Get a life!

<p>I have had a few emails in the last few months complaining of why I have rated their shots so poorly. Generally the ratings have been in the 4 or 5 range and not really what I would say is low. <br>

A lot of times I am the 1st or 2nd to rate and since PN doesn't post averages at this stage, it is baffling how someone can really (really?) figure out what rating you have given. I am pretty savvy ... but really don't understand where these comments are coming from. Does someone have a way to game PN for ratings?<br>

I have read past emails on this topic ... but the decision to not post ratings until after 5 (?) ... should be enough to hide the individual ratings unless the submitter is using false/duplicate accounts to rate their own work and then monitoring each and every rate in real time to figure out ratings? If this is the case, they really need to get a life ... really!</p>

<p>I'd recommend you pass those emails onto administration. There are definitely ways people game the system and administration should address people who are monitoring their ratings and complaining to people who've been generous enough to take the time to rate.</p>

<p>I rarely rate over 5 unless a photo is pretty exceptional, which most are not.</p>

<p>I rarely get average ratings over 4 and, judging by the top-rated photos here, that's a badge of honor. I'm very understanding that a lot of people don't like my work and wouldn't realistically expect it to be otherwise. I am fine with people having different taste from me and expressing that in words or ratings. I'm happy with the 3s I get because at least I know someone bothered to look at my photos and appreciate that they took the time to push a button with a rate. Think how many people DON'T do that.</p>

<p>You're adding to the sense of community here by putting some energy into rating and anyone who doesn't appreciate that and can't put the ratings into a realistic perspective ought to, as you say, get a life! A real one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd recommend you pass those emails onto administration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And how. People who can't take honest ratings should not post pictures for rating.</p>

 

<p>Report such emails or messages to admin. Such harassment is a <a href="/info/terms-of-use">violation of site policy</a>. In my opinion any member who harasses another member over critiques and ratings should be temporarily suspended from participation in the feedback system, and banned if the harassment persists.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"... it is baffling how someone can really (really?) figure out what rating you have given."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They can't. Anyone who believes he or she can identify who is giving which specific ratings below 6 or 7 is paranoid and delusional. I've heard other members claim they can identify who gives ratings lower than 6 but have failed to provide any evidence when I've challenged them to prove their claims. And the people who complain the most tend to be among the worst offenders in mate rating and revenge rating.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Does someone have a way to game PN for ratings?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but it's blatantly obvious and embarrassing for all conspirators. The cliques rate everything that falls out of each others' cameras at least 6 (7 if it's: in focus; mostly Photoshopped non-photographic material; color-boosted to 11; or naked) and 5 or lower for anyone else who fails to toe the line by doling out gratuitous 6's and 7's. If they believe you're involved in revenge rating, it's because they're guilty of it themselves.<br>

<br>

The critique and ratings systems are in bad enough shape without harassment from petulant dilettantes.</p>

This rating thing seems like a fun, the fun I have been missing out on for so long. No more!

<p>I'm dense this way but I've never understood what someone got out of 'mate rating' or gaming the system in any other way. They've proven nothing, usually about nothing so how can that bolster their fragile little egos? It's a lie and remains a lie.<br>

Conni</p>

<p>Conni,</p>

<p>I think one of the results of mate rating is getting visibility for one's photos on the top-rated photos page. I think people assume (and it's probably the case) that some PN members peruse the top-rated photos regularly thinking they will see good stuff. (My own experience is that the top-rated photos pages often contain particularly bad stuff: dead on the inside, super-saturated and over-sharpened on the outside, but that's another story.) So when they game their photos and get them high rates by rating their friends' photos with high scores, they are in effect getting "publicity" for their photos.</p>

<p>Also, when one gets so accustomed to lying and cheating, one tends to forget one is doing that and actually becomes convinced that the high rates are real as opposed to being stolen, faked, and manipulated. The ability for humans to fool ourselves probably knows no bounds. The method of achieving the high rates is completely forgotten and the high rate just seems to stand as some sort of trophy. It is, as you say, a complete lie, but to those doing this it's not perceived as a lie, and my guess is that even if they were confronted with the fraud of it all, they'd rationalize it in some way, using self-serving reasoning and illogic.</p>

<p>Too be clear ... I never have taken the emails as abusive and in some cases I have agreed not review their work (as difficult as this might be due to the practical nature of rating feeds and the user ID is sometimes not obvious on my smaller screen computer). I do not believe any of the emails related to mate rating or their work would generally be rated considerably higher. Rather my question was more focused on whether or not someone really had the ability to discern someone's rating ... even though I am extremely doubtful ... unless such a view is based on a 'more general comment' on rating such as what I have posted on my home page bio. Indeed I view PN as a site were quality is appreciated and is considerably more than a snapshot and generally has some element of thought in composition, technique and result. </p>

<p>This thread reminded me I hadn't offered any ratings for awhile. So I spent about an hour last night doing that. It was a painful experience.</p>

<p>The overall quality of photos has declined over the past few years. Of all the photo display and peer review type sites I visit, photo.net now has the lowest overall quality. Once it was among the better sites, but it's almost embarrassing now to see the total absence of discernment shown by members uploading photos for ratings and critiques, not to mention the transparently obvious gaming to push clique members' photos to dominate the TRP.</p>

<p>People are submitting photos for ratings that should have been deleted, or at least never shown publicly. And some folks appear to be regarding the daily quota of four ratings requests as mandatory rather than optional. There appears to be little or no personal discernment applied before uploading photos and asking for ratings and critiques. And these aren't rookie photographers or new members - these are from members who have been here for several years.</p>

<p>I began to wonder whether some of the experienced photographers who are filling their daily quota of ratings requests are pulling our collective leg, just to see if someone - anyone - will call their bluff. It's as if they've assigned the delete button to the consensus of other members.</p>

<p>There are so many mediocre and incompetent photos being uploaded for ratings that it can take an hour just to see one or two good photos. For the first time I've wished for a delete button to advise members to give some serious thought to the purpose of a feedback system before uploading any more photos. There are a lot of slightly above average photos but at best I see a lot of experienced photographers doing the equivalent of practicing scales and warm-ups, without ever attempting to push themselves beyond rote exercises.</p>

<p>There's a sense of desperation for validation of everything that falls out of their cameras, rather than any genuine desire for meaningful feedback.</p>

<p>The ratings system should be modified to allow only one request a day, or a maximum of 4-6 a week. Nobody could possibly need ratings for four photos a day, 28 a week, more than 100 a month, if they're genuinely interested in meaningful feedback.</p>

<p>Lex, it's like your my twin! I did the same thing recently. Spent several hours rating, mostly to see what was being offered beyond the circle of people I normally check in on because I've grown to like them and/or their work. I've also felt this community disintegrating and becoming less and less engaged, including administration, so felt I should put some effort into engaging in the various methods available here. Like you, I had to force myself to rate things because there was so much worthy of simply ignoring. And I also couldn't help but notice how many folks were posting 4 new pieces of crap per day, seemingly every day of the week. I'm pretty good about giving honest critiques and I think because I usually back my negative critiques up with some understandable rationale, even if the photographer disagrees with me, they usually appreciate my thoughts. Often, they actually seem to think I've made good points and claim to learn things. I certainly do learn things myself when I get insightful critiques, which I often do having developed relationships over the years with people who seem to care. An insightful critique doesn't always have to be a criticism. It can be a sincere emotional reaction without an accompanying judgment about the photo <em>per se</em>. I still do have productive dialogues on many critique pages. I'm in the midst of a few right now, as a matter of fact.</p>

<p>Good point, Fred. I really should make an effort to offer some constructive criticism as well. But last night I knew I was likely to write with the wrong tone, so it seemed better to just rate without comment.</p>

<p>Thinking about what Lex and Fred wrote, almost all the photographers (as opposed to those who take pictures) are gone from here.<br>

I've not been here for about 3 years except to drop by occasionally just to see what was happening.</p>

<p>I've been here since 1990 and can list those I followed in skill and advice on one hand.<br>

Conni</p>

<p>Lex ... AMEN! I have been talking with one of my son-in-laws about the merits of PN. He has really fallen into using google+ and other sites. Indeed some of the communities that he is in have some really great photography. Interestingly enough some of these photographers have stale PN accounts ... they have just drifted away for something they perceive is better. Yet I and many others stay around. If it is sheer exposure, some of these sites offer so much more. For example, google+ images can be so much larger to allow better judging of quality (i.e. discerning between focus and resolution). I do have 2nd thoughts sometimes. But I still believe that it worthwhile to improve the experience rather than abandon. My observations on poor quality of many many submittals is similar to yours. Even after comments and critique ... many just continue with same-ole same-ole. I often think some believe PN is like a Facebook or other social media and not a 'true' photographic site. When I joined PN a 'good while back', I felt that I did improve ... even to the point that my own critical skills have been very useful with my own work. I tell you ... I throw away a LOT of shots when previewing on LR! Similarly, I also make a lot of mistakes and learn from these mistakes. Really have to wonder if some on PN ever have this experience! So how can we help improve PN?</p>

<p>The only reason left for me to drop by this site at all are the Monday nature thread and following Fred's weekly thread in the casual conversation forum. While I'm here I usually take a look at the critique forum although I seldom rate or critique. I concur that the quality is now at its lowest ever. I can usually scroll the entire list without seeing one image worth stopping to look at. The TRP page offers some comic relief but even it has lost some of the polish. The bugs seem less buggy, the wide angle sunsets seem less wide and the bare naked ladies seem less naked.</p>

<p><em>"So how can we help improve PN?"</em></p>

<p>What I do is seek ways to improve my own experience. I'm on the lookout for different and interesting photographers and I encourage even some humdrum photographers I encounter by engaging honestly with them. We were all probably a little humdrum before we got to be fascinating! :-)</p>

<p>If my experience improves by taking a proactive role, I don't have to worry too much about what seems to be a disappearing and unengaged website as a whole and I don't have to worry too much about all those who've left for feeling unfulfilled. I put effort into what I can control, which is my own little corner of the universe. Each ripple effects the whole. The biggest ripples will be created by administration and considerations beyond my understanding and caring and that may have to please and excite the most people, so popular will often win out in a lot of the decision-making. I can provide alternatives to what's popular and hope that just a few people will be interested in stepping out of the mainstream and into a corner somewhere where we can still give to the whole but without compromising our aesthetics and intent. I make sure to respond to everyone who comments on my work and I also will then comment on one of their photos, not always providing a like for a like, but simply returning the favor of some comment, be it positive or negative/constructive. I will often comment on the photos of those people who've taken the time to rate me as well, as a gesture of community-building.</p>

<p>So what can we do right here? Yesterday, I had already taken the bull by the horns and commented on one of your photos, J, as a gesture of photographic camaraderie and also because it stood out to me for a variety of reasons when I saw it in your portfolio.</p>

<p>Personally speaking I think leaving any rating without a comment is simply rude. That is not to say I think you deserve any hate mail. However, I find a few words go a lot further than an arbitrary click of the mouse.</p>

<p>Personally I'm surprised that Photo.net has persisted with a numerical rating system at all. It just seems to fuel the wrong type of emotion, gives rise to too much acrimony,too much manipulation too many requests to change the system , and eventually to a view that every shot a member posts has to get top marks so that any score is devalued. Even TripAdvisor have this more right than Photo.net- their ratings are almost certainly just as useless, but at least they make you write 200 letters before you can drop a number on it. But for me, the site shouldn't pander to the fragile emotions of those people who quite possibly understand that reducing a photograph to a number is ridiculous- except of course if its their photograph.</p>

<p>What an interesting thread I found! I don't care about ratings, actually the intention of posting photographs is to expose it to public and, yes, people think differently, and read differently. But - I also have a feeling that photo.net is falling apart. More and more talented photographers are choosing other communities. Forum threads look moribund. It looks like the number of visitors are decreasing. One of the reasons is administration. The Website needs more good editors to manage photo flow, to develop more competitions, to offer more editor picks. It's not addressed now. Just look how good and passionate curators on 1X are working!</p>

<p>Thank you all for your contributions and concern for the health and future of photo.net. Buckle up because we don't want you to fall out of your chairs, but we are getting very close to having beta in hand to test. Yes, long over due we couldn't agree more...however the extended timeline aside, we are very excited about what we have been working on for almost 2 years now. We would like to invite each of you to get first viewing beta - if interested please send me an internal message and we'll get you access once available - expected end of July early August if all goes according to our current plan. <br>

There is no question the landscape of photography community has changed significantly in recent years and photo.net has not kept up to date in terms of design, adding or changing features including but not limited to areas that have long been cause of considerable friction - see the ratings system as one glaring example. <br>

Soon we will be starting an outreach program in effort to win back photographers that are investing their time and work in other communities - introducing them to the new site and why it is important for them to become re-engaged with photo.net. We sincerely believe that the new site will serve as a terrific foundation and platform for photo.net to be reborn to serve photographers for years to come. Why haven't we made many meaningful changes to current site? Fact is we could no longer build on current outdated site technology so we had to start from the ground up and this takes time, especially to do right with limited resources, which we believe you can all understand.<br>

Fred G's thoughts and attitude about improving photo.net couldn't be more spot on and are ones that I hope everyone that cares about the health of photo.net embraces. Start with you and how you engage with the site. You are the drivers, you are the teachers, you are the students, you are the community. Photo.net is in its most simple form... a stage - the real sense of community comes from within each of you. We can build a nicer stage, more beautiful, more bells and whistles that you all desire...but it will be all for not if we don't have each of you engaging with other photographers in a thoughtful way - learning from each other and growing to become better photographers. <br>

Now - send me an internal message saying you're interested in participating in beta...and very soon (end of July - early August) we'll have something we can all be genuinely excited about - a new stage. (Double entendre intended).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Glenn</p>

<p>For most of the time I've been a member here, I had to ration my time on the Photo.net forums so that I could get done the other things in my photography and my life that need doing. These last few years I haven't needed to ration because the number of threads and responses that I feel I can contribute usefully towards has reduced substantially. Its now at the point where I probably check out the forums as frequently as I ever did when I'm home, but mostly there's nothing there that interests me or requires my particular experience or opinion, so I leave without posting or being tempted to post. I don't know what's happened, mathematically speaking, to the number of new questions posted and the responses to those questions, but it must represent a very large decline. And as others point out its not just fewer people, its a major reduction in the experienced, very competent, and interesting photographers and contributors that were instrumental in this site's growth. I don't want to leave Photo.net in search of greater engagement, and whatever you're planning by changing the site has a lot riding on it for me as well as the site.<br>

So I hope that issues like these are addressed in the way that the new site is pulled together - for IMO anyway its not just a question of making it look more modern, making it easier to post a maybe bigger picture, making offers on things that your membership might find useful, and making forum posts look like they do on DPReview etc etc etc. </p>

<ul>

<li>In order to recover users that have moved on it is necessary not just to do what their new homes offer them; it requires Photo.net to be clearly better than where people are now otherwise there's no benefit to them in moving/adding to their portfolio of sites visited. Matching is not enough.</li>

<li>Should the target market be people who have used ( and now reject) Photo.net or to attract more completely new joiners? Do the same features and feel drive success in both groups ?</li>

<li>What is or could be the interaction between what we now call Gallery and Forums? Is there-or has there been- a synergy between the health of each, or are they effectively separate businesses that need to be tackled and promoted differently?</li>

<li>Is there a real demand for forums of the magnitude that Photo.net enjoyed in the past and what needs to happen to get participation way up? </li>

<li>What is reasonably possible in the context of how a lot of people use Facebook and similar? Is Photo.net kidding itself about the realistic possibility as a standalone site here. How should it integrate with other sites? Has Facebook etc simply stolen PN participants time?</li>

<li>Photo.net has always lost participants and ostensibly quite a lot of them, for all sorts of reasons. Its just that the pace of loss seems to have increased a lot. Have we tracked some of these people and tried to understand their decisions? Hypothesising, rather than really understanding and taking on board, will just result in PN doing what can be done, and maybe missing what needs to be done. </li>

</ul>

<p>Best of luck.</p>

 

<p>All good questions David. I'll do my best to briefly answer as many as I can. Yes - we have seen a decreased level of participation in the forums in recent years, however page views are relatively stable - evidence that recently people are more interested in reading than contributing. Follow up with users that once were active and now less so - common thread was tone of forums in terms of civility was an issue. We understand that there will undoubtedly be friction when you provide a platform for discussion on a subject people are passionate - goes with the territory to a degree but we are very conscious of it. Our goal towards this end is not to ban people when they step over the line without warnings. We hope and expect that people use this site with the best of intentions and do so providing constructive criticism. Contributions that are mean spirited and without purpose and not constructive will prompt warnings and if continue will be banned for the overall health of the site. Opinion is one thing being a complete A hole is another and will cost the site valuable users that enjoy using it as it should be. Have we reached out to talented photographers that used to contribute regularly to ask them meaningful questions? Yes. Losing talented photographers to other sites is due in large part to other sites offering a better overall user experience - we can't ignore what is obvious so we believe we are addressing it with the new site. Again as I touched on above - building on old foundation is not something we could continue to do, thus the need to build from scratch. Will the site we launch be something we can build on in the future - yes, it will be which is in large part why we are doing a complete redesign both front end and back end. Of course targeting new users is something we are focused on and have a plan for that as well. Facebook has its place as does photo.net so our plan is to remain a standalone site. We are not deviating from what photo.net was designed to be which is a peer to peer educational system where one photographer learns from another. Our goal is to improve every experience and create an environment that people will want to become invested in - we believe we are on the right track but time will tell. </p>