"Mate Rating" Ain't All Bad

Recent harsh words about ?mate rating? to supposed ?mate raters,?

and to critics of ?mate rating? critics, as well as my hope that the

site will continue to encourage connections between its participants

as much as possible, cause me to leave this feedback.

 

I think the site should do the minimum necessary to maintain the

integrity of its top rated images, in the managements own judgment,

to the extent that top rated images are being affected by so-

called ?mate rating.? Otherwise, I think you should leave the

posting, rating and commenting process as accessible as possible.

To paraphrase the campaign manager who engineered Bill Clinton?s

election as President, I think the motto of management should

be, ?It?s about access, stupid.?

 

?Mate rating? is not necessarily bad for the site or its

participants. To the contrary, I think it has significant benefits.

 

1. The site largely is a virtual ?amateur hour? of peer review

by whoever can afford a camera and a computer. Ratings have never

been intended to mean anything more than you would expect from such

an open process. As a result of the open process, photo.net enables

people from around the globe to easily make connections with others

who share a love of photography. I encourage you to protect this

access vigorously, as it is an extraordinary, even revolutionary,

contribution in my opinion.

 

2. Is mate rating delusional sometimes? Yes. Annoying?

Sure. Abusive at times? Certainly. But so called ?mate rating?

results not only in occasional TRP photos that are mediocre, but

also in motivating people to take more photographs, to strive to

improve as they compare and learn from the mates who encourage them,

and to participate more in photo.net. People are motivated more by

carrots more than by sticks. The site gains more quality images and

visitors as a result, and enables photographers to get more excited

and learn more about photography. I think at least some significant

portion of the growth of this site can be attributed to the bonds

people are able to form; in other words, the ?mates? they make.

 

3. Again, posters are volunteers. They have no obligation to

continue with photo.net, and there are alternatives. Too harsh and

too regulated an environment is as likely to cause quality

photographers to leave, reducing the overall pool of quality images,

as it is to increase the quality of the TRP.

 

4. One charge that ?mate rating? critics make is that mate

raters are ?gaming? the system. Perhaps some are. But a great deal

of ?mate rating? is what you would expect in a voluntary, open

process ? people finding pleasure in being generous to their friends

and implicitly seeking their generosity in return. This is

not ?dishonest.? Who is to say what is an ?honest rating?? Who can

tell if someone is a liar? I?ve asked this of critics of mate

raters recently and noticeably no one provided a response. Your

beautiful sunset is my boring picture; my portrait is your dreck.

There is human nature, there is difference of opinion. It cannot

be ?controlled,? nor should it.

 

5. I?d rather be around delusional ?mate raters? speaking too

enthusiastically about others? work than people pointing fingers and

attacking people personally, calling for changes in the system that

make it less accessible, or demanding punitive measures against

people whose effusive praise they find offensive and whose ?bad?

intent they cannot prove. Sadly, people voluntarily participating

in this site out of a passion for their art, and whose commitment to

photography and quality of work is undeniably high, have received

some very tough messages lately. So artistic types can be

egoistical and self-deluding. Tell me something I don?t know. I

put myself forward as example number one, and ask everyone else to

line up behind me.

 

6. I suspect that some ? not all ? of the concern about ?mate

rating? comes from a view of this site as a competition that not

everyone shares. It takes all kinds to make a successful, thriving

site.

 

In short, other than causing a problem for the site in maintaining a

high overall quality of top rated images, which I presume helps to

draw in participants and keep them here, I think the benefits to the

site and its participants of ?mate rating? in general outweigh the

negatives (yes, there are other negatives, but i am speaking

overall), and it is not necessarily ?bad? in all regards.

Personally, I consider egregious mate raters (I say egregious

because it is the rare soul who has not rated a friend generously; I

plead guilty!) like I do people talking on cell phones in public

areas. Its annoying, but I can almost always move away. If I

can?t, I say something to them and they stop or move away. But its

not against the law.

 

The extended focus on the purported gaming of the ratings system

appears to me to have led to what I think are negative changes, like

the limits on 7s and the anonymity of ratings. I encourage you to

not follow it further into a rabbit hole of overly harsh practices

that discourage and limit participation and connection. Just do the

minimum necessary to protect the integrity of the site in your best

judgment. Otherwise, err on the side of allowing a generosity of

spirit, even if that sometimes translates into overly generous

numbers. Keep the momentum of this marvelous site going. Viva la

difference.

 

Thank you for your consideration of this feedback.

 

 

 

It seems quite clear that "mate rating" is very much in evidence on this site, whether it be a good thing or a bad thing. Much of the mate rating that is being discussed here is in attempt to have a picture high up in the TRP section of the site.

 

This morning, as i previously indicated in a post here, I sent an email to the abuse section of the site, to complain about a low rating I received by what appears to be a robot rater (over 3000 ratings in only a few days).

 

The response to my e-mail, was that my entire portfolio, all my ratings and comments, both on my pictures and comments and ratings I have left on other peoples photographs, and all the comments and rating that people have left for me, have been deleted.

 

It seems that, without my knowledge, a relative had been rating my photos (legitimate or not?) and I was subsequently accused of abuse, accused of doing this myself. The ratings had come from a (elderly) relative with who I share an internet connection, although we live in different adjoining appartments and these had been rated without my knowledge.

 

I believe that in the few weeks I have been a (paid up) member of this site, I have made a positive contribution here. I have rated many photographs that I have found interesting, have not tactically or reciprocally rated photographs, and have left many comments and critiques on peoples work, without attacking or criticising, and had done so considerately and thoughtfully.

 

I was informed that as I was a fully paid up member my account would not be deleted and that I was welcome to start again. However, I am not sure that i want to start again from scratch and once again be open to low ratings from inconsiderate raters or robots. It seems that the person who recieved my email to the abuse department can act as judge jury and executioner without even asking for an explanation, however, it seems from the amount of people posting here about mate rating that very little ever gets done about this bigger problem.

 

I have sent a reply to the abuse department appealing this decision but have thus far not received a reply. I would ask anybody in a position of power who frequent this forum to review this situation and to reinstate my photography, ratings and comments which I believe have been deleted unfairly.

 

I have enjoyed my short time here at photo.net, and would like to continue to contribute to this community, however, unless this situation is reviewed, I do not feel that I am able to do so.

 

Regards, Rab.

Ben, what you stated sounds capital to me.

 

Ben, keeping perspective, the ratings really are just so much PN "background noise" (as is the revolving handful of usual suspects who whine, bitch, moan, accuse, excoriate, demonize, or attempt to bully and terrorize others about it). there is so much more to PN that, for all I care, those few who wish to condemn themselves to its cause can remain behind in the past and eat our dust while you, I, and others substantively move on.

Rab

 

You got a bunch of "mate rates". They were taken away. Isn't that what everybody wants?

 

To be fair, anyone could rate their own images from another account and claim that rating was done by someone else using their internet connection. Whether it's true or not really doesn't matter. Sounds like the abuse moderator gave you the benefit of the doubt. If he hadn't, he'd probably have booted you off the site.

It doesn't seem that I was given the benefit of the doubt when my entire contents of my account were deleted - where is the benefit of the doubt in that?

 

I sent a follow-up e-mail explaining to the best of my knowledge what had happened (I don't know, Bob, if you have access to that information but it contains details that cannot be written here), and therefore asking for the benefit of the doubt, however, I have not had a reply.

 

It seems that on a daily basis that there are complaints in here about huge scale mate ratings on the TRP (of which none of my pictures were involved in)in which mediocre pictures are amongst the highest rated pictures on the site, and it seems that no action is taken, I think that the action taken against me was a tad harsh and that no benefit of the doubt was given at all.

 

Perhaps removing the relevant ratings and a warning would have been more appropriate? Especially as it was not something that I was even aware of! Why remove all 250 ratings that I had received thus far? Why have I been treated so harshly simply because someone I know (1 person only!) rated my work? I mean, part of the reason I was using this site was as a base for my portfolio, therefore is it unreasonable that I should make people I know aware of my work here? Is it unreasonable that some of them join the site and rate my work? They may have hated it and rated it badly but I certainly would not have encouraged anyone to rate my work unreasonably high! I can understand the logic of the person that deleted the contents of my account but is it not reasonable to ask my side of the case and therefore give me the benefit of the doubt? It seems that there was no doubt given and certainly no benefit!

 

Ben - sorry for hikacking your thread - I did feel it was relevant at the time of posting, I am not so sure now though.

Ben S, thanks for stating so well a position that I share with you. I believe that mate-rating is an inevitable aspect of this kind of popularity contest, and although it can certainly skew the TRP results, it does not ruin the TRP. I encourage Brian to move slowly and gently was he tries to deal with this problem.

 

Rab, I'm sorry about your difficulties. I hope the PN judge/executioner gives your appeal fair consideration. --Joe

Ben S.

<p>

Finally a fresh take on the topic! I was musing as I started reading your exposition that

perhaps what more people on photo.net needed were more mates! To promote the

"community" aspect of the site.

<p>

On deletion of the entire contents of Rab's portfolio (not just ratings and critiques

suspected

of mate rating - all?) - I would've preferred if the moderators left the images... but...

(realizing someday I may need forgiveness in turn for possible transgressions).

<p>

But yeah, Ben S. At least you have been trying to look at the positive side of things.

Reading all the incessant mate rating posts lead me to conclude that it will never be

completely controlled, and the more you attempt to control, you may end up with more

and more false hits of "mate raters."

<p>

I really wish photo.net would implement a filter that automatically forwarded all "mate

rater" complaints etc. to abuse AT photo.net and immediately deleted the post.

Lets see if I can get through this one. Ben S. feels that mate-rating is actually a good and beneficial thing for photo.net. Here, rather than read his Book above, let me post just a portion.

 

"?Mate rating? is not necessarily bad for the site or its participants. To the contrary, I think it has significant benefits." Ben S.

 

Sorry Ben, you sure missed the bus with that comment. Perhaps some rest might help. When an average image is given high/inflated/mated-ratings, the photographer is NOT compelled (as you say) to improve his craft. He is in fact being told that he's already a MASTER of this craft and his little snapshots are actually really worthy of great praise and Top Photo status with highest visibility. In fact the exact opposite of improvement is learned my friend. Why improve at all, if average images are already so wonderful. I've seen it over and over again. How many of these mate-raters are actually getting better?? In fact one photographer that I USED to consider as excellent has now digressed so much that I no longer consider him even worthy of looking at. Seriously, he's gone backwards! The sites gallery IS also now SKEWED because the truly better images have just been surpassed with inferior ones simply because of those willing to cheat (let me repeat CHEAT and GAME) the system. How you can actually say that cheating is by any possible means good for the site?? It is irresponsible at the least, and just plain ignorant reasoning. It is foolish for you to actually put this post up in the forums.

 

Now, let me see if I understand our good-ole pal Howard Photo here. Howard Photo (Howie) who IS the now banned and infamous Gary Hsp, who was ALSO the infamous Faith Cohen/Golarka's/etc. etc.. (yes the same ones that handed out lowball ratings for almost a year to protect Gary Hsp "Top Photographers" status). This guy is now chiming in to say that ratings are "mere background noise", and not all that important. That he also supports Ben's position that ratings dont really matter. Boy this one takes the cake. All Howie ever did was to create bogus account after account to lowball anybody within breathing distance of his precious top photographers status. He also tried to lock in all of his images by requesting the "critique only" status believing nobody could even downrate his images again. Brian had to actually make a change in the programming because of this guys infatuation with being number one. Eventually he was banned and many of his bogus acounts deleted. And he now returns under Howard Photo, and telling all that ratings do not matter.

 

So we have one guy telling us mate-rating is good for the site, and the other (as the MASTER of lowball rating manipulations) complaining about those of us wanting something done about it. Well I admit, this thread really takes the cake. There is little hope.

Sorry Ben, but I can't agree with you. Mate rating on the huge scale that now occurs has nearly destroyed the TRP as a showpiece of photonet photography. A group of photographers rate each others photos to enable them to come to the top of the TRP. The comments they make to each other are not critical or constructive. Much better (imo) photographers don't get a look in, because they do it properly and go through the critique forum. It is neither a minor problem nor good for photonet.

http://www.photo.net/photo/3158773

 

And for those that do not know about Gary/Howard/Faith etc.. Howard shows up only three days after Gary was deleted, he stays in the same critique only forums (just as Gary did), has the exact same style of images from New York City, same expertise and exact style of comments, and now even claims that they were friends. He also still opens lowballing phony accounts and hands out plenty of 2/2 ratings which is why I decided to expose this phony. We gave him warnings to behave and we'd let him stick around. He just couldn't do it. Had to go lowballing again...

 

Well Howie, welcome to smackdown time!

 

And Ben, we know you know who he is. We saw this exchange:

 

"I use to work near a building in Gary indiana. I hope I go the sp elling right. Maybe you can h elp."

 

And Howards reply - "I am glad my style comes through. I guess I am doing something right."

 

Funny how 15 minutes later both posts were changed. You guys deserve each other.

Howard you in NYC?...you ever read this?

 

http://www.photo.net/photonet-subscriptions

 

Seems Faith was a "freeloader" too wasn't she....PN is most generous.

in response, I am taking good Ben's good advice (see above) and shall not further pollute his good thread by responding to personal attack and witch hunts. perhaps the moderator might generously rescue the thread to return it on topic. enjoy.

Ben, the key ingredients to a successful critique site are knowledge gained from experience, which leads to discrimination, and finally, objectivity. The openness of this rating / commenting process gives the most power and influence to those who are the easiest to impress. If a slot canyon shot got the ratings it deserved, the rater's own images would be targeted for demotion, regardless of their photographic merit.

 

Mate commenting is the main reason people upload images on this site, but the rating process has to be completely separate and anonymous. No one has given me a good reason why anonymous ratings restricted to an RFC queue won't work.

<p>"<i>"No one has given me a good reason why anonymous ratings restricted to an RFC queue won't work.</i>"

 

<p>for anonymity to work it would have to work both ways. frames and names/logos on photos would identify RFC requestors. also, a photographer's style and subject/genre work would do that too. and there are email alerts.

The chances of finding someone you know in the ratings queue would be remote, especially if the sequence does not correlate with exact time of upload. Remember, you can't skip. The speed of rates would have to be monitored - as they are now - to eliminate bots or bot-like thoughtless speedrating.

As things stand within an open more transparent system, the management cannot do anything about mate rating because they know what some of you fail to acknowledge. Namely that we are all mate raters.

 

Carl suggestion of maximizing anonymity would be the only possible resolution of mate rating. But we would then loose part of what Ben is advocating -- the importance sense of building community.

a wholly rigidified RFC queue would quickly fall into disuse. the experience would be akin to agreeing to be a participating guinea pig in a psychological behavioral response test/study without any satisfying compensation.

David,

 

Unless you distort the definition, we are all most definately not mate raters. The accepted definition of "mate rater" on this site is somebody who showers the same people over and over, regardless of the quality of what they produce, with 7/7's in the hope of receiving reciprocal 7/7's.

David,

 

Unless you distort the definition, we are all most definitely not mate raters. The accepted definition of "mate rater" on this site is somebody who showers the same people over and over, regardless of the quality of what they produce, with 7/7's in the hope of receiving reciprocal 7/7's.

I can give you a very good reason why anonymity fails to provide a solution on this site. I was not the first to state it. It comes from this site's leader himself:<p>

<b>"...The ratings were made public because the moderators could not handle the level of abuse. People created bogus accounts to rate themselves and their friends high, and their adversaries low. There were numerous trolls coming through all the time rating everyting in sight 1/1. The ratings were made public so that people could see abuse and report it to abuse@photo.net, and so that people would be embarassed to pump up their own ratings so much that it would be obvious<p>

With the problems with mate-rating, I've thought about going back to anonymous ratings. But while this might reduce some of the "innocent" mate-rating, it wouldn't prevent outright dishonest mate-rating, and it would make it harder to expose it, and other types of abuse..."</b> (Brian Mottershead, 25 August 2003).<p>

 

Why dismantle a system that worked (fairly well) when a simple direct approach is the obvious answer? If you have a child that misbehaves, do you punish your neighbor instead of the child? The methods being employed or proposed here to ostensibly rectify the abuse of a handful of people, most of which are <b>nonpaying guests</b>, are ludicrous.

I sense of community is fostered by mate commenting.

 

A considerable number of raters are brand new to the site and know nothing about these issues. If you don't like what the new sign ups are putting on the TRP, then you can make a contribution for the site. Someone who rates often would truly be an asset. I think quite a few people would participate who don't now because a higher portion of the rates would now be honest and meaningful and they would actually have an impact on visibility, unlike now.

 

Brian's quote about anonymity has nothing to do with my proposal. I am proposing the elimination of all targeted rates. Ratings would be from the RFC queue only. It's that simple.

Mark, you are entitled to define mate rating any way you like - but so am I. It is a statistical fact that those who rate high and often get high rates often in return. You could say that quality images are the common denominator, except that it's easy to find high marks given and received for mediocre work. The point is that there's a much higher correlation for rates than for quality. (This observation is not mine alone. It has been made by quite a few people since the gallery was set up.)

Carl, when did I disagree with you?

"in response, I am taking good Ben's good advice (see above) and shall not further pollute his good thread by responding to personal attack and witch hunts. perhaps the moderator might generously rescue the thread to return it on topic. enjoy." Howard Photo/Faith Cohen/Gary Hp

 

Well Howie, why the change of heart all of a sudden?? You certainly have ALREADY polluted the entire gallery with your many aliases, lowballing and manipulations. So why stop now? Are we playing the "lets pretend" kiddie game today? Todays theme: Lets pretend to be a good boy! I would receive three or four of these lowball rates with EACH image posted, all the same just 2s and 3s. Same with many others throughout the site. What fun that game must have been Howie.

 

"perhaps the moderator might generously rescue the thread to return it on topic." (another fine quote from Howie Photo)

 

Bet you would like to see those posts deleted wouldn't you. You've been exposed Howie. The damage is done. We know who you are/were. We are watching you...

 

Tell you what Ms. Howie, why don't you offer all here on Photo.net a public apology for your below the belt lowballing escapades as of recent, then delete all phony accounts, tell abuse where to find the lowball rates, and then maybe, just possibly, you can resume activities here without getting hammered down and exposed further as the fraud you in fact are. Now how can you possibly refuse such a nice offer as this??

<p>"<i>A sense of community is fostered by mate commenting."</i>

 

<p>perhaps the discussion can flesh more out of this concept. seems that lots of mate commenting goes on at varying levels of substance critique-wise. and although comments certainly ought not be limited to purely photographic matters, often the photographic discussion goes on at the superficial surface level. and often I read quite over the top hyperbole concerning non-photographic values which people read into a photo that quite simply are the result of people craving to connect with a photographer in order to "mate" with them into a forward-going comments-wise relationship. but at least that is more entertaining and interesting than the mindless ratings-driven level of comments drivel.