3/3 AND WHY ?

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 .

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 . . . :)

<em>Why doesn't PN force a comment from those that are so insitent to give a 3 rating.</em>

<P>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 :-)

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.

" . . . 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.

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.

someone is spamming 3/3 ratings, i just posted and three 3/3 within seconds

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