someone is sabotaging me....

Most of the time I refrain from rating images I don't like. If you do and leave your name, then you are setting yourself up for retaliation. As was mentioned above, it is damn hard to find a flower pic that has much originality. Maybe pretty, but rarely original. If you are going to do shots of what ten million other people are shooting, then you must realize that there are some discriminating folks on Pnet that know the difference between originality and aesthetics. That being the case, those folks are likely going to rate low on originality. Personally I doubt that there are more than one in a hundred flower pics that could honestly be rated higher than three for originality. The range for aesthetics would more likely be higher. In my opinion there are far too many Pnetters that fail to make any distinction between those two numbers, and that is why you see so many rates with the same number for both aesthetics and originality. That alone should give you a clue about the validity of the rate system.

Here's an example of what one can expect from ratings. Notice the spread from members and then the spread from everyone together. Yes, it's frustrating sometimes but one has to choose between critiques that can expand one's talents or ratings that will either puff you up or crush you.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=10089294

I'm with you Mike. A 4 is considered average. I too looked at your 56 best images so far and I would not rate any of the flower shots over a 4 for originality. They all look just like any other flower macro you see here on PN or anywhere else. As a matter of fact I took a few dozen flower macros Saturday. Close ups, very sharp, high color, etc... but nothing out of the ordinary. If I posted a couple I would fully expect 4/4. and would think it odd to get anything higher. Personally I don't find flowers very challenging to shoot. Nature does all the work. If flowers are your main interest, try to shoot them in a different way. I explain a bit further in the attached link. The ratings for my photo seem to be what I would expect for a flower macro. I myself would have rated it a 4/4.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6484029

<P>Lori, I'm not going to use this thread as an excuse to criticise your photos, as some have done. I haven't looked at them and have no intention of doing so. There are far too many images posted to photo.net for me to see them all. But someone has looked at your pictures and you might as well be grateful for the feedback you got.</P>.

Photography is a very subjective art form. Sometimes I see photos that I feel have been in cliche status for at least 40 years that the majority of raters rave about. And I'm sure a lot of people would think my favorite photos are old fashioned. Don't take it personal.

LL -- I cannot understand how you are complaining. I looked (and rated) one of your photos and it is so far from being even mildly aesthetic and original how did it average a 6/6 (it's lower now already)?

 

You do have some good pictures but the first one I rated wasn't one (tree blooming snapshot behind a fence!).

Well, now you have Ken's pronouncement. Who can ask for more?

Okay, folks! thank you all for your input. i've been away for a couple of days, celebrating my birthday, which is why I haven't yet responded. 1st, I understand full well that I am far from a great photographer, just improving, and all your points are well taken. yes, I have posted a similar question before, but this was meant to be different. I guess I didn't make myself clear! Since I posted there is one person who has given me several 3/3's and is NOT anonymous, but unknown from his/her moniker, and w/no justifying comments. I always leave comments when I leave my name, no matter what the ratings. I am not discouraged by low numbers nor am I "puffed up" by high ratings. It appeared to me that photos rated high(er) by respected site photographers only got one 3/3, and I wondered if it was the same person. Yes, I've given some low numbers, as have we all. Perhaps "sabotage" was too strong a word. Sorry. Since this post, because I have received a no-name but not anonymous 3/3 rater, I'm sorry I did it. But it does, to some extent prove my point...which was meant to be that some of us are not serious about our ratings here, and may need to be watched by admin. This person was not one of those I rated low, so it probably isn't revenge. Yes, another strong word, sorry if you're offended, but I've read many times there are people that rate that way as well as, I think they're called "mate-raters". (Have I got that straight?) You're all absolutley right that noone should place so much creedence on ratings. I used to, but I no longer do...the comments that I've been getting lately and have gotten mean far more to me than even 7/7's. Yes, Really! I've been here long enough to know who the good people are (all of you included) and, unfortunately, that there are some no-goodniks here, too. I mostly was looking for those of you who had experienced and maybe somehow rectifyed the same situation (ie: what appeared to be a "nasty" rater as opposed to a good photographer w/a low opinion of your photos). And yes, I do realize this still may be the case here. I appreciate all of your thoughtful, insightful and caring responses to this somewhat misunderstood post. I'm truly sorry if I really did offend anyone, that was never my intention. Those of you who know me, know that I am here to learn from most of you wonderful people eager to help, and that I am a very friendly, warm woman who would never intentionally hurt anyone --w/misnomers or otherwise! I hope this clears up all the non-problems several of you thought I was voicing, and clarifies what I thought might be a real problem. One that I was not alone in, perhaps? I'd appreciate hearing anything else on this thread from you and I'm very grateful for your time and patience spent here. My warmest regards and thanks to all ;+)

Lori, and while there is a whole spectrum of tastes that one can't objectively judge, there are also some "little" vindictive, talentless and envious people who will diminish others to puff themselves up and demean others. It's just like the real world.

We're all human. I received a low rating on a shot that over the years made me a substantial amount of money and has been shown in some fairly prestigious shows, and that I like personally. So I went to their portfolio and thought the best way to even things up would be to find their best shot and give it a HIGH rating (one of course that would be justified) rather than a low rating to be vindictive. I would do this for ME, not for them. But as I said, I usually don't give a rating if it doesn't show some potential. Well, even though there were many shots, I couldn't find one I would rate as above mediocre, so I didn't rate any.

 

Ratings (giving them) can often be the refuge for the "little" person.

thanks, Bruce. I may have to adopt your attitude. i have a few photos that also have done well at local shows, and if I very much like them--such as most of those in my "best" folder, I put more creedence on that, too. it's the 'thicker skin' building I've always had trouble with!

If you take Bruce's words, what he is saying, is that "little people often resort to giving ratings." WTF is that supposed to mean? Maybe it needs better phrasing or an explanation because I doubt he actually means that in toto.

You don't get my meaning at all. What I meant is there are a small number of people who use the rating system to assuage their own mediocrity and lack of talent. Your interpretation of my statement makes your judgment quite suspect.

Frequently the rating show more about the rater than the ratee. I advise closely examining a rater's work to see if their views holds any water. There are a some bitter people who alleviate their own inadequacies at other people's expenses. Luckily these people are in the vast minority. One can always file an abuse claim with the moderators, they do their job admirably, but one can't regulate opinion infallibly in a place like this. One obviously can't be sure what a person's motivation is. I have been contacted in the past by moderators who explained that changes have been made to ratings based on their examinations.

Bruce, I believe I understood your post as you meant it, and I agree w/it. Ken, if everyone feels as you have described, we would not have the quality of photographers, nor the quantity of good, well meaning people here. I do believe that completely. The "little people" who are vengeful are, as Bruce said "in the vast minority". My beef is that I think one of those people keeps messing w/me. Maybe I am paranoid, maybe I'm right, maybe like so many of you said, it just doesn't matter and I should forget it. What I do know for sure is there is a gallery in Maine that showcases new talent waiting for a number of my photographs to be shown for the May-Oct season, and I have a ton of work to do! The people who go to these little galleries are the real world 'raters', ie: what they like is what sells, and I need to make a few bucks or I'm gonna drown in photog. supplies! Know what I mean?!

Hi Lori,

 

We all have to develop calluses. Ken's even messing with me.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=10089294

This was during our discussion here incidentally.

I think maybe Lori has a credible grip here....I cannot understand why I get less then 7/7 here. Why are you all picking on Lori and me?It seems like all you cats are ganging up on me!

 

Stop it!

 

Stop. It. Now.!

 

;-)

Bruce, why do you assume that Ken's rating is "messing" with you? Is it not possible that he legitimately does not find that particular photo of a nude woman especially original or aesthetically pleasing? Or does the fact some some people rated the photo highly mean that everybody must either rate the photo highly or their opinion is inherently flawed or suspect?

No, Lex, it's perfectly possible that he does not find that particular photo of a nude woman especially original or aesthetically pleasing?

 

Also possible:

 

Perhaps because it occurred during the conversation, and because he's so facile with dogmatic critcism yet has a pretty unremarkable portfolio in light that his icon shows he has so much to say.

That's why I say one can never know one's true motivation. But you can sure as hell make an educated guess.

Dan, we're comin after ya.

Ahh, the old "no portfolio, no credibility" bugbear.

 

Yup, that's logical. It explains why Sugar Ray Leonard is the world's best boxing coach and Angelo Dundee is the worst.

 

Go on the record with your ratings: Motivation is suspect.

 

Go off the record with ratings: Anonymous coward.

 

Go on the record with 6/6 or better ratings: Connoisseur.

 

Go off the record with 6/6 or better ratings: How am I gonna start a mate-rate clique with anonymous people?

That's a straw man Lex, and you know it. I'm surprised.

And he quite obviously has a portfolio, and you well know it.

This thread has dwindled into nothingness.

 

If you think you are seeing signs of abuse in the ratings system, contact abuse@photo.net.

 

But I've got to tell you, 90% of the "I'm being screwed!" claims are nothing more than someone saying "eh, I really don't think much of this image". I promise you that this is true. I look at all sorts of ratings junk all day long.

 

Thread is closed.