Direct/anonymous ratings question

I visit critique forum from time to time and to rate/comment the

photos I use the browse recent request feature. When I find an

interesting photo I simply click on it and give it a rating and/or

comment. Ratings given this way are marked as 'direct ratings'.

But under the ratings-breakdown tables one can read:

<p>

<i>"There were also XX anonymous raters who rated the photo in the

"Rate Recent Photos" feature, with an average score of X.YZ for

Aesthetics, and X.YZ for Originality. <b>Only the anonymous ratings in

the Rate Recent feature are used in some of the Top Rated Photos

rankings.</b>"</i>

<p>

Does that mean that my ratings are not important, only because I don't

give anonymous rates? Why the situation? I think, that if it is

allowed to rate the photos in different ways (direct ratings and

rate-recent), all these ratings should have equal importance. When I

like the photo, I give it a high rate and I'd like that to affect that

photo position in Top Rated, no matter if it's directly rated or

anonymous.

<p>

Due to this situation I do use the rate-recent feature, though I

really don't like to. I have a rather slow net-connection (150Kb/s)

and rate recent forces me to open all photos, including these that are

not intersting to me. It takes time. When I browse recent requests, I

can see the thumbnails, and that allows me to choose interesting

photos and not waste my time for downloading the others.

<p>

Is there any chance to change the situation?

<p>

  Regards, Karol.

<I>Does that mean that my ratings are not important, only because I don't give anonymous rates?</I>

 

That's exactly what it means. It also means that people are free to lowball things based on their political viewpoints instead of the photographic merit of the work.

 

Some of us post images here to be amused by the ratings, but the entire system makes the ratings worthless...however, as management has pointed out, the database of images IS huge, and to change horses in mid-ocean is a rather big undertaking...and the idjits of the world would try and weasel their way around any alternatives (errr, between P.net and where I live, I have zero faith in humanity these days)...

The "direct" ratings are the ones used by almost all the Top Rated Photo rankings. The "Rate Recent" ratings are used in two of the rankings, but one of those is the default.

I agree with Karol and Alton and i have also another suggestion ,each of us can see that a lot of photos after rate recent have a strange ratings scale,probably a lot of members give nonsense rate so that step to next photos , i know that there is a skip button but it's probably not used.

And the anonymus rate cause that a less membres give photos to critical request. You can see a lof of very good photo which n * 3/3 and m * 4/4

From what I can see the anonymous "Rate Recent" ratings are lot less nonsensical than the direct ratings. The average direct rating is over 6, and only a very few of these inflated ratings are merited.

 

If you actually look at them, the anonymous ratings make a lot more sense. Psychologically, it is much harder to give a 6 or 7 to your friend, when you just rated many similar photos at 5. If they encounter it in the RR queue, many people will rate the photo of someone they know on the site at 5, when they would have rated it 6 or even 7 directly. People aren't basically dishonest, and the Rate Recent setup forces them to realize that they are being excessively partial to a photograph based on the identity of the photographer.

Yes, anonymity may give cover to a few people who rate too low. But most of those are trolls who rate everything low and those ratings are removed in 24 hours or less.

 

What happens when people get "direct" ratings of 6 and 7, and and "anonymous" ratings of 4 and 5? Obviously, they complain that the "anonymous" ratings are from cowards, trolls, and politically-motivated people! It isn't conceivable that the photos might not actually merit the 6 and 7 ratings. In my opinion, a lot of the griping about anonymous rating is really just griping about honest rating.

It's no that. You know that your new system don't give chance to new members whose haven't the PN friends, i needn't take my photos to CR. But how many a great photos which was add to CR had't chance go to TRP on high places because there are a lot of normal photos with friend helps. We should remembers that CR and no CR have the same category in TRP. did You remebers what's photos was in TRP average? i remember and i regret that those times gone away. Old times => more ratings, more comments.

The default view in the TRP includes only photos in the Rate Recent queue, and this means only photos for which Critique Request is made. You can't get into the default view unless you make a Critique Request. So a new person with no "friends" is not at a significant disadvantage when making a Critique Request, at least for the default view -- unless "friends" are going through the RR queue to find each other's photos and then over-rating them. People doing that are just plain dishonest and corrupt, but I don't believe that happens to any great degree.

I have noticed that in "24" are only CR photos, it must be last change. Ok

maybe no:( I check more than 20 next photos and each of them was CR , so i thought that this the change but now i see taht photos must have 5 and more ratings. I think that would be better if in TRP wouldbe only CR photos.

In the RR Average and RR Sum, the only ratings that count are the RR ratings. The only way to get RR ratings is to be in the RR queue. The only way to be in the RR queue is to submit a Critique Request. Therefore, the only photos in the RR Average and RR Sum views are photos for which a Critique Request has been made.

my suggestion is to allow ratings ONLY if the picture is commented. No comments, no ratings!

We do believe in our shots, so i find interesting to know the reason to give a 3/3 or 4/4 but also understand why should i receive a 7/7. The only way to avoid stupid ratings is to oblige people to think and write comments, and THAN rating. Commnets should not be shorter than 200 characters to avoid a stupid "hi, i like it" (yes has happened also to me to use the short comments).

Just my personal opinion.

 

.oesse.

Marco you are right on I agree with you , then those that are serious will come forth , A comment will show their true colors !