3/3 ratings--as revenge?!

Now let me explain: I've never been opposed to giving someone a 3/3 if the picture

deserved it, but I usually try to leave helpful and encouraging suggestions. The

thing is after I do this, I often see anonymous low ratings on my photos when

others rate them generally highly. I just posted "Coronado Bridge" which had a

5/6, then suddenly the average was reduced with a 3/3. Maybe the image

deserves it, maybe not. Does anyone else have similar suspicious "revenge

ratings?" Am I crazy for thinking adults actually do this stuff? Good thing MY self-

confidence doesn't rely on numbers...

Hi Tim. I've had the same experience, some "adults" in this forum really do it. I rated one picture, I think 3/4. After that the person asked me why and as I'm polite I told my reasons. I guess he wasn't satisfied with it. And now I'm on his list of "Interesting people". Since then all my pictures always have one 3/3 rating, anonymous of course. But well, my life too is somewhere else than in photo.net. I use this practically just that my friends can follow what I'm photographing.

Of course people hand out low ratings as revenge. Why do you think we don't count the

1's and 2's.

 

It's one reason why we can't have a logical ratings system. People aren't logical. Some

are petty and childish and we have to take that into account. There are lots of features

we could have if people could be trusted to behave in a responsible and adult manner.

Unfortunately, through past experience, we've found that we can't.

Good to know Bob. I was already wondering why the 1 and 2 ratings I've given to some pictures didn't appear. But with the comment "Of course people hand out low ratings as revenge." I can't agree, I just don't nuderstand it. I believe I'm part of the youngest group of contributors to this forum and for me it's hard to understand that grown-up, married men with children get a kick from taking a revenge on some photo forum in internet.

In addition to revenge raters, there's an even bigger group of "it must be a revenge rating" receivers--people who can't believe that a below-average rating on their photos could be the result of anything other than revenge or jealousy. To be fair, though, some are willing to entertain the idea that below-average ratings might also come from complete beginners who are incapable of distinguishing between good and bad photos.

 

It is safe to say, however, that below-average ratings never come from experienced photographers with high standards who simply, without malice, didn't like the photo in question.

Bob, thanks for your input. You bring up a good point.

Mike, you present the other side of the coin, and I think you have a valid point. I'm not a great photographer, but generally I know when I've done something good and when I haven't. I guess the idea is to not become carried away with numbers.

Tim, bear with me here because all I can offer is a glimpse into one person's view of the ratings game.

 

I give out quite a few 3/3 ratings, and some even lower, tho' the photographer never sees 'em. But it's never revenge or anything personal. Heck, I don't know most of the folks whose photos I'm rating.

 

Photo.net tends to be divided into distinct communities - those who participate on the discussion forums and those who are interested mainly in displaying their photos, getting feedback, and appreciating others' photos. There doesn't appear to be much overlap. I can't play favorites because very few of the folks I've chattered with for years on the discussion forums even bother uploading photos for critiques.

 

But we do have fairly high standards here. What might be considered an average photo by most standards would be below average by photo.net standards. And that's as it should be. So if a 4/4 rating is average in terms of originality and aesthetics, 3/3 would be just below average. A pretty picture of a puppy or kitten or orchid is just another out of thousands of similar photos here. By definition, it's average at best, and below average if it fails to meet minimal standards for competency. Not excellence - competency. If there's any flaw, it might be considered below average.

 

And all of that is assuming the viewer holds the same standards I do. Which, obviously, they don't. And they shouldn't. These are opinions, a valid form of feedback reduced to a simple numerical expression.

 

When someone rates a photo 3/3, they may simply not care for that genre. While it may not necessarily be trite or commonplace, it may hold no special interest for them. Now, I will say that those people probably should stick to rating only photos that they understand, rather than rating photos that are beyond their understanding or interest level. But that's not how it works, so there's not much point worrying about it.

 

I will confess that recently I've begun to rate certain photos lower than I normally would for one reason: the photo clearly does not belong in the category to which it was submitted.

 

For example, take the Street Photography category. I see photos that make absolutely no sense in this category. I see photos that are, quite literally, of the street. No signs of life. No evidence the photographer is interested in the human condition. Not so much as a gum wrapper carelessly discarded into an otherwise pristine, newly swept street. Just a literal photo of a street. I'm not going to debate semantics. That is *not* street photography. I don't care how beautifully exposed the photo was, it's misplaced when submitted as such to the wrong critique category. So I've begun to rate such photos lower than I might otherwise have if they were properly categorized, or even uncategorized.

 

And since ratings below 3/3 are not counted toward anything other than the rater's own average, I've cut back on giving out lower ratings. Instead, if I see a photo that is far below average, I'll tend to rate it 3/3. Why? Because many people have been asking for more ratings. Not better ratings. Just more ratings. These ratings confirm to them that someone, anyone, has been viewing their photos in some form of critical manner. I feel that I owe it to them to say, yes, I saw your photo, yes, I felt compelled to offer some feedback in terms of a numerical expression, and no, I'm sorry, I don't care for this photo.

 

Should I explain why I don't care for every photo? Nope. There aren't enough hours in the day. I could have rated dozens more photos in the time it took me to write this post. But you seem like a reasonable fellow and I think this explanation will do more good than another dozen or so 4/4 ratings.

 

If I see potential for improvement I'll offer a comment. The photo appears too murky, oversharpened, has some flaws but obviously has potential, sure, I'll offer a comment. But for folks who are floundering around trying to figure out how to use their cameras? Nope. The critique forum is not a substitute for lessons and experience. Too many people submit photos for critiques that are not even remotely ready to be displayed. Sometimes, that's what a 3/3 means when there's no accompanying explanation. Sometimes not.

 

For the same reason I seldom offer comments to accompany my occasional 6/6 and higher ratings. They don't need additional praise when it's merely gratuitous. But if I believe other raters got it very wrong or other critiques are clearly written by numbskulls, sure, I'll explain why my critique is the one and only correct opinion.

 

Does that make it any more valid? Nope. It's still just my opinion.

 

BTW, the Coronado Bridge photo? I'd have given it a 4 for originality and 5 for aesthetics. It's pretty good. And I have fond memories of that place. I think I still have sand in my shoes from doing the dying cockroach after the obstacle course.

it is interesting that you talked about revealing further truths about the human condition in street photography. i think all photography, if we see it as an expressive medium worth preserving, should aspire that. in reality, this group of disparate people comprises of the lay amateur, the serious amateur, the professional, the aspiring artist, the busy fool and the likes of me, with little talent but with an interest in the potential of photography. we see pictures differently. there are different criteria that attracts us to a composition and for that matter, some know little about composition. so it would be impossible to attach any degree of uniformity in judging what is good or what might be thought of as good. so the only way to approach this topic of rating would be not to rate and not to submit for rating at all. until there is a formal panel of judges who go through the submitted pictures, there would always be manipulation of ratings for petty rivalry.

<I>"...but generally I know when I've done something good and when I haven't.</I>

<P>

That's a good philosophy Tim, but remember that you and the rest of PN may or may not be in agreement.

As an example, I have no idea who you are and have never rated an image but if I did and I came a cross your "Coronado Bridge (2)", It would not fair well (2/2). This has nothing to do with you or your opinion of the image and everything to do with my personal aesthetic.

<P>

The ratings are blunt tools, never forget that.

I hope that people do not stoop so low as to want revenge for a low rating. Of course, it is possible. I try to give honest ratings, and by that I mean how a particular photograph affects me. When I first started out with my ratings I was brutally honest. If I thought something deserved a 3/3 or lower, that's what I gave it. However, recently I've found myself only rating the photographs that I think are good. If I don't think it would rate at least a 4/4 then I do not rate it at all. I've even gone back and looked at photographs that I have posted and, in hindsight, thought I should not have posted them because if I were to rate them now they would get rated at a 3/3 or below. My photography is just for my enjoyment, but I know that if I subject it to criticism that it should only get better, which is my ultimate goal. If I receive ratings that are lower than I anticipated, I look at the photograph again to see if I can see how to improve on it. I guess it makes me look at my photographs more critically before posting the next one.

Richard, I'm with you. I think I'll stop giving low ratings in favor of simply commenting on what the person could have done better. I think as photographers we'd all prefer comments, rather than ratings.

"I think as photographers we'd all prefer comments, rather than ratings."

 

Not all. A lot of folks on photo.net really enjoy the ratings game. They understand it's all about the numbers. Even if they get an occasional 3/3, as long as they're getting lots of ratings they have a better chance of making it to the Top Rated photos display. So for those people it serves a purpose, even when the ratings are occasionally lower than average.

...which is a problem. The only way to get visibility is to put your photo up for ratings.