Another ratings change: Goodbye to individual ratings, hello averages

<p>Barry, my first thought was that your suggestion is valid. My second thought was that it's really already being done in the POW. While not every comment in a typical POW is a gem, most POWs contain a remarkable about of insightful, well informed artistic criticism.</p>

<p>And while the concept of institutionalizing a critique system seems to lend an air of legitimacy, to some extent it's an outmoded concept and not entirely compatible with the way most folks regard sites such as photo.net that rely on user generated content. The concept of an editor/guest-expert weighted critique or commentary seems better suited to a traditional paper publication: book, periodical or magazine format. The web works best with more open participation (although it often requires readers to mentally filter out and block some of the nonsense). It's difficult for me to imagine a better source than photo.net's own membership to accomplish the goal you've described.</p>

<p>Lex: I agree that my proposal sounds like the current POW, but where I see the difference as being is that the discussion on any given image would be structured from the outset as a debate (unless everyone agreed, which would be interesting, too) about the merits of an image, and it would be focused (sorry) on the purely photographic aspects of the image. It would start off with detailed criticism, with that being the entire objective. Thus, you would have my hypothetical panelists dissecting an image purely, but in some detail, on its photographic merits. Not so much in the vein of this is a good image or this is a bad image, but, "I find this image interesting because in it the photographer chooses to focus on the subject's mouth and hands, rather than on her eyes, which he appears deliberately to have cropped out. The photographer makes effective use of the frame's diagonals, by placing the subject's left hand squarely along the line between the lower-left and upper-right corners of the image, and yet apparently blocking that line by his placement of the subject's right hand with the heel on the diagonal line suggested by the left hand. The two hands together seem to hold the subject's mouth in a way that is crucial to the success of the image. If this image were a portrait, it would be a failure, but instead it is of an abstract concept; an emotion. For similar reasons, it is important that the photograph is monochrome. I believe color would distract." <br>

Some other panelist might say, "I mostly agree. This is reminiscent of Edgar Munch's 'The Scream.' However, that work used color, so I don't necessarily agree with your comment about the brilliance of using monochrome. I am, however, distracted by the shock of hair in the background; I think the image would be more effective . . . (etc.)"<br>

Ok, you get the idea. (I am, of course, describing your "Munchkin" photo, which, by happenstance, appears on my screen directly below the comment I am writing.) By starting off the discussion in such fashion, the rest of the discussion, I think, would be (and I again have to use the word) more focused than what results with the POW as currently implemented.<br>

Anyway, a series of comments like this, from various knowledgeable people, in a place where they could consistently be found would, I think, be a useful resource for people trying to get their bearings in the photographic and artistic world, and would probably be fun for the panelists as well. I know in my travels through this site, when I leave comments about photographs it's usually like shouting into a black hole; very little ever comes back, either from the photographer or anyone who comes after me. (In that regard, I do appreciate the 25 people who so far seem to think I've made "useful" comments, and the tweak to the system that has added that button.) That seems to be true for most other posts I see that actually discuss the images. (In fact, about the only thing that consistently generates really long and impassioned debates is when Josh, et al, tweak the ratings system.)<br>

Anyway, that's my two cents' worth.</p>