"As a measure against abuse..."

I'm five days away from my 1st PN birthday...and I recall that after being a

member for about a week, I began to whine, complain, bitch about the ratings

system. After 6 months or so, I pretty much ceased to do so because a) I

realized it seemed futile, and b) I finally realized that its a subject that

has been brought up so often...that everybody was sick of hearing about it.

After a year...I'm still hopeful that some positive changes still can and will

be made in the near future.

 

So, this post is to offer a POSITIVE observation about one aspect of the system

and to ask a couple of questions as well.

 

I noticed tonight that after posting two photos for critique, that I received

a fairly high number of ratings in short period of time. Nothing really

unusual about that...but what WAS unusual was the number of ratings that were

not counted as a results of the following PN policy.

 

"As a measure against abuse, ratings from very recently registered members are

not counted in the overall averages and totals until the moderators have had an

opportunity to review them".

 

Please understand (especially PN staff) that this isn't a complaint. I actually

felt protected against abuse tonight!

 

But it did seem unusual that so many ratings fell under this category. One

one photo, 5 out of 6 were not counted. My ave. rating on aesthetics was 6.0.

If the ratings had counted, the ave. would have been 4.0. Quite a vast

difference! So obviously, for at least once...the system worked for me, not

against me. Obviously it could have gone the other way...as I could have been

deprived of 5 ratings of 7/7.

 

 

 

Has anyone else noticed this sudden increase in large numbers of ratings by new

members...the sort that are not counted?

 

I've been unable to find an answer in the PN guidelines that address the

question of: what is the "abuse" that this measure is referring to? and...when

PN staff reviews these ratings from new members, what are the determining

factors in deciding when and if they are qualified to give offer ratings that

count? If staff or anyone else could point me in the directioann of where

answers to those questions are located...I'd be appreciative!

 

Last question... of the "survey" variety. How do you feel about the concept of

an e-mail being sent to all new members that would offer a brief tutorial on

the how-tos of rating and critiquing? It wouldn't help deter abuse if a

person is determined to be abusive...but I believe that many of the unduely low

marks we often see given to truly good, perhaps great photographs is not due to

abuse...but due to the fact that many beginners don't realize that (for

instance) "I don't like it" isn't generally a good reason to give a 3/3. If

new members are exposed to a little education up front...hopefully it would

help to make the ratings a bit more fair...and lessen the number of complaints

about the ratings system.

Regarding the ratings you saw tonight, they were junk accounts. The captcha is doing a good job of reducing the number of bogus ratings accounts, but it doesn't eliminate them completely. Sharp eyed users like yourself and Anthony Stubbs (posted in the feedback forum) are wht help us get rid of the few that sneak through.

 

As for an email to every new user aboug ratings/critique:

 

I'm not really a fan of that idea. Mostly because not every user cares about the ratings/critique system, in fact I would be hard pressed to say that even a majority of users care. the site is pretty evenly split between all areas when you look at the usage numbers. However, what I would be in favor of, and have been thinking about pulling together, is a tutorial about critiquing and how to give/receive critique in a way that is helpful and encouraging for both parties. Then we could provide a link to that page (and ideally other tutorials about the site), to new users in the "welcome" email.

 

Getting people to read stuff like that is another story (since people have proven over and over they don't read what you ask them to). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

I don't really fully understand how the whole "junk account" thing works... but I understand enough to know that this is what I suspected. So thanks for clearing that up for us Josh.

 

As to the plan you've been considering...I think it sounds perfect. What I offered up was just an "on the fly" suggestion, while your idea has obviously been refined through lots of thought.

 

Thanks for your reply...

"Junk accounts?" I have been trying to figure out what that might be but am feeling somewhat dense.

 

A tutorial sounds like a wonderful idea.

Junk accounts are accounts taken out with the sole purpose of spamming the rating system with bogus ratings. The reason for doing this escapes me, but then I have a life. If I didn't, I might understand the motivation of the spammers. The accounts are believed to be "bots", i.e. computer programs designed to simulate a human giving ratings.

 

Don't ask how we know which accounts are junk/spam accounts. Trust us, we know. The less the spammers know about what we know and how we know it, the better.

The reason for doing this escapes me as well. The entire idea makes as much sense as any other form of malicious mischief, I suppose.

"Malicious Mischief". wouldn't that be a great name for a band! ;)

<i> "Malicious Mischief". wouldn't that be a great name for a band!</i><P>

 

<a href="http://malmis.phucker.com/">These guys</a> thought so.

I actually thought it was to stop us from abusing new members, not the other way around. These junk accounts would drive me batty I have a short fuse with people like that.

 

Speaking of bands I must go to Frenantle this weekend to see the bronze statue of Bon Scott, a macro shot could be interesting of his face?

All hail AC/DC

The Junk accounts are counted as visits in PN?

I've concluded that the problem with the ratings is that people take them waaay too seriously. I ignore anything under a 5 as the work of clods and miscreants. If there are some 6s, I know some people think it's a good photo; if there are none, I know I may be alone believing the photo has merit. It's useful to see how others react to my photos but I don't always agree.

 

Maybe I'm missing something: like, does anyone get frequent flyer miles, discounts on lenses, or a free pass to paradise based on photo ratings?

Dave: it's low-level pack-animal wiring. No frequent flier miles, but I think that most humans get a tiny, perhaps even too-subtle-to-notice endorphine rush when they receive approval from their tribe. There are some broken people (sociopaths, etc) that actually get that rush from the disapproval they get for causing trouble, or stirring things up, or just shocking people for the sake of shocking them - and that plays out everywhere in society, as well as within web forums of all sorts. But no matter how ruggedly individual the photographer, there's surely a little bit of each's brain that gets at least a modest bit of encouragement from knowing that what they're doing has resonated with at least somebody in the audience.

Matt: "most humans get a tiny, perhaps even too-subtle-to-notice endorphine rush when they receive approval from their tribe"

 

Abso-freakin'-lutely--I'm a total junkie! I'll get high for days on a "Hey, Dave, this shot doesn't suck" comment.

 

I'm just suggesting that people take the ratings (especially anonymous low ratings among mixed reviews) with heavy doses of salt.

"'Malicious Mischief'. wouldn't that be a great name for a band! ;)"

 

I liked "Radon Daughters" as a band name. Dunno if anyone ever actually used it.

 

One of my favorite band names was a local group called "Daughter Judy." (Hint: Jetsons.)

i got a low-level pack animal endorphine rush when I ate that piece of chocolate cake my wife made tonight...and there wasn't even ayone around. as long as i don't start competing for who gets the first bite of antelope at the zoo, i'll feel prety good about myself.

 

back to ratings. i rate photos and I allow mine to be rated. i admit that just what Matt said,

 

"But no matter how ruggedly individual the photographer, there's surely a little bit of each's brain that gets at least a modest bit of encouragement from knowing that what they're doing has resonated with at least somebody in the audience"

 

...applies to me. however, there is a more practical value for me. ratings can be an indicator of what the general public thinks of my pictures and whether or not they are likely to buy a particular shot. if i get twenty 6/6s ...most likely it will sell. simple as that. it doesn't mean it's even a "good" photograph...just a sellable photograph. conversely, i've never had a 3/3 laden photo sell very well.

 

allowing one's work to be rated, or not...is purely a personal decision. there are plenty of valid reasons to go either way. the only thing i find objectionable is when people state, or insinuate that those who accept ratings are somehow inferior to those who don't. anytime the subject comes up, almost without exception there will be some smug SOB who attempts to make those who accept ratings into either small minded, whining individuals with low self-esteem...or arrogant, egotists who use ratings as a sybol of how much better they are than the rest of us hack photographers.

Exactly, John. I haven't attempted to sell my photos yet but I'm (slowly) exploring that possibility. The critique forum seems useful as a (very imprecise) gauge of "market potential." In that context, the low ratings are meaningless--it's the good ones that matter.

"In that context, the low ratings are meaningless--it's the good ones that matter."

 

I don't understand what you mean. Would you elaborate? Why are the low ones

meaningless and the good ones more meaningful?

 

The reason I ask is that it's always seemed to me that we who receive ratings actually have

ourselves to blame for some of the perceived problems with the rating system. I know I've

tended to count the high ratings as representative of the more knowledgeable people and

dismiss the low ones as revenge, or stupidity, or bots, or just trying to bring everyone else

down. Then I realize. It's my own attitude that renders ratings meaningless, meaningless

because I simply give them my own meaning instead of viewing them objectively.

i don't rate anymore. i found i was only rating the photographs i liked and i was not very

objective for the same reason. when in a post i see something i like, i either write my opinion

or send an e-mail to the author....

David, just a thought...but have you ever considered simply disciplining yourself in regard to objectivity? i don't see the ability to be objective as being limited to a few individuals. it's a choice we make. Assuming the opinions you spoke of are objective...it only stands to reason that nothing is in the way of your objectively rating/critiquing photographs...except your determination and committment to do so. is there something i'm missing here? :)

<i>"I don't understand what you mean. Would you elaborate? Why are the low ones meaningless and the good ones more meaningful?"</i>

<p>

I took it to mean that:

<br>In the context of using ratings as a gauge for what photography will sell well (as John Gaylon brought up), low ratings from random people are useless because they really don't tell you much. High ratings from random people don't tell you a much more, but can at least indicate that a particular image might sell better than others. At least this is what John reports about his own images.

As a follow up Josh... High ratings equating to photos that sell well is a very general rule. There are obviously so many other factors to consider. I live in Chattanooga, Tn., a medium sized Southern city with a growing arts movement...but still, a conservative area (buckle of the Bible belt) surrounded by lots of rural countryside. One might expect (especially if you're prone to believing stereotype about the culturally repressed South) that pictures of farm animals and Klan rallies might sell well. Forty years ago that might have been true...but not in 2008. While I still wouldn't describe the area as being cosmopolitan... neither is it Hooterville. I have to admit that in informal surveys I've conducted, and now that I'm selling my works...actual track records of what has sold well and what hasn't...I've been quite surprised by how many people are drawn toward abstract and industrial photography, for example. And what sells varies from venue to venue. For instance, some galleries are located in areas where there is heavy tourist traffic. So, cityscape and landscape shots of the area sell well because they document their stay in Chattanooga. Galleries in the heart of downtown cater more to the fine art crowd, and the list of variables goes on and on.

 

Regardless of where you live and who your potential clientel might be, one thing is universal... if people "like" your work, it will sell. I purposely chose not to say that "good" photographs will sell, because all too often a truly magnificent photograph may be ignored, while the cow picture may sell. There's no accounting for taste, or lack thereof. So, while ratings might be a very small part of the gauging market potential... after my wife and two dogs offer their opinions, ratings are the next thing I often look to. :)

Josh--

 

If high ratings tell you (within limits, I understand) that a particular image might sell

better than others, then why aren't low ratings telling you something (like the opposite)?

 

What I'm not understanding is why we discard low ratings as likely being bots or from

stooges or the unknowledgeable and accept high ratings as somehow more meaningful.

I've seen as many (if not MORE) misguided high ratings on PN as misguided low ratings.

 

Have you seen some of the 6s and 7s doled out with regularity by both named and

anonymous sources?

Fred,

 

I don't sell my images directly to consumers, so I can't really say. I was just basing my post above on what John had said previously and my interpretation of it.

 

I can say that the ratings that come from bogus accounts seem to be overwhelmingly "low". There was a time when we would see some bogus "high" ratings accounts. But I think those behind the bogus accounts decided they got a bigger reaction out of people by rating low rather than high.

Josh and Fred,

 

I didn't respond to the part of Dave's comment in which he said, "the low ratings are meaningless--it's the good ones that matter", but I don't agree on that point.

 

Personally, I don't value the generic 7/7 more or less than the 3/3. As Fred pointed out...they can both be bogus, whether they come from bots or people who under or overate for whatever reason. Generally, an anonymous 7/7...tells me nothing, because one, it can never have a comment attached, and secondly,without a name... I don't have the ability to see the photographers work, read his bio, etc. So it's just a meaningless number...no more valuable than an anonymous 3/3. The only exception to the rule might be that if I had a particular photo that receives 25- 7/7s..and one 3/3... (all anonymous) there is at least some indication that several people felt it was a decent shot. Reverse the numbers...it seems just as likely that it's not a very good a shot. Nothing concrete, just a general rule of thumb. I take any/all ratings with a grain of salt, but the ones that I see as being most valuable are the ones that have a comment/critique attached in which the person can decently articulate what they think/ how they feel about the photograph. And it certainly doesn't hurt if you can read a bio, and/or see their work.

Dave, good luck selling your photos if you decide to go that route. However, don't

expect potential buyers to exercise exactly the same criteria that photographers do,

whether on Photo.Net or in salons or competitions. Several of my prints that won

highest prizes in competitions are viewed with some interest by visiting artists and

photogs, but the public prefers entirely different images, and less enterprising in a

creative or intellectual sense. Best sellers are pretty landscapes, flower shots and the

like. My preferred images tend to gather a bit of dust.

 

 

That's life! But it hasn't stopped me from doing what I like.