"1" & "2" Ratings appear as "3"

It appears that all former and new ratings that are entered as "1" or "2",

regardless if whether for aesthetics or originality, are displayed (and

counted?) as "3".

What's your point?

If this is the case, what's the point of having an option for 1 or 2? Also, why is it that my profile still shows that I left 1s and 2s, but if I look at the photos for which those were left, it is not reflected in their ratings.

Buried somewhere in all the postings on forums about ratings on this site is some kind of explanation why ratings of 1 and 2 are no longer in use, even though you can rate photographs with those numbers. I can't remember the explanation, where it is, or anything else about it.<p>

 

But the bottom line is that you can rate 1 or 2 and it won't show up on the photos, but it will show up in your ratings on your own page.<p>

 

And let's face it, does <i>any</i> photograph <i>really</i> deserve a rating of 1? I mean...that's really harsh, don't you think?

Well, I have actually seen a couple of photos that should have received a "1" but didn't (I only rate a photo if I can give an objective critique). The reason is that the photos were nude and nude photos never receive an accurate, or should I say, objective rating, in my opinion. The key word here is, objective. <P> You can find the reasons to your question in the archives, I read it a couple of months ago and truthfully, just a bunch of double talk. I would say that it's a way to dampen the effects or retaliation with ratings. If the ratings went to 10 then neutralizing at 3 wouldn't be necessary but with a 7 point system it is. Think about it, if a 4.5 in an average/good rating then there's only 2.5 points up to 7. However, there's 3.5 points down to 1. A couple of 1's have much more weight than a couple of 7's.<P> There are folks in PN with a much more eloquent and accurate explanation.

<p><i>Buried somewhere in all the postings on forums about ratings on this site is some kind of explanation why ratings of 1 and 2 are no longer in use...</i></p>

 

OK, thanks. I tried searching with Google, but was unable to find it.

 

<p><i>And let's face it, does any photograph really deserve a rating of 1? I mean...that's really harsh, don't you think?</i></p>

 

Not if it genuinely merits it. What if the "photo" that is uploaded is a solid color (not even a gradient)? How pleasing or original is that?

<I>"And let's face it, does any photograph really deserve a rating of 1? I mean...that's really harsh, don't you think?"</I>

<br>

<br>

- I think Yes, for ex. last year I saw a "photo" which was... white square. I doubt if it really was a photo, it could have been made in simple graphic program in five seconds. So, give 1/1 or ignore? I'm still not sure.

"does any photograph really deserve a rating of 1?"<p>

 

I thought my experimental photo showing a piece of black cardboard directly on top of a SMaL imager deserved a 1 for aesthetics and a 7 for originality. But when I loaded it 21 months ago I posted a request for double ones in this forum resulting in abuse complaints and a deleted thread.<p>

 

The six 3,3 ratings are probably actually double ones.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=3021123">Exteme Macro"</a>