photography ratings

I am a new member of the photo.net comparing to most of the other members. I

think, this web site is one of the best sources to get serious, sincere ideas

about amateurs as well as professionals' works. I just would like to remind the

administrators and the professionals of the site that, there is an imbalance of

the ratings given for the photographs. Since some days, I am watching more

carefully the details of the other's photographs and I see that, there is always

somebody rating 3/3 even if the photograph is technically and aesthetically

good. That was not my interest in the beginning but I saw it many times for my

photos. And than, I would like to compare it with others, It was the same. I

don't know if it is a kind of hobby to rate 3/3 or even 1/1.

If it is possible, I would like to propose to the administrators to add the

reason field also next to the rating categories. Maybe, there are big mistakes

that we do but we don't even know. Therefore we can also learn the mistakes.

Thank you for reading

Best ragards.

This has been discussed many, many times. There really is nothing the site moderators can do - you are right, it is disturbing, but we all have to live with it.

The flip side to your statement is that an image you think is 1/1 somebody might think is a 7/7. Art can be objective and subjective at the same time which means don't lose any sleep over poor ratings.

Second what John said. The ratings are completely subjective, and not all viewers like the same elements in a photograph. It's not a 'hobby' exactly, to rate 3/3, but some photographs are not aesthetically pleasing to some people, and originality as a whole is generally overrated if anything. How many bird/macro/sunset shots deserve a 7, or even a 5, for originality? If it's a theme that has been done to death, I give it a 3 for originality unless there's something really innovative about the shot. If it looks like a snapshot, it gets a 3 for aesthetics. If it's something I've seen 1000 of before, it's not going to get my attention unless it's particularly well executed in some way that really stands out. Very few photographs deserve a 7 in either category. Lots and lots deserve 4 and 3 ratings in each. I'd give 1 and 2 ratings occasionally if they were counted in the final tally, but the site ignores 1 and 2 rates so that's a moot point. If you post for ratings, someone is bound to give you a 3 or two, unless of course you are a truly innovative artist cranking out amazing and compelling works shot after shot. That category of artist will necessarily be reserved for a very few photographers, though, as with everything else in life.

The only way I've found ratings to be useful is: first, you can pretty much discount most of the anonymous ratings. You'll see photos rated with a slurry of 7/7, 6/6 etc from people who've been around the block. Then, for the same shot you'll see several 3/3's, usually from anon. or new members (the site tries to cull abusive ratings but how much can you do). Then, sometimes you get grudge ratings from small, petty people who don't know s**t from shinola, whether they're new or not. If you view the ratings from established members you can go see what THEY do. If you like their work, you might want to seriously consider their opinion. We're all here to learn, but one should use discrimination as to who we choose to teach us. Just my opinion. Good luck, keep shooting and don't take the ratings too seriously. The things you should really pay attention to are the non-anonymous critiques- they're the most valuable if you can take constructive criticism.

I just went back and reviewed ratings I've given. When I first came here I see I started rating shots as low as 4/4, with even one or two 3's. As time went on I think the lowest I would rate would be 5/4 or 4/5. Mostly, over the past year I've stopped rating anything that I would not give at least one 5 in the rating. So, I guess one has to take the newness and novelty of judging someone else into consideration. But what I said above still holds. I wouldn't now take my old ratings seriously either.

"I just would like to remind the administrators and the professionals of the site that, there is an imbalance of the ratings given for the photographs."

 

After all these years someone finally suggested that the rating system is imperfect.

I have only joined photo.net about a month ago. Like several other people I am somewhat

effected by the ratings given. However, as important as these might be, I consider views

and comments a lot more essential. This is simply due to the fact that my objective of

sharing my images with fellow photographers is reaching its goal. Sadly, this is were

ratings come in. Apparently, (and this is my presumption) if a photograph submitted does

not receive more than 4 ratings it is then 'excluded' from appearing in its respective

category. This would therefore mean that, no matter how good that particular image might

be, it would not be accessible for others to view, rate or critique. Finally, I have rarely

commented or given ratings to any particular image simply for the fact that I do not

consider my self to be 'qualified' to do so. On the other hand, it is always good to have

people who are willing to express their constructive views and comments on photographs

submitted.

". . . and I see that, there is always somebody rating 3/3 even if the photograph is technically and aesthetically good. "

 

I don't rate any photos, and neither do I post, but I certainly am not obligated to post a favorable rating to one that doesn't appeal to my own aesthetic judgement. Nor am I obligated to post comments justifying my rating. Judging by the quality of the images displayed , If I were to rate photos I would probably rate more of them in the 3/3 category than is currently reflected in the ratings. Whether I attach my name to a rating OR NOT, is my own personal choice. If I were to post photos I would do so with the understanding that whatever reaction they generated -- favorable or not -- in any particular viewer was exactly what I was looking for, nothing more nor less! When and IF I should start posting images that is the judgement I would expect of those who view my efforts and whether they were attached to a comment or a personal ID would be immaterial!

So Dan, what are you doing on PN?

Learning? Looking? trying to be inspired? or only bothering others with your opinion?

 

Really I dont understand you? you are not rating, but here you are discussing the rating system and the 3/3 and in my thread you are discussing the 7/7 PN Protocol!

 

Dont you have something else to do? or at least to display your photographs for us to see them? or rate some of ours?

 

You are really an Old incredible Man to me :)

Why do we have to listen to your suggestions as you are not rating?

 

 

Biliana

Fixing the rating system could be done like fixing a cat , I think it would present less trouble. The ratings are like stray cats presently!

At first I never rated below 5 , then later after getting low balled I decided to use lower rates to those I felt deserved them , but now I rarely rate a shot , since it seems useless after all . The anonymous rating really needs to be fixed , so it cant breed more !

A subject beaten to deth... well, rating it's so personal but why anonymous. If you like a photo and you rate it close to what others consider to be, it's ok, comments are not a must. If you dislike it, do not rate it (not comment on it), but if you rate it low you must provide the reason for doing so. It's common sense and polite. The reason? It's hard for me to judge my photos or my photo evolution so ratings and comments are important to me. But a 3/3 rating without any comment is just plain rude. I can accept a 3/3 rating with comment from one that I consider to be less good or with less experience. Even if it can not take a decent shot it's it his right to like/dislike someone photos. Art it's up to a point subjective but anonymous low rating it's like back stabing. Without honor. Just my 0.02$

I think we can see some of the reasons for 3's in Grayson's response. He holds a very high bar to get anything above a 3. I'd argue that given that 3's are the lowest rating, they should represent works that seriously flawed technically or for which there is no attempt at originality. But each person has their own idea. If I knew this about Grayson, I would be be able to jump up and down and shout if gave me a 5 knowing that in his rating system, that is like a 6 or 7 in someone else's book. Maybe what would help would be to have criquer's rating distribution appear along side their anomynous ratings. This would give people a better idea of how to "weight" and interpret ratings.

 

There is such a wide gamut of photographers on Photonet. Grayson's scale is appropriate for professional and advanced amateurs. It is not appropriate for beginners. Maybe the system would be helped by having 2 tiers of ratings -- professional/amateur. The person submitting the photograph could decide which tier they want it to go in. Then the site could have general guidelines for the rating system for each tier.

The debate over anonymous ratings may never be resolved, however, I like the idea of showing ratings with that persons average rating value instead of the name associated with the rating.

 

There should also be some sort of filter placed on the rating system for example,

 

5 to 10 ratings - lowest rating and highest rating is dropped,

10 to 20 ratings - lowest two and highest two ratings are dropped,

so on, so on

 

These suggestions combined may give more accurate value for the ratings by removing the many unwarrented 3/3's and preventing some of those high ratings that may occur due to the "returning the favour idea".

And I think Greg's idea is about the best one I heard in a long time. It is a standard procedure in testing to discard the worst and the best result (out of a number of tested specimens, and after examining why the extremes happened). This way, all ratings would be automatically trimmed to exclude weird ratings.

Welcome to PhotoNEt Dear Kani!

 

That is a very huge unsolved problem here on PN!

 

Biliana

Thank you all for your ideas. I think, this is a general unsolved problem, therefore, it is better to talk about it and let the administrators do the best they can.

Thank you again all the members for your participation.

Best regards...

As a retired educational psychologist and statistician, I know how difficult rating systems can be to develop. What you are trying to find is a single value that accurately expresses the average, or measure of central tendency, of a distribution of ratings. Photo.net uses the arithmetic average, or mean, of the ratings to express this value. Unfortunately, the mean is grossly affected by extreme ratings, wherein some whack job gives a 1/1 rating to a perfectly good photo for no good reason. That will really pull the mean rating down below 5.5. (Continued on next post)

(Continued from previous post) What should be used instead of the mean rating in this computation is the median (or 50th percentile) rating. That way, unfairly extreme ratings (i.e., 1/1 or 7/7) will have minimal impact on the rating average. Photo.net already has all the information needed to implement this change, and I would be more than happy to help make it happen!

 

Michael Smith, Ph.D.