gamitch Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Would a some sort of filter solve the ratings issue? 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, 20 to 30 ratings - lowest three and highest three ratings are dropped, and so on. 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. 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 "returning the favour". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken dennis Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 My suggestions would be: remove the photographers name from being seen in the rate recent - remove the ability to directly rate a photograph while the photo is in the rate recent 3 day cycle, then after the 3 days it can be rated directly - bring back the ones and two's - remove the anonymity, make all raters visible "this may or may not encourage an individual to leave a comment as to why they think the photograph should be rated below average" - make it so that when you go to the rate recent, you have to chose a category that you would like to rate, and include an all categories choice for those who like to rate on all submissions, in this way, if a person doesn't like nudes or cats or whatever, they wont have to see or rate on them unless they choose to do so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary fran Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Bear in mind that 7's are limited, you can only give out a limited number in a day and if you give a 7 to a photographer they can not return it for two weeks. This means it will never impact the default used for the TRP's even if someone goes through the trouble of returning two weeks later. The high end is well controlled, the low end has no limits. Don't hold your breath for a change, it's been made clear it's not a priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancouverphotographer Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Ken, I like some of your suggestions, regarding choosing a specific category or all categories and removing photographer names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Four possible ratings: WIN, PLACE, SHOW, & ALSO RAN! However, it is doubtful if even that would satisfy the chronic complainers -- everyone would want to be in the Win category, and whine about anonymous raters not appreciating their superior "art". The present system, warts and all, is about as impartial as could be hoped for in light of the "mate" and "hate" rating issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markd2 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I'm much more interested in thoughful critiques rather than a HotOrNot rating. Right now there's too many 'critique request' photos for any of them to get any decent commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
florainer Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 is, that ones photos don't get visible without good ratings. if you have one 3/3 rating, you can forget about showing up within the top 100 photos, unless you have 5 7/7s. so I don't bother about being rated badly really not at all, I bother about not getting much "coverage". However, in a similar discussion one fellow user was proposing a personal filter. E.g. if someones average rating was 6/6 a 6/6 rating on a picture would be counted as average. if another users average rating was 3/3 a 3/3 rate would also be counted as an average rating for this particular user. for me this would mean a 5/5 would be above, a 3/3 rating would be below average. I'm not a computer scientist, but I guess this couldn't be too hard to implie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I would rather have a handful of comments and /or critiques than 100s of ratings without any comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I agree - but it is unlikely to happen. In principle - I have nothing against numbers (but I am an engineer, so numbers are the language I use). In short - I think that numerical system for rating is OK, but currently it makes no much sense. I REALLY think that a)paying members only should be able to rate (presumably they are serious about their hobby), b)one should post at least 50 decent images before being allowed to rate c)the system should NOT be anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Greg - good idea. Automatic trimming of weird (lowest and highest) ratings is something that should be implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb1 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 No more rating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucatodoca Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 i do not think that only paying members should be able to rate photos. and it`s just because i am from a country wich is not listed on photo.net when i want to register as a paying member. there are only a few in that list when (PN members, viewers) are from all over the place. and i agree that the sistem should not be anonymous ... i can`t still figure it out how is one able to rate without being logged with a user name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I like the current rating system much better than the previous one because it does a passable job of limiting the "mate raters". If a new system is implemented, a dual rating system would the cats pajamas in my opinion. Let the posters choose to stay with the current anonymous system or let them choose a parallel non-anonymous system. I am sure this would be possible programming wise and it would allow posters that want high rates to get them (non-anonymous) and it would allow posters who can live with more realistic ratings (anonymous) their due. I would think that this hypothetical rating system would make just about everyone happy. The downside is that there would have to be two TRP galleries, one of which would have ten times as many photos in it than the other. This new method of rating would be entertaining, educational and interesting and would meet the needs of a broad spectrum of PN members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therese Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I liked the idea proposed by Pierre Dumas (of the infamous photos satirizing the rating system): Just add up the total points. Let that be the metric that puts one in the top rated recent photos. Most people tend not to rate photos that they don't like. If someone rates a 3 it won't bring down the average. The best photos tend to have a lot of ratings both anonmynous and not. Even if the anonymnous ratings only would use, giving someone a 3 wouldn't hurt. Take a look at the example below 3 3 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 6 Avg 5 5 Total 25 25 Vs Nasty 3 person doesn't bother rating as his 3 only helps the point total: 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 6 Avg 5.5 5.5 points 22 22 The average number of anonmynous ratings used for the rating systems now is about 6 to 8 rates. Such a system would prevent a photo from being so dramatically affected by one or two obviously unfair rates. It would remove the impetus for the rates. Folks can always increase the number of anonmynous rates by asking friends to go rate the photo after showing it to them, so that they get more points, but this is better than negatively rating another photographer's image. With the current limits on the high end ratings, it prevents folks from going hog wild on the opposite end of the rating system. I think this might work out nice. In fact, I have been using the total number of points to find the really high quality images on PhotoNet. It works so much better. Check out that option on the top photo menu. The only problem is that you can view photos that way by category but I suspect that it would not be overly difficult to allow folks to do that as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therese Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Sorry for the typos in previous post. (not enough coffee yet) "The only problem is that you can view photos that way by category but I suspect that it would not be overly difficult to allow folks to do that as well" Should read The only problem is that you can NOT view photos that way by category but I suspect that it would not be overly difficult to allow folks to do that as well There's a few others but they don't change the meaning as much :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamitch Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 "Folks can always increase the number of anonmynous rates by asking friends to go rate the photo after showing it to them, so that they get more points, but this is better than negatively rating another photographer's image." Mate rating is just as bad or worse than 3/3 raters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akio Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 I like the idea of Ken with the suggestions of Dale...Thing is that there's must to be a solution (hopefully right away) for this problem. EVERYTHING CAN BE IMPROVED and right now Photo.net is one of the best sites to publish artworks but this system is not OK. I have another question which is WHY in the "Daily sampling of our members' work" sometimes appears the same picture several times?, which gives a good coverage for the rest of the photos and increase what is the most important thing here, the comments on the photos that you like or have a constructive critic to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now