A new idea to resolve the rating resentment...

I noticed that the problem with ratings is still prominent in our

discussions. It is obvious that the issue calls for the

re-introduction of - d u e l - in our society or at least this site...

As our moral standards and precious values increasingly erode by the

undermining tactics of low-raters... this is the fine moment to make

new rules:

 

Any photographer who feels insulted by a low-rater or not satisfied by

the given exlanations should be allowed to call the latter person in a

duel... cameras, lenses and place.. sorry, topic might be chosen by

the low-rater. I believe this will resolve the issue once and for all..

I have a more serious suggestion: conceal the photographer's name until after the rating/critique is given. That way, vindictive rating isn't possible and we'll get more honest feedback.

Christos- While I appreciate and understand your tongue-in-cheek humor, I find it rather condescending and trite. Especially considering that I now realize from your recent comments directed specifically at me, that you don't appreciate honest, polite critique & ratings of your own images.

 

Sometimes, tongue-in-cheek humor is not all that humorous. Especially when it's happening to you.

 

I have my camera and lens ready!

<i><blockquote> "I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a

duel." </i>

<p>

 

-- "Zig Zag" Zell Miller, 2004 </blockquote> <p>

How about delaying the revealing of the raters name until 24 hrs after the rate is given? A photo in the critique forum should have a few ratings by that time, so the ratee cannot track the raters - they just get an out of order list of names 24 hrs after the first rating is given.

how about people just getting over getting a bad review.......it seems to me that the "back patting" reviews and the "malicious low rater" reviews are pretty even. So, your overall score should balance out.

 

Btw - from what I've seen of two of the low raters mentioned lately :[Z and Faith (something)........they're not that far off. The really low scores I've seen from both of them were pretty accurate........especially when contrasted to the really high scores from them. Actually I think them two are being pretty realistic about the ratings they give. There will of course be exceptions, but in the past 3 days I've spent some time looking this issue over and my conclusion so far is people should take the low ratings and correct their mistakes........esp from Z and Faith

Thomas- I lean toward agreeing with you. The over-raters and under-raters seem to even most things out. Now since the rating is not next to the raters name, usually one has no way of knowing who gave who what rating, unless of course you are the first to rate the image.

 

The problem appears to arise when comments are made that the photographer does not like. I agree, one should be able to divorce one's self from their image. I am not my image and my image is not me. I believe in tactful, honest, helpful critique. That is what I want, that is what I give in return. There is no need to be rude or angry, that is not productive or helpful. But sadly, this is not the way the game is always played on PN. Members retaliate with low ratings and post nasty comments in anger. We should all act like adults and respond appropriately as adults.

So Jayme, how would you respond to this ??

 

[. Z http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons, jun 12, 2004; 05:23 p.m.

 

Keep playing with yourself, Patty. Seems you like doing it in public....

Dear Jayme

 

Please, don't misrepresent me... You say: "you don't appreciate honest, polite critique & ratings of your own images". This is totally wrong. I simply pointed out to you those different facets within my pictures that you seem not to take account of. Accordingly your opinion was not exactly a critique, rather an opinion, and mainly it hardly made justice to my work.

 

You and everyone is always welcome to offer an opinion, but despite honest intentions, which I appreciate, I might feel sometimes that basic points have been missed and wrong criteria are applied, so I reply back. This is called interaction and I guess everyone has the right to counter-argue when thinks his/her work is misrepresented. No bad feelings.

 

Dear people,

 

I share with everyone the potential distress around the issue of rating. And too often raised my voice to improve -if possible- the system. Yet, there are different distinct aproaches and the issue is intrinsically complicated (f.e. a concern against malicious rating or being upset for criticisms by people who don't appreciate or understand the photographer's intentions, genre etc. etc.). I feel that some self-sarcasm about how deeply and sometimes unproductively we are involved in it might be a good idea....

I like the overall concept of re-introducing the duel, but I think it would resolve the ratings complaints much more quickly if we stuck to the old-fashioned implements: pistols, swords, broken whiskey bottles, etc. Within a month, the number of people (and, subsequently, the number of posts) complaining about ratings should decrease dramatically. It might also provide those who think about complaining with some much-needed perspective regarding the issue.

<i><blockquote> I think it would resolve the ratings complaints much more quickly if

we stuck to the old-fashioned implements: pistols, swords, broken whiskey bottle

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

You may take the boy out of Nashville, but you'll never take Nashville out of the boy.

Gary- Z's comment was obviously not tactful, honest, or helpful. In this case he should be reported to PN abuse. The comment more then likely would have been removed and Z- warned appropriately. PN does make some attempts in retaining order.

 

Christos- I have written you an e-mail, which I hope wraps our discussion up.

 

 

But everyone should keep in mind, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Because this is a multilingual, multicultural website, there are naturally going to be misunderstandings. Making the effort through direct, non-threatening, non-insinuating communication is one's best choice.

And again Christos:

 

Just for comparison here are the definitions, thanks to Webster's Dictionary, of critique & opinion:

 

Critique: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly

 

Opinioin: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

 

A portion of your statement above:

"Accordingly your opinion was not exactly a critique, rather an opinion, and mainly it hardly made justice to my work."

 

 

Jayme Hall:

Christos- Your cow reminds me of our Pegasus horse's that dot the Louisville, KY landscape every May, just prior to the KY Derby. (I noted you have another one with flowers). I find the horses are a grotesque tribute to a Ky legend, the derby. However, many find them attractive? Many pay tens of thousands of dollars each year to have a particular artist(?) decorate their horse. Admittely, it does create interest and an air of excitement among the local people and many enjoy them. So, my evaluation of these groteque looking things is again, just my opinion. I say, "Let them eat cake!"

 

 

As far as your image, I hesitate to speculate it's meaning. I note it is well exposed, however I am neither fond of the composition nor the perspective view, he appears to be floating on air and seems too stationary for his obvious moving pose. As always, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ole!

 

 

To view the image in question, here's the address:

http://www.photo.net/photo/2935381

Jayme, thank you for the 'little' essays here and in the email... what can I say?... hm... I never thought you'd be so sensitive about this issue, and I'm sorry if hurt your feelings but don't you think you're over-reacting abit?... I have no problem with you, at all! Honestly! I don't need to read your essays to know that... and one word comes to mind...

 

mer?cy Audio pronunciation of "mercy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs)

n. pl. mer?cies

 

1. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency.

2. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.

3. Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: It was a mercy that no one was hurt.

4. Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy.

 

Idiom:

at the mercy of

Without any protection against; helpless before: drifting in an open boat, at the mercy of the elements.

 

(With love and a smile)

Christos

Dear Christos,

 

I believe you have an adequate use of the English language, but maybe not a complete understanding of it. It may not be possible to translate your artistic interpretations into short English titles and do them justice. I believe something important may be getting lost in the translation to English.

 

 

I think maybe the word "apology", is what you are searching for instead of mercy. Rest assured you did not hurt my feelings, I am glad I did not hurt yours, as that was never my intent. No apologies are needed. You appeared to me to became upset when I did not understand your social commentary. I see by others comments, I am not the only one that has had a problem understanding your concept. Do you plan on writing essays to all of us regarding our lack of comprehension? Your responses are also difficult to understand. They are not clear. Believe me, I am highly educated, and I am having a really hard time understanding your English responses.

 

I think maybe you may have to admit that your choice of English words, to title and explain your images, is not adequate to convey your meaning. As it stands titled, it means little more than gibberish in English, as I so nicely pointed out in my e-mail.

 

My apologies if you are offended by anything I have written, it is not my intent.

Enough is enough! I tried to send you a reply to your email but it came back. So, here it is:

 

Dear Jayme

 

I'll be as quick as possible and very straight in my words. Remember, this does not mean I don't like you or I am your enemy. Quite the opposite, that's why I decided to reply.

 

First, thanks for some details, for example I'll change the title of one photo instead of 'cookie cutter's' to 'cookie cutter'

 

However, you are over-reacting about the whole thing and missing the important point in this way of reaction. Please relax, stop the lecturing and listen:

 

There are things in life you are not right or might not understand so well, it happens to all of us. (for example, the word 'commodified' which comes from the word commodity does exist despite your objection, or the basic debates within sociology might not have been your field of expertise).

 

Furthermore, you are so concerned to prove how right you are that all becomes confusing about what the original point is and in the end just a fruitless pain...

 

You may understand my intended meanings behind my photos or you may not. It is a subjective thing. I can't force you to see them or appreciate them but I'll always argue about how I see things. In any case, you can ignore them, or you can comment on them if consider them to be effectively aplied or not, or you can simply apologise for neglecting them in the first place and make a new critique which includes a reference on them, so justify itself, not just talking about you but about the particular work!!

 

From my side I'm not obliged to accept anything you say and I may argue back, hopefully enriching the understanding of both of us.

 

Finally, I remind you that it was you who came to my front page with an obvious competitive attitude (aparently after reading and misrepresenting my self-sarcastic comment on the site's feedback), and certain ignorance of what my pictures portray. Nonetheless, with a different perspective in photography, not very similiar to mine. I suspect your high sensitivity was that which assumed that with my sarcasm I'm attacking whoever cares for rating issues, but my sarcasm is just that, a witty alternative interpretation of reality. Instead of getting excited if you were right to understand or not my work, and many trivial questions blah blah, (including your silly attitude of lecturing me how to spell rationalisation in american way) just be realistic and moderate. Take it or leave it, it is not a war, nor someone is objectively right.

 

So, I hope you appreciate my straight-forward language, it comes from a real friendly feeling and concern for you, which however dos not mean I 'll hide my particular objections. I am not going to analyse this any more. I hope my reply helps.

 

Friendly yours

Christos

 

PS: regarding yr last reply here, I meant 'mercy'.. as mercy, get off my back! (is this right english? I hardly care, I'm sure u understand...)

"Please relax, stop the lecturing and listen:" Christos Stavrou

 

We could all benefit from that advice. There does appear to be much of the former recently.

Geez..(gee whiz) I give up! The word would be, "Please" get off my back!" Mercy!

 

 

There is obviously little more I can say, except, I've been sending & receiving e-mail just fine for years. Maybe you misspelled it! Probably! Hummmm.....

 

 

I understand why you were banned from the other site, more than likely, others will not be as understanding as I and you will eventually be banned from this one as well. Good Luck.

 

As above, I never intented to anger, upset or be arrogant, my intention was to explain and help, that is all. You are now nagging.

 

And again, there is NO word in the English language "commodified". Unless you want to pretend, and make it up. I knew what you meant, "commodification". Please act like an adult. Get over my not understanding your artistic interpretation. It was just too obscurely hidden for me. I surely must not be as enlightened as you.

 

I give...."uncle".

"I understand why you were banned from the other site, more than likely, others will not be as understanding as I and you will eventually be banned from this one as well. Good Luck."

 

"Please act like an adult".... "You are now nagging". Jayme Hall

 

Is this really necessary? We've all been listening to your sermons Jayme on "what we say", "how we say it" etc etc... Perhaps Jimmy Swaggert comes to mind here....

a 1/1 is as valid as a 7/7, depending on the picture and the person rating. I donno what the fuss is all about.

I'm tellin' ya--with a couple of broken whiskey bottles, the matter can be put to rest in less time than it takes to read this thread . . .

Vincent,

 

"Is this really necessary? We've all been listening to your sermons Jayme on "what we say", "how we say it" etc etc... Perhaps Jimmy Swaggert comes to mind here...."

 

No sermon was intended. Only honest, tactful, helpful comments have always been my intention.

 

Obviously we communicate differently. That's OK. However, referencing me to Jimmy Swaggert was inappropriate and rude. Personal attacks are NOT appropriate. You have succeeded in hurting my feelings. I will survive, but my opinion of you has changed.

 

I will never make personal attacks on others, no matter what is said. It's just not my style or in my nature. So if you have miscontrued anything I have said as a "personal attack", you have made an error.

Finish every day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdites no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can.

Tomorrow is a new day;begin it well and serenely and with too high a spirit to be cumbered with old nonsense. This is all that is good and fair. It is too dear, with its hopes and invitations, to waste a moment on yesterdays.

Jayme, the reference to Jimmy Swaggert was only to make a point regarding saying one thing yet doing another. Your mentioning his being banned somewhere else was totally inappropriate here. What possible good did you have in mind by putting that in print here? I had no idea he was banned somewhere else, and really it's not my business either.

 

Telling him to "act like an adult", "you are now nagging" Are these the kind of thoughts you think are tactful and kind, that promote peaceful relations? This in addition to telling us he was banned. Look, there have been many apologies between people on this site due to your Dr. Mom intervention recently, which is a good thing, of course. It's just in my opinion, it's your turn now after writing some of these things above. Perhaps I too will join in when all is said and done. Christos initial post was entirely humorous. C-mon a duel?? Cameras, lenses, place... shoot! Have a little fun. We will all live longer this way. Aloha.

I support the idea of Photo.Net allowing members to block access to their ratings/critiques

and threads those individuals that they do not want a contribution from. Operating just

like the "I find this member interesting" option, one could prevent any imput from the ass

holes on the forum.

 

That would cut all this discussion on ratings as we could weed out the serial raters. I have

no problem with a low rating, but I detest raters manipulating ratings for their own

purposes. Under rating, where someone always rates a photograph lower than anyone

else, but maybe not 1's and 2's, is just as destructive.

 

The solution is in the hands of the moderators.