Ratings on photos

"People just need to grow up!"

 

Ha, that would be the day !

<i>It's common sense that the people who sweep through and rate virtually all the shots 3/3 are going to diminish significantly if their name is connected. </i><P>

These people are largely a myth. Such people would have their ratings automatically removed by photo.net. The vast majority of 3/3 ratings come from a huge variety of people who give a broad distribution of ratings to different photos, but they simply think that some photos are below average.<P>

It's telling that complaints here always demand that people who give a 3/3 rating should be required to give an explanation of their rating, but no one demands an explanation from people who give 6/6 or 7/7 ratings, even though those ratings deviate further from the norm and (in my view) are undeserved far more often than 3/3 ratings.

My friend, while there may be a variety of people who give 3/3's, the person or persons who sweeps through and rates 3/3 within the first few minutes of a posted photograph is a singularity that you are ignoring. You may not be aware of it, but many of us are as we watch it happen in real time. So please, if you feel the need to be an apologist for these schmucks, go right ahead.

And, no, they aren't removed from pn, except in rare circumstances.

Bruce, I just went to the ratings queue and reviewed the ratings for the first fifteen images. Of those fifteen images, only two had received any 3/3 ratings (one each, and neither of those images was particularly good). Admittedly, it wasn't a huge sample, but it indicates that a much lower than expected number of photos (only 13%) are receiving below average ratings.

To expand the sample a bit, I just went back and checked ratings on the first 20 images. Only one had a 3/3 (and again, it was a weak photo). If anything, the number of below-average ratings is artificially low. It's a bit unusual that, out of 35 images, less than 10% have a below-average rating, especially if there are spiteful people going through immediately giving 3/3s to everyone.

While having a sandwich, I decided to expand the sample a little more, so I checked another fifteen images in the ratings queue. This time, there were <b>no</b> 3/3 ratings on any of them. So far, out of 50 shots, that makes a total of three images (6%) with one 3/3 rating each.

What about relative scales. Anyone can give anything what they want, but it will always be scaled to his given ratings distribution. The model would be based on that the distribution has to stick with average point 4/4 and have the target standard deviation. In this way I could have a scale from 0-100 and it would be scaled down to 1 to 7 by ths system scaled such that my given average sticks at 4/4.<p>

Ok, this would not take care of those who only rate good photos, but, I guess there could be a:<br>

if {you've given only goods} then {print" You need to give some bad ratings first" for}.<p>

Personally I think the scale change from 1 to 7 to 3 to 7 did no good, but, who asks me - or you?

As Bruce has said, the main obvious and pervasive impact of the rating system is that the site's search functions are built around it. Over time, only those images that are highly rated and/or often rated, float to the top. Such functions are great for showcasing the 'best of the best' on photo.net and it is a feature that sets this site apart from some of the others.

 

Having said that, I would appreciate the added ability to find those gems that others, for their own reasons, have rated less highly. This might include say, a random option or the ability to specify the range of ratings or dates to search. Eg: random bird photo, random portrait with average rating 4 to 5, highest rating pet photos in 2005.

 

What do others think?

How about this one - if you are about to give a rating less than

four, you should come up with a photo in photo.net that

does the thing you do not like (as obviously there is something

that you do not like) better. Say, there is a head shot

fashion picture with no darker tones, and this bothers you

quite a bit. Before your rating is accepted, you should

point to a similar photo that does that particular idea

in the same genre (fashion) better.

 

I can almost immediately see the weak points in this idea -

its is laboursome, and then the smallest "stinky point" would

gradually get higher.

 

However, this would ensure that people spend a little time

wondering what is bad about the photo, and suggest an

improvement in form of another photo.

 

Well, just an idea...

How about this one: realize that not everyone will have the same taste in photos that you do, and stop coming up with ways to discourage people from indicating that they think a photo is below average.

 

If you don't want to know what other people think of your photos, don't submit them for ratings. From what I've seen, the vast majority of below-average ratings are far more reasonable and accurate than the vast majority of high ratings.

 

For what it's worth, I checked out another 20 photos in the ratings queue. This time, two had ratings of 3/3: one a single 3/3 rating, the other, four 3/3 ratings. Again, absolutely no evidence that there are evil schmucks out there giving 3/3s to every image as soon as it's submitted for rating.

Olli, "The anonymous jerk 3/3s are shaking the very foundation of the system this entire site was built upon." This is a real classic line, one of the best I have ever seen here on PN in my four years posting. I agree 100% with Mike Dixon, most 3/3's are well deserved (mine included). Show me one or two examples of a posters photo that was kept out of the TRP by a 3/3 and I will change my mind. The anonymous rates are for photographers that want a realistic (most of the time) view of their work, not the fluffed up rates of the non-anonymous system. Most serious photographers that want to improve would never want to go back to the non-anonymous system that was favored by the notorious mate-raters of a few years ago.

Really, what does one get from the number ratings? You don't get extra discount on gasoline, it doesn add your flight bonus points nor is the food any cheaper by collecting photo ratings. Heck, let's skip the number ratings system and post photos for commentary only.

Tim, Mike, We'll have to agree to disagree. I personally don't care about your "samples", or "re-samples" etc. I've seen what I've seen. Your "slice of life" examples actually prove nothing, but dream on. It's like taking a flashlight into the basement and aiming it in a corner where rat droppings have continually been found. Every day you go there with the flash light and shine it in the same spot and say "You see, you are all imagining this. You must be crazy. I've been here every day for a week and haven't seen one rat. I've proven you just have this baseless fear of rats". Well, thank you, you've certainly cured me.

Well, Bruce, it is similar to repeatedly going into the basement, shining the light in the corner, and never finding any rat droppings where someone <b>claims</b> there are rats and <b>claims</b> that they are continually finding rat droppings. I just checked another 30 photos in the ratings queue--I even used the back button to go back through, click on images again, and see if some evil schmuck had come in after me and left a string of 3/3--and I found only one shot with a 3/3 rating. [Out of 100 images checked at five different times over a period of almost ten hours, that's a total of six images with a 3/3 rating. If anything, that supports the idea that people give far fewer below average ratings than they should.]<P>

 

Where should we look for evidence of these rats? The photo.net administration is quite happy to get rid of people who are abusing the system if you present evidence of that abuse. How have you determined they are doing what you claim?

Hi Mike,

As absurd as it may seem. perhaps your sample is not being taken at an ideal time. Slime mold needs darkness to propagate. Wait until there is a lull in 3/3 complaints, maybe a month from now, or when there is not an active thread pertaining to this. Go through the newly posted shots that YOU think are really good. Observe the earliest ratings that appear on these. Also, be sure to include in the sample some shots that might push the envelope for your rank and file members (nudes, really innovative stuff etc).

Also, I can't see what valid objection one would have to non-anonymous ratings. It might cut down on the overall "number" of ratings, but eventually a new equilibrium would be reached. I would guess it would also be more conducive to helpful criticism, and just generally and naturally cull the schmucks from the ranks.

But yes, overall, this is a distraction from the positive aims of the site, I would guess.

From the complaints I keep hearing about "the 3/3 guy" or "the parade of schmucks" who are constantly giving at 3/3 ratings to everyone, I would have thought that evidence of their action would be easier to find. If I have to wait a month, and look at certain photos, and be logged on at just the right time to see evidence of these folks, it strikes me that their influence isn't nearly so great as I've been led to believe.<P>

 

<i>Also, I can't see what valid objection one would have to non-anonymous ratings. . . . I would guess it would also be more conducive to helpful criticism, and just generally and naturally cull the schmucks from the ranks.</i><P>

It has been explained repeatedly that anonymous ratings were introduced to cut down on mate rating (exchanging high rates) and to get rid of retaliatory rating. Non-anonymous rating definitely did <b>not</b> cull the schmucks from the ranks--it brought them out in force. Moderators had to spend an absurd amount of their time cleaning up revenge ratings (people going through and giving low rates to everything in someone's portfolio as revenge for receiving a rating that was lower than they thought they deserved [e.g. a 5/5 on a shot they they though deserved a 7/7]), cleaning up flame wars in the critiques, and dealing with users who sent abusive emails to people whose ratings they didn't like. Oh, and deleting threads from the feedback forum when people would post links to people whose rating they didn't agree with.

I guess it's just a waste of time to even discuss it.

Or, paraphrasing the Dixie Chicks, just shut up and keep shooting.

And no, not "to everyone". Perhaps only to those that threaten their image of themselves.

Frankly, yes, it is a waste of time to complain about "these people" in the feedback forum if you can't provide specific evidence of what's going on. If you see that it's occurring, send evidence (such as links to the photos which are being given 3/3s by the "rat") to abuse@photo.net.

Tim: I did not say that "3/3s are shaking" the foundation, I

said that "jerk 3/3s are shaking" the foundation. I find it

hard to believe that the same image fetches 7/7 and 3/3 for

any other reason than abuse. And if it is "for real", the image

receives both 7/7 and 3/3 for some real reason, I do not, in general, understand it *without explanation*, so the rating just

creates confusion.

 

Both conclusions, abuse or confusion, are bad.

 

That is why I would love to see the explanation with as many ratings as possible, but the lower the rating, the more necessary the explanation is.

 

Once more: if my photo annoys someone in the scale of 1/1-3/3,

there is nothing more honest than saying it, but so that I

also understand it. It takes about three words of comment text,

about 5 seconds of time.

Olli, didn't I say to you this is a lost case - windmills.

Perhaps we should modify the software so that giving a 3, 2 or 1 ratings automatically posts the critiques "It sucks", It really sucks" and It really, really sucks". That way those who want a critique for low ratings will be happy.

 

I don't know why this simple and elegant solution to the problem has not been implemented.

 

Why don't people post critiques on 1, 2 or 3 rated images? Because they suck and people presumably don't think it's worth their time to say so. Why not help them out and make it easier?

 

We could also add a default "Wow!" to any 7/7 ratings that don't also offer a critique. That would help those struck speechless by the magnificence of the image.