Can a simple change clean up the rating system?

I have a simple suggestion, and i dont know if any one has introduced it so far. I know that this rating topic is one that dwells in all of our minds, so i suggest this:

Make the rating process SO HARD so that it will deter the unseriuos rater. For instance, have like 5 criteria (asthetics, originality, DOF, ...) rated and beside each one have a space for the rater to fill an explanation for why the user doing the rating choose a specific value.

 

I know it seems a bit naive, but in a sense it would be like a form u fill over the net and because they are asking for too much information, u ll just leave it and close the browser:) hopefully only the unseriuos raters will be the ones closing the browser.

 

Hope that makes any sense:)

 

regards,

 

Rafik Kamel

Looks like this thread is still alive and having read that far, let me put in my 2 cents worth as well on an unfortunately rather complex issue.

 

I don't mind anonymous raters and what is this with people who just registered? One has to start sometime; and just because I just joined means I can't have an opinion? Why people find enjoyment in rating photos low is, I am afraid, beyond my comprehension. High ratings should be appreciated by anybody, or not? There is a complete stranger that tells you he likes your photo, so what is wrong with that?

 

0) nomination is nonsense. What makes for a qualified rater? I can always go to the persons on photonet site and see what she/he has posted and then make my own evaluation on how serious I take the rating received from that person. If there is no post, well, that tells me something too.

1) real names will not make the 3/3 go away.

2) I don't see the need for more numbers, 5 is about as much as I can handle. FOR ME a picture is either below average, average, above average, way above average, or outstanding; that makes five.

3) originality can go; this is useless the way it is defined. One point of view is that about everything has already been photographed once, so nothing is original. My view is, every shot is original since the photographer took it at that particular moment; the exact same shot cannot be repeated again.

4) there will never be a "perfect" numerical system, so don't try for one. Having the choice, abandon the current one; it is not a real one anyway.

5) having only experts rate the photo: besides the point. Asked for the aesthetics of a shot, all I have to say is that I like/hate it. "Objective" rating by experts would require such things as technical, exposure etc. and in the days of digital and PS, that's obsolete.

6) not having the photographers name displayed when rating a shot is by far the best suggestions I have seen in this forum; this actually might accomplish something.

7) I don't learn from an anonymous 3/3 rating, and I wouldn't from one that has a real name to it. That person's taste and mine are just different, so I don't care. Consequently, now only people who have posted in the same category can rate there? No, this doesn't work either; I may not be into, for example, fashion, but I can still say whether a shot is appealing or not. Why I would go into the category and rate every shot in sight I don't know, but apparently some people do.

8) it might help to force people that want to leave a below average (and maybe average) rating to leave a comment as well. I am afraid that this will not terminate the abuse: a 3/3 will be left and the comment will be: don't like the shot. Hence the only solution seems to be to a "positive" rating system: on a scale of 1 to 4 (or 5), one could rate according to like, like a lot, exceptional, and far out there.

I am only posting photos in photo.net for a very short period of time and admit enjoy most the verbal critique other give, in particular if it is helpful advise. I got occasionally upset with the 3/3 ratings and hope they will disappear. Without comment, they are useless and even with a comment, I don't care to learn that so and so does not like that particular photo and I certainly don't expect a constructive critique. Easy solution to the 3/3 abuse, abandon that rating. Then there is the abuse of the high ratings. I am afraid that I don't have an answer here; I just don't understand the people who create a thousand accounts just to rate their own shots high. I enjoy outstanding photos taken by somebody else and after all, at the end of the day, there is no gain from being on the first or the second page of TRP. I do, however, value the comments I receive from others.

I want to add the following suggestion to fix the clearly broken rating system. Keep the anonymous ratings separate from the ones that were submitted with names attached and don't include them in the overall average. Using the "rate recent" or "rate category" features actually invites the 3/3 abuse. For example, one doesn't see comments, one cannot see the larger version, one cannot leave a comment, and apparently people think they have to rate every photo.

As a former teacher, I did not grade or rate "anonymously".

I also know that some of us go on "anon" and work through frustrations. That in my experience is a dangerous way to approach rating. I think that makes for a biased view [ whether high or low on the rating scale].

One would think that if we want to keep ourselves hidden then we are not honest -or - truly have no idea how to back up our ratings. That being said, this is a real shame because the rating has no meaning and should not be given. If one does not have a way to back up their "opinion" then just don't rate it.

I personally do not like the anonymous ratings but I signed up knowing that was part of the game played here.

Let's not forget that some us may just give out 5's or 6's with reckless abandon.

Sometimes it is hard to be objective if we know who took the photo or maybe we have an affinity for that photographer. etc. etc.

Psychology has done many studies to show how we are influenced without realization.

I read on a PN page - a photographer was disillusioned by the "mate rating". I am not sure what she means by that phrase by I suspect it is something like, "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

No matter, it sounds like a very negative practice indeed and in no way represents a true critique to help one excel in artistic pursuits.

Let's not forget:

Art is the pursuit of excellence - not matter the commerce, opinion, or cost.

I am sure I have vented on this matter before...

vallery b

..Now that I have been on PN for a little while I see why people get upset over ratings...It is easy to tell yourself they mean nothing but harder to convince yourself they mean nothing....

besides how do you stop "collusion"......

I also agree that to stop the 3/3 abuse the rate should be abandoned and only the "positive" rates should stay. That way we get rid of the negative aspects the 3/3 ratings give - it`s not a good thing if it`s demotivating.

What good does a 4,5,6 or 7 rating hold if there is no 1,2, or 3 rating? Not all photographs deserve an above average rating.

I think the move for a "Utopian" rating system is a very unrealistic proposition. If all photos got the same ratings (or all GOOD ratings) then that would cause ill will as well.

 

What motivates a person to create a better piece of art is different from the next.A passive approach to life never created a masterpiece.

 

I am of the camp that ratings should follow with a comment as to why/why not -AND - this includes the above average ratings as well.

Many above average ratings are based with comments e.g. - "I like your pictures, too". A solid constructive criticism is what we seek here. A good rating can be followed with criticism, a poor rating can be followed with the positive points. If you have time to rate many photos with reckless abandoned, then you have time to make a comment or two along the way.

There are many ways to look at the ratings. Many feel they are too broad (too many numbers!). Less numbers would probably slow us down to really think about the rating we giving the photograph (not the photographer!).

A shorter, succinct number system is easier but we would find fault with that as well.

This discussion will never end on PN. It is interesting to see others opinions on this topic.

The idea wasn`t to keep 4,5,6 and 7, but rather change the ratingsystem and what they mean so that we get fewer numbers and a more positive meaning attached to them. Obviously the 3/3 is unpopular because of its meaning. I certainly agree to that the rates need to balance each other.

I was trying to say that if you have any rating system - one of those numbers would represent a below average rating. Any person that "abuses" the ratings system - will use that new assigned number for below average to wreck havoc in the same manner and the so it goes......there needs to be above and below average guidelines in order to gauge[sp] any rating.