Solving the anonimity versus credibility problem.

"The current method is a joke. The sychophants and nay sayers are trying to defend the indefensible and I predict that they will be ignored and a new system imposed pretty soon." I wish George Orwell was alive to write a sequel to "1984".

How about rating within category with symbols of standing for the raters? Raters choose which category or categories they wish to rate.

They will not see categories in which they have no interest.

I posted a picture, please telle me,if this picture (http://www.photo.net/photo/4877338) deserve this rating or no?

 

Thank you

David, as best I can tell from reading through the above, your solution to the ratings to credibility question is to abolish anonymous ratings. Which simply means return the rating system to how it was a couple of years ago. I don't think you have to be a sycophant or naysayer to realize that there's no vast improvement in doing so. It's not that the current system is so great, just that it wouldn't be much if any better to have it back like it was. I don't doubt that there will be changes in the system, but I also don't think we're going to get to a stage where everyone's happy, either.

 

One of the problems with establishing credibility of the raters is that it also immediately leads to attacking the credibility of any users who disagree with your own assessment of your work. Comments like "you seem to have become a big noise on the site. Can't think why, your photos are nothing to write home about." and "The remainder could best be descibed as a load of pretentious excrement." are hardly the things that are going to motivate the administrators to remove anonymous ratings- quite the opposite.

 

You mention the sale of photos as a gauge of how good you are. This seems an odd attitude, as I would assume your sales are pretty much to people like us here on photo.net. That is, I assume it's not other talented landscape photographers that are buying your stuff, but just regular people (hopefully, well-heeled regular people). If people in real life buy your art like they rate it here, it means some will turn up their noses and walk off, and some will really like it and buy it- and there you go, you have sales. I have also learned from observing the art world that there is not always a correlation between sales and the respect of other artists. For example, one of my favorite artists is M. C. Escher. He was tremendously popular, and evidently his work sold like hotcakes- I'll never be able to afford one. Yest, as best I can tell, he doesn't get much respect in the art world. On the other hand, van Gogh could never sell much of anything in his lifetime, but is now highly regarded.

 

Huseyin Gursu, you asked about the rating on the shot. I think it's somewhat underrated. But I don't think it's a 7/7 picture, either. The bird is in an unusual pose, which helps on the originality, but it's also a very awkward-looking position, and it takes a second to figure out how it came to be like that. The background is okay, but doesn't really add anything to the shot, either. Exposure and sharpness and color look great. It looks like it could be a very difficult shot to catch, but that doesn't necessarily add anything on the point scale.

Thank you Stephen for your considered response, you make some valid points. You make however one crucial error, I do NOT wish to return to the old method. I do NOT wish the abolition of the rating system.

 

On the contrary, I wish to retain the rating method with some slight

improvements. Just to restate my proposed solution, I would think it a good idea which would help those who see the rating system as a measure of their progress in photography if the personal rating of the rater or a symbol denoting the rater's standing was added alongside the rating that they have given a photograph.

 

If the rating system is not of use to the beginner as a gauge of his or her progress why have a system at all?

 

The comments of mine that you quote were made in response to some

gratuitously snide and insulting remarks made on this thread. Am I not allowed to to defend myself and engage in the normal cut and thrust of life on a forum. Would you not respond in kind?

I have just seen this evaluation of one of my photographs and reproduce it here as an example of what I consider to be a benchmark in the critique process which is useful to the beginner or more experienced photographer. I do not disdain low ratings, I value them but would prefer a comment to accompany them or an indication of the rater's personal skill level.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4868359

How would the skill rating be true if people are getting voted down in the first place?

 

Surely the rating a photograph gets also depends on the tastes and personal choice of the person rating it. One man's masterpeice is another man's rubbish and all that.

 

Maybe if you rate an image you should have to leave a comment? Either that or seperate the anon votes from the overt votes to have two seperate scores?

Good question Matt. We would be obliged to start with current personal ratings imperfect though they may be. Gradually the hate raters will tire of being reminded of their low standing each time they hit someone with a brace of 3s and realise that their evaluations are being ignored thus negating the purpose of their attacks. They will in time disappear allowing a more accurate picture to emerge.

 

The hate raters hide behind anonimity and members have no idea as to

how much credence to afford a low rating. My suggestion allows for the rater to remain anonymous but gives the rated photographer a clue about the standing of the rater. It's not an earth shattering change.

David, do you truly believe that any 3 rating is a hate rate?

 

Leave the ratings behind, they will never satisfy you, go out and critique a LOT of photos, you've critiqued 478 since being on photo.net, and only 146 of those were in 2006 - a marked slow down from 2005. If you are not making the TRP then the best way to get people to come see your work is to be noticed on the site via critiques and forum posts.

 

Hopefully you'll take this in the spirit it is intended.

I can't help thinking that there's a somewhat pitiable person out there who seems to get

some kind of perverse pleasue out of awarding 3/3 to every shot, (or at least every

landscape), that ever hits the photo.net screen! I could be wrong, of course ~ but, if I'm not,

how pathetic is that?!

I have said all I want to say about ratings.

Well, since I was the commenter on David's photo that he links here, I think I will throw in my two cents. I've been around the site a long time, and had just about every emotion about ratings expressed in this forum. Its natural to want more insights out of the system on the works we post, but I'm afraid many have been disappointed when they suggested changes to do so.<br><br>

 

After a long time, I have concluded for myself that the site really means what it says: believe it or not, the site is not providing the ratings system for the purposes of posting photogrpaphers, its providing it for the site's own purposes -- which appear to me to be as a way to draw people to the site, and to create an easy sorting mechanism for its data base of photos. The site has never had much of an interest in create a system that is a "fair" competition, or which gives much feedback to posting photographers besides that the aggregate is a reflection of the tastes of those viewing photos on the site, i.e., a sort of public opinion survey. <br><br>

 

Furthermore, the site does not appear terribly interested in requiring or encouraging any more feedback than is already available for works posted on the site. We're kind of on our own. That's not a bad thing necessarily, as the site does provide us with extraordinary access to each other. But we have to reach out to each other, give critiques to receive them, if we expect a lot of feedback. This approach has worked over time for many.<br><br>

 

This self-help sensibility has also led to certain initiatives on the site, such as <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=617763>Picture This</a>, <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/4062848>Five</a>, and, started today, <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/4880672>"3"</a>. Try them and see what you think. Commenting, hopefully thoughtfully, constructively, honestly, on the work of others who are likely to respond in kind appears to be the best way to get meaningful feedback, at least in my experience.<br><br>

Hope this helps.

Can't you just find a group of people (whose ratings you approve of no doubt) to share ratings and critiques with?

I am fairly new here and have noticed the very quick response of the 3/3 raters. I put up 3 in the last 24 hrs and with 20 seconds they had 3/3s. I really don't care. Personal opinion is personal opinion. My question is why does it show no views but 3/3 ratings. I must be missing something, can you rate without viewing the photos? I love the critiques as I shot professionally for years in the tech area and I need alot of work in the creative area. I have no problem with personal opinions, but I do think that anyone who critiques should be required to have posted their own work. It would help in seeing where they are coming from, other than that it is just an opinion and if they are telling you how you should take the photo, maybe they should being willing to show they know what they are talking about.

 

It is a critique not an opinion. Opinions should be rated and critques should be limited to posters who have work for others to see. This allows us to rate the critique as being valid and not, ratings I do not care about. Just my opinion.

 

Definition Webster online:

 

critique

n 1: an essay or article that gives a critical evaluation

2: a serious examination and judgment of something;

 

v : appraise critically;

 

How can one evaluate, examine and judge or appraise without knowing something about the subject and being able to prove it? Would not want to go before a judge who had never judged or even read the law. Get your house appraised by someone who cannot read or write.

 

Critique, post and prove you know what you are talking about, other than that rate because your critique is meanless. Seems simple to me.

Maybe I am too new here?

The views are counted retrospectively by analysing the web server logs, that's why you don't see them immediately.

No E. I just think that if a person is unable show their work than what makes them think anyone should care what they think. Makes me wonder if they are not a point and shot person because they are scared to post, it might show that they are not as smart as they think they are? I think critique should be done by people who are willing to be critiqued also or they should not do it. If not it is very one sided and it may be someone who has no clue what they are talking about. They may have a great critique eye but just telling someone that their work is not up to their standards does not help, show them. If not then their critique is useless and meaningless. I do not want critique from someone who is too afraid to show me what they are talking about. Don't say it sucks and then run and hide like a two year old child. Show me, I may agree, I may not, but that is how people learn to respect each other and their work.

 

Now E for you, I do like the fact that you tell people what you think the photos need or what was good, but I still think that in some cases you could be more effective if you had an example to post with it. I have read many of yours and you seem to do it fairly unlike some others. Seems people have forgotten that if a photo needs work and a person asks for a critique they are asking for help to get better not a short sentence that says it sucks. I still think photographers are visual learners and that would be more effective, thats all. Just my opinion, not a critique.

thanks Ben Anderson, just did not think part of it would be in real time and the other pulled from logs. thanks again

E. couple of good points, but I think you are missing my point. If someone is asking for critique and you give one, want I think is that if they cannot see how you look at things then it is much harder to understand what they mean. I may not be putting it in a way that makes it easy to understand.

 

example: I have a picture of pine tree at sunset. It is dark except for a few highlights. The shot I wanted. However, some people think it is bad because they only like fully light subjects. A comment to me was I did not know how to photograph nature,(from another site,also with an.ratings). I sent them a request why. I got back photos all brightly lit. They were very detailed on how I was not using light

properly. By seeing their work, I understood why they made the comments they did and could judge how they wanted me to change my work.

 

It has nothing to do with being better than anyone else. We all have our own style and ideas as to what is good or not. I have no problem with that, what I would like to see is how they judge the work of others and why. Some can explain it well others can't, I just think it would be helpful to know how they approach it and I think photos would help and maybe if they got critiqued also, it just might help them do a better job.

Film critic. That is as bad as my judge comparison. If we listened to film critics some of the most successful movies would have been flops. I just like the idea of two people comparing notes on how they see a subject in a photograph and how they approach it is better than one saying something and walking away.

 

I see that we will always see things differently on that, and that is ok, that is what makes it work.

 

Glad to have had the discussion. I disagree with some of your points, but others have made me want to think about it.

 

Thanks.