another idea.

would anonymous critiques work?

 

I think that while knowing who critiqued is great and knowing who

rated is also great I understand why the ratings haver been optioned

as anonymous. so my idea is does anybody think that anonymous comments

would increase the possibility of comments occuring. and at that maybe

have a required anonymous or identified comment (the commentors

choice) with the rating if it is lower than 3 or higher than 5.

 

I try to leave comments on all photos I rate, but I would like to help

figure out a system were more critiqueing was available. or at least

encouraged.

 

I don't know if this would be possible but what do you all think?

I will give long odds that neither you nor the many others that complain about this actually leave comments when they themselves give a rating of 3 or lower. No offense to anyone, but I think the idea of requiring comments is silly. And to get outraged that people don't is even sillier.

 

A low rating speaks for itself. If someone rates a photo as a 1, 2, or 3 they have already told you in unmistakeable terms what they think of it. They may be right, they may be wrong but they are entitled to their point of view without having to justify it to you?

Well said, Larry! You're right. BUT...<p>

 

...What if the primary stated <a href="http://www.photo.net/about-us">goal</a> of the site is to allow and foster a learning community? <p>

 

Then, while the numbered feedback gives "feedback," it allows zero room for growth. All the photographer learns is that someone, somewhere, with (perhaps) too an interest in photography, didn't like your picture. <p>

 

I can't really suggest a solution to that little problem other than has been mentioned over and over again. If scores at extreme low ends of the spectrum aren't mandated to require constructive criticism from a named member, the only other thing I've seen would be to allow the criticism to be optionally anonymous to the other members, so that retalitory spats aren't born.

I'll take your word on what the stated goal of the site is. Its been a good while since I looked at that section of the site. As far as an individual improving their photography, Photo.net has a number of forums on here that designed to do just that. But if memory serves thats not the stated goal of the what the rating system is all about.

 

In general I think the rating system is useless as far as improving the quality of ones work. As has often been stated in here, its nothing more than a popularity contest. Thoughtful comments may indeed be of some value and I fully support giving them when they are voluntary. But just how helpful do you really think they are going to be if you try to force them?

 

I believe in trying to help out where you can. I have rated about 4000 photos and commented on around 2200 the last time I looked. A good number of those comments included tips and suggestions on how a person could improve their photography. That was done voluntarily. The moment you tell me I have to do so, I will stop entirely.

Larry, don't take my word for it. I'm just paraphrasing text that appears on that page.

 

Agreed that the forums help and are great, and too agreed that the Gallery number rating is useless in regards to criticism, though it can be inspiring - as well as diminishing.

 

As for making any sort of comment mandatory, well, that's arguably the nature of any similar beast. Gotta pay taxes, but hey, paved roads and a school for your kids. Give-take.

 

 

How helpful do I personally think they'd be if the site MADE them respond? Well, no one's making anyone reply to the Forum questions. . .so in the end, I think you'd get participation at the level of those, once an adjustment period set in. Like quitting smoking, you'd miss it, get a little lethargic and put on weight and be pissy, but in the end the photography would be "healthier."

 

People who still wanted to slap 7s on each other could still do that, but they'd also get to read criticisms - anonymous if so chosen - about what might make their picture better. If that gang choked on it, I'd not weep a tear - and they'd be impotent to retaliate with low marks and revenge rates.

it isn't just commenting in general. it is commenting on extreme ratings, with the choice of making it anonymous. that way when a photo is given a 2 or a 1 the giver can feel safe or mean about giving it. without fear or disliking the results of a hyperdefensive subject.

 

I do give comments on ratings less than 3, but and greater than 5. but this isn't about my rating or commenting, it is about receiving comments on the 1s and 2 ..

 

which by the way I am NOT complaining about. the post is an IDEA and I wanted to know thoughts of the repercussions of the IDEA. not what you think about one point of it taken out of context.

Maybe by adding a necessary opinion to the rating (with a choice of either anonymous or not) could slow this annoying trend down. And also if the opinion is not constructive or does not make sense the member can have a chance to present it in the forum and have it voted officially and if any discard that unreasonable rate.

 

This is only my suggestion. I don?t know how much effort is needed to implement such a change.

 

So far I like this site. The way it is organize and presented. Maybe just few things that?s bother me the most: By which criteria the pics are sorted or submitted to; RR CBC

 

And

 

Why in CR pics are sorted by the date of posting in the portfolio and not the date of submitting for critique? The reason I ask, is if your photo is a week old and you request a critique now, there is very slim chance that anybody can see your photo displayed because browser shows just 500 pics and they average over 5.5/5.5. Your only chance is if they go directly to your portfolio.

 

Is there any place on the site that explains ?how, what, and where?

I haven't taken anything out of context. I repeat when someone gives you a 1 or a 2 they have already spoken quite clearly and they don't owe you any further explaination. If they choose to give you one thats fine. But you are not entitled to an explaination as a matter of course and I don't think you should be.

 

If you post photos you are going to get extreme ratings that you don't think are fair and don't agree with. It happens to all of us. None of us like it. Personally I KNOW I don't have a single photo listed that is deserving of a 3 in either category but I have plenty of them all the same.

 

Trying to force someone to justify a low rating is really an attempt to engage in a dialog to convince them they are wrong so you can salvage wounded pride. Its not worth the effort or the heartburn. Grab your camera, take some photos, and quite worrying about what someone lacking your impecable sense of taste thinks or why they think it.

I do see your point. but disagree on the 'forcing' dialogue, part. that is why the choice of remaining anonymous would be available.

 

I don't necessarily think that one should be forced to comment the the main idea is that the ability to comment anonymously be available too. I was just searching for ideas on how to encourage comments. people take plenty of time going through the photos and rating them, so if they were required to post comment to extreme ratings, then I don't necessarily think that it would be to out of the way to take the time to think about why they rate an image 1, 2, 6, or 7. I certainly look at an image for a little bit when I rate it that high low. and try to apply constructive criticism. I would just like the ability to leave anonymous criticism too. and think that it would encourage people to leave a comment. I always receive plenty of comments when it is all good. I just want them when it isn't.

 

I am not complaining. just putting up ideas. which is the point of this forum and the category I placed the thread in.

I tend to believe that PN's ratings are a crock of #$%^! I agree they mean nothing. I feel that requiring a comment with a rating is unrealistic. Unfortunately, I think that sometimes those that demand they get high ratings to feed their egos, spend their time giving low ratings to others anonymously to boost their photo placement in the TRP. Another way to scam the system. Making ratings not anonymous might help, but then in the past, it only caused retaliation. What's the answer? I have no clue, I only know that we all have someone or two following us around, consistently giving us a 3/3 or lower. So what! I wish mine would comment. Obviously, they are discriminating. They must have lots of photographic knowledge they could share.

 

The solution: ignore them and listen to the comments. If you have a question.....ask. If you have some knowledge, offer it. Some things never change, so they must be accepted. The majority of members are good people with good intentions. But there's always one or two that are just plain pain in the butts. That's life!

 

When I want honest critique, I find members that I like their style and I ask them to look at my images and ask them to offer honest critique. Most will help you out. I have found this process to be a beneficial learning experience.

Hi Byron, I applaud your effort to offer up an idea for discussion.

 

I agree with Jayme: Establishing meaningful comment exchanges with other photographers really has to be done at a personal level. System-wide rules that force people to leave comments, anonymous or not, won't result in more exchange of constructive critique.

 

I also agree with Larry: The rating system is just that, a numerical rating system. By giving an abnormally high or low rating, a person gives an opinion. No matter what the motivation.

 

Frankly, I don't want to hear any more from those giving the 1's and 2's. Especially if its anonymous, it's not going to be useful feedback. Those people make their points through the ratings and I just figure they were beaten by birds as kids.

 

I do, though, like the idea of pictures being posted to the RR being completely anonymous.

Every time this discussion comes up, someone is rude about the giving of low ratings. Why is it so hard to grasp that, with all the people who visit this site, some of them may see a picture and dislike it?

I think you're all right - Jayme about the crock of @#()*@#$*, Jamie about the folks being beaten by birds (laughed at that) and Jamie/Larry about the opinion clearly stated by the low mark.

 

The only thing I return to, and think Byron's idea has merit for, is that instead of just getting that opinion? The site's goals could be furthered as people discover WHY others think the image is crap, and how they might do better next time. That they do rate low could well have merit - but you'll never learn how to improve if it's nothing but a numerical "thumbs down."

 

Therefore, to Harvey, I reply: It's not that it's hard to grasp that people don't like your photo - it just that a low rating only serves no purpose other than to deflate and diminish, when instead, a person could get a tip about composition or lighting or technique. "I hate birds" would be unacceptable, and that could be stated in the guidelines.

 

Not harping here about any of my own photos' marks, just being sincere and thinking about the population as a whole - the ones that really come here to learn through the Gallery - aka the CRITIQUE FORUM - don't get the chance that they could, "if."

Many years ago I was chatting with a man who had been one of my college professors. We were discussing physics. I wasn't satisfied with the mathematics that explained the subject at hand. I just had to know why the universe operated the way it did. I kept pressing him on that issue and asking "why." He finally got fed up and told me that he could explain who, where, when, what, and how. But there in the final analysis there is seldom if ever a clear cut answer to why.

 

Why do you like red and I like blue? Why do you love liver and I can't stand it? Why does my wife hate Mexican food? Why can't those idiots in the other political party see how wrong they are? Why do some people like jazz and others country music? And last but not least why doesn't someone like my photograph? Because they don't, thats why!!!

Uh huh. Well okeedokie.

 

My last suggestion, then, in support of Larry, is to change the name of the Critique Forum, since it's not actually mandatory that one critique, and the eternal voice of parents everywhere shouting, "Because I said so!" is reason enough to rip the pride out of a budding photographer while in the RR cue...as opposed to help or foster, which is all I was suggesting Byron's idea, and the site's listed goals, might support if the posts were optionally anonymous.

 

How do you feel about raw clams, Larry? I think they're the bees knees on the halfshell with a Corona.

Can't stand em. You can have mine.

Just reread this whole thread. Harvey where is someone being rude? If you're referring to me then, man, you need to get a sense of humor. I don't have any problem with someone disliking my pictures and stating as much. Birds or otherwise. But, at the same time, I don't want to open the door to an endless stream of useless comments.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy that forcing comments and/or allowing them to be annonymous will increase the amount of constructive feedback and improve the learning experience.

 

Maybe we should consider the current rule which does not allow someone to immediately reciprocate a 7/7 rating. Maybe the same logic can be applied at the low end of the scale. If someone leaves a low rating AND a comment then the recipient cannot rate that individual's pictures for some cooling off period. Of course, that still probably opens it up to the "SUCKS" kind of comments.

 

A question: If you rate a picture in the RR and include a comment isn't the rating still anonymous?

I think anonymous critiques would be blunter. Some would be more honest about the faults they see. A few would be mean.

 

How about offering the option to submit a critique anonymously as a perk to the paying members? One of the problems with boosting subscriptions on this site is that there is little differentiation between non-paying and paying memberships. --Joe

Damn! You can't even fling out a wild generalisation around here without someone taking it personally.

Jamie, you could darn well be right about that. I'm just pondering what WOULD then make the gallery more a place to learn, as opposed to a game.

 

Joe/Kathy, the trick would be to have mean comments verboten, considered inappropriate to the tune of account deletion. Law and order and such.

 

Oh well. Time for beer and oysters - Larry, I've got steaks headed for the grill, too. Then, some pics of the local volunteer fire department's annual parade.

A nice juicy steak I can handle. But I think its ribs tonight which is okay by me. Enjoy the parade. I'll think of you at 3AM in the morning on the way up Mt. Evans to photograph mountain goats.

I have a question related to this thread. If we had a "bad photo" forum for those of us who wish to know why their photo got bad ratings and learn how to really improve their photography, would any of you ever look at that forum? If the evil low raters won't comment, will those who know better take the time to do it?

 

Andre

Andre

 

I have no idea what the odds are of that being implemented but to answer your question, yes I would.