Rating Averaging

<p>It's been a while since PN modified its rating system. At present, it takes a minimum of five (5) ratings on a particular image for the photographer to obtain the average rating provided. Supposedly an advantage of this new system is that five (5) or more ratings will enable the photographer to know who posted them.</p>

<p>I propose to address what I consider a disadvantage of the system. I clearly understand that no PN subscriber or participant has any obligation to rate or critique anything. However, when an image attracts little attention (for whatever the reason), the likelihood of its receiving a minimum of five (5) ratings may be small. In such an instance, the photographer will receive no feedback at all, unless of course there are critiques posted. For this reason, I think the interests of the site as a whole would be better served if the system could generate an average rating regardless of the number of ratings posted. </p>

<p>In addition, I don't see any real value in the names of raters appearing when a minumum of five ratings has been given. To me, this simply is an invitation for photographers who resent the ratings an image has earned to berate those who may have given them.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The only reason I bother with ratings is because that's the only way my photos will appear at the bottom of forum pages. I think that's an unfortunate marriage of aspects of PN, but I have little say in the matter and the case seems closed. Ratings themselves give me no useful information. Since I'm not doing pretty sunsets or beautiful and thin naked women in high heels, I fully expect and am usually rewarded with low ratings. My more typical work, less unique and personal stuff, more cliché stuff tends to do a little better ratings wise. I'm not surprised. Since I don't like most of the highly-rated photos here, I'm glad I get low rates. It tells me I'm doing something right.</p>

<p>I do like seeing the names, however, not so I can exact retribution, but so I can see who put out the effort to give something to the community. I will often reward them, not with a rating, but with a critique, if I have something useful to say on one of their photos. I like knowing who has put in some effort, especially throwing that effort my way, and I like returning the favor, in a way I'm comfortable with.</p>

<p>I also post for ratings to get my images on the bottom of the page. I hope that people will comment, not only 'rate'.</p>

<p>As far as criticism goes, one well-thought-out verbal comment is worth all the numerical ratings put together.</p>

<p>Posting for ratings, for me, is simply another strategy for obtaining feedback on my photographs. I am hopeful that someone who has a comparatively strong reaction to an image and is inclined to provide a rating might also be inclined to critique it. Like you, Fred and JDM, I find no real value in the ratings themselves.</p>

<p>I have said it before and I will say it again. In order to rate something, you should be forced to comment. It won't happen but I have never rated a picture without commenting first.</p>

<p>Michael, I agree, it is an issue. I will see if I can think of something that would improve the situation.</p>

<p>Thanks, Josh. I will be interested to see how this develops.</p>

<p><strong>Michael</strong>, <strong>JDM</strong>, and <strong>David</strong>, since we all seem to be expressing a desire for critiques and are of the opinion that critiques are likely more valuable than ratings and highly sought after on PN, I went ahead and commented on a photo in each of your portfolios. I try to be as proactive as I can and it seemed good to do so with those that put the word out there.</p>