3 / 3 Raters, If You Can Spare A Minute...

<p><br />When you dish out a 3 / 3 you mean:<br /><br /><br />1) The image scores 3 / 7 in your view. In other words it's slightly less than mediocre.</p>

<p>2) Since ratings of 1 and 2 are not counted, the image scores 1 / 5 in your view. In other words it's the quintessence of point and shoot rubbish.</p>

<p>3) Something else.<br /><br /><br />Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

<p>I think the Admins do it because they just haven't seen enough of the "why 3/3" threads yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"1) The image scores 3 / 7 in your view. In other words it's <em>slightly less than mediocre</em> ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Your math is bad. '3' is "below average". Look at the radio buttons in the rating interface. '4' is AVG (average). '4' is the mid-point between 1 and 7. Therefore '3' means below average.</p>

<p>"Mediocre" would qualify for a '2' or lower score.</p>

<p>A more pointed question might be <em>"Why can't some people accept that someone else might think a photo scores "below average" given the standards of high quality work uploaded to this site"</em> ?</p>

<p>I don't rate, but I don't see that it is too difficult to figure out that when you get the lowest possible score, that will be counted, someone didn't thing your photograph was very good.</p>

<p>I only rate 3 when the photo pisses me off. Eg. too pretentious ones.</p>

<p>Usually even if it's crappy pictures but as long as it's honest I will give at least 4. But then again I don't rate pictures that often anymore.</p>

<p><<em>please,not again.....</em> ></p>

<p>Shouldn't that be:</p>

<p>When you dish out a 3 / 3 you mean:</p>

<p>1) Since I'm a clueless beginner who's lived in a cave all my life, I can't tell the difference between your work of art and a bad photo.</p>

<p>2) I'm a sad, pathetic little person who can only make it through the day by posting hurtful ratings on people who are better than me.</p>

<p>3) I hate you and the horse you rode in on. Die! Die! Die!</p>

 

<p>Michael L, I'm having trouble making sense of your post.</p>

<p>Michael F, you misunderstood me. I meant mediocre in direct relation to the high standards of this site.</p>

<p>The P/N Servers generate random 3/3's so that more threads like this will be posted. Keeps the forums looking busy.</p>

<p>Don't look at me. I quit rating photos last month after reading too much whining and drama here and in the feedbag forum.</p>

<p>I tried, but too many folks on photo.net don't want honest feedback in any form, whether ratings or critiques. They want affirmation of what they already believe, unfettered praise and someone to pat 'em on the head and stick their purty pitchers on the refrigerator door.</p>

<p>If you want honest ratings and critiques, you'll have to personally invite someone to do so, and learn to graciously accept their feedback. I did that several years ago when I invited the colorful and cantankerous .[.Z to rate my entire portfolio. He did. Mostly 4/4's. And he was absolutely correct. Most of my portfolio was very average - competent, but nothing special.</p>

<p>If you prefer gratuitous praise, just look for the high raters. Join their club. They're a cheerful bunch and always happy to accommodate new members to their mutual admiration societies. You don't even need to go to Flickr anymore. We've got the same thing here.</p>

<p>JDM, my apologies if this is repetitive.</p>

<p>My goal is merely to gauge whether most people's idea of 3 is closer to mediocre or disastrous.</p>

<p>If your goal is taking good or excellent photos, is the distinction between mediocre and disastrous really important?</p>

<p>Excellent list, Mike. Except it's missing:<br>

<br /><br>

4) I'm just honest and you just stink.<br>

<br /><br>

That's the mindset of most people who drop 3 / 3 on me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Michael L, I'm having trouble making sense of your post.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See JDM's or Sams posts....same thing.</p>

<p><em>My goal is merely to gauge whether most people's idea of 3 is closer to mediocre or disastrous.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

If you get some responses it will be so far from a representative sample that there is no way you reliably attain your goal. Since there are no reponses from such people and there likely will not be any, the whole excercise is futile.</p>

<p>You will be better off not fretting about the meaning behind ratings. Generally the better images will be rated higher, the not so better, lower. There will be many deviations for many reasons, rational or not. If you must know details of what people think of your images, follow the suggestion above and find people to give you detailed critiques. Wondering about the meaning behind ratings is pointless.</p>

<p>Outstanding post, Lex.</p>

<p>I think your thoughts should be published as a disclaimer that appears whenever a critique request is about to be submitted.</p>

<p>3/3's, in general, suffer precisely the same problem that 4/4's, 5/5's, 6/6's, and 7/7's have.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When I give a 3/3 it usually means the photo has a little less of something in the quality I would expect, such as OOF, crooked horizon or maybe exposure is off. Also that the photographer didn't give much thought to lighting or composition. I consider most 3/3's to be a lower than average snapshot. I went to look at your portfolio and I wouldn't give you many 3/3's, but I found it annoying to have to go through so many folders with just 1 photo in most. Because of that I didn't take the time to rate. Just my opinion and trying to be helpful.</p>

<p>Mike, I am curious.</p>

<p>Besides, I don't know if I should aim for more than mediocrity by photo.net's standards because, speaking honestly, the ability to attain excellence simply isn't there.</p>

I like Mike's 1 - 3 explanation of the motives of the all-pervading 3/3. I do wonder if the malevolent 3/3ers outnumber the sycophantic 7/7ers. It is kinda funny (funny ha-HA and funny peculiar).

<p>"Since ratings of 1 and 2 are not counted"</p>

<p>They count, you just cannot see them.</p>

<p>Calvin, like most newbies, you worry about ratings too much. If you keep plugging away, you will move out of the grasshopper stage and into a Zen like state where you will be able to dismiss 3/3's with a "I am sure that if they had a more sophisticated knowledge of photography they would have rated my photos much higher". The only caveat is that you have to treat 7/7's the same way as in "I am sure that if the rater had a more sophisticated knowledge of photography he would have never given me a 7/7". </p>

5) "I am" boy/girl of the clique ****** rules (* hint geography) all the rest take 1/1, 2/2, 3/3.

<p>I stopped rating. Next move is to only submit for critique only. I only care for comments...the ratings are just hogwash. Especially the anonymous ones. If you can't stamp your name next to the rating, then you're too chicken to show me you meant it. Therefore, you didn't. Thanks for looking at least :-).</p>

<p>FWIW: That goes for ANY rating, not just bad ones. If you want to give it a 7/7, put your name on it.</p>