rating guidelines

I think it would really improve rating if there were guidelines, such as are

given for most exams/tasks that require a consistent approach. I.e. something

like

 

Aesthetics

1: obvious aesthetic flaws that make viewing almost impossible

4: average photo with unstimulating content, and little evidence of composition

6: obvious skill in composition, framing and use of light

 

not that you should use those, i'm just trying to explain what i mean. I think

it would help make ratings consistent while at the same time using more of the

1-7 spectrum. Also, i think often there is not enough differentiation between

aesthetics and originality - for example, a photography may be aesthetics 3/4

but originality 6/7, yet you almost never see those kind of ratings. I think

rating guidelines might help with this as well.

 

:-)

Sarah

Hi Sarah,

 

I agree with your idea in principle. I would substitute the term 'rating guidelines' with 'rating spectrum'. That way people who refer and make refference to the 'rating spectrum' can do so in a practical way, whilst not being tied down to guidelines.

 

I agree that the elements of aesthetic and originality in any photograph may not be balanced, that's normal. Whether the ratings are normal is another thread.

 

Cheers.

Hi Sarah,

 

When you go to the "gallery" and "rate photos" section, you can click on aesthetics or originality before rating a photo to have guidelines information.

 

I personnally think the guidelines (or suggestions) given by the photo.net administration are ok.

 

http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/standards/#Aesthetics

"Aesthetic flaws that make viewing almost impossible???" That sounds a lot more interesting than "average photo with unstimulating content."

I believe all we have to do is remove the ability to rate images anonymously. If members knew their names would appear with their ratings, they would put more thought into them.

 

It might also be beneficial to do away with negative ratings. Rather than suffer the tedium of deciding on a rating for poor work, we could just rate images we feel should be included in the rankings. My suggestion would be to eliminate ratings of 1 through 4. If an image is unrated; it is not included.

 

I believe we should trade quantity for quality.

 

But these are just my opinions. I could be wrong.

 

Peace,

Bob Bennett

Hi Sarah,

As mentioned above, PN does have a fairly well written explanation of how one should rate an image. I think the problem arises in how each individual interprets the information. Then add into the mix each person's personal preference & biases. One must attempt to critique without one's personal biases. I feel this is the only way critique is helpful to the photographer. But then, this is just my opinion for what it's worth.

You know there were quite a few times when I was no longer going to post anymore photos. And at some time in the future this may happen. Not because I am pissed off because some person who does not know squat about photograpy or someone who just spent less than two seconds looking at my photo just gave me 3's, no its because time is valuable and I think I would rather rate and critque someones else photos with an honest answer so maybe they could learn something than recieve rates that mean nothing. There are a few who look at ones photo and offer valuable advise and yes even praise. We as human beings require both as it would become bothersome to recieve only negitive critques no matter how informative they are without a few kind words from those I consider freinds with my best intrest at heart. This is why I decided to never rate a photo without a critque.

At first I went through and rated photos like an assembly line worker and I thought is this what PhotoNet is about. No More. If I am going to offer advise on someones photos they are going to know who I am and a chance to ask me why I said what I did. And they will at least know that I spent some time looking at there photo and not just slap a rate on it between shoving food in my mouth and watching my favorite sitcom on television. No I cannot rate as many photos this way, but it sure as hell is going to mean a lot more to the ones I do. And you know what, I am doing this as much for me as them. It makes me feel better about myself. Well, thats my two cents worth, sorry it was so long winded.

 

Sincerly

 

Berryl Bader

These also recieved threes:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4950332

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4928358

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4928950

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4843099

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4887399

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4753186

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4783657

 

All of the '3' ratings were anonymous.

 

I believe artists who create nudes are hurt most by the anonymous system. Hormones artifically elevate bad work and prudishness lowers the rankings of good work.

 

Peace,

Bob

Robert, Good point and great photos, This is exactly what I mean. Even if you do not like the photo how can you give them a three for originality. UNBELIEVEABLE!

 

Berryl

A key point in the rating guidelines is the statement that photos should be rated "relative to other photos on Photo.net." It's very easy to forget this and slip into a mind set of rating against photos from other sources, whether on the web, in magazines or newspapers, or in photographic exhibitions, in other words against the best ever seen.

Some of the images on photo.net are the best I've ever seen.

 

And they're much easier to find when I click 'Average'.

 

Interesting, eh?

 

Peace,

Bob

Yep, interesting. When I first used this site I clicked on top photos and I was puzzled why everyone seemed to use polarizers and models from Russia. Anyhow, now I see more interesting photos with the Average button too. I try not to fall into the ratings game, like Berryl says you can learn far more by reading and writing about photography than merely by assigning a couple of 7's or whatever.

The images that show up on the average sorts that can not be found on the default page are there because the mate raters don't want to run their images through the rate recent queue. You get higher rates if your first half dozen are from your friends. Then the halo effect sets in.

 

Some of those images are very good, but what you fail to understand is that:

 

a) many members upload the same thing over and over again, and inspire others to copy them.

 

b) there are other members doing similar work who don't play the ratings game who have no chance of getting anywhere near the same number of views.

 

c) there is a huge bias towards overprocessing, especially gimmick filters. See the first image in your list above, Robert.

I always thought it would be fun to see what would happen if a set of award winning photos from expert photographers were run through the system anonomisly. And Carl you portfolio is wonderful by the way. I really like those AA Extra Large Bunns.

 

Berryl

Hello Ben, Nice to here from you again. You know I accually am more interested in how many people view any one photo of mine than any ratings. To me it tells more than the ratings themself, you know what I mean. Your black and white section is something by the way. That old building reminds me of an old shed I had on my first homes property!

 

Berryl

Hi Berryl, I like your recent photos very much. Thanks for the compliment but I am just a beginner and I got thru many rolls just to get those muddy snaps! That old building is now gone. I went there with an American photography student I met here. We had met in a pub and had plenty to drink last summer. He had just bought a new Hassy with a set of primes from an old lady for peanuts...aaahhh! The interlock was stuck so he borrowed my workshop and helped me fix my old Fuji g690bl. He wanted to use his digital incident meter for that scene. Before I got out of the car I had decided that it was gonna be about f5.6 @1/30th. He got one shot and I got three. The bright white lime on the old Irish farmhouses is so intense, lovely stuff.

 

Cheers.

Thanks Ben, You may be a beginner however you are quit gifted. I keep oversharping my photos before uploading them. I make the same dam mistake over and over. I am new to all this at PhotoNet and it seems when you resize and post the photo looks bad. I get used to it I guess. Maybe a Help Me post on "I'm not sure which forum" will get me some answers. If you have any helpful hints let me know!

 

Your Friend

 

Berryl

Sorry, but this is suposed to be a thread about rating guidelines. If it continues along the recent path up above, I will delete the whole thread.

The point is that a significant number of people rate along the lines of "I like it" (or not) or worse "I like you" (or not.) By Burying the tutorial, the current interface does nothing to encourage serious thought or explain why the site wants you to rate in the first place.

So if I like a photo or not is not the point, I don't rate photos often anyhow. No need to bury the ratings tutorial, it's helpful to know the photo.net diagnostic even if it is perhaps a little old hat.

 

Cheers.

Sorry Ray, Your right I was straying of the path, I will try and watch that in the future. As far as the thread here, as I mentioned in another thread why not make manditory critiques a policy if you are going to rate a photo. Yes, you are going to get the "great shot", "good photo", and "I like it" comments. But a least it's a start. Sometimes people have to learn how to give critiques, I for one am learning. But I think it will help a little.

 

Berryl

 

Berryl

One other thing that I wanted to add to my last post was that maybe this could be conbined with the prosposed ratings tutorial.

Guidelines would be good. Photos should be judged on their relative merits only. If you don't like insect shots, don't rate them. If you don't like nudes, don't rate them. Rate what you know and rate within your knowledge of what is on photo.net.

 

If ratings are to have merit - and acknowledged as such by photo.net, then there should be revised standards. Personally, I pay little attention to ratings but I am curious about the number of views and the comments. Top rated photos has become pretty distorted over the last 2 or 3 years. It probably is the number one complaint about photo.net. Glad to see Philip Back! Really glad.

I will state what I wrote in a simular thread, Lets have two critiques and rate systems, just like the movies do. One will be by assigned professional photographers and the one as what we have now. The Oscars and the Peoples Choice Awards so to speak. This will solve some of the problems by helping us recieve benifical critiques and ratings by those who have nothing to gain other than to help produce better photographers. It may also help stop some of the abuse in the current rating system because who would want a lot of 6's and 7's when they know they may not get that from the more professional raters. It would make them look foolish. Just an idea that might work.

 

Berryl

Kind of agree with your entire post, Steve... Especially this: "Guidelines would be good. Photos should be judged on their relative merits only. If you don't like insect shots, don't rate them. If you don't like nudes, don't rate them. Rate what you know and rate within your knowledge of what is on photo.net."

 

To simplify this, the obvious first step towards recovery is to have, freom now on, each and every member registered from the start as a first rank rater for only 5 categories. Example: if Joe registers here tomorrow, he must state what are the 5 genres he feels knowledgeable enough to rate. In my case, I'd pick portraits, fashion, still life, photo-journalism and digital imaging. Then my ratings would count in these 5 areas, and would not count (or count a lot less somehow) when I rate other categories. Does it make any sense ?