Top rated photographs

You're right. You don't see them because they disappear quickly from the queue because they quickly get their quota of rates and views from their friends. . . another nuance of the system that you wouldn't know unless you actually participated.

If I remember correctly, the naked old nude guy was a wax sculpture in a museum.

Lots of companies offer web hosting. You could arrange to show your photos and ONLY your photos on your OWN site. Why don't you?

 

I am sure there were nudes on this site before you joined. What gives you the right to complain about them?

A statue? All this time I thought the yellow cast was jaundice and a swollen belly. I kept thinking that the poor fellow must have moved on to a happier world by now. Statue or not, that shot could be in a medical textbook.

David Mc: I don't think Jennifer is complaining about nudes on the site but on the recent proliferation of poorly done nude images on the site getting high ratings and thus greater exposure. You are correct; there have always been nudes on the site but very few have made it to the top 50 in the TRP. Those that have been in the top 50 have generally deserved it. Look at the overall ratings of John Peri. Most of his images are far superior to the current high end TRP and yet at the time he was producing in volume, he was lucky to break the top 100. If there are multiple accounts, robots or nude mate raters out there, it gives the rest of PN a controversal image. If the goal of PN is to exhibit quality photography, there needs to be fairness and balance.

Are the people giving the poorly done nude images high ratings the same people giving other images the 3/3s?

The problem is not the nude, it's someone managed to control the TRP. It is invisible to the site management, since they don't play the rating game.

Maybe they should, we have experts who rate movies and we have the peoples award. Why not have both on PN also. Is this so farfetched an idea.

 

Berryl

Jennifer has the wax-guy posted, but that's not the point. What would we all think if pictures of naked ugly wax-guys constituted half of the TRP? I've got a dead squirrel picture, nothing wrong with that. But if 2/3 of the TRP was dead squirrel pictures, wouldn't you begin to wonder what was going on? Her complaint was not that nude pictures existed, but that they dominated.

David Schoen,

 

There are poorly done photos in every genre on this site. Why do people only complain about poorly done nudes. I get fed up of poorly done children posted only because their adoring parents love them. I wouldn't mind but some of these children are positively ugly as well as the photographs being horendous.

 

No examples given in order to spare the feelings of that might be offended... but have a look around. You will see I am right!

Well, mathematically speaking, the ratings that count most are the lowest and the highest that a picture receives. :-)

Could an unethical competitor of PN or someone who has it in for PN personnel have a handful of people coming to PN to rate nudes high regardless of quality and giving above average non-nudes 3's just to create havoc on the site? It wouldn't take many people to create substantial turmoil such as we seem to already have. That's all for now; I have to go check and see if there are any Communists under my bed!

Jim, It wouldn't take a handful. Only one! The point people are missing, or so it would seem, is that since ratings less than 3/3 don't count, the people that handed them out don't give scores less than 3/3 any more. I do if the picture warrants it. The fact is this is a point that has been missed in ALL the complaints about ratings.

 

Maybe I will start a new thread. David's guide to mate rating.

Hello Jennifer, do you have a screen name set up so that you can direct people to just your portfolio?

 

I use pjmeade, so that I can send people to my portfolio. I use this address www.photo.net/photos/pjmeade.

 

.../jcatron would send them to yours. I also tell people not to navigate too far off my work because of the amount of "art" on the site.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Pete

I really like nude genre, it is one of my favorites. I think the problem is that extremely badly executed nude has somehow much higher chance to get to the top of the TRP than an extremely badly executed landscape, street life or sth else. It has to do with the taste of the raters. And David, you are always defending nudes, but would you also defend an extremely bad photographs?

I guess there is just a spate of average nude shots recently that have each received a fistful of

7/7 making it looking like they're taking over TRP. I couldn't be bothered looking inTRP at the

moment, a real eyesore. I have just posted in critique only for the time being, no need to see

my shots next to ridiculous nude shots.

Peter Martinka, I am not defendin nudes. I am just saying there are an equally number of bad photos in other categories... particularly Children... more so in face... go have a look and then tell me I am wrong!

let's forget about nudes. I rate say up to 60 photos a day and have a chance to see... You're right there are bad photos in virtually every category, but just very very few of them make it to the top of the TRP, perhaps with a bit increasing trend last days. Maybe also some children stuff, which is quite frankly very hard to rate without implementing some subjective attitude, esp. if you are a father having such a kid... but let's also forget about the children in the TRP. The same you can say about all those oversaturated insects, zoo-birds and lilies. The system needs a change which would allow/produce more ratings for all photographs in the queue. That's my point.

The point I am making is that people would rather see bad nudes rather than bad children. This is called natural selection.

David McCracken: statistics don't lie and you clearly don't need to make the point. This thread exists because bad nudes dominate the top TRP, not bad children, birds, insects, sunsets, cats, dogs, flowers, etc. This was not always the case on PN. Neither was 3/3. Neither was mate rating, robots, fake accounts, etc. At one point in time, there were quality images and some level of honesty (at least it appeared so to me). As the site has grown, viewers have learned devious ways to play the ratings game to achieve their own means. Too bad. But I suppose that's the way of the world. A sad cooment on society. Perhaps an overgeneralization but it still rings true. Once again, I would prefer a system that offers fairness and balance along with quality. AND I want to be clear, I enjoy looking at well crafted nude images as much as anyone else. If the top 20 images were well crafted and deserved to be there, I would have less of an argument. Look at the past. Look at Emil Schmidt and other nudes who previously had places in the top 20 TRP. How can you compare 2 out of focus boobs to those images? David, you provided a lot of humour in your own images; too bad there wasn't a humour category at the time before Brian censored you! Yes, things have changed, but can you say honestly, they are better?

It may be true that "people would rather see bad nudes rather than bad children" but neither should be in the TRP site. The real issue seams to me as a newcomer to this site that it is unlikely that anyone would be offended by a bad photograph of child but many are offended by both good and bad photographs of nudes. I have nothing against nudes being on this site and do not advocate censorship by the site moderators or anyone else except that visitors to the site should be able to self censor. Just as anyone has the right to look at nude photographs so should they have the right not to. It seams to me that the problem initially posted could be overcome by having the opening page in TRP (and in photo critique forum) not show nudes but allow those who wish to do so to chose this as an option.

Neil, Photography is about communication. It is far harder to take a bad child photograph than a bad nude! You work it out.

I see David has been looking at my portfolio again. I'm filling it up with photos of bad-looking children, so he can use them as an example.

 

Just trying to be of service.

I have noticed over the years that certain categories will predominate from time to time and then another comes to the forefront. Nudes certainly are one of them, along with nature and landscape. I do find the predominance of certain categories tiresome, but since I so rarely rate photos I am part of the problem. While some of the recent work I've seen pushes the boundaries of good taste, I don't particularly want to censor Photo Net. If I want change I guess I should start actively rating the work I think is worthwhile.

"Could an unethical competitor of PN or someone who has it in for PN personnel have a handful of people coming to PN to rate nudes high regardless of quality and giving above average non-nudes 3's just to create havoc on the site?"

 

Very possible, if you ask me... But then again, I was among the last 5 communists you chased from under your bed, so.....:-)