Top rated photographs

As for the lack of interest in the fact that 3/3 is the lowest rating available, basically it has become the all-inclusive junk category. It has become as effective as 1/1 and 2/2 in telling someone their work is sh*te. Frankly, I never paid much mind to 1/1 nd 2/2 anyway, as these were generally only given in retaliation for my comments/ratings or on a shot that I expected to rate low for technical or vision reasons anyhow. Now, 3/3 is just a bit kinder, gentler way of saying 'this sucks'- albeit overused, and used nefariously by some. It's a five-point system, weighted toward the supposed 'above average' ratings...

 

Now, this 3/3 tool has been used by a small group, along with the equally caustic 7/7 tool, to weigh the TRP in favor of nudes on occasion. However, given the percentage of submissions in the nude category versus the percentage appearing in the TRP, i'm not convinced that the feild is all that skewed.

The nudes section has, historically, the most views. The nudes are similarly more likely to receive rates. It seems that lots of viewers are much more interested in ndes than in landscapes or bugs or flowers. Even with ratings reforms pending, I don't expect that basic fact to change ever.

There are poor nude shots and there are excellent nude shots. One person's art is another person's trash. Where do you draw the line? Who gets to determine who draws the line?

 

As for your comment " Pretty soon I won't be able to use the site, because my children are sometimes in the room with me when I log on," all I can say is, not everything is or should be made so it is acceptable to children. If you feel that the content on this site is inappropriate for your children to see, then yes, view the site when your children aren't around.

Alexa. The person viewing should be able to draw the line. The point about my post above is that when you navigate to the TRP page (and others), the nude pictures appear whether you want to see them or not. You can subsequently search for TRPs by catagory, but by then those who may be offended by the nudes have already been offended.

Right now I see 5 nudes in the top 100 (rated by average). Not exactly an "extremely high amount of photographs that are nude". Yes, some days some pretty strange ones get rated very high even though they are images that are done to death. Apparently someone thinks they are asthetically appealing. Who is to judge. I also agree that there are some amazingly boring kid/wedding/flower/sunset photos around in the top rated forum. Can I say I find them offensive and expect everyone to support me in getting them out of here?

 

I suspect that cetain people could walk into an art gallery and be offended by all the vulgar nudes within. Perhaps it is something to consider BEFORE you give out the web address.

 

Many people like nudes. Many people like tacky nudes. If it doesn't work for you, say so in the comments (explain why) or ignore it. Some nudes really are exceptional.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

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

 

Most people would rather see bad nudes than bad images from any-other-genre. That's the way it is.

 

We are conflating different issues in this thread, each of which may or may not be a problem; may be worth addressing or not: (1) there are nudes that can't be filtered out during viewing (2) there are *vulgur* nudes (3) there are *too many* nudes (4) there are *bad* nudes. While the first three could be legitimate issues to talk about, the last one is not, IMHO. The majority of images from any genre, suck. Fortunately, the subject makes viewing bad nudes less painful than a bad street shot or a bad abstract. YMMV.

"When you navigate to the TRP page (and others), the nude pictures appear whether you want to see them or not. You can subsequently search for TRPs by catagory, but by then those who may be offended by the nudes have already been offended." - Neil Messenger

 

Correct. And the solution is very simple, really. TRPs should only exist as category-TRP. Which happens to be fairer to all categories as well. No more people down-rating flowers or nudes systematically, because they'd have no reason to do so anymore.

 

The fact that the default TRP is a mix of all categories is an incitation to express your dislikes about certain categories - nudes, flowers, landscapes, bugs, what ever. I guess if all the nudes could only be found in one category - i.e one single area of the site, then this thread never even be posted. Correct or not...?

Marc; I couldn't agree more! Although its not my main photographic interest if I needed to actively choose to look at the nudes section I probably, occasionally, would but the choice would be mine. I ought to be able to choose not to. I am also not that interested in flower or insect pictures and a number of other categories, I would also appreciate not having to wade through them to get to those pictures I am interested in and more likely to comment upon.

A couple of thoughts....and then I will duck...

 

1. Get rid of the TRP section and offer only individual groups. That would force those who want to look at the nudes to go to the specific section...I know my wife was offended by the TRP nudes..but when I showed her the portraits, still life sections she was very impressed.

 

2. Not all ratings are equal. A rating of 6/6 from someone whose own pictures are rated 3/3 is different than a 6/6 rating from someone whose own pictures are rated 6/6. For critiques on my pictures, I always look that that persons own portfolio. This give me guidance as to the credibility/credence of the persons comments and thoughts. Several things would be nice. In addition to the rating values, also report out the percentiles and attach the average ratings of the rater or better attach a listing of the raters names like is done with the critiques. People tend to be more considered if they know there is accountability.

 

Thanks

Steven

<I>"And the solution is very simple, really. TRPs should only exist as category-TRP."</I>

<P>

So which categories do you eliminate? Marc, some of us don't want <I>others</I> choosing what we can or cannot see, especially considering that this site allows nudes to be posted. You will never please everybody, so there is no need to discriminate or dumb-down this site.

"So which categories do you eliminate?"

 

None, SP, none at all. I'm just talking about SEPARATING them. You'd still see Nudes - in the "Nudes" category TRP.

And to be clearer... You will see, just the same, the top-rated portraits in the "Portraits" TRP - and only there. The top-rated flower photos in the flowers category. Etc.

The default page could be randomly selected from the category list on a rotating basis. (Nudes might be excluded, but you could always find them on the list.)

"The default page could be randomly selected from the category list on a rotating basis".

 

Yes. That's what I think as well. At least, this would take away some of the incentives for cheating, and be fairer to all pictures featured.

This thread is already long and many things have been said, so I don't expect I will be adding too much content to it. First let me say that I don't object to nudes. Nudes and human forms have been a fundamental inspiration in art over the centuries if not the milleneums. Some of the most venerated artists of all times have been known for their paintings and sculptures of nudes. Nude as art subjects are still to me very interesting and inspiring (although I admit that I do not have the necessary skills to do it justice and therefore I have abstained from this domaine). Having said that, we enter the debate of what is art and what is not art. Some of the photos of nudes on this site appear to have limited art content, but that would apply as well to many of the other photographs exposed here including many of mine, which could not qualify as art, this is not an "art" site. And some photos of nude are indeed borderline offensive particularly to immature eyes (this is supposed to be a family friendly site). Art is often offensive. It is often meant to provoque emotional reactions. So I don't really mind offensive subjects that make me re-evaluate my thinking and my values. My problem though is that I have two children whom I have let visit the gallery here many times. I never objected, indeed I encouraged them to look at the nude photos. Lately I found I had to revise this policy because as I said above, some photos are just too close to the line of decency for young eyes, and this is a shame. Now I am member of a site where I expose my photos, and I cannot allow my children to visit this site without my supervision. I'm not for censuring, but i think that maybe nudes could be placed in a separate gallery rather than the general gallery. This way they would be viewed separately from the others. Just a thought

1) This further question is meant for all the 'kids should not see naked bodies" responders:

 

Why would you have this site make a fundamental change to its policy, one that would impact the viewing experience of thousands when, apparently, you all can't control the location of a few of your curious kids? Seems grossly one-sided.

 

And, what is it about the human body that is inherently dangerous for your snoopy kids to see? Can you articulate it beyond . . . everyone knows Satan lives in the vagina/stillhouse/poolhall/bedroom/etc.

 

Did some authority tell you that seeing unclothed people will harm them? Did he or she explain why that is the case? Could you share it with the rest of us?

 

(Please note, you will not find any nudes in my folio, but I do ask that people who view my images disrobe first.)

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

The rest is meant for everyone:

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

There ARE too many nude shots dominating the front TRP pages. Natural Selection? No. That seems unlikely given the unnaturally large numbers who recognize it as a problem. And let's face it, it only takes an unnatural minority to promote Any image to the top.

 

PN doesn't need a nude filter, it needs an Adolescent Teen Male filter. It is a scientific fact that they (ATMs) can't rate a nude below 6 on a 3-7 scale (unless it reminds them of mom, or . . . grandma).

 

Why not have the default TRP page consist of the highest rated (1) image from each category. This would span more than one view, so put the nudes on the second page of the top TRPS.

 

 

And finally, what is all this "rights" BS? To the extent that this is an open forum, we all have the right to articulate issues we understand as worthy of discussion. I mean, may as well ask what gives you the right to ask what gives anyone else the right.

 

Thanks

David "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." You seem to got stuck some steps before in human reproduction.

But thats o. k. :-))

Jennifer,

 

It is true that there seems to be an increase in nudes on this site. And they also seem to receive higher ratings than they often deserve (I have commented on this myself). That said, I think most of them are reasonably tasteful and no worse artistically than any other genre. Frankly, I think your friend sounds a little disturbed. Do you, or your friend, avoid museums out of fear of seeing nudity? I don't see the difference. Also, I do not understand why people are so obsessed with ratings. If people post, or feel compelled to post, nudes to get high ratings then IMHO they are here for the wrong reason. My view, which based on your profile I assume you agree with, is that the main reason we are here is to learn and grow as photographers. Personally, I don't even look at ratings. I am concerned with getting useful critiques. A lot of people here seem more concerned with stroking their egos than becoming better photographers.

<b>Jennifer Catron , sep 18, 2006; 05:18 p.m.</b><p>

<i>...but rating a photograph a six or seven just because it has a nude person in them is way far under the scope of this site.</i><p>How do you <i>know</i> a particular photograph was rated with a six or a seven simply because it had a nude person in it?

Jennifer, do you REALLY think that if a child sees a nude it does some harm to that child? Which part of human body is most harmful then? A penis? Pubic hair (very few of them around lately). Breasts? Come on.

You have to realize that American children are special. They are harmed by viewing the naked bodies of others. I think it's a special gene they have.

 

In Europe and other parts of the planet (Australia?) that particular gene seems to have been eliminated since, despite open nudity on TV, in newspapers and magazines, on the beach and sometimes even in public parks, they seem to have avoided permanent psychological damage.

 

To save American children (and adults suffering from the same genetic defect) from future psychiatric expenses, I think it would probably be a reasonable idea to exclude any image posted in the "nudes" category from appearing on the front page at least. Whether it's worth having a user option to exclude such images from default view in the TRP is probably something worth thinking about, if for no other reason than preventing threads like this one cropping up at regular intervals in this forum.

 

Personally I'd like cats, insects and children filters too.

Bob, a "no children filter" would ruin my portfolio! :-D but I do understand that one man's meat is another man's poison! Btw, I agree as to the issue of the genetic immunity of European kids to the view of naked body as such! I guess it's because we're a bit more primitive here in Europe, ha ha ha!

<b><i>"Which part of human body is most harmful then?"</b></i><p>Maciej, I have personally been <i>deeply</i> scarred emotionally by viewing photographs as a child in which ears were clearly visible.<p>And let's don't even <i>talk</i> about what happens with I see a fully exposed chin.

MSN Photos of the Week uses a black screen that reads "graphic content- do you wish to proceed" and if you do - you click to view. If you don't - move on to the next image. Technology does exist.....

I just looked through Top Photos today and 8 out of the 10 first photos were nude ones! The next 2 pages 5 out of 10 photos were nudephotos. As I am interested in other kind of photographs I find this amount to be high! It`s actually boring to look through TP these days.