3/3 AND WHY ?

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by amirali, Dec 31, 2006.

  1. i dont know why in every single photo form the best to worst there are several
    ratings for 3/3 !
    i really dont know !
    maybe im so fool and my photos are too bad to get good ratings !
    but even in the photos of the week i saw a lot of 3/3

    is there a kind of mafia here ? or why nude lovers should rate abstract photos 3/3 ?
    is it fair ?
    i dont know ,im a kind of upset about it and maybe leave photo.net to a site
    that dont support nude lovers to get a fair rate .
     
  2. Hello,
    I just browsed through your portfolio (which is good, congrats) and had a closer look on some photos I liked. The average of ratings is higher than 3/3, so why do you complain? I agree with you to the point, that I don't rate photos with subjects I'm not familiar with or interessted in, e.g. I don't rate bird photos, but if you share your photos for critique you have to take it like that. Maybe you should just ask for comments and not for ratings.

    Do your own thing, don't care to much about ratings and you will be much happier.

    Stefan
     
  3. thank you , i just always tell to myselft thats the last photo on rating ,and then i put on rating again . im upset because of ratings on my last uploaded photo which is the Tree skin texture on abstracts ! i dont realy know how they want a photo with this subject ?
    im agree i only rate photos that i like ,its very uncommon that i rate a photo under 5
     
  4. AmirAli - There are indeed a lot of strange things happening in the ratings. People misuse the system, people are here for the wrong reasons, and people even try to game the system. Of course, some of the time, people just have different tastes, and most people are reasonable. The bottom line is that we can't really learn anything from random ratings, but occasionally from comments and critiques.

    You have some nice photos in your portfolio. However, to my eye, "Tree skin texture" is not one of them. The highlights are distracting, the hard line dividing the in-focus and out-of-focus areas on the right edge is too strong, and ultimately the picture doesn't speak to me about the subject in the way I think you'd like it to.
     
  5. Why doesn't PN force a comment from those that are so insitent to give a 3 rating. At least by
    having an intuitive critical comment from those with lofty standards, the photograph can
    have some degree of a bennefit of doubt. I would propose that any three rating deserves a
    comment, even if given anonymously. This wouldn't detract people from handing out low
    ratings, but it would at least justify their presence on PN.
     
  6. But you have to admit that when you get a lot of good ratings, a couple of 4's, and a lot of 5, 6, and 7's, and one person give you an anonymous 3/3 with no comments, it's hard to take, even if you try not to care for ratings.

    For example a 3/3 with comments like Marshall's would be fine, but one without any comment leaves a sour taste in one's mouth, especially when it's inconsistant with most of the rating.

    I've already mentioned this in an earlier thread, but I think that ratings should be either or, either completely anonymous, or no possibility for anonymous rating.
     
  7. thnx for your answers and i know that this photo does not deserve 7/7 or even 6/6 ,but i want comments so the reason i put my photos on critique forum is that i want to learn ,not to just get 3/3 ! im agree that when you put a very low rating you have to put on a comment ,but that has a weak point that the rater just put it "...." on the must comment part and we cannot handle it , im looking to your ideas here and on my portfolio for i wanted to improve my work ,thats the reason im here ,by learning from other photographers ,their comments and . . . :)
     
  8. Why doesn't PN force a comment from those that are so insitent to give a 3 rating.
    When photo.net did that, it made for lots of comments like "this is great" or "this isn't good" and it didn't do much to encourage real, valuable comments for posterity.
     
  9. I just did a little test. I went over to the "Top Rated Photos", with the default of Category "All", Period "3 days", by "Rate Recent Avg". I checked on the top 6 pictures there. NONE of them had a 3/3 on them, even though some of them have 40-50 ratings on them. So right off the bat, the idea that EVERY picture gets "several" 3/3's is false. (I've also had pictures that didn't get any 3/3's, although the average ratings weren't as high as these top 6 photos.) I don't think any of these 6 were nudes, either, for what that is worth.

    Now, the question of why nude lovers should rate abstract photos 3/3 and is that fair. The problem is that there is NO form of rating that is going to be considered fair by everyone. In fact, everyone here wants to have their photos rated "higher than average". Practically every complaint about the rating systems is because the complainer's photos were rated too lowly. The only solution that would satisfy everyone on that account is if every rating is a 7/7, and that's not hardly a fair rating system, either.

    When you submit a photo for ratings, you're getting the opinions of a bunch of strangers. That's informative. It's not definitive, and doesn't necessarily tell you a shot is good or bad, but tells you if people liked it or not. If they didn't like it, you don't know if it's a personal grudge against you, or a bias against a whole genre of work, or whether they like that kind of work, but just didn't care for your shot or what. You don't know if they are expert photographers or newbies (unless the system tells you.)

    You probably can find sites where pictures you post will receive only praise, but I question the usefulness of that, as well. I've got friends that I can show a good picture to, and they think it's good. And I can show 'em crap, and they still think it's good. That's just not too informative.
     
  10. trw

    trw

    I think they should re-allow the 1's and 2's, but scale each rating by the rater's recent
    average. Thus the people who always give 1/1's would really just be giving 4/4's in most
    cases. It would make it hard to game the system but those photos that really deserve a 2/2
    would get it.
     
  11. I agree with Trent. I virtually never rate, or ask for critique, am a total duffer, but all this hand wringing over 3/3 seems silly. If we have a scale of 1 to 7 why not use the whole scale, and use it without all this angst: they're just pictures.
     
  12. For some people they are not just picture. They are extensions of a fragile ego. An insult to the picture is a personal insult.

    It should not be that way, but it helps to understand things if you accept that it is.

    1 and 2 ratings were removed because of the intense angst such ratings generated. 3 isn't much better.

    I've long suggested we should have a scale that runs from 6 to 10 instead of 3 to 7, for no other reason than people would feel better about getting a 6 than they do about getting a 3, even if they mean exactly the same thing. Up to now nobody has ever listened to me, but it doesn't stop me making the suggestion.
     
  13. I've followed this issue ever since I joined PN and am convinced that the ratings should be the same as a horse race: Win, Place, Show, & Also Ran! The problem would be that the same whiners who object to the 1's, 2s, & 3's would probably also object to Also Ran!
     
  14. I've followed this issue ever since I joined PN and am convinced that the ratings should be the same as a horse race: Win, Place, Show, & Also Ran! The problem would be that the same parties who snivel over the 1's, 2s, & 3's would probably also object to Also Ran!
     
  15. I think the rating system is too easily manipulated , by a number of ways , and its not controled by PN as much as it should be , and there will always be flaws , but MUCH room for improvement exists . I hope they come up with some solutions. The rating system is now as I see it of little value, due to inconsistancy . Comments are more valueable , but ratings also give the comment its weight. I think there are many options for changes and they have been heard many times already by many, so perhaps PN will finally make some positive moves . Improvement is what many would like to see happen .Maybe there will be some coming? Happy new year!
     
  16. I'm pretty new around here but it didn't take long to realise that there are issues with the ratings. This is the case for other photo sites too. Anyway, my question is why can people rate without being identified?
     
  17. Matt- in the old days, they didn't have anonymous ratings, and if you rated someone's photo with a (deservedly) low rating, they could come back and rate yours low. Or conversely, you get a mate-rating system where I rate yours high in hopes of you rating my shot high. The anonymous system was installed to prevent those abuses (which were also the subject of endless complaints). You don't just choose to rate anonymously; if you go into the "rate photo" queue, your ratings are anonymous. If you pull someone up, go to their portfolio and rate a shot, it's not.
     
  18. So, what about those really evil people who look at your images and don't rate them at all, essentially giving you a ZERO! They are really THE most evil ones, and how many of them are out there? Don't forget: folks who rate your images are taking the time to look at them, perhaps even for a while.
     
  19. I'm nor sure I have ever had a photo rated, that didn't have at least one 3/3. It has always made me curious, and a bit frustrated, as they are always anonymous. This deprives me of seeing their work, so I might learn something from it, as they fail to offer any constructive criticism. All Art is purely subjective, so the numbers carry little weight with me. Constructive criticism from knowledgeable artists, possibly those that hand out the 3's, could be of inestimable value, if in fact, they do posess the talent. Just something I've often wondered about.
     
  20. I am pretty new to this forum, but I have already had some frustrating experiences with 3/3 ratings. It was especially hard to take when I had photos on the top page, with a lot of 6 to 7 ratings, and then somebody (apparently) took the effort to run it down and nail it with a 3/3 to knock it off of the top page. I guess I'll have to learn to just ignore some of those ratings that I think are suspect :)
     
  21. I think the rating method must be modified and enhaced to make something agains abuse or misuse, just an idea comes to my head right now that there must be only good ratings like this "good, very good, astonishing" and maybe the score for them are 1,2,3 and the final score multiplied the rating average by the number of raters that means many of people think that this is a good photo ,and for bad photos ,just put a comment on and the lower number of rates means that thisis not a good photo !
    just an on minute idea.
    but this is not the only idea for modifying the PN rating system ,one of the friends said that the 6 photos on the top page dont have 3/3 ,its a kind of strange ,cause in every photo of the week we have , even with photos that if you just one day going to take a photograph youll find out the hard process of taking that kinda photo , and i think there must not be anonymous ratings ,maybe someone rate your photo 3/3 and just put some -3/-3 photos on PN and think those are great , a person with bad artistic view not only thinks his photos are great but also thinks the other photographers artistic photos are bad ,so we have to identify who rate me that ,if he is a great photographer ok ,my work is bad and i have to improve it ,thanks for the PN to make me understand and ill improve my work , but if their photos are just very very ordinary family photos , then i think so what ,that doesnt lower the value of my photo if i get hundereds of that kind of ratings , why are we here ? because of learning (at least to me) and even if our photo get 7/7 we are not gonna get a 25000$ prize ! even 1$ prize, so the problem is this abusement of rating system makes me confused in my process of learning.
     
  22. " . . . even if our photo get 7/7 we are not gonna get a 25000$ prize !"

    For years, management thought this was true. Turns out that quite a few people have sold prints, usage rights, etc. of images that got a lot of exposure from the system.

    When Phil took over several months ago, we were told that the gallery would be revamped in some way, although it was a low priority. Recently we were told that changes would be forthcoming, but strangely, nobody is willing to give us any details. Arguments about gaming a system that has transparent rules is valid, but insufficient.
     
  23. My suggestion is for PN to issue another icon for members who have shown consistency and
    fairness in their comments and ratings. This I hope will minimize complaints of those whose
    fragile egos cannot stand negative comments and low ratings. Their names can be hidden or
    not but the icon is shown.
     
  24. someone is spamming 3/3 ratings, i just posted and three 3/3 within seconds
     
  25. Here is how the Rating System really works here. First we Know you want all 7/7's So what do you have to do? well Make alot of freinds here ,Rate only there Pictures and of corse with only 7/7's Then go to the top Of the Trp and find the People you Do not know and there Pictures got a better rating and give them a 3/3 even if there Picture is better. that how the rating system works here....follow these Guide Lines and you will Move higher in the TRP........:D
     
  26. I wish they'd get rid of the anon ratings and make it manditory to leave a comment. It would just make all of the ratings that much more valid. I've recieved 3/3's that I've probably not earned. My last upload had a few of them, but some time last night or this morning all but one of them were removed. So obviously the admins are checking and trying to keep things fair and I applaud that.

    But at the same time there are some 3/3's handed out by people with an axe to grind, and on the other end of the spectrum there are 7/7's handed out by people with an agenda as well. If people were forced to articulate why my shot is either so poor that it only deserves a 3/3 or why my shot is so outstanding as to rate a 7/7 it makes the rating that much more meaningful and makes it possible for me to learn from it. And if someone can't say why my shot is so great or so poor then it makes it easy for to dismiss that rating as well.
     
  27. My guess is that if people were forced to leave a meaningful comment (something other than "it sucks" or "wow"), you'd see about 10% of the rating you currently do. Many (if not most) images would receive no ratings (or comments).

    Then there's the problem of making people leave a meaningful comment. Not quite sure how you do that. If you require a minimum of 100 words, you're not going to get any ratings or comments at all on the vast majority of images.

    And yes, we look for ratings abusers both automatically and manually and we find most (if not all) of them and their ratings are removed.
     
  28. just look at this its really pain in the ass : http://www.photo.net/photo/5408916
     
  29. just another idea come to my head , when someone rates the photo with low rating ,he had to wirte a comment ,and the comment must be accepted by the photographer or other active members. that means we wanted to have useful comments, and if they accept the comment ,the rater will get a point of useful comments and after a minimum if points reached the user is free to rate ,this will guarantee that if you get a rating ,the rater have really good ideas about photography.
    the thing we must pay attention to is the comments on photos with negative feedbacks must be considered as pointful photos because if the positive feedbacks counts, the rater just go to top photos and open all photos and just type : "wow great shot!" and thats it !

    the second think just came to my head is , when we love a photo ,usually its a photo that we can communicate with ,and when we do not like a photo , we dont really have an idea about the subject ! or the photo is bad executed . the point is we have the right to rate only when the photo is not well executed ,and when we cannot understand the photo subject we dont have the right to rate that photo low.
     
  30. Anyone can rate. If you don't understand an image, that's fine. If the photographer didn't communicate an idea with the image, the photographer failed (if that was their goal) and so the image deserves a low rating if you don't like it.

    There is no OBJECTIVE standard by which images can be judged. Everything is subjective. The rating is nothing more than YOUR subjective opinion on aesthetics and originality.

    Basically it's a beauty contest. Expecting anything more is unreasonable unless you have a panel of academically qualified professional art critics doing the rating. Even then you're going to disagree with them.
     
  31. just watch this :
    http://www.photo.net/photo/5402770

    and how it gets a lot of 7/7 im confused !
     
  32. I don't know if this has a direct bearing on the 3/3 issue. but today I happened to check my VIEW RATINGS page, and there is something radically wrong.
    I noticed many names with which I was not familiar, and started loading the photographs.I had never seen them, nor rated them.
    After the first couple, I decided to go through the entire list, as I had checked the date, and both were OCT. 5/2006.
    I found "19" entries I had never before Seen, Critiqued, or Rated, and all on that same date. 5 OCT. 2006.
    At first, I was looking for 3/3's and 4/4's, but I noticed that many had higher ratings.
    I don't know what is happening or how, as I'm not that computer literate, but I never forget a picture, good or bad, and never rate without commenting.To me, either there is a bug in the system, or someone is manipulating it. It's well beyond my expertise, but all, with two exceptions, I had never before, seen, commented or rated.
     
  33. Bob Atkins: "My guess is that if people were forced to leave a meaningful comment (something other than "it sucks" or "wow"), you'd see about 10% of the rating you currently do. Many (if not most) images would receive no ratings (or comments).

    Then there's the problem of making people leave a meaningful comment. Not quite sure how you do that. If you require a minimum of 100 words, you're not going to get any ratings or comments at all on the vast majority of images."

    I understand that sir, but I think any comment at all would be an illuminating one. If someone just posts 'wow' or 'this sucks' you can automatically pretty much in your mind strike that 3/3 or 7/7 off. You know that the person probably doesn't really know why they either like or hate it. If someone leaves a comment then you can tell if they are rating it low because they hate the subject, are in a pissy mood, or if there are real problems with the photo.

    Everything might be subjective, but at the same time different types of photography can be as different as night and day. Insect/macro photography doesn't exactly spin my wheels, but it wouldn't be fair for me to go into the insect forum anonyomously and leave 3/3's all over the place because they are 'pictures of bugs'. That wouldn't be fair or right, but at least if I was forced to leave a comment even anonyomously people would know where I'm coming from.
     
  34. If you are happy with your pictures, you shouldn't bother with getting bad ratings once in a while... I mean, we're not in a competition or something! Just listen to good advices that some give. I had a look at your portfolio and loved some of your shots, so keep on shooting and sharing, that's the most important
     
  35. Donald, thanks for viewing some of my shots. But I'm not sure if you understand my motives behind uploading pictures for critique. My goal isn't to get better ratings than other posters, my goal is to learn. And there is nothing to learn from an anon 3/3 rating.
     
  36. and after all i hope some of the PN admins come and answer us or think of a better way of rating !

    i think if the system force the rater to leave a comment even if the comments is WOW or IT SUCKS ! it has two benefits, first it makes the people to first think a lot and rate with reasons because if you just say it sucks and rate 3/3 then instead the photographer makes a revenge and rate your 3/3 ! the second benefit is the process of learning getting more helpful , someone says for example the composition is bad and then rate you 4/4 . it helps you to go after learning composition . yes its true the number of ratings may be decreases but a few helpful ratings worth a lot of meaningless and anon ratings :)
     
  37. Amir,
    I totally agree with you. What is a bad rating worth without feedback. It's like teachers giving
    their pupils bad gredes without explaining nor teaching. At least I joined PN in order to learn
    more, and in some cases to help others with problems I have struggled with in the past. You
    shouldn't worry though, I have seen quite some nice pictures in your portfolio, and nice
    comments too. There are always people around who think that anyone could have made that
    picture, but then better.
    Camillo
     
  38. Bob,

    I like your idea of expanding the scale. The range in the skill levels of the photographers is increasing on the site. Having more room at the top would allow for meaningful discrimination amongst the semi-pro's and pros and also a sense of accomplishment for the amateurs and advanced amateurs. This would create a more robust community. To make it work though there would have to be some sort of good and clear set of guidelines "10" means an unforgettable shot..think the Afghan girl, "9" top of the gamut shot -- publishable in the best publications, exceptional technical and creative quality, "8" very good shot, publishable in many media, no technical faults, creatively well conceived but not unique, and so on to where 4 is the normal good snapshot -- reasonably well exposed, no fatal technical flaws, and 3 means fatal technical flaws and lack of articstic merit.
     
  39. I wasn't suggesting expanding the scale, just shifting it.

    There have been studies on rating schemes and they show that too many options are bad. I think the optimum number of levels is in the 5-7 range.

    Given the difficulty of rating art on a numerical scale, I'd opt for 5 levels at most. Below average (6), average (7), above average (8), good (9) and very good (10) pretty much covers it all.

    In fact 3 levels (good, average and below average) might be enough.

    Asking people to think too much isn't always productive.
     
  40. mls

    mls

    I have received a variety of ratings, including some 3/3 ratings, and probably rightfully so since I am a beginner and most of my photos are my first attempts at photography. Being new to the site I don't believe any of them are 'personal' or 'grudges' against me for any reason. However, for those who do think that, maybe all photographer names should be left off of the photos in the rating section and be available if the rater clicks on the photo to go to it's actual page where it would show up as it does now.

    I do, however, often wonder why some of my photos have lower averages then others because I receive very few comments to know what they did or did not like and what I need to work on. I like the idea of being required to leave a comment for a 3/3 rating, but also for a 7/7 rating. Feedback about what is well done can be as beneficial as knowing what is not well done. I can see that that may cause people to avoid leaving 3/3 or 7/7 ratings though because they would have to enter a comment (in essence changing the main scale to 4-6) or cause people to leave comments such as '...' or 'it's nice', etc.

    On the other hand, being a beginner, I usually find myself feeling unqualified and out of place critiquing a photo better than any of my own and sometimes hesitate to leave comments myself, so I really can't complain about not receiving many comments.
     
  41. How about having everyone that rates, forced to leave a comment. If they have to explain their rating, they may not be so apt to rate low and if they do explain, then at least you get some input as to why they rated it low.
     
  42. I have occasionally seen a run on 3/3's, i.e. it seems like a single person just hit the Rate button and just systematically put a 3/3 onto every single photo - one time I was looking and there was a run of at least 20 3/3 ratings (only one on each of the 20 photos). I think the moderators probably watch those closely though.

    BTW, what are the rules on giving out 7/7's?
     

Share This Page

1111