6s and 7s

<p>I have been noticing a few photographs and photographers are receiving a suspicious amount of 6s and 7s recently. This site does seem to place an emphasis on ratings rather than critiques although most of us are submitting our images for critique. I have said it before, critiques / comments should be mandatory if someone wants to rate an image. I wonder if anyone else agrees with me.</p>

<p>I do not wish to single out any photographer or image but this does seem to make a mockery of the ratings system that the site seems to treasure so much.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=9181108">http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=9181108</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>This site does seem to place an emphasis on ratings rather than critiques although most of us are submitting our images for critique.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry David, that isn't true. The number of images that are submitted just for critique is DWARFED by the number of images that are submitted for ratings/critique.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have said it before, critiques / comments should be mandatory if someone wants to rate an image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I have said before, that will not happen as far as I am concerned. I'm not trading complaints about ratings for complaints about how badly people write their "forced" critiques. The ratings system is the ratings system and the critique system is the critique system. Looking for education out of numbers is like trying to get blood from a stone. There isn't any there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not wish to single out any photographer or image but this does seem to make a mockery of the ratings system that the site seems to treasure so much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The site doesn't care about ratings. The ONLY thing we use them for is as a part of the "general popularity' metric that we use to display some nice images in places like the "daily sampling". The users are the ones who obsess over the ratings. in fact, if it weren't so popular, I'd be completely happy getting rid of the ratings system all together. It does nothing but get me insulting emails, accusatory forum posts, and huge headaches.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=9181108">http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=9181108</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The same person (or persons) who used to screw with ratings sytem via "bots" has now found a new method for fun which is to rate random nude images highly. I have no doubt that many of those ratings will be removed tomorrow. And even if they were not fake, nude images get more and higher ratings. That's just the way nature programmed us. That is why we have the "all - no nudes" filter for those who would rather not look at nudes.</p>

David;

That's only one 'out to lunch' rating, and yes it is way out to lunch. I could link to a dozen images by a dozen separate photographers some of which have upwards of 20 , 7/7's which by any objective photographic standard are laughable crap. I won't do that publicly, although I wish someone would. However drop me a line and I'll gladly putsome links in an e-mail if you do not already know what I am talking about.

As for PN and asking for ratings with your request for critique, If you do not ask for rating you'll get much less response to your image and likely little or no critique. Without ratings attached to your image it will never show up in any PN top this or top that categories either, so although PN does not " care " about ratings, they are often used to decide which images get attention and which images do not.

<p>I understand David's comment as I posted some images last week and saw 45 ratings averaging 6.25/6.25. I knew I had been a victim of the high rating bot and was pleased when Josh and crew removed them. I also understand Josh's comment about useless critiques. The last thing I want is a bunch of "Nice shot!" comments so someone can give me a rating.<br>

I have received many useful comments. I have not always agreed with them but have always learned from what they said. I am curious about what happened to the idea of rewarding useful critiques?</p>

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>I really didn't want you to go into this in such detail however I think you misunderstand me. In order to get a rating, you have to submit your photograph for critique. Sure! There is an option for those that want a critique only. If there are people who want ratings only, there should be an option for them to chose this. I don't think many would choose this option. My quest on this site is to encourage people to critique images. I realise I may be banging my head against the wall but I am ever hopeful.</p>

"... the ratings system that the site seems to treasure so much."

I can't speak for the "site" but if the ratings system went away, it wouldn't other me one way or the other.

<blockquote>

<p>If there are people who want ratings only, there should be an option for them to chose this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is coming. The systems will be much more seperated moving forward.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This site does seem to place an emphasis on ratings rather than critiques</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might get that impression from reading this forum, but it's not true if by "the site" you mean those running the site. What may be true is that there is a vocal minoirty of <em>users</em> who place a large emphasis on ratings, hence all the complaints about 3s, anonymous ratings etc.</p>

<p>The rating are just a beauty contest. Be glad you don't have to answer questions about gay marriage to get your final score.</p>

<p>A photographer who values critiques but who objects to the ratings system is like a fisherman who uses a cast net to catch mullet objecting to people catching catfish in a stock pond. Why do you care how other people get their fish? How does their activity hinder your enjoyment of what you prefer to do?</p>

<p>A lot of folks really enjoy the ratings and TRP. So let them enjoy themselves. The only relevant objection is toward gaming the system, to the detriment of those who play fairly. And Josh has repeatedly affirmed that whenever cheating is noticed it is resolved. So why object to something that gives other people pleasure?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So why object to something that gives other people pleasure?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeez, Lex, you must be some kind of anarchist or libertarian or both. From the earliest days of the Pilgrims in Plymouth, the Quakers hanged in Boston, to the more recent fuss over other people's sex lives -- objecting to some pleasures you're not willing to share is a staple of the American WAY.</p>

<p>(I do note that when I get lucky, I'm heterosexual, FWIW)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeez, Lex, you must be some kind of anarchist or libertarian or both.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Close. Libertine would be more appropriate for me.</p>

<p>

<blockquote >

<p >If there are people who want ratings only, there should be an option for them to chose this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >That is coming. The systems will be much more seperated moving forward.</p>

I, for one, await that day. Then perhaps I won't feel I'm hitting my head against a brick wall when critiquing. And it will save me a huge amount of angst.

</p>

<p>Agree with David, when i started using the site, I found nice ratings very flattering, but having looked around at the sort of shots that generate good scores, there are a few easy formulas to follow to get them, and often a lack of any good photography. My particular grind at the moment is shots of old men with nice beards, black and white with a little sharpening and highlighting - these get huge ratings. I am much more interested in thought demonstrated in a shot, or a strong expression of character.<br>

Equally, giving proper critiques is a valuable gift if done well. I search out the best photographers and see how they criticize good looking photos, and when they come up with a list of 10 things that could be looked at in a shot that already looks good, that is valuable.</p>