Open Letter to Mate Raters

Obviously, I don't know what is in the website creators mind. The ratings are always an issue, but I have learned to try and produce work fast enough to stay ahead of the ratings.

 

As to the issue of mate rating, it is probably human nature that won't go away. I keep thinking about an issue in the Olympic Games several years ago when the judges of two countries were "mate rating." If it as a problem for the International Olympic Committee, then it will probably always be an issue here.

<p>"<I>...keep suggesting tweaks in the hope that some of the ideas will be implemented.</I>"

<p>basically, NT, I agree. my point was that until the TRP reaches the critical rotting point that the site's editor-in-chief thinks then it would be more advantageous to offer alternative or rotating views of images sorted by whatever rationale would be instructive to photographers, members, subscribers, and other site users, then that will be the day we will see any of these kinds of changes. not that I'm saying that we ought to encourage or abet the absurdity of the TRP games and its practitioners, but...

<p>"<I>An "ordered" highest TRP actually works against the very principle and clumps all the best into a little club.</I>"

<p>no denying that, PG, except I wouldn't call any of it, or they, "the best" here or elsewhere. here's a reality check: the best is out there in the real world, not here (at least not yet). but I doubt your other premise that the TRP can be used in that way to reap financial gain since what goes on is quite transparent and embarrassingly humiliating just a click or two into an image page. btw, PG, you never answered my query as to why you weren't embarrassed to have that poorly manipulated dahlia pic so highly over-rated. you know, the second pic you asked to have my non-praising comment(s) expunged. hmmm? so guess what? when what you preach (comments-wise, since I don't rate) gets practiced on you then it's a different story, huh?

<p>but there's a more salient truth at work here. the editor-in-chief has already stated, albeit <b>in effect</b>, that the current TRP system is solidly entrenched because he fears that to tamper with it would have a profoundly negative impact on subscriptions and their renewals. that's because he firmly believes that TRPs are the "holy grail" of PN; what every photog no matter how good or not can aspire to if they play the game to win. why does he feel this way? here, competition is fun, interactive, full of role-play, and addicting. remember, actions speak louder than words. or, in his case, <b>inaction</b> speaks loudest. and oh, yeah, none of this is rocket science.

Perhaps the overriding premise of the TRP is that very few of us can handle constructive criticism, and that the more of it there is, the greater the workload for the abuse department. I have always assumed that if you remove the act of criticism from the demotion of an image, than people would be more likely to ignore comments they felt weren't helpful. At least that's been my experience since I've don't rate images when I offer constructive criticism.

<p>"<i>if you remove the act of criticism from the demotion of an image, than people would be more likely to ignore comments they felt weren't helpful.</i>"

<p>not sure I agree. it's gotten to the point that even non-abusive comments get removed upon request. and this occurs without rating the image! yet, one reads that some who receive a low rating resent it when it is not accompanied with a comment to explain it! seems that the combination of a low rating and a non-abusive comment is "acceptable" but the very same comment without the rating can be removed as "abuse". note that by "abuse" I mean comments aimed at the person, and not the image. strange small town world, this PN!

I have to say that I follow Carl's approach. If my constructive criticism outweighs the praise, then I don't rate - it's too emotive an issue for many people. Personally I prefer the constructive criticism for my own shots over ratings, but still have to rely on the ratings to get visibility. But just as the mate rating has shown a trend to increase recently, I don't see why the same shouldn't be true of genuine constructive criticism. The more of us who provide it (sensitively, please :-), and the fewer of us who react adversely to it, the more normal we might hope it will become.

Perhaps Howard is on to something after all. Maybe Brian actually does LIKE all of this and finds that off the charts mate-rating means anybody can get his or her images maximum exposure with a few underhanded tricks. This keeps the maters happy and keeps them (and their subsriptions) around longer. The jousting by all those on this page (myself included) and the hundreds of other similar threads keeps the energy high around here so everybody has something to do and the site is forever flourishing like a busy beehive. The bottom line is Brian sees what we all very clearly observe, that mate-raters have taken over the first few pages of the default TRP. The fact he stands there doing nothing is perhaps the answer we seem to keep waiting for. NOTHING will be done, quite simply by design! Either join in with them playing the cheaters game or accept that the first couple pages are basically pre-reserved for those very ones gaming the system, and be content with the way that it is.

 

His lack of any action regarding the issue of mate-rating IS apparently the chosen course for Photo.net. Live with it or leave it, it is what it is...

Thanks, Marc. Your words are not lost here.

This entire site is getting out of wack. How about an image that has 1,250,938 viewings and only 3 ratings! And it's a mediocre bird picture! Now you KNOW that ain't cricket! Yet, it has been there for many months - a tribute to some techno geek that has come up with a robot viewer! How about an international award winning image with NO ratings. Or a silly nude with 300+ ratings. The system is broken.

Pnina... oh i am such your good friend lol. Think i gave it 6/6. <Hi Pnina.. this gives a really homey feeling. Very nice and the frame excellent. Very good eye here>

 

Kent should realize perhaps that not all locations in the world are overabundant with opportunity, or even peoples access to that is sometimes limited. I found it very original, well done and tasteful, mundane ya, and she took the mundane we don't consider and did something creative so whats wrong with that Kent?

 

Howard....you and your dam dalia obsession. What u did yesterday on the chinese lady.. thats a critque, was good. My image u can say overdone, your opinion.. but u never said a dam word about the actual flower.. can't u get it?? You attacked me personaly for daring to present such a work.. so abuse deleted your rantings. Go to any of my pics and rip it to sheds, fine, i savor that stuff.. i will convince u day is night.. you attack me personaly and u gonna have a prob. Just relax Howard most of us are just here for fun, its not like we gettin paid to do this. Look at whats good not bad i find to be the big answer, for me anyway. If an image bugs ya so much don't look at it.. its just for 3 days then its obscure. Lots bug me too. Be quite or i'm gonna recolour and post the same deal every 3 days for the next year!!!

 

Pascal thanks for seeing that and just one more point to add.

 

If it was random... with 1500 images total the odds of being on page 1-3 with any given image are 1 in 20 or so. So every 20 days u get major exposure no matter who u are... but thats just on 1 image and the more u have going, like say 3 on the trp, you should expect at least once a week to be up there. So it acts as an incentive to produce more, could be an up or downside to this, but easy to limit also if it got out of hand.

 

Right now the trend is certain people are usually in zones all the time, all there work clumped around 3 pages somewhere. So it also scatters that offering more exposure for any given artist. Why mess around endlessly trying to redesign human nature when all ya gotta do is shuffle the deck?

 

Vincent...The feeling i have is Brian is sitting back observing and carefully considering the big picture and watching these disscusions, or watching football and could care less. As a programer he knows how totally redundant this machine is but is the careful, plodding type. Am totally confident, reading how this outfit is rooted in MIT beginnings we will be well taken care of. She don't have all the bells and whistles the others do but...PN is to GM, like the other sites are to import cars.

It would appear, if one can believe it, that the phenomenon of mate rating has actually got WORSE since posting this letter. There's a small hardcore of perhaps five or six absolutely dominating the 24hr TRP. Their blatant flouting of all that honest rating is about is an embarassment to them and the site.

 

To all intents and purposes this is Brian's site and what he says goes at the end of the day - fair enough. But his point that the ratings provide a good showcase of images is no longer valid - out of focus, poorly composed images and landscapes with sloping horizons are not worthy of a 7 in anybody's book. For God's sake, even a picture of a bloody squirrel with it's back to a camera can make the front page now.The whole thing has become nothing more than a joke.

 

Brian, I know you don't like to respond to threads about ratings, but are you still convinced of your argument that the front pages portray a top class spread of images with intelligent comments that will attract new members and encourage existing ones to stick with it?

And it is not a very funny joke either. I sadly note that some opponents of the "joke" are considering a solution based upon normalizing the ratings. In other words, as Vincent described it, a Balance Brigade. I would call it vigilantism. If we were to do that we would be as guilty of the dishonest joke as the TRP usurpers. It is not, to me, a cliche' that two wrongs do not make a right.<p>

And this is the real damage that this mate-rating is causing. It is literally destroying not only the mate-raters themselves, but also the opponents to it, as well as the PhotoNet site.<p>

I remember the AP scenario and its final resolution. It was a pretty ugly affair. Made worse in my view because her photography was really excellent, unlike what we are seeing now. But perhaps a solution based along how that problem was handled would be worth a try. Regards.

" . . . . are you still convinced of your argument that the front pages portray a top class spread of images with intelligent comments that will attract new members and encourage existing ones to stick with it?"

 

Mark, he never said that. That's what we think it should be for a lot of reasons including the site's own description of its' purpose. What is clear is that as long as the TRP generates clicks, then it's fine by definition.

 

Walter, AP's stuff was oversaturated manipulated kitsch. The point being that all of these images in question do have both supporters and detractors.

Carl, yes it was manipulated and much was highly saturated, but I myself would not call it kitsch. I am not a particularly "sophisticated" fellow (in the original sense of the word), therefore everyday things such as flowers and birds, sunsets and landscapes, and those that would appeal to the plebiscite would undoubetdly find appeal in me. But if you want to be a snob that is your perogative. <p>

Obviously both supporters and detractors are present, but we're not discussing that, nor are we discussing "kitsch". Are we? Regards.

You see the problem, Walter? I think it's kitsch and now all of a sudden I'm a snob. A major part of the whole mate rating syndrome is coming to the aid of your pals. Think I'll go have a look at your favorites pages and see how good my memory is.

"Walter, AP's stuff was oversaturated manipulated kitsch."

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/annapagnacco

 

Carl, her work was ten times better than what's often up there today. Regardless of wether she manipulated her images too much or not, the lady was very good at this craft. Disagree with you there.

 

 

"What is clear is that as long as the TRP generates clicks, then it's fine by definition."

 

Appears to be true. Pretty sad.

Yep, many of the worst offenders are well represented. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, you have little credibility on this issue.

Earth to Carl... come in Carl.

 

If you are suggesting to us that Walter is a mate-rater, then I'd suggest takeing two pills and call the doctor in the morning. Sorry you missed the bus on that one. I think we are all fed up with the system. The system is the problem, with quite a few abusers of this system. In my opinion Walter is not one of those.

Vincent, your favorites pages give a nod to several well known offenders, too.

 

Don't you guys get it? If we had a daily page worth of images designated for critique, then you'd see how much diversity of opinion there is on a whole range of images, included those that are now and have been popular in the past. Instead, we get these assertions that AP was truly wonderful, as if there was no debating the issue. That's because she wouldn't permit it. (Perhaps you've forgotten that Brian actually offered a cirtique or two on her work.)

We're cross posting . . . .

 

You're right. It's easy to confuse the halo effect, mate rating, and just plain liking cute pop images.

 

My point is that a lot of these images need to be scrutinized in a venue where real critique by a wide range of viewers would be possible. I think you'd both be surprised.

"Vincent, your favorites pages give a nod to several well known offenders, too."

 

My pages are very diversified. Sure, a few may be from ones involved in the game. However, it is only recently that things have gone off the charts like it is now. Furthermore, look at the images themselves Carl. I firmly believe in the ratings I gave. Remember, mate-rating is not about rating particular persons image in itself. Mate-rating is about giving dishonest inflated ratings with the hopes of getting the same in return.

 

There are a few now that I will not even touch because is just so far out of hand. The system is broken.

We are crossing.

 

"My point is that a lot of these images need to be scrutinized in a venue where real critique by a wide range of viewers would be possible. I think you'd both be surprised."

 

Fine with me, like I said above and elsewhere. I have yet to see anything from Brian even remotely considering the idea. The entire curator ratings are now completely removed. If they had a committee choose images for the top pages, it would certainly be better than what's been happening recently. Almost anything would beat the current whacked out, cheated, mate rated system.

I would like to believe that this is just a big misunderstanding but it isn't, is it? I described AP's photography as excellent. That is my opinion of it. You call it kitsch. That is your opinion of it. But by doing so, you are also, by inferrence, describing my view of what is excellent as kitsch. If I recall correctly, that word refers to something of poor quality, appealing to low-brow tastes. To me, you are being a snob.<p>

"...A major part of the whole mate rating syndrome is coming to the aid of your pals...." (Carl Root)<p>

Carl, AP was never one of my <b>Pals</b>, as you say. She had her own little close-knit group (the situation is identical to what is on the TRP now). If memory serves, I rated and commented on perhaps 3 or 4 of her photographs. But, because I like what you do not and I took at offence at your insult, you resort to slandering me with your inuendo.<p>

"...Think I'll go have a look at your favorites pages and see how good my memory is..." (Carl Root)<p>

Ooooh! I'm shaking in my boots now! Still more of your insulting insinuation. You just can't help yourself Carl. Go look at my favorites. You will find, I am sure, a lot of the same photographers that you have in your own favorites. Regards.<p>

question: does the site's editor-in-chief honestly believe that the popular rating system would be less fun and less meaningful to users, and generate less subscription revenue if that system did not exclusively determine which photos are to be most prominently displayed on the site? specifically, does he truly believe that if the most prominent display of photos were at times random or rotated or specially-featured or whatever, but users still could actively opt to select the view of highest rated images, or perhaps a personally customized view, that site participation clicks would suffer, and that site subscriptions would ebb in growth or decline as a result?

 

response: ML, today you and I responded to a critique request from a prominent PN photographer who as far as I could tell is not of the M-R persuasion (and not that he needs to be). at the point that I spotted his photo on the request forum his photo had 7 ratings and a 13.42 aggregate score. I critiqued it constructively but omitted praise, and included a copy image to illustrate a suggestion. later when I rechecked the image I noticed that after 19 ratings the image had a 12.58 aggregate score which meant that the 12 ratings subsequent to mine averaged 12.08 in aggregate. I also notice that ML had critiqued the work also appropriately. the moral? instead of balance-brigade rating, why not catch specific images early off the forum and gallery pages and provide these with serious critique comments but avoid rating them? perhaps your comments will have a sobering effect on subsequent rating scores, too.

Guys, I thought we were all on the same side!

 

Of course the idea is not to deliberately rate these people low. Noone specifically suggested that, I don't think. Honesty is the name of the game.

Mark, if we were all on the same side someone would undoubtedly ascribe that as propagating a mate-rating association with a concomittant loss of credibility. It is probably better for the cause to have a certain amount of healthy disharmony among ourselves. And I suspect that there will be no shortage of that. Regards.