Rating

<p>Hello,<br>

How to block anonymous rating?<br>

Regards<br>

Patrick</p>

<p>In your "workspace" (click in upper right below "sign out") you will find options on the right side. One is</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Allow anonymous critiques: disable | enable</p>

</blockquote>

<p>set it as you desire</p>

<p>All ratings are anonymous. You can see who has rated your photos providing at least 5 people have rated a photo but what you can't see is who gave you what.</p>

<p>I hope that one of changes that is implemented when the site is overhauled is that we will be able to see the number of ratings received at each rating level rather than the names of 5 people (& subsequent groups of 3) who have rated the image. A photo that receives 4 - 6s and 4 - 2s is much different than one that receives 8 - 4s but right now they both look the same - an average of 4. Likewise, those of us who play the ratings game can, pretty much over time, figure out who is giving us what ratings. I'd much rather know how many rates an image has received at each level rather than a partial and delayed list of the raters. Also, on the cumulative ratings given and received by each photographer, we see how many 1's & 2's a user has given overall but the system pretends that a user has never, ever received a 1 or 2 even though it is quite easy in many cases to demonstrate that a user has received a 1 or 2 on a particular photo because of time discrepancies between the folder view of a photo's ratings and the average rating that appears on detail tab of an individual photo. </p>

<p>I think that the rating should not be as anonymous as it is now, I mean we should be able to see clearly who rated and how much he or she rated. That would at least make the rater aware of his responsibilities.<br>

I also think that that the range of 1 -7 rating is too narrow, it happens frequently to me to be puzzled between giving a 5 or a 6. I suggest 1 -10 or better 1 - 20.</p>

 

<p>People who rate without commenting just tell you they know how to use a mouse. A rating without any comment is meaningless. The operators of this site seem to place an importance on ratings. It is comments that count and I would encourage anyone reading this to comment on image before rating it.</p>

<p>I agree with that David, but comments like " ...good light, nice colours" is also meaningless. A proper rating adds to it.</p>

<p>Patrick, why do you want ratings? What's your goal, and how can a numerical rating help you accomplish that goal?</p>

<p>Mine is simple. Submitting my photos for ratings help them to appear at the bottom of discussion forum threads in which I participate. That helps draw more insightful comments and critiques than I usually get through the usual critique forum process. I don't really care what the ratings actually are - usually they're around 4. But going through the ratings process helps get more eyes on my photos, and more insightful comments.</p>

<p>Lex, I think its also a measure of appreciation. Also, people who are not english speaking, like myself, found it hard sometimes to express their views through comments. I consider the rating as a complement of comments.</p>

<p>Lex - you can't win without numbers!</p>

<p>Also people interpret ratings as a comment on the quality of their images. I guess people see high ratings as an affirmation that they have accomplished their goal (assuming their goal is to have other people like their images).</p>

<p>If it is popularity and likeable photos which are your ambition, we don't need any numbers at all: A "I like" botton would suffice.<br>

If you want to improve your photography, you need constructive and qualified comments.<br>

That Photonet is using the rating system as the main vehicle for identifying photos to be highlighted, and "to appear at the bottom of discussion forum threads" for example, like here, below, I see as a decision taken in lack of better alternatives. <br>

In some other on-line photography or art sites, that are using a curator approach, the result seems to me to be much better. But of course such sites are richer than PN by actively finding their profits from fees on selling prints and originals, and not just advertising and memberships, as here. They can afford paying qualified curators and promotion agents.</p>

<p>A numeral in and of itself has no value. It can be used for counting when a certain category of objects is identified. Or it can be used relationally when it is used in connection with at least one other numeral, e.g., 1 is less than 2. As we know, PN ratings come in a range of 1 to 7. An image rated 7 is supposed to be superlative, while one rated 1 is supposed to be awful. However, if we are honest about it, rating an image 7 simply entails that one likes it more than 6, even more than 5, and a lot more than 1. We aren't trying to justify our likes, and doing so would be out of place.</p>

<p>One one prior occasion, I tried convincing Admin to incorporate criteria for each of the ratings. At this time, I'm going to try again. </p>

<p>Shift gears and consider the application of a rule in ethics, i.e., don't do X. It's not an overly simple matter, inasmuch as there usually are justifiable exceptions to the rule. For example, a justifiable exception to a rule against breaking promises is when the promisee releases the promisor from the obligation to keep it. What about when someone held a gun to the promisor's head? What about when the promisor was impaired somehow when making the promise? Arguably, it is at best difficult - and may be impossible - to foresee all of the justifiable exceptions. </p>

<p>In my opinion, the Critique Forum moderators are in a good position - probably the best position - to determine criteria to distinguish an excellent image in each of the categories from an average one and from a very bad one. And it would be recognized that these criteria may have exceptions in certain instances. In my opinion, such an approach would render the ratings process considerably more meaningful than it now. Or, as Anders suggested, an alternative would be to eliminate numerical ratings altogether in favor of buttons labeled 'like' and 'dislike'.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael, I believe there are already suggested criteria for ratings. I won't bother to search for them because they're meaningless to me and to most raters, who completely ignore (and would continue to ignore) them. Ratings are seen as a contest. They will always be seen that way. They have no substance beyond that. There is nothing of substance or depth to be learned from ratings, no matter how they are explained or positioned.</p>

<p>Mate raters, ironically, probably have the wisest approach to this meaningless system. They have the system gamed and what they learn from rates is how well each of them plays the game . . . nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and they get to see their names and photos up in lights, which must be a great pleasure for them. </p>

<p>Fred: You probably know that I have railed against the rating system at least a few times before. I am not looking to get my ego stroked; I post for ratings only to gain additional exposure for my work. </p>