someone is sabotaging me....

i don't know if there's a way to find out who, but there is one person who

keeps giving me a 3/3 when others including formidable, well known, excellent

pros are giving me 6/6's even an occ'l 7/6 or a few 7/7's. it's frustrating

and ticking me off! can admin admonish this person to stop, or at least find

out why they're doing it, please? has anyone else experienced this, and what

did you do about it? thanks for understanding ;+)

I think the thing to remember when looking at critiques is that they are an opinion of another. What I find appealing may disgust others and vice versa. I wouldn't take it to heart. Negative criticism is just as important as positive. We can't be led to believe that all of work is the most impressive shot ever. (does that make sense) Bottom line, don't take it to heart. It's really how you feel about your work that matters.....

Although I do not get much in the way of " formidable, well known, excellent pros are giving me 6/6's even an occ'l 7/6 or a few 7/7's. "

I do get plenty of 3/3s. What do I do about it ? The same thing everyone else does about it, I get over myself and move on. You are not being stalked, it just so happens some people do not like your photos and some people don't like mine either, it's not a conspiracy its just freedom of choice. For example taking a look at the folder you consider your best work, I would have to disagree with the formidable experts who would give you 7/7 on any of those shots. And no I'm not the one giving you 3/3s. I have not given out an anon. rating of any sort, in a very long time.

If they don`t leave constructive criticism to justify 3, forget it and move on.

 

I don`t do much rating as it take time to leave comments that help the individual. If you are not willing to help, just stay away.

It's too bad you (seem) to be taking it so hard....You must understand that it might not be one single person, and perhaps they simply do not like the picture they are rating.<br>

Don't take a 3/3 or a 7/7 to heart, they're only numbers and opinions.

Lori, sabotage is a strong and probably inappropriate word here. There's no prize to be won, nothing to be lost or gained other than your own self-esteem, which is entirely within your own control.

 

I've just looked at several of your most recent photos for which you've requested critiques and ratings. The ratings show an entirely appropriate range of opinions as reduced to a numerical expression.

 

I'm not sure why anyone should feel compelled to elaborate on why they may feel that, for example, photographs of flowers are slightly under average in terms of originality and aesthetics. Photographs of flowers are extremely common, numbering in the millions every year. By definition, a simple photograph of a flower is therefore not very original. An extraordinary effort would be needed to make an original photograph of a such a familiar subject.

 

The fact that some photographers whose work you admire *do* find such photographs to be above average in terms of originality does not invalidate the opinions of others, anonymous or otherwise, who *do not* find such photographs to be above average or even average in originality.

 

And since aesthetics are entirely personal and need not be justified to anyone, again, it would be surprising to find any unanimity of opinion or consensus regarding the ratings for photographs of flowers. Some folks like 'em, some don't. Same as photos of babies, puppies, kittens, homeless people, the Sydney Opera House or Antelope Canyon. Nobody should feel compelled to justify their likes or dislikes.

 

If a pair of numbers vexes you so badly, you can opt out of the numerical ratings system and choose comments/critiques only. However, this will also reduce the opportunities for your photos to be seen and will statistically reduce the chances that anyone will comment on your photos. Since you've publicly expressed your displeasure with low ratings more than once, how likely is it that anyone will offer even constructive comments that are less than effusive in praise?

This is exactly why I stopped rating photos. Some people simply can't take it when somebody judges their photos as less than perfect. In fact, the people that are getting mad over 3/3 ratings are the ones I'd suspect would be most likely to "sabotage" another photographer's portfolio.

You are not being stalked and it is not one single person leaving 3's on your photographs (photo.net has scripts in place to detect that kind of abuse).

 

LOTS of people that participate in the ratings system, including myself and YOU, leave a 3 on a photo they feel is below average. And that's what a 3 rating is ... a below average photograph, and we ALL make them. We might not think they are below average, but others might disagree, and their opinion is no less valid then yours or mine, whether they leave a comment or not. Your reaction to those ratings is one example of why people do not leave a comment with a 3/3 ... what would be the point.

 

So don't take the 3/3's to heart. Those ratings aren't targeted at you personally, and they simply represent what someone felt about one of your photos. They are often just as valid (or more so) than the 6/6 and 7/7 ratings ... check who is leaving those, and you'll often find they leave mostly 6/6's and 7/7's on EVERYTHING they rate. And I would agree with Lex ... the range of ratings you have been receiving (including 3/3's on some images) is entirely appropriate. You have some nice images, but you also have quite a few that are quite average. And there is nothing wrong with being average, particularly when judged against the quality of work on this site.

 

Again, to quote Lex, there's no prize to be won. If you can accept 6's and 7's without question or protest, then you need to be prepared to gracefully accept 3's as well. Otherwise, you come off like a whiner. When you put your work out there to be judged by a group, particularly a large group with a multitude of interests and experience, you will get a wide range of opinions, and usually ALL of those opinions are valid (bot ratings get removed).

BTW, Lori - and I hope you'll accept this as constructive criticism and not badgering - do you really believe that at this point in your development as a photographer that some of your photographs are as good as they can possibly be? Because that's what a 7/7 rating would mean: no room for improvement.

 

If I got one 7/7 rating a year I'd consider myself fortunate and would still wonder whether there was room for improvement.

 

I suspect that years from now, as you progress, you'll look back on some of these photos and wonder why some folks rated them so highly! At least I'd hope so, otherwise it would mean your skills and discernment would not have progressed. Now *that* is something I would find discouraging in my own photography.

Lori, I would care much less about ratings here. It really is not a bid deal, yea? Who cares if one has low or high ratings? There are much better metrics for one to use in ascertaining one's worth, their photography, and such.

 

Have a nice weekend and find something else more meaningful to get tweeked about ;-) Very nice pics in your gallary, by the way!

Lori Lafargue:: This old saying does have a lot of bite , and is not meant to you! [Different strocks for different folks:]One if your are satisfied with the outcome of the foto then what does it matter what any one else says about the foto: For quite a while I was on Photosig dot com

am not there anymore I look for constructive information not a line of B.S. What I like to hear is what if you did this or that would that have helped the foto's out come : enjoy and keep shooting:

 

Critique-ing is a skill that takes a lot of thought and being informed of the shooter or the subject matter at hand!

Sounds like a far-reaching, right-wing (or left-wing depending on your persuasion) conspiracy to me. Well, at least a theory anyways. Sabatoge? Sabatoge of what? What endeavor of yours exactly is being sabatoged? Taking photographs? In what way, physically, is an abstract number or set of abstract numbers preventing or limiting you from taking the photographs that you enjoy taking - and sharing with the world? Most of your photos are average. Most of my photos are average. Most of everyone's photos are average. Ansel Adams took probably millions of photos during his life. We've only ever seen a tenth of a percent of the frames he shot. Why? Most of them probably sucked and should be forgotten. Get over it.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel the need to shower off the jejune residue after reading existentialist angst like "Everything sucks. Get over it."

 

And I mean that only in the most constructive possible way.

I never said "Everything sucks." MOST is not EVERY. Angst over photographs? Please. Give me a little more credit than that. I've got Angst over a declining Dollar and food rationing in 21st century America and WHY THE PRICE OF MY FAVOURITE BEER KEEPS GOING UP, and why - ah hell, does it really matter, we're all screwed, more or less?

Lori, someone else pointed the same thing out to me and yes I've experienced it.

 

Being new here I am reluctant to comment.

 

I think what you are experiencing is someone or something that:

 

1) almost immediately rates your photos a "3/3"

 

2) is invariably the first rating up or it doesn't rate at all

 

(at least that has been the pattern until now. changes in that parameter may allow for determining whether or not it's a human being with a problem or simply an algorithm that's being tested by someone)

 

3) is invariably the only 3/3 rating

 

I don't worry too much about it although I can see where it could be potentially very confusing and perhaps even devastating to others.

 

JL

If you've spent any time using the anonymous ratings queue you'd realize how unlikely it is that anyone is targeting specific photographers to give them mediocre ratings. The anonymous queue doesn't work that way. You can filter by category but not by photographer. Any attempts to target specific photographers for low ratings would require more time and effort than it would be worth.

 

People need to accept the fact that several viewers are rating photos at any given time and they will have diverse opinions, which are expressed in numbers. Despite your best efforts you will not be able to persuade all viewers of the merits of your favorite photos.

 

There are some tricks I could suggest for increasing your chances for getting better ratings, all perfectly legitimate and above-board. But you would have to be willing to accept the notion that this is a game and a strategy is involved in playing well.

gee.....an idiot who thinks knows about photography giving a 3/3 rating, who could he be...?

Lori, I see you've awarded some ones, twos and threes. I assume you provided a comment with each of those to explain each low rating.

i am not saying that everybody who gives a 3/3 rating is one,of course...!

 

scroll down to "great photographers on the internet " in this link. you might enjoy it.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html

David, you forgot to include a disclaimer for the humor-challenged that they might have seen that site before and a second glance might make them "heh!", letting out some gas and letting in some oxygen.

Laurie, if you feel someone is sabotaging you, thank your lucky stars that person is so

inept. A quick review of your top photos (self-selected) shows the following: 20 photos,

110 ratings, average rating of 5.33/5.19 and a total of five 3/3's, two of which are not

counted in the ratings. That means that of the 108 remaining ratings, you have received

three 3/3's. Percentage? 2.8%. I don't mean to disparage your work, but all but two of

these were fairly common floral shots, none of which I would personally rate in the 6/6 or

above category (with a single exception) and one of which is out of focus (rated

5.67/5.67), a second is posted at 2" x 2" (rated at 5.67/5.67), and a third has burned

highlights and black with no detail at all (rated 6/5.67).

 

I clearly have no idea why you would make such a post in this forum.

Could be that the person giving you mediocre ratings is much, much better and more visually literate than you, is very good on high end fine art work, has much higher standards than you do and feels your work is average at best?

Or, could it be that it is someone who isn't that good but doesn't think your work is either?

It is doubtful someone picks out your stuff in all the world and has hatched a plot to ruing your self esteem by giving you average ratings on an internet site.

All of the above, while at the same time, there has been some cases of some people (in the past) who just sweep through and give lousy ratings based on their misguided aesthetic. If you put up 5 shots at once and get bunch of 6/6's and higher, but you also get the 3/3 each time, you just have to accept that it COULD be the person's taste, and it also COULD be that the person is a schmuck with camera envy. I pretty much look at what "member's" ratings and comments are and discount the rest, even if they're 7's. Even more, the ratings don't mean squat. What can you do with them? The critique's the thing (even though I still do rate occasionally- I'm only human- and I like to encourage so I don't rate shots I feel are low on the scale).

<i>can admin admonish this person to stop, or at least find out why they're doing it, please? </i><P>

 

No, it is not the administration's job to make people give you ratings that you like. If it were one person going through giving all of your photos low ratings, photo.net has methods of detecting such behavior and deleting those accounts.<P>

I looked through your folder of your best work, and I saw only a handful of photos that I would rate higher than a 4. Plenty of those were fully deserving of a 3. It's much more productive to raise your own standards than to insist that other people lower theirs.

When I hang my stuff out for comment, I am far more interested in the comments, than the numbers.

 

I too looked through your portfolio of your best work: my comment is that a `portfolio` implies a range, depth and variance.

 

No matter what numbers might be attributed to each individual photograph in that portfolio of best work, it is a portfolio of much sameness (and I am not just referring to subject matter), I refer to lighting, composition, meaning, colour, creative post production style et al.

 

WW