are you unhappy with the rateing system as it is?

a one word answer is all that is reqired; YES you are unhappy with the system;

NO you are not unhappy with the system.

Do you think the few people who will answer you will be representative of what you're looking for?<br>

BTW, answering "yes" or "no" to such a question without explanation doesn't suit me. Good luck.

I would have preferred the question not to be negative; that is, I like "Are you happy with the

rating system?" better.

YO...or should that be NES...

this is what I think #%3! the rating system.....:D

Are you happy with your life? Yes and No answer only. =).

maybe the rating system should " none of the above"

Did you mean: rating :) It's human error, not the system. My answer is: NO.

I think the ranting system's working just fine.

 

Oh! Sorry, you meant 'rating'.

LOL

Oh, you mean except the regular, absurd 3-s? :)

NO - but for different sort of reason I suppose. Up until a few months ago I seemed to average about ten ratings when I posted a photo. Then for some reason, it seemed to be reduced to about three on average. This has been consistent since some website changes. The ratings I'm getting are similar to before, just fewer of them and a good deal less views. I don't think it's my work. Any ideas?

<B>Simple Answer</B>: the system sucks.<p>

<B> Reason for Answer</B>: because photographs like <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4816943&size=lg" >this </a> constantly get slammed by anonymous, uncommented double 3's. This particular photograph is not without its faults, but to slam it as <i>Below Average</i>? Come on....get real!

The particular photo has, currently, one 3, 3 rating. It has also been blessed with two 6, 7 ratings and two 7, 7 ratings. It averages out to 5.53, 5.29 which is pretty good. I really don't see a problem here.

Patrick, the mere fact that that particular photo did get several 7s and 6s is what makes the lone 3/3 stand out like a sore thumb. It would be okay if the photo sucked and it got several 3/3 ratings, but come on, it's a great shot and for someone to rate it a 3/3 without leaving a comment just testifies how reckless the rating system can be. I know it, Walter knows it. I used to get all worked up when this crap happened to me but I've just come to peace with the fact that it's not going to change. I'm not blaming the site, because I'm not sure if a perfect rating system exists. All I can say to Joe, Walter, and everyone else is that everyone is effected by this so at least that levels the playing field. Just take photos for the sake of photography and not focus on the rates it collects.

You guys ought to quit discussing the photo rating system if you aren't going to learn a little about statistics. The most common rating of the forest stream photo is 5. (I'm surprised by this because I personally would have given this photo a 6 because of the technical quality and detail.) That is, the most common reaction to this photo was only "Above Average".

 

If the modal rating is 5, it is totally predictable that there will be some ratings above and below that. And this photo does have some above and below. In fact, the distribution is a bit skewed on the high side. But it is totally predictable that there will be 3's on a photo with a modal rating of 5. Indeed, it is a bit surprising to me that there is only one 3/3 on this photo.

 

Turning from statistics to why someone would rate the photo a 3 or 4: that isn't hard to figure out. The 3 and 4 raters didn't notice or didn't care about the technical quality and saw it as a boring blurred stream shot. Streams with blurred water are a cliche subject. There are tons of them on photo.net and other sites. Most people have seen a lot of them. Few of them are this nice, and most people did see the technical quality, rating the photo higher than the typical forest stream photo would merit. But is it so ridiculous that originality is a factor that weighs more heavily with some people than others?

 

Just because you like this photo (as do I) doesn't mean that everybody has to. The one 3 on this shot is hardly a reductio ad absurdum of the rating system.

$25 can cover 2000GB/yr for bandwidth and at least 1GB space these days. The default TRP should be for the paid member only, not only the pictures, but also the ratings. If anyone wants to play the game, got pay for it.

No. I could on purpose rate every picture a 3/3 and there is no accountability. The anonymously rating should be removed and everyone should have their name shown that rated. Many great pictures that have viewers rating it high also have a few very low ratings for no reason. This makes no sense. These low raters should be forced to explain as to why

I think there is any respect for photographers on this site with this system.

Eppo- perhaps you forget that anonymous raters are anonymous to us, the viewers, but are not anonymous to site administrators. IE, if one person is rating every shot a 3/3, they can cull that out.

 

My current peeve with the rating system is that 1's and 2's are disabled, so I can't really get an honest opinion of my pinhole-dead-snake picture.

 

And Joe- the rating system is as good as it's going to be. Fixing any one problem just makes someone else unhappy about something else. Look at the posts above. One person complaining because of a lack of raters, while the other person only wants paid subscribers to be able to rate. No matter what is done, one of those two people is going to be unhappy.

It ain't anywhere near perfect, but it is doubtful it could be inproved by any of the measures so far suggested. Perhaps if 1/1 ratings were restored it would more accurately reflect reality, but it is probably best to let it continue in its mutual admiration (condemnation?) mode. It is harmless and to the extent that it nurtures the egos of its particiipants, what more could be expected?

Hi Stephen, there are more than enough raters. Check <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=2956020">this.</a> All we need is make direct rating anonymous too. Word "7/7" should be filtered out from the comments.

on the posted example photograph are 5.31 for Aesthetics, and 5.08 for Originality. Those are the <i>real</i> ratings that came from the Rate Recent interface, the ones that count. It is as Will King states above: the lone lower rating is so obvious that it shouts at you. <p>

Meanwhile, we have <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4793173" >this</a> little gem with considerably higher ratings, most of which appear to be comming from non-subscribers. Maybe Yongbo has a good point.<p>

In any case, if I may speak on behalf of Mr Baker, our appreciation to both you and Brian for responding to this thread. Regards

Walter Tatulinski said: "Meanwhile, we have this little gem with considerably higher ratings(...)".

 

That photo IS a gem when compared to the example you brought out. While that waterfall photo is unarguably very good technically, it also is boring as hell, done and overdone at least a zillion times and to be honest I can't help myself of envisioning it hanging in a wall as one of those kitsch Chinese glass frames in motion. Since the rating parameter is called "aesthetics" and not "technic", I find perfectly normal that someone would give it a 3. As for "originality", a 2 would be even kind of flattering for many raters.

 

Anyway, making such a comparison of a vagina shot with a waterfall to make a point about the rating system sounds rather like an out of place prudish intervention.

Answering to the original question: Yes, I'm unhappy with the rating system as it is since the 1s and 2s were amputated. Even this fact and it's maintenance proves that the rating system is fine; the problem is always the people. Another thing that could be improved in the rating system would be to make direct ratings anonymous as well.