Mate Rating: A different angle

Pnina, when ones friends constantly rate ones photos 7/7 without even looking for a second for any shortcomings in the work, they provide nothing but an inflated sense of skill. When the aforementioned photographer's pictures are then commented on honestly, the photographer feels insulted. I think that any photograph rated 7/7 should have a good chance of winning a competition and that is what I base my application of that score on. You make specific reference to your latest portrait of the African lady: to be brutally honest, and I think you know it, it wouldn't get a second glance in any photographic contest anywhere in the world.

 

If you also feel strongly about mate rating and wish to do something about it, make a statement on your next upload that you appreciate your friends dropping by but would appreciate more their honest appraisal of your picture. I'm sure it could help you to become an even greater photographer if you get a better sense of perspective about which images work or not.

The first four of six images on page one are from the same photographer. Go to that photographers comments if you will. The last twnty all said the same thing, either "7/7" or "Excellent 7/7". Not a single additional word. I stopped even looking after the last 20. It could be perhaps 50 or 100.

 

Do you think there might be a connection with his having four of the six highest rated??

 

This is the kind of abuse I am talking about. This is why something should be done once it gets sent in. It is also why the gallery is skewed significantly.

I applaud your bullet-dodging, Pnina. Well done -that's some fancy footwork.

 

So back to Vincent's remarks...I agree. High-rating is indeed abusive, and certainly AS abusive as low-rating.

 

Vincent, what are your thoughts, if it were confirmed, as Niranjn suggests above, that one were. . .how did Pnina phrase it? ... ah yes... she said that she was "...an established artist with a lot of "receipt," and participating in a mate rating circle?

 

Would the aiding of self-promotion be viewed as coincidental to an operational business, or as advertising? Isn't advertising against the terms of agreement? I guess this question is for the moderators?

Mark, I have answered you at that image of mine,I'm a grown up persone, I have a lot of experience in the arts.I know exactly to evaluate what I'm getting, and what I'm giving.Thank you , I will be glad to get your critique when you will feel like writing it.

chris, vincent, i don't disagree that mate rating goes on, or with much of your analysis of examples here. but why does it matter so much? any action invites reaction. i do not believe in the long run that you can regulate people's desire to "win" at the numbers game or be tickled endlessly under the chin -- instead, tempers flare, people insult one another, some leave, etc.. chris, even if someone uses it to show prospective clients, how does this have a dramatic impact on each of our use of the site to learn from each other? doesn't that come from commenting back and forth in the end anyway? i understand rating abuse when someone rates unfairly low and does not leave a constructive comment -- because we post for ideas and not for judgment. i hesitate to say ratings abuse when someone rates high cuz of flattery or reciprocity though -- sure the poster can be lulled into complacent belief they are better than a panel of educated strangers might think. but the rater is not insulting them. yes, deluding, yes perhaps manipulating the system -- but to regulate it severely would harm the motivations and spirit of many good photographers who share their work here greatly. even if what they post should be a 5 instead of a 6. numbers are secondary; to focus on them so greatly will lead only to collective frustration. my best advice: live and let live, let it go, rate honestly, leave constructive comments, keep shooting.

Just a thought:

 

I read these "ratings" threads every day. It's clear that things aren't going to change. I suspect they'll just get worse. For most of us that are frustrated with the ratings issue, it isn't because we want to be on page one, it's because we want some real feedback. (OK...sometimes we want to "show off" an image we're particularly proud of).

 

If we don't get exposure, we won't get feedback. Well, I personally don't care if I get any feedback from the mate raters. They don't evaluate photos objectively. The rates in general are meaningless as well. As Chris stated above, most of us are looking for thoughtful critiques and suggestions for improvement.

 

Perhaps a group of Mate Rater Haters could get together and form an informal group that critiques each other's work. I've sort of done that by choosing who's photos I critique based on that persons pattern of critique (I rarely rate anymore). If over time, that photographer doesn't return the favor of a critique, It's likely I won't continue commenting on their photos-not because I'm looking for praise. I just want the greatest return on my time investment here on PN. For me, the "return" is constructive feedback (not empty praise). The majority of the comments I post are on a group of about 15 photographers who's work I'm attracted to and whose comments on others photos are thoughtful, critical, and courteous. They also respond to constructive criticism in a positive way (even if they disagree).

 

If someone is willing to do the work and invite individuals to be part of a group, I would be willing to participate. I think the only guidelines would be that comments must be constructive, each participant should agree to critique at least three group member's photos for each photo critique they request. Since we all agree that the rates really don't matter, it's feedback we want, NO rates are to be given. Each member of the group would simply add the other member's names to their list of those they're "interested" in and make it a point to check in on the other members' uploads on a regular basis.

 

I believe another group "Picture This" has set up something like this. I don't even propose anything as formal as that. Since we all state we want feedback and don't care about the rates, lets get together as a group and help each other out. The Mate Raters can have their meaningless TRP. We'll get what we really want. Who knows, maybe over time, we'll be able to grow large enough that we could revisit the TRP and help it evolve into a more meaningful tool.

 

Sort of a passive resistance revolution.

Nice one Ben 7/7 :)

Ben and Laurie ,twice 7/7. wise and to the point.

"chris, vincent, i don't disagree that mate rating goes on, or with much of your analysis of examples here. but why does it matter so much?" Ben S.

 

Why does the fact it DOES matter to me and others, matter to you?? Which is worse, the fact that cheating, mating, false flattery decides to a large extent the gallery, or the fact that a few people say something about it? Obviously this here matters enough to you that you cared to stop and place a comment here. So then, if something matters to me, why question my doing the same?

 

If you "don't disagree that mate mating is going on" then why not address that issue Ben, rather than telling others what to and not to do. Isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

Ben, I guess it doesn't matter. But then, negating one Term of Agreement leaves them all open for negation, doesn't it? Or? I'm really not even aggrivated - just can't shoot pics right now - I'm rooted here at the computer. Trust me, I'd rather be clicking the shutter than making arguments for the Good Fight.

 

Laurie, your idea is grand, and sensible. I might suggest, though, that too it's submission, resignation to the idea that opposition to a form of tyranny, if you will, is futile. The Photo.net system purportedly was born of this ideology, but the abuse of that system has us forming subgroups to do it, too? Hm. Is that the only solution?

 

I mean, while we're at it, let's go tell the Feds that they should quit whining about Mafia racketeering, that everyone whose work is dismissed over work that's bought and paid for isn't worth the hassle. A little dramatic of a comparison, granted, but still valid.

 

Another 7/7 from Pnina! How out of character! ;)

vincent you are way too angry for me. later.

Sorry Ben, but "angry" is not the correct description. However if you do care to call into question "why we care so much"? Then at the least expect a direct reply. Sorry if hat reply knocked you off balance.

 

Chris is right. You don't just let those undermining the systems we are a part of, do whatever they want.

thanks chris, thanks vincent, i appreciate that. like chris, i'm rooted at the computer. i resisted chiming in here until i saw some harsh words flying between people whose work i deeply admire, including yours. i acknowledged in my previous message the irony of my speaking up in the way i have here. i am, perhaps in an overly patronizing way, asking you to reflect on why it matters so much. i think this is a road that leads only to frustration. i'd rather you be make the best of it cuz i enjoy your work so much and don't want to see it diminish on the site. given my family, job, dog walking, etc., this is about my only chance to learn, including from people like you. to me, looking at your work and chris' is like being in high school but being able to sit in on a master class at the university down the road for free. and that also includes others like pnina, from whom i've gotten a new sense of what it means to photograph light and shadow. so that's about it vincent. oh, one more thing. i was on a crusade for months of my own to persuade the site to encourage comments more. it went nowhere. brian never responded to perhaps a half a dozen of my posts. so some of my motivation comes from the pessimism that you can get anywhere with this. okay, hope this gives you some insight to what causes me to chime in.

Thanks Ben, I fully understand where you are coming from.

Nobody can really understand why Photo.net allows others to take advantage of the system like they do. My hope is that perhaps this way, by sending these blatant examples to abuse, they will have to deal with it one way or another. By doing nothing (if that indeed is the case) then that too will be the action, so to speak, of choice.

 

Thanks again for clarifying your thoughts.

<i><blockquote> The first four of six images on page one are from the same

photographer. Go to that photographers comments if you will. The last twnty all said

the same thing, either "7/7" or "Excellent 7/7". Not a single additional word. I stopped

even looking after the last 20. It could be perhaps 50 or 100.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

If you're referring to who I think you are, I noticed that he introduced a friend to

photo.net last month who shoots with him (either that, or it's a second account of his,

as some of

the shots they've uploaded are from the same shoot, with the same model), and

virtually all her top-rated photos are of this first individual -- all with 7/7 ratings of his

photos. Not only that, but this individual has far more than the permitted number of

uploaded photos for someone who is not a paid member. Much of his work is

oversaturated, or selectively desaturated, or hamhandedly Photoshopped (some of his

other photos can be very nice, I should add) -- and he quickly deletes a photo and re-

uploads it immediately if the first rating or two is less than a 5/5. My experience is that

he also sends abusive emails if he notes you rate him and are not sufficiently

appreciative.<p>

 

Photo.net is quite aware of his work, and his longstanding history of this person, who's

rated more than 8,000 photos with an average of <b>higher</b> than 6/6. But Brian

has stated in so many words that individuals who significantly draw people to their

photo areas (and ads) get a break on some of the rules.

<i>But Brian has stated in so many words that individuals who significantly draw people to their photo areas (and ads) get a break on some of the rules. </i>

<p>

Clearly then, we could use more of the same. Has no-one yet suggested that we have two TRP's? One for "Best pic in the Universe" and another for "Most interesting photo on P.Net."

Laurie, I like your idea. What you are suggesting in fact is to revive "critique circles". Not sure whether you know what they were. Imo, they were just great, leading to many very interesting discussions, in a friendly POW manner... They were great, EXCEPT for one thing: members of a critique circle could stll rate each other.

<p>

"Picture this" was indeed a very good idea, although a bit too formal for my liking, but critiques circles with no ratings at all among participants/members would be perfect imo. We could (and should) still feel free to use the words "fair", "good", "very good", "excellent" in our comment titles, but at least, no worries, no counting, no retaliations, no power games...

<p>

What do we need to get this going ? Someone who can help setting up with a bit of htlm or such - unless PNet can help to get it started. I wouldn't mind helping to take care of such a circle if necessary, and I'd love to participate.

<p>

We could even put it up and have, say, 30 or 60 days trial period, and after that, this critique circle could be reserved "for paying members only". Etc. Well, Laurie, why don't you start another thread about this project? I'll support it fully. There is a "critique only" gallery already on photo.net, but it was set from its onset as a "subscribers only" feature, and somehow, didn't have rules at all, so that people seemed to be more interested in receiving comments, than in writing them.

<p>

So... Can we do better...? New thread on this topic...?

i'd be interested too Laurie. i'd offer to contact people but almost every time i try to get an email address out of the system, i fail . . . feel free anyone to email me about this if you would like if i can help or if it gets going; my email address is on my portfolio page of whatever its called.

I'm in favor of anything WE can do to make this place better. And this idea is interesting. It's sort of the way Leica Forum works.

I posted a photo last night which I would rate myself at best 4/4. I received a handful of ratings.

I have to say the BEST part was the critique by Ben S and the subsequent understanding that I already knew what was wrong with the shot but maybe needed somebody to confirm my thoughts. Even better was that Ben did not rate - he didn't need to as the input was enough.

I think we need the rating system as well even though I have a small mental list of people of people that I know get mate rated. It used to bother me but not now.

Some of these photo's have a staggering amount of ratings and comments. I think there is a degree of home nation commitment to the ratings as well, eg many Italian photographers have many many comments from other Italian raters. Belissimo.

I don't think we can get rid of this problem, I've learnt to ignore it. This site is the most amazing resource for photographers of all levels and we should all give and take the most from it.

Chris, I agree with you that my suggestion doesn't really fix the problem. Since the site can't or won't fix the problem, it seems to me we have to find ways around their flawed policies to get what we want (and what the site claims to offer).

 

I'm still amazed at the lengths the Mate Raters go to for a placement that gives them no prize, except the dubious honor of being lumped with all the other mate raters. It doesn't take long for someone new to the site to see what's going on. The individual referred to above with all the photos on page one really confuses me. Here's a guy with some terrific images that would make it to the top on their own merits. Yet, he seems to perpetuate a practice that lessens the satisfaction of a high placement. I have been tempted to comment on some of his images that I thought were quite nice. I refrained for fear I would be lumped with all the other 7/7ers.

 

I'll do my part to report obvious Mate Raters to abuse. I don't care if they think I'm a whiner. They know what's going on. If they choose not to facilitate a solution, they'll have to put up with all the reports to abuse.

 

I'd still be interested in forming a group to exchange meaningful critiques. The first one to write "Nice Photo" is out!

No need to start a new thread or anything formal. I'm going to add everyone that has commented here to my list of interesting people (several of you are already on it). I'll make it a point to go to each persons site and critique at least one photo. If we all do the same thing, we have a "Critique Circle" If folks want to rate, go ahead. Personally, I'll refrain. I don't think we need to do any moderating. Those who participate will naturally get responses, those who don't won't. Whenever one of us "meets" someone we think would want to participate, just provide them with a list of names. We can each take it upon ourselves to gather e-mail addresses if we want to communicate directly with other members. I think the looser things are the less likely we'll create new problems.

 

If someone has the time and desire to put together something more formal, go for it. I'll certainly be supportive.

Laurie, I'll toast to all of your fine points. You have consistently commented on my pics with wonderfully helpful suggestions for improvement, and I would look forward to more in a forum such as Photo.net's...er...such as the one you describe.

 

Laughing, here, re the "...first one to comment 'Nice photo!' is out."

This must be what the annual Magnum meetings are like.

I find it quite amusing, as it repeats the same nonsense as always. Some folks are trying to "come clean" after some pretty having mate-rating times - and I'm glad to see they do... Some folks, like Ben S here, seem to be very generous and smart, yet fail to see the obvious frustration (expressed here by C. Appoldt for example) today's system means for those who, simply, genuinely, want comments to help them improve. Then, there is the wagon of frustrated folks like Chistopher, and finally, they are people who dream of a fair world. As for me, I stupidly belong to the last 2 categories, and can't get the right pill to cure the disease...:-)

<p>

Now... What do we do middle of such a mess...? Brian seems to think that we all shouldn't care much, and basically would here agree with Ben, I suppose. Perhaps for the reasons Bailey mentioned... But then, Many Pnetters still don't get the comments they wish to get.

<p>

Some "established artists" (to me it's almost a contradiction to read these 2 words together) have shown, that even when offered 150 ratings along with 75 comments, they'd rater get a one-liner and be done with it. Well, these folks are certainly not after in-depth comments, but what about those who are...? Can't we give them something too ? That's what Laurie was suggesting to do, and I'm all for it.

<p>

That said, here's what Vincent wrote, above: "If the abuse department sees the obvious in a particular case, THEY will be the ones taking the proper measures. Mate-rating is just another form of ratings abuse, and should be sent in to the department specifically designed for this purpose."

<p>

This is NONSENSE - although I agree with you, Vincent. It is nonsense simply because I KNOW, for a fact, that Brian is perfectly aware of the incredibly sick mate-rating profile of SOME members. I know for a fact that he has had all the figures in hand. Yet, nothing happened. So, what's the point of sending mate-raters profiles to him ? HE HAS THEM. Please do keep that in mind and you'll save ink.

<p>

Then, Vincent also wrote: " "Abuse" does handle lowballers, and can do the same with very obvious, proven cases of mate-raters! In the past we've been *accustomed* to strictly using this department for lowballing, when in actuality it should be used for both lowballing and mate-rating since BOTH are clearly forms of abuse."

<p>

This, again, is wrong. The abuse department will tell you that they can't handle anything more than what they are already handling - it's just ONE man, Jeremy Stein. Besides that, Brian has already stated so many times, that to him, mate-rating is very difficult to find evidences of: yes, high rating averages with many high ratings to the same photographers are indeed A SIGN, but not necessarily an evidence of FRAUD. A rater can be silly and like absolutely everything on photo.net: stupidity is not prohibited (is that a good thing by the way...?) :-)

<p>

So... Brian knows but... Lacks evidence of fraud... He probably measured as well how dangerous it could be to go for this "ethical cleansing" (no no, not ethNical, no N here...) without a clear evidence... And well, so far, he sees many clicks and many subscriptions, and you don't rock a boat that's winning the race.

<p>

So, the question is not "what to do?", but rather: are Brian's reasons for letting it all be valid, or not. We can express opinions, and he can ignore our opinions because he's in charge, and we are not. And that's that. My opinion: in the short term, Brian does the right thing. But some day (perhaps quite soon), it will all blow out of proportions, and either the boat will sink, or it will change its course. All good reasons for honest members to post pictures will soon be gone. I can tell you that I surely learned a lot more from my comments 3 or 4 years ago than I do now... and I suspect, many other photographers would have a lot more reasons to complain than I do... When they'll be fed up, they leave. Many other knowledgeable members already left or quit participating; more will follow - some day... and what will be left of PN's gallery will be a place for reciprocal congratulations. It will soon or later have consequences on the contents AND on the income... When, I'm not sure. I just hope Brian will see it happen early enough and save the boat...