Blocking

<p>I know it's possible to block a PN member or subscriber from critiquing one's work. If it's also to block someone from rating images, how is this accomplished?</p>

I hope we're not allowed to block rates. That would lead to terrible gaming of the system. I'm not a fan of blocking

comments to begin with, but blocking ratings would seem to undermine the whole system. IMO of course.

<p>In a rating system which is, at least theoretically, anonymous how would one even know who to block assuming that the point of blocking is to prevent low raters from dashing ones ego?</p>

<p>Fred, there's a difference between trying to subvert the system and to keep someone from deliberately trying to sabotage it. Ratings should be based, other things being equal, on the merits of an image or at least on the personal taste of the rater. They should not be an expression of one's disdain for the photographer.</p>

I agree that a rate should not be out of disdain for the photographer. But how would one know if a low rate is because of

disdain for the photographer or dislike of the photo? In any case, if abuse is suspected, it should be reported as such and

dealt with by administration. There should be no need for user blocking.

I don't participate in the critiques here. But I am curious what the purpose would be, or what one gains

trying to game the system?

<p>I did not make the statement of 11/28 in the abstract. Unfortunately, I have rather good reasons for having made the statement; they concern another subscriber. I'd rather not bother Admin with this. Besides that route is a bit like tattling, to which I'm not very partial. </p>

<p>I was just wondering whether there was another way to go to address the problem. Guess not.</p>

<p>Blocking members from ratings would make the ratings system more skewed than it already is. We need more people rating photos, not fewer. If more people offered ratings it would dilute the impact of mate raters, revenge raters and overall harassment and dunderheadedness.</p>

<p>I suspect that one reason we don't have more folks offering ratings is because they don't want the hassle of being harassed by paranoid folks, or the tiresome implication that they're "cowards" if they offer ratings lower than a 6 or 7, or <em>(fill in the blanks, we all know the drill - the usual laundry list of grievances)</em>.</p>

<p>The current system which attributes names but not ratings (directly) is a wishy-washy mess. It should be all or none: either attributed to names and the ratings given; or totally anonymous, no attribution, no practical method for tracing particular ratings to specific members.</p>

<p>As things are now, members who are obsessed with ratings can check the list of names who rated their photos, then check the list of <a href="/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=172915&period=2000">"photos rated highest by this member"</a> to see who rated our photos 6 or 7.</p>

<p>The problem with that gap in the pseudo-anonymity ratings system is that some folks assume that anything lower than a 6 is a revenge rating or hate rating. If members see that I rated their photo, but don't see their photo on my list of photos rated highest, they assume the worst - that I hate rated their photo with a 3. Actually I dole out relatively fewer 3's. Statistically of my ratings are 4 and 5, which seems about right since most photos are average or a little above average - including my own.</p>

<p>So effectively we now have a 3-level system:</p>

<ul>

<li>7 = Wunderbar! Belissimo! Wowie-wow-wow!</li>

<li>6 = Pretty good, don't sell your camera... yet.</li>

<li>? = I can't see whether you rated me 5, 4 or... <em>why do you hate me so?!?!</em></li>

</ul>

<p>It's silly. Until we can develop a workable ratings system the best compromise - in my not-so-humble opinion - is a completely anonymous system with no method for discovering who gave what ratings. We should keep the <a href="/photodb/favorite-folder?user_id=172915">"favorite photos"</a> section - I like that because it's our personal curated galleries. But the method to see who rated photos 6 or 7 should be eliminated. It's a loophole that defeats the intent of the semi-anonymous ratings system.</p>

<p>Perhaps a workable compromise might be to restrict anonymous ratings to subscribers only. Presumably anyone who pays to subscribe is a serious photographer, or serious fan of photography. And presumably not many folks would spend the money for multiple subscriptions under various aliases to game the system with sockpuppets. Granted, that has occasionally been a problem with allowing non-subscribers to rate photos. Restricting anonymous ratings to subscribers would probably reduce the incidence of gaming the system through sockpuppets.</p>

<p>Anyway, we've been through this before. I don't have access to the necessary admin tools to confirm with certainty who's gaming the system, who's indulging in mate/hate-rating vs. who's simply very choosy and has very high standards or narrow tastes in what he/she likes. Rather than fretting over intentions, a simpler solution is to dilute the impact of gamers by encouraging more subscribers to offer ratings. But the only way to do that is to eliminate the associated paranoia, accusations and drama.</p>

<p>Of course, as with the bad old days, the gamers will continue to circumvent the system by confirming their anonymous ratings, either by publicly posting "7 anon, my friend!" in the critique/comment box, or privately messaging their buddies. But that's the nature of a system that serves little purpose beyond a popularity contest, which will always be won by folks who are most adept at cultivating a social network.</p>

<p>A ratings system that would have any significance beyond a mere popularity contest would need to be judged by photographers with some credentials or credibility to satisfy the demands of the folks submitting their work for approval/disapproval. That's a whole 'nuther tar baby that nobody wants to tackle.</p>

I guess I'm missing something; even after reading the above. Still not getting what "gaming the system"

achieves.

<p>If ratings are to be retained on PN, Lex, my vote is for anonymity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't participate in the critiques here. But I am curious what the purpose would be, or what one gains trying to game the system? ... I guess I'm missing something; even after reading the above. Still not getting what "gaming the system" achieves."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The following are just my personal observations and opinions, not the official position of photo.net, it's management, staff, volunteers, hangers on, gadflies, ticks, leeches, fleas, mites or bedbugs.<br>

<br>

I've been following the whole ratings game pretty closely for around a decade, mostly as an outside observer but also as an occasional participant, offering and asking for critiques/ratings. I've read hundreds, possibly thousands of comments, suggestions, complaints, etc., regarding the ratings system. So here are a few of my thoughts based on those observations.</p>

<p>Years ago when PN's feedback system was much more active (ratings and critiques/comments), it helped to promote some really good work, particularly in the skillful photo editing work of folks like <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2231437">Rarindra Prakarsa</a>, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1561226">Wojtek Kwiatkowski</a> and a few others. These were (and are) genuinely talented folks whose work was rightfully recognized by fans and rated highly, which in turn helped to promote the photography and name recognition of participants who benefited from those high ratings. At the time prominence on the TRP was at least a small part of an overall marketing strategy for photographers selling fine art prints, etc.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, over the years, photo.net failed to keep pace with the rest of the web and the same dyamic that used to drive the TRP -- and, in turn, usually drove some of the better photos to higher visibility -- has shifted to other websites, notably 500px and 1x which have higher standards, comparable to photo.net 5-10 years ago. And Flickr became vastly more popular for more routine photo sharing and social networking.</p>

<p>As a result, the role of the Top Rated Photos shifted away from promoting photography that was generally excellent within various genres and categories, and toward a game to be won for its own sake. With declining participation, it became easier to manipulate the ratings so that too often some very ordinary and even mediocre photography dominates the TRP. Not only has the rest of the web set a higher standard for Photoshopping and image manipulation/retouching, but photo.net has generally showed a decline in standards.</p>

<p>Most gaming of the ratings system seems to be motivated by me-too desperation to be popular through higher visibility on the Top Rated Photos page. Prominence on the TRP was considered quite an achievement several years ago. Now it's mostly medium-sized-frog-in-a-tiny-pond-thinking-he's-a-giant-frog syndrome.</p>

<p>Some of the photographers whose work now dominates the TRP are capable of much higher quality work. But they're not being motivated because the game is too easy to win now. So a lot of very ordinary and repetitive stuff shows up day after day, week after week.</p>

<p>And some PN members are still producing high quality work comparable to any seen online. They may be benefiting in some tangible way beyond being "liked" with ratings of 6 and 7.</p>

<p>But declining participation overall has shifted the dynamics of the ratings system heavily in favor of those who are skilled at social networking, cultivating cliques and mutual admiration societies. This is particularly noticeable in genres/categories with relatively fewer participants.</p>

<p>The more popular genres/categories - birds, blossoms, bugs, beasts and babes - attract a somewhat larger pool of members offering ratings, so the gaming effect is diluted. But there's still a lot of mediocre photography in those genres - in which standards aren't particularly ambiguous - receiving inexplicably high ratings. My theory is that the loophole in the pseudo-anonymous ratings system tends to impose pressure on participants to give ratings of 6 and 7 to everything posted by the most prolific members, in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings and to ensure the rater's photos are rewarded with high ratings. Peer pressure.</p>

<p>Anyway, those are my theories. I could be wrong. And it may take more than a switch to either complete anonymity or complete accountability -- with all ratings publicly attributable to names of raters - to turn the system around. More participation may help.</p>

<p>But, as with photo.net several years ago when these discussions came up, the same basic principle applies: technically masterful photos with powerful graphic appeal that look good in thumbnail views amid a dozen other photos competing for attention on the same page tend to garner the highest ratings.</p>

<p>Some photos are not easy to "like" in thumbnail size, or may be in genres that are not universally popular, or may explore themes and visual styles that demand a lot of viewer time and attention, or may work only in the context of a photo essay or other controlled visual narrative. So the typical web style for evaluating photos, whether on photo.net or other site, will never be particularly favorable to all genres and styles.</p>

<p>That's just life in the arts world.</p>

<p>The ability to block rating would only benefit the gamers who want to stop some rating of their work so they get only the high ratings of their "friends". I do understand your frustration Michael. I use the rating and critique features quite a lot, and am very well aware of what is going on.... A member who I had communicate with in the past as she requested some advice, then went on to send me angry personal email about the way I rate her work. I did not think I was being unfair in my ratings and looked at how I rated to find out that 78% of my ratings of her work was 5. I replied to her that I thought her work was good. She kept on sending angry messages. Suddenly, my portfolio was raided with ratings of 1 -2 and 3's. Obviously her goal was to discourage me from rating her work or to rate highly. I have also learned that she has spread some bad words around about me......... This started over a year ago and her last message to me was about a week ago. I have not answered any. I am not one to be deterred but I am sure that this kind of bullying is driving some good people away. I even had a member contacting me shortly after I join PN, telling me: you give high ratings, you get high ratings. Solicited high ratings are meaningless to me..... Lex is right in saying that the system is heavily in favor of those skilled at social networking, and that a larger pool of raters would dilute the effect the gamers have. But, if rating images means you have to either only give high ratings or be subjected to consequences, it will not draw in very many people...</p>

<p>Lex<br>

All ratings are "SOMEONE'S OPINION" for that photo,that was your statement a few years ago,how come you are concerned with the ratings and the NO of photos all of a sudden.<br>

Instead of writing essays about the rating system and the lack of good photos in the forum why don't you take a camera from your big collection of equipment and use your vast knowledge of photography to shoot some masterpieces to boost the no of photos in the forum.You are the GURU of photography after all.</p>

<p>Line<br>

Are you stalking that member?<br>

From your rating history i remember you attacking the whole of the front page with 3s and 4s several times,in one month 3 years ago you dished out 3500 4s indiscriminately (you probably rated every photo in the forum with a 4 that month without even looking at it).<br>

You rated 1700 photos and you made 1000 comments most of them on your own images.<br>

So how fair is your participation on this site?<br>

Were you trying to get rid of the opposition with your behaviour?<br>

Why do you think you are a victim of bullying and ratings attack?<br>

Your rating record by the way you can't deny, it's all in PN's records.<br>

This is a SHARING site,you get what you give,no one wins any prizes by being in the front page,you get views ok but no prizes.<br>

And lastly,the administration has left the site in the hands of 10-15 idiots that chased the good photographers away with their ratings.I can't understand why the didn't make a change to the rating system,some good photographers might come back before the site dies.</p>

 

<p>Harry!<br /> I have never done any of what you are accusing me of. The fact that I have given ratings of 4 just shows that I rate all kind of images and don't play that game of giving only high ratings in order to receive some. There are a lot of images that in my view are average or below average. So, should I not rate those. How is that participating and helping people improve if we ignore their work because it is not worth a 6 or 7. I find your accusation quite insulting. I have never stalked anyone and never will! I really don't care about the first page..... and I do participate in forums time permitting. I have contributed technical advice to several members who contacted me. You are making your own reality based on facts you don't even know! I think an apology is needed here!</p>

<p>By the way Harry, do you have access to PN's records and now are divulging them publicly? oooooooooooh, not good!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Harry, do you have access to PN's records and now are divulging them publicly?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, he doesn't. Even moderators don't have access to that information. Unless someone has hacked an admin password, nobody has specific information correlating members to their ratings given - other than the publicly visible list of highest rated photos of 6 or 7. Ratings given lower than that are not publicly visible, but do appear as a tally that is not traceable to specific photos.</p>

<p>As I've said before in many of these debates over the ratings system, there is a loophole in the system that publicly displays our lists of photos we've rated highest, either 6 or 7. Members can see the publicly visible list of members who have rated our photos, after we have received at least five individual ratings. And a tally of our ratings is also publicly visible.</p>

<p>But that's the only information that is publicly visible. Nobody but admin have access to identify which specific photos you, I or any other member have rated lower than 6. Anyone else who claims to have access to that information is misrepresenting supposition as fact. I've asked other members who have made these claims to demonstrate how they arrived at their conclusions, and so far nobody has followed through by showing how they were able to identify which members rated their photos lower than 6. So any suppositions about who gave specific ratings of 3, 4 or anything lower than 6 are mere guesswork based on viewing the publicly accessible data and presuming the worst.</p>

<p>Over the years I've said many times that this loophole in the ratings system is a flaw. The ratings should be completely anonymous, without names attached, and without any publicly visible lists of photos rated highest (6 or 7) by members. Anonymous ratings should be restricted to subscribers because, presumably, few people would bother paying for multiple subscriptions to use sockpuppets to indulge in self-rating, mate rating or other abuses. And it's reasonable to assume that anyone who subscribes to photo.net is serious about photography, either as a photographer or fan of photography.</p>

<p>Completely anonymous ratings would also protect members from the sorts of personal insults and abuses we've seen in some of these debates, which is a violation of the existing Terms of Use.</p>

<p><strong>Lex</strong><br>

Thanks for confirming that those allegations are not based on facts.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><strong>Harry</strong><br>

My last comment on this: Talking of stalking, the fact that you claim to know what I did on a daily basis 3 years ago is just plain creepy! Hopefully you will have the decency to apologize and retract your comments.</p>

<p>My opinion? This entire thread is about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Or to invoke another metaphor, PN burns, while a few of the remaining denizens fiddle. I've been finding all sorts of other places lately that provide encouragement, insight and value for the little bit of time I can spend on photography, and unfortunately that's pretty much all gone from this site as arguments about a handful of people rating photos, and whether we should be able to change our names rage. I just have to say "wow". This is my first time here in a while, and I see I'm missing absolutely nothing.</p>

<p>Harry, if you look at Line's ratings, she has only rated 5,576 images 4 or less, compared with a much larger aggregate of images rated 5 or higher. Your logic appears to be quite flawed in light of this fact.</p>

<p><strong>"Completely anonymous ratings would also protect members from the sorts of personal insults and abuses we've seen in some of these debates, which is a violation of the existing Terms of Use." </strong>Right on, Lex. (Sorry if "right on" is no longer popular.)</p>

<p>David: As long as PN insists on having a rating system, I believe I have a right to ask questions about it and to challenge it, when appropriate. If you're not missing anything by chiming in on a thread in the PN Help forum, maybe you've picked the wrong forum.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is my first time here in a while, and I see I'm missing absolutely nothing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed it is your first post in a while. You've posted only two times in the last month. How curious that one of only two posts would be to this thread, which you consider such a waste of time. Perhaps you've missed nothing because you're looking in the wrong places. There are equipment threads, critique threads, digital darkroom challenge threads, there are a couple of rather interesting threads about street photography, there are no words threads, there are photos of the week threads . . . and yet here you are, a fellow angel dancing on the head of a pin. Says a lot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm not a fan of blocking comments to begin with"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither am I.<br /> Additionally, I'd rather receive two or three paragraphs of purposeful critique, than a numerical score.<br /> And, by the way, I am not a fan of anonymous, generally: though I understand the practicality of it for a "rating" number system at our Forum - but I am really not a fan of anonomous commentary anywhere. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William, I'm not really a fan of anonymous commentary either. But earlier comments referred to anonymous ratings. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But earlier comments referred to anonymous ratings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael: yes I understand that. I thought that I did indeed comment on the topic of <em>'anonymous ratings'</em>.</p>

<p><em>"I am not a fan of anonymous, generally: though I understand the practicality of it for a "rating" number system at our Forum - but I am really not a fan of anonomous[sic] commentary anywhere."</em></p>

<p>Maybe the last part of that sentence was confusing: I termed any 'rating' or 'mark given' bundled under the broad compass of 'a person's comment'.</p>

<p>In other words, I'd prefer that all ratings and all comments were to be identified by author - but I understand why our ratings system has developed toward anonymous.</p>

<p>Sorry if there was confusion. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>No problem, William. I just wanted to be as clear as possible.</p>