution.

 

<p>2. Photo.net can be as successful as it wants to be. Successful with a vocal - and who really KNOWS how silent an amount of non-vocal dissatisfied customers...or who knows how much MORE successful if it actually asks its entire client base to answer a few questions on a survey. You'll get about a 30% response at best, but at least you'll know if more than 1% are not coming back as often as they would if things were different in your gallery.

 

<p>3. Whether they'll be happy with the changes that follow or not, ignoring that the people ARE speaking aloud is a very dangerous thing to do, when you can investigate with the likes of a survey.

 

<p> With that all said, I'll never voice another peep here about this subject, I swear it. I know you've got a tough job there, and love the site. But could it be better? Yes, imho, YES. Will I leave? Nah. I learn too much in spite of the gallery rating crap - but I sure do wish I could get more feedback sometimes (hitting 'critique only' doesn't help when they come through and rate new posts before you do it). Bet your new members do, too.

 

<p> But it's not right, man - that behaviors are allowed to continue as they are does no one any good at all.