Photo Rating Suggestions

I tried to follow you, Nejat E. but got lost,sorry. I just hope not the beginning of a conflict between Greece and Turkey over picture ratings (just kidding).Aloha.GS

It might be "suggested" that each photonet user take time to seriously rate and comment on at least 10% of the photos they view. Many of the photos here have been viewed thousands of times and have only received a sprinkle of ratings and a handful of comments- if any.

 

It would be helpful if you could rate AND comment at the same time without having to go thru 2 screens- if that is possible to consolidate those efforts.

 

thanks,

rob

Well, quite a thread here...<BR>

I like the opt-in ratings suggestion, although I am sure people will type in numerical ratings in the comment box the way they do now, they just won't be averaged. And I like the "photos I like" link idea. <BR>

<BR>Otherwise, I'm not going to fuss too much about whatever happens. I got pissed off at one point by someone who had gone through my entire portfolio to 1/1 me, but I sent him an email, and he wrote me back after having removed the ratings. I won't say we had a meeting of the minds, because we didn't, but at least we communicated relatively reasonably about it. And there are still some 1/1s in my folders, but you know, who cares?<BR>

<BR>

Although there is the little matter of my, ahem, <I>position</I> on the TRP list, and the matter of who is atop me - or below me, for that matter. Vuk remarks <BR><I>"Until a revenge ratings bomber got me, I enjoyed several days directly atop Amy Powers." </I><BR> Several days? Good lord...And Jeff replied <BR><I>Whereas I have until recently been directly atop Spud the travellin' tuber. I think you got the best of this deal.</I> <BR>Thank you, Jeff - I think - although I would say that atop a travelling tuber, one might get an ever-changing view of the world. I feel positively static by comparison.

Well this is my first post to a thread:

But it is a fascinating, if somewhat difficult topic. As a relatively recent poster of photos, I am surprised by the range of scores. On the other hand, I do this because I am looking for a larger audience; the 10 photos in my Master portfolio each earned me at least 26 of 30 from 3 independent expert judges (that is, e.g., at least 2x9's and an 8 or 2 x 8's and a 10 by each of the 3 judges); so it is enlightening (if not discouraging) to see such low scores here - but still interesting because I want to factor in the larger audience. And of course some allowance has to be made for the loss in translating to digital; but still ...

I want that input.

But I am offended by marks of 1 from people who have no photos posted, so I cannot see how relevant their criticism is.

I would like to see more comment, though I am guilty of not commenting enough; which takes me to the notion of how much is put up; I don't enjoy looking through a long series of ordinary travel shots for example, and tend not to rate them.

I suspect that I am like many others, and rate only those that have an impact on me, primarily positive.

Anyway, I generally like the idea of ratings, but think something can be done to improve it; ditch the highest and lowest ratings for example.

I don't agree that you must post photos to rate; why shouldn't the person (non-photographer) who paid several hundred dollars for one of my photos be able to rate it highly?

If the idea of disregarding highest and lowest is adapted, it shouldn't matter if self evaluation is permitted; though having done it once and abandoned it, I can't imagine who would have the gall to do it now that others can see that you've done it.

Thanks for asking; keep up the good work.

I've already left my opinion on the rating system, but I thought I'd mention something else that bugs me about the photo critiquing system -- when you leave a comment, the photo isn't visible. You have to back up if you want to see the photo again. It would be easier to leave a comment on an image if it didn't go away. Perhaps leaving it above the text entry would help (like the "original question" from Services Photonet is as I type this).

Just dump the ratings. They don't help the photographer learn anything and are too quick and easy to do which means that raters don't spend time to think about the pictures. I've been very guilty of giving a quick rating without looking properly at the photograph.

I spent a long weekend camping and listening to a few of my favorite bands way out in latrobe, pa. Hung out and drank with some old friends and new ones. Didn't think once about ratings or this thread and I really don't care to other than I got so many emails on the subject. I do have one question and one comment though.

 

So Jo Voets is not a chick?

 

If you're running an ISP and you're not prepared for hackers you're not one hell of an ISP.

Advertize security of your house and invite burglars try it.

<p>

In case of ISP, you as well may publish an <a href="http://grc.com/dos/openletter.htm">Open Letter</a> and then close the business.

I've always believed that the great benefit of the internet is that

like minded individuals can easily get together and non-like

minded individuals can easily ignore them. It's no skin off my

nose if people like and use the ratings system, and abolishing it

because its non-users don't like it seems bizarre.

 

That said, the saddest thing about most of the ratings fans is

their lack of consistency. They claim that boosters and dumpers

are trivial to spot, but spend countless kilobytes whining on

about how someone else should do the spotting for them. Trust

your own judgement. Ignore the idiots. Your life will improve.

 

The second saddest thing about most of the ratings fans is that

they want to confine the power to rate to nice people like

themselves. The whole point of asking for critique on a site with

lots of users was to get a diversity of opinions. Otherwise, why

not just rate yourself on your own harddisk?

 

Every two year old goes though a phase of standing up in

crowded rooms and shouting "bumtitwillypoo" as loud as thy

can. It's only the few who do it incessently who need to be

thrown out, and for me at least, those who shout back

"peepeedoggydoo" from the moral high ground are far more

annoying.

Wow. A lot of emotion on this topic, and a lot of good ideas.

 

There is some value to the numeric rating system. It's a form of comment, albeit less meaningful than an explanation of what made the image good or bad in the commenter's eyes. It does take a lot less time and thought, though.

 

In the past, photo.net has had one of the better photo critique systems (disclaimer: I've viewed it, but I haven't posted images to it myself). Photocritique.net was good for a long while, but it had degenerated into a "feel-good", 11/10 (if they had numeric ratings) board for a while. (It seems to be slowly recovering.) Many photo sites seem to go through a "feel-good" phase, and some never go anywhere else ;-)

 

For me, the main point of photo posting sites is critiques: what worked well in this shot, or what can I do better next time? A numerical rating doesn't tell me that, other than in a coarse sense of "this worked well" or it didn't. A little ego-stroke every now and then doesn't hurt, but comments can do that just as well as numbers, unless you're in to the competition, my number's bigger than your number, etc.

 

So where are my ramblings leading? Let's see:

 

- keep the rating system

 

- take steps to reduce abuse; there are lots of good ideas above: i.e., verified email address, must have photo posted before you can rate another, no self-rating, no multiple ratings, i.e., enforce that you can only rate a photo once

 

- make the rating system "opt-in", and if your photos aren't rateable, you can't rate others' photos.

 

- don't fudge the stats. Dine.com has restaurant ratings, but they aren't a straight average. While it apparently helps combat abuse, it also makes the average less useful. What I do find useful there is an Amazon.com-like system of "if you like this, here are some other things you might like".

 

- reset the current counts and start over with the new system. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, but do get rid of the poisoned well...

If you do an opt in thing you have to do something where once a photo is opted in it can't be opted out. Otherwise people can post a photo, have their friends rate it, then prevent others from rating it.

I must admit that I haven't had time to read *all* of the answers above, but what I'd like to see is some kind of reputation system, where the weight of a person's opinion is adjusted by some kind of sane reputation metric. I'm personally much more interested in someone's rating if other people consider them to be a "good" photographer.

 

The Advogato trust metric is a really good system that seems to work well in practice. See http://advogato.org/trust-metric.html for details of how they implemented their system, and http://advogato.org/code.html for information on how to get their code.

I'll throw my two cents in here. Allowing only those that post images to critique and rate images is a bad idea. I can't post images due to not knowing how, not wanting to put my images on the net until I can post them to look exactly as they do in print, and not having the equipment to do it. I teach photography and photographic printing workshops. Large Format to be exact. I judge salons and portfolios. Some of us old timers aren't up to speed on the digital revolution but can photograph circles around most of the posters here. So allowing only posters to critique others work is kinda dumb. If you read through my critiques then you'll get an idea how valuable some of the old timers critiques can be.

I too have no images on photo.net. I don't have a scanner (or a

budget) which gives me a digitised quality that I feel represents

my photography as My Photography. I do insert images into

threads where I feel they illustrate a point, and I do participate in

other forums where people are more willing to make allowances

for cheap scans.

 

Even if all that were not true, I prefer to keep my images on my

server.

 

Those of you who want critiques only from a narrow subset of the

world are in danger of shooting yourself in the foot. Master

classes are a well-established feature of the arts world, but it is

also true that many of the great arts educators are not first rate

artists themselves. In sports and other competitive fields it

would be nonsensical if the coach could beat the champion.

 

Writing a good photographic critique is an art all of its own, and

is an entirely seperate skill from taking photographs. Don't let

anger with those who can do neither eliminate those whose

advice and insight the critique forum is supposedly designed to

attract.

 

The people here who care deeply about the ratings

shennanigans are already detecting and naming-and-shaming

the perpetrators. I suggest the programmers make a

critique.abuse@photo.net account which formalises the appeals

process, and recruit moderators who are willing to take on the

task of examining cases and deleting the silliness.

 

Eliminating self-rating is probably also a good move, but

changing the range of grades will only change the problem, not

solve it.

I just knew it had to come down to this...

 

Recently, I exchanged in some email with one of the "top-rated" photographers (he's in the top 20) after noticing that each of his submissions had quite a few 10/10 ratings. These were, incidentally, all submitted by addresses which were non-contributors.

 

His latest email states that naturally he entered the ratings himself, as everybody did that, and that "I did it ti me myself

in order to be in equal conditions with the other people ! Can you say

this is no true ??"

 

Solution? As I see it, you either continue the ratings but DON'T INCLUDE A RANKED LISTING, just an alphabetical one (can you imagine how crushed the little cheat mentioned above would be if he had to get out the calculator to see how many more ratings he had to send in to keep up with Tony Dummet, Dan Heller or WHOEVER in the list was truly the number 1?)

 

Perhaps allowing only photographers who had already submitted a portfolio or two should be allowed to vote on other members' portfolios and presentations. I can't see this as too difficult to program into such a well thought-out site as Photo.net.

 

Lastly, let's all bow our heads and give silent thanks that we are not all that desperate to attain recognition for a talent we might not have in sufficient quantity to be ranked at the top of the heap.

I'm sixty now, and have run two photo businesses and have taught photography in high school and community college for the last twenty-five years, off-and-on, but it honestly doesn't bother me that I'm not ever going to be the second Ansel Adams.

Struan Gray wrote:

"I too have no images on photo.net. I don't have a scanner (or a budget) which gives me a digitised quality that I feel represents my photography as My Photography. I do insert images into threads where I feel they illustrate a point, and I do participate in other forums where people are more willing to make allowances for cheap scans.

 

Even if all that were not true, I prefer to keep my images on my server.

 

 

Those of you who want critiques only from a narrow subset of the world are in danger of shooting yourself in the foot."

 

Straun, Your comments sound a bit elitist to me. Having those who wish to rate other's work be required to have some of their own posted makes perfect sense. Every person that leaves a comment on one of my photos gets an email response and a "thank you" from me. It's common courtesy for one thing. Also in order for me to better understand their comments it is usefull for me to have a look at their folders to see what thier "style" is. This helps lend creedence to their point of view. Photo.net is a two-way street. Your way is like playing a baseball game where you are always at bat and never have to take the field. You also say that..."Writing a good photographic critique is an art all of its own, and is an entirely seperate skill from taking photographs." True. My mother could write a good critique but if she cant take a decent photograph herself then what is it worth? Don't get me wrong, I encourage comments and ratings on all my photos from everyone wheather they have posted their own or not. I just consider comments from those who have taken the time to "share" their own work more seriously. I hope you share some of your photos with us someday.

 

regards,

A few inflated nickels and dimes worth of opinion:

 

First, the ratings systems has its advantages and disadvantages. If it wasn't prone to abuse, it would be a very succinct form of critique, and an easy way for someone to *begin* to evaluate their own work. Problem is that abuse exists. I have read many - not all - of the posts left here and can see merit in many of the suggestions both pro and con. Personally, I like the idea of adding "weight" to a numerical rating if the person doing the rating has somehow established him/herself as a photographer/critiquer/user of merit. My suggestion would be to start every user with a weight of "10" and reduce this weight if abuse becomes apparent. Obviously, this would require some sort of filter, and I'll leave it to the administrators of this site to determine if - and what kind - of filter should be implemented. (The previous poster seemd to be onto something.)

 

Second, why not a nominal fee for membership? Presumably most of the users of this site have the the resources to purchase a camera and provide for ongoing film/development expenses. Would a fee - say $10? - be so onerous as to exclude those who seriously value this hobby/profession and/or would like to learn more? I don't think so. Yet, at the same time, surely it would prevent people from maintaining multiple memberships with/without valid email addresses (and yes, a valid email address should be mandatory). I suppose it could be argued that those with sufficient resources, and who are vain enough to make an effort, could still thwart such a system, but I think the abuse in general would be greatly diminished. And for those who persist in abusing the system, hopefully their impact upon the integrity of the system will be minimized through the previously suggested "weighting" filter.

 

On a completely separate note from the ratings systems, I AGREE WITH THE POSTER WHO SUGGESTED THAT THE PHOTO BE VISIBLE ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE ONE ON WHICH YOU TYPE YOUR CRITIQUE. It is very annoying to have to go "back" to the image in question while trying to formulate a coherent - and hopefully useful - critique. I think this small convenience may aid in improving the quality of some critiques.

 

That's it. (Okay, maybe I contributed quarters instead of nickels and dimes)

<i>We'd like to hear about your suggestions for what to do with the photo ratings systems. </i><p>

I think the best way to improve the status of the ratings system is to revert back to photo.net 1.0 (<i>not</i> <b>www</b>.photo.net), circa 1998-99. Weren't them the good ol' days, anyhow?

<i>If you do an opt in thing you have to do something where once a photo is opted in it can't be opted out. Otherwise people can post a photo, have their friends rate it, then prevent others from rating it.</i>

<br>

<br>

Or make it so that once a rated photo is opted out, its ratings get deleted.

Revised opinion:

 

1. Shelf life - once an image has hung for 3 months beyond its

10th vote it's automatically hidden and no longer counts towards

the TMR list. The artist or photographer can then re-submit. This

will ensure a freshness to the site and encourage CERTAIN

PEOPLE to experiment outside their established formula/e

(we're learning not churning.)

 

2. Membership fee - I repeat, in favour, but please ensure that

PayPal isn't the only remittance option......it's a very frustrating

"service" that hasn't worked in my case.

 

3. Hidden images - shouldn't count towards average TMR rating.

 

4. Rate-blocked images - I find the system does that

automatically sometimes, so the opt-in angle is often overridden

by "The Robot."

 

5. Contributors only - in light of recent abuse, I feel that non

image contributors ought not to be able to rate (though I would

welcome their comments.) This suggestion is not directed at

recent rational correspondents like Struan - it's to prevent the

unreasonable from skewing things.

 

Thanks, regards to you all

7

Wow, a lot of fervor over this one. <br>

I'm going to side with Tony and the rest of the wet ones ;) <br> Although the rating system is flawed and open to abuse it does perform a function and has value. <p>

Those that claim to not upload their photos for rating can probably just ignore those pesky numbers and those of us looking for feedback on our photos will determine what we can from the ratings. <p> I even enjoy the top photog list, and that is speaking from waaaaaaaay down at the bottom of the well. I couldn't tell you who I'm on top of, and don't put a lot of weight on the ratings the create the top ratings... but they do show what other photographers find the most interesting and it makes it easy to find good photos to look at. <p>

It's been mentioned several times the small injustice of better photographers not getting their due and being placed higher in the top rankings. A big part of rankings if visibility. Vuk is placed highly not just because he has talent but because he is a very active member here and his photos are seen. Some of the more talented and experienced photographers are suffering from lack of visibility and or less attractive content. I've noticed girl photos *always* do better than equally creative and technically competent photos. <p>

 

Lastly a comment on competition. I believe it is good. The common public is usually quite thrilled with my sunset photos and crap like that. You guys are bored silly with it. Heck, I'm getting bored with flower macros taken by digital cameras, even though it's something I've taken a lot of and received very good feedback on from other sources. Photo dot net is my peer group that pushes me to new heights of excellence. The rating system is an integral part of that.

<p> Well that's enough of me flogging this topic to death. <br>

g'night

Seven, I blush.

 

Dennis, I'm sorry if I come across as elitist, I truly thought I was

being anti-elitist.

 

No simple, mechanically-implemented rules are going to stop

the wallies. Under the proposed system, if I want to spray 1/1's

about all I have to do is put a minimum number of random

images into a folder. If you insist they be rated I just rate them

from one of my other hotmail accounts. If you inist on a posting

history I just go and add short 'me too' comments to long-dead

threads.

 

Whatever you do, I can find a way round the block faster than the

programmers can implement it. Human moderation and the

active participation of responsible photo.net users is essential -

no system will work if you don't have that. But if you have that,

and I think we do, you can dispense with most of the mechanical

rules.

 

I don't understand your comment about your mother. If she can

write a good critique, she can write a good critique. My mother is

a wilful dunce when it comes to photography, but she has a fine

sense of composition, and on that I take her advice seriously.

That's not a trivial point. Any comment worth caring about will

contain within itself the clues you need to judge its relevance and

significance.

 

I suppose it comes down to what you want from the system here.

Pats on the back from photographers you admire, or illuminating

critique which helps you improve your photography.

 

Yes, that's a false dichotomy. Which is my entire point. Limiting

rating to those who have images on photo.net lobs the baby into

the outfield, and does so without doing anything effective to

address the problem it is supposed to solve. I'm not preventing

people from using others' photo.net portfolios to put comments

into context. *They* are trying to prevent *me* from doing

something they say they ignore anyway.

 

One more suggestion: most photographers are able to read a

histogram these days, so why not allow users to call up a

histogram of ratings, both those given to images and those

handed out by other users. They make it easy and intuitive to

judge the ratings' worth and/or bias, and to tell if an average

value actually means anything.

"I don't understand your comment about your mother. If she can write a good critique, she can write a good critique. My mother is a wilful dunce when it comes to photography, but she has a fine sense of composition, and on that I take her advice seriously. That's not a trivial point. Any comment worth caring about will contain within itself the clues you need to judge its relevance and significance"

 

 

There is an old saying; Those that can do. Those that can't teach. :)

 

Sorry if you can't understand my pount as I explainrd earlier. I don't know how to make it any more clear. Nothing personal, but my point is simply two way participation. Cheers.

The improvement I would like is to have is more photo's on the front page or maybe on a competition page. Perhaps a few photo's of the week and month and categories (landscape etc....).

 

Photo.net has something original with the numerical rating system. I think it should be expanded.

I like the "Top Rated Photographers" concept as it provides direction for those pointless perusals through the photo.net galleries.

 

However, it seems to me that the desire to be near the top of the "Top Rated Photographer" list drives many to exploit the current numerical rating system. Perhaps the metric used to determine the top-rated photographers could be improved upon so that it was not easily open to bias.

 

I would suggest normalisation of each photographer's scores - BUT ONLY FOR CHOOSING TOP RATED PHOTOGRAPHERS - not for general perusal (ie the normalised scores would not be published, just used internally; the raw scores would be published for all other uses).