Are these ratings real?

<p>Would someone check please at let me know if the anonymous ratings on my image <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9603197">http://www.photo.net/photo/9603197</a> are 'real'.<br>

Perhaps I should quit while I’m ahead, but it is very rare for me to get such ratings without co-responding comments.<br>

Thanks <br>

Mike</p>

 

<p>I saw some incredibly high ratings tonight (Sunday) including those for one of my own photos, mainly while using the Rate Photos feature filtering to just Travel shots.</p>

<p>They seem to be.</p>

<p>Thanks Josh - just a new phenomenon then.<br>

Cheers<br>

Mike</p>

<p>Maybe they're real, maybe they're not. You never know. I just posted a photo today ((<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9623851">http://www.photo.net/photo/9623851</a>) and within 30 seconds it had received an anonymous 4/4. So if it's real, that probably meant someone looked at it long enough (probably just at the thumbnail) to position the mouse and click the numbers. If it's not real, it's probably one of the ubiquitous bots that have haunted Photo.net ever since I've been a subsciber. Do I care about numbers? No. Do I care about authenticity? Yes. If you think a photograph sucks, you ought to be a real man (or woman) and say so, rather than hiding behind your little anonymous keyboard and mouse. I've seen beautiful photographs (not my own) by photographers much more talented than I am get anonymous low ratings that defy common sense. It's my opinion that if those aren't left by bots, then they're left by people who wouldn't know an f/stop from a doorstop, or an ISO from a UFO. They wouldn't know how to even spell "critique" if it wasn't onscreen in front of them.</p>

<p>In this particular case I was more thinking of the anonymous 7/7s that were a new event for me. But, I'm with you - I appreciate any real rating from minimum to maximum but mischief by those with too much time on their hands is just annoying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So if it's real, that probably meant someone looked at it long enough (probably just at the thumbnail)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not possible to just look at a thumbnail and leave a rating.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's my opinion that if those aren't left by bots, then they're left by people who wouldn't know an f/stop from a doorstop, or an ISO from a UFO. They wouldn't know how to even spell "critique" if it wasn't onscreen in front of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to pick on you Jim, as I know you didn't mean anything serious by it. But it's this sort of stuff (and much MUCH worse) that caused us to have to create an anonymous system in the first place. Typically normal people could not contain themselves when they felt someone had slighted them or another photographer by giving a low rating. Harassment, revenge ratings, nasty email threats were the order of the day. It was, quite frankly, pathetic. And we won't be going back to it while I'm around.</p>

<p> Oh, I know you're not picking on me, Josh...and of course I was being over-the-top sarcastic to make a point. My point being that I don't think think a rating (high or low) that's made on a photograph (not just my own) in less than thirty seconds is credible or helpful to anyone in any way. I agree with you that there's been way too much revenge rating and other weird stuff going on here over the years. Also, you and I both know that there are people who simply go through the rating thing by clicking on one image after another as fast as they can. My other point is that for me, anonymous ratings (low or high) are pretty much meaningless without a comment or a critique. I'm pretty selective about rating, having rated only a bit over 700 photographs in five years, compared to people who've rated thousands of photos...and don't think I've ever rated anonymously...for whatever that's worth. Photo.net can be fun and it can even be instructional. That's one reason I've stuck around for five years. But anything can be improved, and that includes the rating system here. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and that's mine.</p>

<p>when you say "rating anonymously," does that mean just going through and giving a rating without leaving a comment? i have done that sometimes, because either the person already has sooo many comments on why the picture is great or being a newbie, i just don't know the technical terms to talk about why the photo is good. but should i still leave a comment stating the rating i'm giving? </p>

<p>I would not put a lot of faith in this rating system, it is not very accurate.</p>

<p>Melanie: You are not required to leave a critique or comment along with ratings you have given, whether you use the "anonymous" <a href="../gallery/photocritique?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&recent=4">Rate Photos queue</a> or the method that attaches your name to the rating you have given. And you may write a critique or comment without also giving any ratings, if you prefer.</p>

<p>Anthony: In what way is the rating system inaccurate? Have you spotted mathematical errors in the way ratings are calculated?</p>