A test I did today to prove a point, and to me I did prove it! Goodbye!

This was a TEST --> two 3/3's and one 2/2 so far! LOL

 

 

I knew as soon as I put this up for critique the Cowards out there

who hide because their name does not show up would jump all over it!

 

And that's why I put it up for Critique to prove a point and let

others see what I mean, and why I try to NEVER put my pictures up

for Critique but at times I do a test to see. There are too many

chickens out there with there heads cut off that have nothing better

to do with there time then put others down, Not only do they rate

low on purpose to knock others down they are to chicken to write a

comment as to why they think it is Bad! And so they hide.

 

But just remember this you can hide all you want but one day you

will have to grow up and face the piper!

 

Take care, and thanks for proving my point you know who you are, and

you make me LOL.

 

All the best to the other honest members out there, I doubt that I

will be putting Anymore Pictures on here at least that is how I feel

at this time, this place is a joke. There are too many whiners and

people that have no idea how to treat others with respect and honor

and dignity and help them grow.

 

DK.

 

 

P.s. this is the Picture I put up to see what would happen in case

you are interested to see it, As soon as I put it up it was hit with

two 3/3's and One 2/2 so far.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3371957

 

 

Goodbye. ;o)

I would guess that the people who gave this photograph 2 and 3 ratings in the RR queue are just worn out by the large number of bird photographs that have been uploaded recently, and that, for them, their negative reactions to the subject overwhelms the fact that this happens to be an exceptionally fine one. We go through various cycles on photo.net. Flowers and kids also go through periods where everybody is uploading them and everyone else is heartily sick of them.

 

Speaking for myself, I can see that this is a remarkably good photograph in its genre, but I too am get a bit fed up with bird photos.

 

By the way, the Site Feedback forum is not the Venting Forum, and I will delete this thread before long.

Can't understand why you're upset with the ratings. The majority are above average. The numbers shouldn't concern you anyway. You got quite a few written comments, which should mean worlds more to you than rate numbers.

 

Nice shot, by the way. To bad you went into this expecting all sixes and sevens. Not everyone cares for birds, you know?

If it's of any consolation David your image has not been singled out. i wouldn't be sure that Brian's explanation is correct though. Regards,

If there is someone going through the RR giving uniformly low ratings they will be deleted at 3 PM this afternoon automatically by our software. People are taking this way too seriously if that is too long to wait.

People do get bent out of shape. It says something about the process that the anonymous ratings on a photo are that far off the named ratings, but what it says about the <i>people</I> who misuse the system is really depressing.

Fantastic shot David. I shoot birds all the time, and never get sick of 'em. If people don't want to see birds they should be looking at other categories than nature.

 

As for the ratings... Who cares? Walk around your local craft show and see how many people take pictures that good. Just because you get a few bad numbers form anonymous Internet people shouldn't be cause to get bent out of shape.

 

After looking at the comments I see a few respected people who took the time to give you good feedback. What more could you hope for?

David, this is a nice shot. I have to agree with Brian, as well. The low-ball ratings will probably be taken care of by the software, and with all the great comments on the photo, what difference does a low rating or two make? Brian is also correct about the cycles. A few weeks ago, a couple of outstanding photos were posted of oil or water drops of different colors, some with reflections of flowers in them. At the time, at least to me, these seemed very original and they were nothing less than outstanding in color, texture, light, etc. Within a week, there were probably a couple of hundred photos trying to imitate them, and the originality factor goes way down in a hurry. Anyway, if I got that many positive comments on one of my shots, I'd be pleased, no matter what the ratings. And I think Brian is doing a pretty good job at trying to keep the ratings system under control. Let's face it - if people are creating a couple of hundred fake accounts every day, it's pretty hard to keep up. You can only do so much damage control, and that will be after the fact. Cheers.

Mmm birds. I love them. Especially with a side order of fries.

 

Seriously, you can't get to serious about this. If birds get low ratings from some, other give low ratings to babies and cats. In the end, it's an equal opportunity abuse situation.<div></div>

Definately coming up on a strong full moon.

Bob,

 

Why is it abuse? - perhaps it is just an opinion?

 

Nick.

......by the way, I really like your picture of the raptor!

 

Nick.

I imagine you just don't look at them if you're "fed up with" them. We're just sick of people looking at them and throwing out low ratings. David, same thing on my latest also. Okay, delete away, I've vented now...

I am convinced you could solve 90% of the abuse problems by simply restricting ratings to only paying members. Giving the privilege to anybody that drives simply opens up too many avenues for mischief.

Brian!

 

He may be venting, but it looks to me like a legitimate complaint as well, and as this forum is for complaints, I believe you would be in the wrong to deleate it!

 

From this forum: This forum is for questions, suggestions, criticisms, complaints, or just comments on the photo.net site itself, its user interface, and its mechanics.

 

And furthermore, you have in several threads said that the ratings may be from those who are sick of looking at photo's of "?", if these people where following the right criteria for rating responsably, they could have simply clicked the "Next photo" button, instead of rating it!

 

As the tutorial states: if you don't like looking at photo's of poodle's, maybe you shouldn't rate poodle's!

 

IMO whoever downrates because of a disslike for the content of a photo, should be considered abusing the rating system!

 

Unless the tutorial really doesn't stand for anything but a bunch of meaningless words!

 

Ken.

Gees, David. You are getting way too worked up over this picture. You've had many people tell you it's excellent. You know it's excellent. Just ignore the low ratings. What do you really care what those people think? Apply your own filter and just let it go. They are just numbers. Nothing more. You get a significant number of comments on your pictures and they are far more valuable. All the best!

Hi Brian - before you made the "rate recent" raters anonymous I noticed that a lot of 3/3s were coming from accounts that were created within the last few days. A look at the rating behaviour showed that the account had rated hundreds of photos with a average around 4.00. But in the TRP all pictures on the higher places had been rated 3/3 by these account.

 

I suspect the bots are now avoiding to be deleted. It only takes ten minutes to write such a thing. First it goes through the rate recent list and gives any pic a 3/3. Then it balances the low ratings with 4/4s and 5/5s in the critique requests or some other queues. So the account will give perfectly balanced ratings and won't be deleted.

 

Of course people will rate more "honest" with the new anonymous rating feature, not fearing retaliation. That's a good thing. The bad thing is that rating bots are now perfectly disguised and can't be reported any more. Now one third of the anonymous ratings are 3/3. Yeah, it may be that those are five real people that think the picture is crap, but something is strange about this sudden increase.

If there are bots running, there's a simple way to stop them (simple in concept, possiblet not so simple in implementation). You've all seen it. It's the little graphic with distorted text and numbers which requires the user to read them and type them in in order to confirm a submission. Bot's are not smart enough to read them (yet).

 

The downside is that it's a pain in the @ss for the other 99.5% of users who aren't bots.

 

A compromise might be to present such challenges at random intervals. Anyone who stopped rating when such a challenge appeared would then be flagged for investigation.

 

Machine Bots are stupid and they can't read images. That's the clue to catching them. Human Bots are somewhat smarter and more difficult to deal with

Regarding the fact that the Rate Recent ratings are "far off" from the named ratings, my opinion is that the RR ratings are more sensible on the whole than the others. This isn't becuase the RR ratings are trolls and revenge raters; it is because they are being honest. Furthermore, RR raters tend to look at several photos in sequence, which encourages greater consistency.

 

It is not logical at all that the "Average" photo on photo.net, when rated directly, is "Very Good" or "Excellent". The average photo on photo.net is by definition "Average". The only reservation I have about the RR raters is that they average to being a bit stingy when it comes to truly exceptional photos; it is hard to get an average over 6 in the RR queue. I think this may be in part due to fatigue -- a bit like museum fatigue where after a while everything starts to look average.

You see Brian, now your starting to make sense!

 

That explanation is by far the most sensible thing that I have seen you write in some time!

 

And in turn, I feel that maybe you are getting a simular fatigue, from the forums!

 

This would explain some of your most recent comments that had a venting feel to them!

 

Maybe you need a vacation, maybe we all need a vacation :o)

 

 

Ken.

Brian, your statistics are interesting. Thanks for the information. I think it will be interesting to see if the number of rate-recent rates goes up and the average goes down following the recent change to true anonymity. My guess would be yes on both counts.

Many phony and lowballing accounts have been deleted in the past six months. Many of these people have come back again under differnt names. Sometimes they are allowed to stay, other times they get deleted again. The point is when you get caught for whatever transgression and subsequently banned, you can be sure these people will be quite agitated. I am sure some of these are indeed responsible for the bots as well as lowballing. How much easier it will now be to hide in the RR.

 

Let me add something Brian. The reason the Faith Cohen's/Golarka's etc were allowed to continue for almost a year before getting your axe, was because they knew better than to lay down the 1/1 ratings. They simply went to the 2s and 3s since those were more difficult to prove. Your software I would imagine is not going to delete those ratings David received. Instead your level of complaints is going to skyrocket as is already happening.

 

One last thing: I received a new rating on my latest upload. However because you are sticking to the alphabetical listing for raters, rather than by date, I have no idea what the rating was or who gave it. Your purpose in making the names available is becomimg a lost cause. Will you please put them according to the date, or at least give some explanation why you choose this other way? Thanks.

I am surfing this threat from a hotel "walk-up" terminal in beautiful Cape Fear, North Carolina. And fear not, I am saving up several CF cards of pooping seagulls and pelicans for the P/N bird hater's.

I fully support Bob's proposal.

David, I have no idea if the RFC raters on your image knew you or not, but I have no sympathy for you.

 

Check out the lowest rater on this image . . . . especially regarding the originality rate.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=3288512

 

This is, by definition, a targeted rate. It's not an isolated case either.