3 / 3 Raters, If You Can Spare A Minute...

<p>P.S...<br>

Tim, despite our disagreements...I sincerely appreciate your photographs. Lots of great work in your portfolio....John</p>

<p>3/7 simply means the photo is in the opinion of the rater not as good as an average photo.net gallery image. People generally post their best images here. Therefore a 3 is merely a hint that the photographer isn't standing out here with this image. It obviously doesn't mean that the photo is "bad", it's just less than the average portfolio image here.</p>

<p>In April I was slammed with 3's. I had been hit on every photo with a multitude of 3'. I did complain and Mr. Lex DID look into it. The administrators found that person or persons had set up bogus accounts and were pumping in 3' to upset the members. The bogus 3's were corrected and the bogus members were taken care of. I have not had a problem with 3's since............<br>

Until now.<br>

I have been getting slammed with 3's again on every photo, even the ones that all my other ratings are 6's. And.... I get these 3's even before I am done uploading them for ratings. I do immediately delete the photos from my workspace, then do re-upload them again after the rush of 3's is gone.<br>

Now.... what seems to be the factor that appears to set off this chain of 3's against me? It is always after I have taken the time and rated some photos, which I did the same day as I received my 3's as an alleged on my part as apparent punishment for my ratings.<br>

I am just making this point and observation as this has occurred twice recently.<br>

Thus, I have resigned myself to ignore the ratings I receive and ONLY give reliance and consideration to actual critiques of my photos. I do believe that critiques are very valuable in my learning photography and my own development.<br>

I think there will always be someone who loves to piss some photographers off. And there will always be a photographer who, including myself, that relies on the ratings as a way of improving our work.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...Mr. Lex DID look into it..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't actually have access to any data or insider info to determine whether ratings are legitimate or bogus. All I did was forward the info to folks in admin who do have that access.</p>

<p>Regarding the anonymous low ratings, while there are occasional abuses, often these are nothing more sinister than honest ratings from clueless people who honestly do not understand or appreciate certain genres of photography. For example, street photography never has been and never will be a universally appreciated genre. It will always be regarded with some suspicion by those who consider it an invasion of privacy, and as little more than unskilled snapshots by those who appreciate only photos of unpeopled decorative scenes.</p>

<p>Similarly, those of us who have seen tens of thousands of all-the-same landscapes tend to be bored of that genre and may give lower than average ratings, while we crave something fresh and new in the genres that others dismiss as mere snapshots.</p>

<p>Mostly, it's just an inconsequential popularity contest. The only way ratings can help anyone to improve is to improve in unqualified popularity by deliberately pandering to current pop trends. At the moment, that's anything with overcooked HDR, pseudo-HDR, Lucis fx, tonemapping or overdoing the "clarify" filter repeatedly until saturation resembles 1960s psychedelic poster art, regardless of oversharpening artifacts, halos and just plain ugliness. Several years ago the trend was Velvia, polarizers, colored graduated density filters and orangey pix of rocks in the Southwestern U.S.</p>

<p>Nobody knows what the next trend will be. But the key to high ratings has always been: (1) ride the wave of the current fad; (2) nudes.</p>

<p>Well, Mr. Lex.... I am sorry is mis-stated. However, it was your effort that corrected a big bogus injustice against us all and I must give you the credit even if you do not want it.</p>

<p>And yes, I do agree that photo trends vary depending on acceptance. I, as one who is still searching for my own, also vary my photography subjects while finding my niche.</p>

<p>The way I see it, I think if one is going to rate another, then a reason should be given for the rating and possibly a suggestion for improvement. Just like any internet site, there are those who have nothing else going on in their lives and so get some sort of sick satisfaction being unkind and belittling others to make themselves feel superior. There are also those who abuse the system and get 15 family members to join and rate their photos. Those people care nothing about photography or improving, they just want to play a popularity game. I will be perfectly honest, just as I was when I joined up; my son is a member here...he doesn't rate my photos and I don't rate his; in fact, I don't rate anyone because I don't agree with the way the system is set up.<br>

I comment on photos but say nothing negative because I am a novice and do not feel qualified. Of the photos I comment on, some are very artistic, some aren't...but there is a sort of beauty in each one because of how it speaks to me personally. Some may be funny, some eerie, sad or just down-right gorgeous. Some photos on this site may be absolutely artistically and technically beautiful, but I won't comment on them because it seems to be lacking the emotion that would draw me to it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so I find it difficult to rate one's interpretation of something they saw as beautiful if it doesn't appeal to me.<br>

I think it would help members if the rating system were changed to include reasons for the ratings and made to be more specific. I think knowing why always helps in any kind of situation where one is wanting feedback. My children are very gifted musicians; when they went on auditions, if someone placed higher at least we knew why. Many times my daughter would come in second instead of first although she was technically and artistically superior. The judges' reasons were her lack of confidence; they needed someone to command the stage and lead the section. It helped her immensely to know why she came second. She worked on improving her self-image and confidence and then there was no stopping her!<br>

As I said, I don't agree with the way the rating system is set up and think it should change. Some people care about originality and others don't. Me? I just want to take a quality photo with my little power shot camera, and learn, learn, learn. In my dream world I would have a studio with shelves full of great lenses and great cameras and I could play all day. The reality is, I have bills to pay so I am just trying to learn and do the best I can while still having fun.<br>

Btw, John Galyon...Aw...c'mon...let's hear your theory about people like me who accept ratings but don't give them. I gave my reasons...I can take it. </p>

<p>Angela, I just found your comments...as I hadn't checked on this thread for a few days and thought it had run it's course. <br>

To be honest, this thread is far too long for me to read back over everything I've said...trying to find a connection (if there is one) to your asking me to express my theory...lol. Tell me, do you have some expectation of what I might say? You seem to think that I'll disagree with your reasons for accepting...but not giving ratings. Fill me in? john</p>

<p>Angelas...on second thought, I'll respond without context to your "challenge". ;) I'll start with a question. Am I correct that you don't rate as a protest of a ratings system you don't agree with...that you'd like to see changed? That seems to be the only reason I could find in which you addressed your choice not to rate. </p>

<p>As for my theory about people who don't rate...but accept ratings? I have no difficulty understanding your reasoning behind not rating...but I can't say that I understand your reasoning behind accepting ratings. If the system is flawed to such a degree that you see no purpose in rating...what would be the purpose in accepted ratings that are so flawed by "the system"? I simply don't understand your reasoning.<br>

The only time I've had a problem with those who don't rate, but accept ratings is when one of those members begins characterizing people who put any importance on ratings as being pathetic people who need constant affirmation of their worth as human beings..via the ratings system. Frankly, I just don't understand why anyone who thinks the ratings system has no value...or who would mock those who do think it has valuable...yet gladly accept ratings on their own photographs. Perhaps I'm missing something...but it seems clearly hypocritical. If their are reasons that I might not be considering...I'd be glad to correct my stance. I've actually asked for such reasons in the past...but no one was ever willing to offer me a coherent explanation.</p>

<p>John,<br>

You are correct about my reasons why I don't rate. As far as why I accept ratings: I accept them because it is the person's perogative to choose to rate me. I could refuse ratings but some people don't want to take the time to write a comment. I prefer to write comments. I don't agree with people leaving a low rating and not explaining why; I think it serves no purpose and no education or improvement can come of it. That's all.<br>

I wasn't really challenging you anyway, I singled you out because I was just being a smart-ass and having fun. :)</p>

<p>Ratings say more about the rater than the 'ratee'. They don't help for making you a better shooter.<br>

Ignore them and go take some photos.</p>