Anonymous 3/3 Rater

Thanks Charles. Most of us who were around for the free-for-all of the past rating system are a little reluctant. I was told last week by Will King (whom I really like his style) I needed to stop sugar coating my critiques. He's probably right, but still being a little leery from being burned in the past, I continue to add both the positives & negatives, it makes me feel better :)

Hi Jayme-Will is right in that critiques don't have to be sugar coated (just polite and constructive!). Your critiques will make me a better photographer and that's what I want ( whereas an anonymous 3/3 without a critique will not). Would I prefer 6's and 7's? You bet! Am I happy to get them even if they're anonymous and without a critique? I'm human so the answer is yes. Bottom line however is that your constructive criticism will make me a better photographer and the 7 without comment will not. Thanks Jayme! cb

As a poster of photos I preferred knowing who left what rating. It helped me to evaluate their perspective, though that evaluation could well have been wrong. For example, I found photos of children often received low ratings from people whose portfolios indicated they were not around kids very much. It also led to new connections, as I would follow up with many of them.

 

As a rater of photos, I prefer the anonymity because I have felt more freedom to rate strangers. I have left many 3/3 ratings without commenting, thinking at the time that it was at least some kind of feedback for someone who has posted for feedback. I did so because of time restraints and, sometimes, because I coul not find something constructive to say. But having tried rating anonymously for awhile, I have found I don't enjoy it very much. Its kind of an empty experience. I'd rather put the time into telling someone my thoughts and feelings about their work.

 

As someone here to learn from others and share my thoughts with others about photography, I think ratings are largely irrelevant. Ratings are supposed to be for the site and not for the participants. I find them helpful, but in a minimal way in thinking about my work. I appreciate their value in sorting the photos, but its an imperfect system. This is the view I try to follow because it has led to the greatest satisfaction for me.

I am not sure why you say I didn't get 'FIVE.' I understood it perfectly. I see it is a something futile. I tend only to rate or critique photos from photographers who contribute by way of rating or commenting or both on the photos of others... not necessarily mine. This is what 'FIVE' is about. However, 'FIVE' doesn't take into account those who's first language is NOT English. A lot of people on this site simply rate because they can't leave a comment.

Then they should leave a comment in their mother tongue. I'm more than happy to use a net based translator. Or failing that just know that they made the effort to comment. I feel that you underestimate the willingness to communicate of non english speakers and I cannot understand why you should choose to deride a good spirited attempt to increase critiques for any reason. Surely you can see that there is a net benefit?

<i>Then they should leave a comment in their mother tongue.</i> <b>WHY</b> should they. There is no rule saying they have to? I suggest you go to a critique based site and try it.... you will be back here before long!

Now you are just being disengenuous. To quote, <i>"However, 'FIVE' doesn't take into account those who's first language is NOT English. A lot of people on this site simply rate because they can't leave a comment."</i> I'm not saying they MUST leave a comment, I'm simply stating that they have the choice to comment in their own language, I don't see how 'FIVE' excludes them any more or less than anything else.<br><br>

 

<i>"I suggest you go to a critique based site and try it.... you will be back here before long!"</i> <strong>WHY</strong> should I? I choose to use this site.

Charles, "Your critiques will make me a better photographer and that's what I want ( whereas an anonymous 3/3 without a critique will not)." That's one statement that I don't quite follow, wish it were true though.

<p>The thing that is tiresome about requests to do "something" about "the" anonymous 3/3 rater is that it just assumes that all 3/3 ratings that one receives must be from one troll or a robot. That is almost never true. 3 ratings are a steady 10% of ratings, and they come from a wide variety of different people, and almost all photos receive some of them. That isn't because of abuse, it is because people have different tastes and different notions about how they should rate photos.

 

<p>Obviously, many more than 10% of the photos posted are below average. This is by definition. Therefore, the number of 3 ratings should be higher than 10%. That it is as low as 10% means that many people are being kind-hearted and refraining from giving 3 ratings even though the photos are actually below average. This is why we have an average rating between 5 and 6 on the site. The 10% of ratings that are 3's are from people who are taking the rating system at face value and who are valuing accuracy and truth over kindness. I don't consider that abuse.

 

<p>It does happen from time to time that there is someone giving far too many 3/3 ratings in order to make trouble or because they have unreasonable expectations of the photos on the site. Those people we ban from rating once they are noticed. And every month or two, someone (probably almost always the same someone) lets loose a robot from multiple bogus accounts, to hand out a lot of 3/3 ratings, just to stir things up and make trouble. When this happens, the number of 3/3 ratings spikes up, and we notice. But abuse like this is rare, and we deal with it fairly quickly. If you have evidence that abuse like this is happening, please send an email to the abuse@photo.net mailbox or use the Contact Us mailbox, rather than posting about it in this forum. If it is a troll, posting in the forum just gives him the attention he wants, and lets him know that he is succeeding in his goal of upsetting people.

 

<p>What is "evidence of abuse"? It emphatically is <b>not</b> simply that someone's precious photos got some 3/3 ratings and only an abuser could possibly consider those photos below average.

 

<p><b>If you don't have any reason to believe that a 3/3 rating is abusive other than your premise that any 3/3 on your photos must be abuse, please don't post it about it in this forum.</b>

Tim-

I think what he was referring to was a critique I posted on one of his photos. He was giving me a nice compliment for my efforts. True or not, it makes no difference. As Charles stated earlier, he feels that 3/3's without constructive critique, do not assist him in improvement of his photography. Many people feel this way. You & I may not care about 3/3's or 1/1's for that matter, but many do care. I feel it's our job to help them get to the point that they don't care either.

 

By the way, I love the new "Sailor with red ears" posting :) Very nice!

Brian- why don't you create a different forum (not "Site Feedback as you've asked multiple times)just for complaints like this. I've noticed they are usually made by new members. Once the system is explained to them by some of us who've been around for a while, they are more understanding & tolerant of the system.

 

Your requests may be falling on absent ears, because next week, there will be a whole new group of new members, complaining about the same things. I don't mind explaining, I don't think several others do either, as evidenced by this thread. It usually ends up well. I think Charles understands better & that was the point.

Subject: Re David's Comments About Five

 

As the person with the Five page in my portfolio, I feel compelled to respond to David a little, but I do not want to detour this thread much further and prefer to discuss the Five experiment after its run its month's course with whoever is interested in it, so to be brief:

 

-- I can't speak for others, but I did not intend Five to change things as much as to have some fun with others encouraging critiques and dialogues. If its been valuable to one person for that reason, its served its purpose as far as I am concerned. So I think your characterization of it as "futile" presumes too much about it.

 

-- Langage may be a limitation, as it is with almost any communication, but it is not a barrier. As a result of your similar comment in another thread, the page now has a statement about it posted in four different languages, including two volunteered by people besides myself. I invite you to provide translations for any language you feel should be expressed.

Hi Brian-thank you very much for your reply; you are aware of the situation and you handle it. I can ask no more of you.

As much as the anonymous 3/3's so many people were getting was bothering me, comments like those from Joe and Jayme brought me right back up again; you are right Joe, there are a LOT of nice people here.

Now Brian, about Ben's suggestion that it must be you leaving all those 3's? :o) all the best cb

Charles, "Your critiques will make me a better photographer and that's what I want ( whereas an anonymous 3/3 without a critique will not)." That's one statement that I don't quite follow, wish it were true though.

Hi Tim- an anonymous 3/3 rating does not help me in any way as it doesn't tell me what's wrong or could be improved. A critique with details will cause me to read and analyze; to think about what I have done and what I am doing and what I will or will not continue to do. I will still take my kind of pictures as seen by my mind and my eyes but it just may be that I will be able to do it better. Isn't that what critiquing constructively is all about? I do believe it. cb

Charles, Why do you need verification for what you do? Who cares what others think( unless

you want others to think for you). Spend less time talking about nothing and more time

taking pictures of something. When you have questions about your work, answer them with

your work. Thats what Artists do.

Charles, Why do you need verification for what you do? Who cares what others think( unless you want others to think for you). Spend less time talking about nothing and more time taking pictures of something. When you have questions about your work, answer them with your work. Thats what Artists do.

Alan-if you take the time to read what I have said, you would see that this is NOT about verification of what I do, it is not about MY pictures-it is about the posting of anonymous 3/3's and without comment on hundreds of peoples pictures.

BTW, how is it that you can express an opinion but you don't think I can?

Jayme, good points. I never vote anonymously, but that's only because I like to hand pick the

pics I look at rather than just get whatever the system spits out at me. I don't really care if

anyone goes through my portfolio on a 3/3 rampage either. Other people will come along

and see my photos for what they're worth, regardless of how they've been rated.

 

I guess some people just can't accept the fact that a lot of folks, especially on net forums, are

jerks. Fortunately, I have a life offline. Err, I think. ;)

Personally, I'd like to know WHY someone either likes or dislikes my photo. Ratings don't tell me anything. I've never had any 7's, but getting one wouldn't change my curiosity as to what made the rater like it so much. If we're going to have a rating system, there should be a proviso that you must give a reason WHY you gave the rating. Or if it's going to be strictly rating, then there should be a list of criteria pertaining to the picture (i.e. contrast, sharpness, composition, color, DOF, etc.). Each criteria could be checked in an appropriate box by the rater with a simple field for entering a comment, and each box must be checked and the a comment must be made before the rating is accepted. It's a little more work, but at least we'd have an idea of what the rater is thinking. A simple 3-7 system doesn't get it.

I guess some people just can't accept the fact that a lot of folks, especially on net forums, are jerks.

Mark- I guess I don't have anything to add to that other than now that I know Brian is aware of it and addresses it when he is aware of it, I am satisfied. The number of 'good guys' around here far outnumbers the 'bad guys'.

Maybe we should just end this forum now?

cb

Thanks Mark :)

 

John- in a perfect world everyone would explain their evaluations in words, but life is not perfect. Have you ever asked some photographer you respect to take a look & give you an honest opinion? This might help you more than the ratings queue anyway.

<tongue in cheek>Perhaps the ratings system should be extended to include more judging criteria, such as technical merit, composition, atmosphere, etcetera? Besides giving the photographer more detailed analysis of his/her work, it might also make it less attractive for a hit and run rater to plough through 17 different radio buttons in order to cause trouble.</tongue in cheek>

 

On the other hand, we'll probably always have the equivalent of a French judge at a figure skating contest on the loose in the ratings system, so perhaps it's best if we all stop discussing the rating system and get on with creating and displaying photographs. The old adages like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" should be carved at the top of every portfolio page to remind us of their truth. The point about art is that it is an expression of the artist's "soul", whether it is received to popular acclaim or not. Quite honestly, I'm not really bothered if people "like" my pictures enough to rate them on Aesthetics and Originality, I need to know how to improve the technical aspects of my art in order to express what's in my "soul" more effectively. A painter paints, a composer composes and a photographer employs advanced optical systems to scatter photons on a light sensitive material. The artistic part is persuading the photons to fall where you want them.

 

Having said that, of course I want to see my pictures at the top of the Ratings list, I'm only human! Oops, I forgot the tongue in cheek tags on that last one. ;-)

People are misunderstanding the intent of the photo rating system. The purpose is not to provide feedback to the photographers. Its purpose is precisely what it looks like: to rank the photos, so the site can display the better ones.

 

If people posting photos feel they can learn something from the ratings on their photos, that is fine. But that is not the purpose. People who are leaving ratings without commenting are not doing anything wrong. The site needs people to rate photos because our computers can't look at all the photos and decide which are good. We could have moderators looking at them, like the Elves with the Photo of the Week, but that wouldn't be as good or as popular a system as the rating system.

 

So stop complaining about people leaving ratings without commenting. If someone wants to help by the site by rating photos, that is great. If someone wants to give feedback to photographers by writing comments, that is also great. If someone wants to do both, even better.

Brian-I accept what you say. 'Nuff Said' cb

Brian, if you ever want to become filthy rich, you can charge a mere nickle to everyone who got a photo rated 3/3 to reveal the names of 3/3 raters. LOL

Brian; so the purpose of the rateing system is to rank photos as to display the best ones, not as a learning tool.

well that,s your purpose, but a good many of the photographers here need it as a learning tool,and that is maybe the only reason we come to this site ,to learn,and if we didn,t post are photos here there would be no photo.net