another discussion on the ratings system I will not use it anymore

<p>I have read all the threads in the past and clearly understand the ratings systems. Its funny that it constantly comes up in discussions as this. Must mean that there is some type of problem.<br /> I know that I am far from being a great photographer and am willing to learn from critizism without a problem. I don't mind low ratings from my piers.<br /> But what I don't like and cannot stand for are anonymous raters who give low ratings that are out of left field. Its almost impossible to post a photo no matter how good without some characters giving it a 3/3 or even 3's.<br /> If someone gives me a 3, I want to see their work so I can see what they consider a good photo. This way I can compare my work to theirs and see why they rated the photo as such. I really feel that some folks are just playing games and giving low ratting as part of some kind of power trip. This complaint has been voiced my times before.<br /> I don't expect photo net to change or do anything about it. I will only submit photos for critique only without ratings. I will delete some photos that I thing have been lowly rated weongly and repost them in my folder.<br />

<b>Moderator's note:</b> Photos deleted. The Casual Conversation forum is specifically <b>not</b> the place to ask for image critiques, even as part of a ratings rant.

<p>oh boohoo... the top one has way over saturated colours, and there is some kind of a flare up on the bushes on the right. </p>

<p>the bottom is definately a 3/3 for too many reasons to mention. neither is very unique so why would you think they should get a better rating?</p>

<p>and btw, a coach can be a good coach without playing the game</p>

<p>Some people are very critical while others are complimentary. Maybe it's just how the world is. </p>

<p>LJ - you miss the point. I can easily take your ratings because I can look at your work and see why you would rate my photos as such. I don't mind low ratings.<br>

I and only want a coach who has played the game. He's learned the finer points from experience.</p>

 

<p>Joseph, what you may not realize is the ratings system for images here is as much a <em>popularity contest</em> than anything else. I get the same thing on some of my images, 6's and 7's and then one or two 3's and a 4. My guess is the people who rate it with 3's, got a <em>real</em> critique from me in the past, and maybe didn't like being given actual critcism, however constructive, rather than just pats on the back. No one learns and grows as a photographer, unless they get meaningful constructive feedback. But some people take it personally nonetheless. Just play duck and let it roll off your back, they are definitely not worth raising your BP over. For some of us, photography is a hobby, for others like me, it's also a source of income (for me only part time). Who really cares what the people on this site think? For me, the <em>customer's</em> opinion is all that matters, because they are the ones paying me money and asking for more of my business cards. If you do this purely for enjoyment or as a hobby, and the image pleases <em>YOU,</em> then again, who cares what others think or how they rate you? Especially the ones whose ratings stand out like a sore thumb! There are no doubt immature people on this site who like to wreak havoc. The easiest way to eliminate this silliness is to do away with the "anonymous" raters. If their names were next to their ratings, where you could follow the link and go look at <em>their</em> work, I don't think they would be so quick to hand out out-of-line ratings, especially if their stuff was mediocre. I would also bet in some cases, there are no images there at all. It's like the old saying, those who can, do. Those who cannot, judge (or in this case give out-of-line ratings). You will note that for the most part, the people whose names are next to a rating, give the most realistic ratings and usually comment in the critiques section. It's their opinions who you should be listenting to.</p>

<p>LJ you have a wonderful way of talking to people, you missed your calling, you should have been a teacher or a hospitality director. /sarc.</p>

<p>I typically don't bother to rate photos, so I can understand your frustration. I guess my advice would be not to immediately worry about someone else's work when you see low ratings - after all, very few photo editors are also pro photographers, but they're the ones who choose what's good enough to publish. This isn't about the "who" (you or them) but the "what" (the photo itself).</p>

<p>That said - photo 1 is a lovely scene, but it appears to have flare (right hand side) and I find the shift of color in the sky distracting. The composition feels off, there's too much empty foreground. I'd either have got closer to focus on the road and barn, or if you really wanted that mountain on the right I'd have shifted the angle. I'm not saying it's bad, but it feels like a near miss.</p>

<p>As for photo 2, it's another lovely scene but again the composition feels off. I'm not sure what your primary subject is - surely not that post sticking up in the middle of the photo even though it appears that way being front and center. Again I feel you could have done much better shifting your position.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that I do sympathize with your 3/3 ratings - especially if no critique is left. I wouldn't have rated them very high for the reasons I gave, but you do deserve the courtesy of knowing why. Hope it helps.</p>

<p><em>If someone gives me a 3, I want to see their work so I can see what they consider a good photo.</em></p>

<p>Funny how no one demands to see the work of people who give them 6s or 7s, even though those are more-extreme rating than 3s. I guess if someone loves your work, they <strong>must</strong> be an expert.</p>

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>Neither of those images rated a 3, regardless of what one pompous commenter said. On the first one I would have given you a 5/5 or even a 6/5. I would have changed the crop a little, to make it conform more closely with the rule of thirds.</p>

<p>On the second a maybe a 5/5. The second one could benefit from a crop to remove some of the washed out water. Unfortunately my CS4 skills prevent me from really doing justice to correcting the color cast so I will not embarrass myself or you :-)</p>

<p><em>"Funny how no one demands to see the work of people who give them 6s or 7s, even though those are more-extreme rating than 3s. I guess if someone loves your work, they <strong>must</strong> be an expert."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

You totally missed the boat on what was being said in the original post. He specifically did not say he disagreed with the 3's but that the ones that stuck in his craw were the ones that were out of line with the rest of the ratings. As for me, if someone gave me a 6 or 7, not only would I be flattered, but I <strong><em>WOULD</em></strong> go look at their work to see what they did and <em>learn</em> from their experience and skill. And I do agree with Scott Murphy that the anonymous rater system should be dropped. Since you have to be a member to rate a photo, then your name should be next to your rating so the photographer could email (if they did not leave a comment) them and ask them why they gave it a 3 and what they could have done to improve it. I have noticed, and am emulating it, that when Scott leaves a critique, that it is always constructive and usually includes a re-worked image to illustrate his points. If the poster does not agree with them, then that is fine. But his critiques are just that, <em>critiques</em> and include both strong points and areas that could use improvement and why.</p>

<p>After graduating college I took a photography course at a local art school led by an instructor with a fairly impressive CV. Cost maybe $300, and met once a week for three months. I learned a ton. How much do the ratings system here cost? I would email the site administrators and ask for a partial refund if you feel like you're not getting what you paid for.</p>

<p>I think the best photos should get 3s. I'm generally unmoved when a photo gets all 6s and 7s. That's because those are usually the most typical but least inspiring photos. The more unique photos, the ones that show personality and emotion, are the ones that many people will not like. That's great. When everyone likes something, more often than not (though not <em>always</em>) it's because it's popular and generic. A 3 and a 7 on the same shot means you bothered to arouse different tastes in people. Someone not liking your photo can be an extreme compliment, especially if your ego is not getting in the way of your vision. </p>

<p>beating around the bush with sugar coated responses is the same as giving a 6/6 rating to a lousy shot.</p>

<p>and, another hobby of mine is teaching hospitality directors to be pompous! It's much, much easier and way more fun than teaching some photographers to lighten up or see a different point of view.</p>

<p>some of the first photos I posted here a couple years ago that I thought were great, got awful ratings... guess what, they were not that good and I learned a lot from them.</p>

<p>the last image I posted here (as sort of a joke/test) of a park bench in the snow didn't get one single 3/3 rating! go figure that out. well, until now... I'm sure someone will be sure to correct that serious error.</p>

<p>remember, on the internet, no one knows your a dog. stop stressing out about it.</p>

<p><em>If someone gives me a 3, I want to see their work so I can see what they consider a good photo. This way I can compare my work to theirs and see why they rated the photo as such</em></p>

<p>Producing good work is not really a good indicator of one's ability to critique. A simplistic numerical point system is not very good feedback either. In a recent example the other day Jeff Spirer wrote about a famous photographer commenting on his work which was not enlightening while a non-photographer did provide useful information. Helpful movie and music critics so often cannot produce the material they are criticing either. Considering the chaos that led to the rating system change, the reason offered here to reverse that decision carries little weight it seems.</p>

<p><em>He specifically did not say he disagreed with the 3's but that the ones that stuck in his craw were the ones that were out of line with the rest of the ratings.</em></p>

<p><em></em><br>

This is unpersuasive because it only emphasizes that Joseph is not expressing concern about being able to review the photographic work of those who give of higher and more common ratings or uncommon high ratings. He told us, "If someone gives me a 3, I want to see their work". If he were really only concerned about the validity of ratings, it is very unlikely the focus of the post would be on just these low ratings.</p>

<p> Moreover, you recognize Joseph's apparent ability to ferret out ratings that are or are likely invalid. Since he is able to do this and identify low ratings "out of left field" it demonstrates that his ability to utilize other acceptable feedback is not really effected. The only reason then to object to these partcular ratings according to the this '3's out of line with the rest of the ratings' theory is for emotional reasons. This is also supported by Joseph's remark, "I don't like and cannot stand" those particular ratings. There is no such emotional intolerance expressed for any arbitrary higher ratings that he is given. Mike Dixon's comment seems quite valid actually.</p>

<p><em>your name should be next to your rating so the photographer could email (if they did not leave a comment) them and ask them why they gave it a 3</em><br>

<em></em><br>

This was tried already. The all to frequent response from someone who recieved a low rating was angry and antagonistic emails and revenge rating. That created a chilling effect on giving honestly felt and reasoned ratings which negated the meaningful feedback that is held to such great importance here. This is just another post in a long line that complain only about 3 ratings that are identifaible by the poster as invalid or "out of left field". Unless such people are posting for the sake of being in a photo contest, they need not worry about ratings they identify as given for 'game playing' and just use the remainder for their precious feedback.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If someone gives me a 3, I want to see their work so I can see what they consider a good photo. This way I can compare my work to theirs and see why they rated the photo as such.</em> <br /> ---<br /> <em>I can look at your work and see why you would rate my photos as such. I don't mind low ratings.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes absolutely no sense (or logic) at all. Is someone that only has average work in their portfolio not allowed to have an opinion on what (to them) is a below average, good or great photo? Is their opinion any less valid? Or do you only accept below average ratings from great photographers that also happen to have their work posted here?</p>

<p>Would you only consider valid the opinion of a world class chef when seeking a nice restaurant in your town, or do you ask your friends what they think is good, even though some might not be able to make a good omelet? What makes photography so special that only the opinions offered by photographers with high quality portfolios posted are valid? Should an art critic have to be able to paint like Rembrandt in order to form an opinion with value?</p>

<p>Frankly, most of the time I think that when photographers here <strong>demand</strong> to see the work of their low rating critics, it is not because they want to find out the why of the rating, but rather they want to reassure themselves (<em>This way I can compare my work to theirs</em> ) that said rater must be an unqualified hack.</p>

<p>Seeking out and studying the work of highly skilled photographers who post here is a good way to improve your own skills. Discounting the opinions of those who might not be so skilled, or with no portfolio posted, is simply being petty. Sure ratings abuse does exist (mostly on the 6/6 and 7/7 end) but a large percentage of "below average" ratings are likely given honestly, and should be treated as such.<br /> --</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I will only submit photos for critique only without ratings. I will delete some photos that I thing have been lowly <strong>rated weongly</strong> </em> <em>and repost them in my folder.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one already have a preconceived notion of what a photo <strong>deserves</strong> for a rating, there is little point in posting for ratings anyway, as you are not looking for feedback, but praise.</p>

<p>Anyway, it was an entertaing rant (although I rate it at best a '3' for originality), and I hope it made you feel better. ;-)</p>

<p><strong>Fred:</strong> Mostly, I agree with you; Steichen was (by his own account) physically sickened by seeing an exhibition of Van Gogh. On reflection, he realized that there must be something profound to elicit such a reaction. BUT I still find it odd that, almost invariably, the 3/3s arrive before the fives, sixes and sevens. Others have described the same experience too many times for me to believe in coincidence. I will also note that I have NEVER gotten a 3/3 0r 4/4 with a comment. In ten years on PN.</p>

<p>Do low ratings matter to me? For about ten minutes, I have to confess. In the Grand Scheme of Things, no. They do make a difference, though. They keep images out of the TRPSE, which means that people often don't get to see them. Having had a few shots make it to the 'first pages', I can say that some of the people who find them make worthwhile and useful comments. (Some don't.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Les--</p>

<p>Yes. And I agree with you. The truth is likely somewhere in the combined ideas we've presented. 3s to some extent can be cherished because they are telling you you're not pleasing certain masses. On the other hand, there are likely people doling out 3s to help themselves get into the TRP and just to be annoying. Ten minutes seems an honest and reasonable amount of time to spend wondering about it.</p>

<p>LJ, I don't rate OR critique, and I don't submit my photos for such, AND, I don't know much about art, but that park bench of yours is pretty nice. I especially like how the color of the bench contrasts with the gloomy greys of the scene. I'd have to give that shot pretty high marks, certainly higher than the 2 pics you've posted here.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>BUT I still find it odd that, almost invariably, the 3/3s arrive before the fives, sixes and sevens</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is pretty obnoxious.</p>

<p>"I will delete some photos that I thing have been lowly rated weongly and repost them in my folder." That's the problem, you "think" the photos have been rated wrongly. No one ever thinks their 6/6's and 7/7's are rated wrongly. Face it, the rating thing is not for everyone. The secret to getting better as a photographer is to not care what rates you recieve. Do you believe in your work, do you think it's good? I just got rejected in a curated show that many of my friends got in, am I angry or dejected? Nope, I just think the curator didn't know what he was doing. I have some things pending for another curated show at an art center here in Wisconsin, if I get rejected I will again tell myself, "isn't there a curator anywhere that knows how to pick em"? You win some and you lose some. If you love taking photographs, you keep on blasting away and try to get better every day. </p>

<p>Without reading all the responses here, I just want to agree that knowing your critic makes a huge difference. I quit submitting photos in most forums because the comments don't mean much. Some people think they should cheer you on even if your photo is only average. Other people just like to pick a decent photo to death. Some people think they are photography teachers and their view is the gospel. The only comment I appreciate is when someone finds a personal connection. I suspect the grading system works for many people -- leave it to them.</p>

<p>I like to critique. I may not be the best photographer but I know what makes a good image, and what moves me. ratings are useless. A true critique by someone who can help me to the desired effect is what I cherish.</p>

<p>""""I know that I am far from being a great photographer """<br>

Joseph, don't sell yourself short. IMHO, Your work is better than 90% of the posters aboard here.</p>

<p>The anonymous ratings system is just a popularity contest, nothing more. It's the American Idol of photo.net. It's accessible only to photo.net members (subscribers and non-subscribers), so it's safe to assume that most folks who rate photos are indeed interested in photography. There are a few trolls and bots now and then but photo.net takes care of those problems whenever admin is aware of the problem.</p>

<p>But not all low ratings are from trolls and bots. I've rated plenty of photos 3 or lower, tho' the recipients are spared the indignity of actually seeing ratings lower than 3. And it wasn't unusual for me to rate a photo 6 for originality and 3 for aesthetics for a good idea with poor execution; or 6 for aesthetics and 3 for originality for a well executed cliche. And I used the dreaded anonymous ratings system almost exclusively. Why? Two reasons:</p>

<ol>

<li> Because I don't want anyone to be influenced by my identity into thinking they have to rate my photos highly just because I rated theirs highly. As for reciprocal low ratings, I could care less. I once invited a prolific rater who had very discerning tastes to rate my entire portfolio several years ago. He gave me mostly 4's, and I can't say I disagreed in the slightest. I'm merely competent, nothing more.</li>

<li>Because several folks were complaining they wanted <em>more</em> ratings. Not <em>higher</em> ratings. Not critiques. Just ratings. They understand the TRP is driven by the ratings system. They accepted the risk of getting a few low ratings in exchange for getting enough cumulative ratings to have a shot at the TRP. I joined the anonymous ratings fray because of those specific requests. But after a year I dropped out because of all the whining.</li>

</ol>

<p>If your idea of a critique is a well considered dissertation on the aesthetics of composition, line, form and use of light, with side notes on the influences of comparable photographs or photographers, and personal interpretations by viewers based on their thoughtful impressions... then quite obviously the ratings system is not for you.</p>

<p>And if you prefer that type of in-depth critique, you shouldn't expect to receive more than a few a year. Those are very time consuming for critics. If you want critiques more often, you're probably starved for attention. You want comments, not critiques.</p>

<p>If your idea of a critique is "That's a red flower!" or "Cute baby!", the ratings system is not for you... with one exception.</p>

<p>If you have a knack for social networking, you can join the various cliques on photo.net who form mutual admiration societies and give each other high ratings and lots of hugs. So you get the best of both worlds: insincere faint praise and meaningless inflated high ratings. It's great. With a little effort you can help turn photo.net into Flickr. But because photo.net has a higher Google ranking for individuals than Flickr, you get more attention via Google. So you can be popular for being popular. Kinda like being the Paris Hilton of photography.</p>

<p>Or you can deal with the reality that not everybody will adore your photos. And accept the fact that not everyone can be on page one of the TRP simultaneously, every day. And learn to appreciate genuine critiques of your entire portfolio every few months, rather than obvious compliments about something being pretty doled out every day or every week. It just depends on how sincere you are about honing your craft as a photographer, rather than developing your skills at social networking.</p>

<p>Not playing professionally I take it, "not playing the game", I know of no coach that coaches a sport that has never played the game. Photo net has it use, the elves have their use, the ratings have their use, I give six and sevens to my friends without hestitation, don't care what the image looks like, when one plays a game to win one must play by the same rules as others. I have not posted an image for ratings in over a year or longer. I don't like to spend too much time changing the world to suit others (digitally enhancing an image). But, their link to a web site (photo.net) has value, quite a bit in my opinion. Oh yes, don't talk about the elves too often they don't like it.</p>