Why do anonymous posters...

feel the need to trash some peoples' photos?

A better question would be, why do you let it get to you?

I don't really...it was just a curious question to get a conversation going...just the fact that they remain anonymous speaks volumes to me.

By the way, Rob,

I like your portfolio...I like the perspective you take on things

Ah. Well, I think this has been hashed and mulled over quite often.

 

Here's my take:

 

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Since any and all comments made on a photo uploaded here are public and attached to a name, just exactly how does one "trash" a photo anonymously? ;-)

I'm new to this site, so I missed the previous thoughts on the subject. Your link was right on the nail....and funny

Not all ratings are attached to a name....some are anonymous

<<I'm new to this site, so I missed the previous thoughts on the subject.>>

 

I misread the join date on your user profile, sorry 'bout that.

 

There have been many discussions regarding ratings, as no one system can satisfy everyone. My philosophy is that ratings are meaningless and should be ignored. No two 1-digit values can properly sum up the quality of a photo.

You missed my point. Giving a low <b>rating</b> is not "trashing" a photo. It most instances it simply means that the rater, anonymous or otherwise, thought that the image was "below average" when judged against the standard of the rest of the work posted here. Nothing more. To trash a photo, you need to criticize it with more than just a numerical score.

<p>

Believe it or not, not every photo will be judged as average or above by every viewer. Some people (and my comment is not directed at you) seem to have a very difficult time accepting that simple statistical fact.

I do understand about not pleasing everyone. I teach music and I'm always telling students that a judges number is just an opinion. Glad that I could help get a discussion going...

Hi Mark,

 

It depends on your definition of "trash." If someone says that a photo is just a piece of rubbish without offering any helpful comments at all, then those comments are not helpful to anyone. However, if someone says that an exposure needs to be adjusted or something in the photo doesn't work, then those are constructive comments because they pinpoint a specific argument. Personally, that's how my own photography improves. Others may see aspects that I don't. If everyone just sits and around and compliments all the photos, then no one really learns anything new. I would hope that everyone invites constructive (but not mean-spirited) criticism.

Michael, you said "it simply means that the rater, anonymous or otherwise, thought that

the

image was "below average" when judged against the standard of the rest of the work

posted

here." IMO, a low rating usually means "I don't like this photo," or "this is not the kind of

subject matter that I find interesting," or some similar self-centered reason. I think one is

being too charitable by saying an anonymous rater is really comparing a photo against the

standards of the rest of the work posted here. I don't think there is usually that much

depth in the rater's analysis. I base this opinion on the fact that so often an image will

receive high marks and very positive comments (i.e., it seems to be faring well against the

standards of the rest of the work), yet there will often be a very small smattering of 3's.

Those are the folks who simply don't have a taste for that kind of photography. The low

rating (if the majority have been much higher) says volumes about the rater but literally

nothing about the photograph being rated.

The only thing I don't like about threes?

 

There are never enough to make my fours look good!

 

I'd rather be good or bad than average.

new to the site...hate to bore you all, but I don't understand the concept of the anonymous ratings....what's the point of it? why is it allowed or maybe smiled upon. don't understand the whole concept. i've only been on the site ONE DAY and i've critiqued/rated a few shots...but my name is always beside the comment. maybe i'm missing something, but why would anyone even be allowed to rate without identifying themselves? seems gutless and a perfect setup for people with no ethics to simply screw with someone.

p.s.- i believe your comments are dead on...

follow up p.s.- talking to Stephen. excuse me, too many cigarettes, too much coffee, too little sleep.

John - ratings used to be public. Some "photographers" did not respond well to honest rates. Suffice it to say it got pretty ugly when these "photographers" did not play nice in response to some of the ratings their precious photos received. It didn't help that their buddies had inflated their egos to the point where they actually believed it was impossible for them to take a photograph that rated anything less than 7/7.

 

Because of these childish morons it became necessary, if the system (fatally flawed as it is) was to survive and have any meaning at all, to make the ratings used for the default "Top Photos" pages anonymous.

 

It ain't perfect. Never was. Never will be. It just a numbers game used to sort the photos displayed in the gallery pages. As you have discovered in only one day, the only thing of any real value is comments and critiques. Not numerical scores doled out by strangers with questionable qualifications.

 

Welcome to photo.net. :-)