Childish Behaviour

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by keith_laban, Jul 28, 2003.

  1. As I expected after my criticisms in the recent Bailey Seals thread,
    AZ alias Bailey Seals has now decided to rate my entire portfolio and
    again as I expected not a single comment.<p>I thought I had made it
    perfectly clear that I had no respect for his opinions, which is I
    suppose why he has now chosen to rate all my uploaded work.<p>I
    appreciate that AZ/BS is held in high esteem by those that matter
    here but I do find this irritating and childish. It’s no wonder that
    many have simply given up posting images or have removed them from
    the site. photo.net is simply the best online resource there is, but
    the Gallery section is rife with this kind of behaviour and it does
    the site no favours at all. Quite frankly why on earth should I
    bother posting my work here anymore?
     
  2. I've had a few of those experiences. I also made a few complaints to people through email and received some rather insulting responses. Oh well. In the end I decided that it's not going to make any difference one way or another. People are people and all of this is based on personal preference (or as some people call it subjective opinion), whether it meshes with our own or not. The best you can do is ignore it.
     
  3. "Quite frankly why on earth should I bother posting my work here anymore?"
    I don't know. Why did you post it here in the first place? If you wanted comments, you'll still get them. If you wanted other people's opinions on your work you'll still get them. If you only want praise, you're out of luck. If you don't want ratings without comments, that's never been an option.
    It's really 100% up to you how much you let other people's opinions piss you off. You're 100% free to ignore the opinions you don't like.
    Were the ratings you received "retaliation". Were they all 1s and 2s? If so, notify abuse@photo.net. If not then it's not really reasonable for you to be able pick and chose who you allow to rate your work.
     
  4. Keith,

    Explain to me how you're /not/ being a child by crying and complaining about a rating?

    If you don't like being rated, then don't post your images. It's as simple as that. Why you think ratings even matter to begin with is beyond me but that is better left for another thread.

    You're being a hypocrite, Keith. I suggest you re-evaluate your statements.
     
  5. Now who's being childish?

    You actively participate in all this fuss talking about another individual on the site, discussing and criticizing his rating behaviour and contribution to the site. He doesn't complain, even though some of the comments posted at this discussion (not specifically by yourself) could easily be considered uncalled-for or maybe even offensive.

    Now you open another thread in the site feedback forum to publicly inform us that he has rated your portfolio. (who cares?) And you're publicly meandering about you own personal questions as to what value there is in posting your work here. The way you put it, it seems like some ratings, and specifically from a person whose opinion you do not care about, are the cause of it.

    Besides the oxymoron, there lies the issue of whether your appropriation of the forum for rants, gossip and ego-centered topics is any better than the behaviours that you accuse AZ of.

    Come on Keith, you've been a member here for how long? I guess enough time to have figured out what ratings mean, what they don't mean, and how serious they're meant to be taken. I guess long enough to be able to tell what is abuse and what is just habits/opinions that while perfectly in-line just happen to be not your liking. There are thousands of members here. Do you think we all agree and love each other and just scream in ecstatic satisfaction about everything they do? The answer is no, in case you haven't figured out. We just get along in a mix of opinions and backgrounds, get what is valuable, ignore what is worthless, put in the best we can. It's a community.

    If it's such a big matter for you (and it seems to be) and you feel the need to go on and on about how another member rates and why he rated you, and how you're going to leave the site because he did, then maybe this place is just not working for you. Or maybe you should participate in other ways, find a better formula that works for you. But going on about it like that is as childish as your headline accuses AZ to be.

    Don't get me wrong if I sound negative. I have no personal affection or feud with you or AZ and in many ways I appreciate both your and his contribution to the community. Different types, yet valuable all the same. I just think it's pointless to be bringing our own personal grudges to the forums, because this transforms them into an informal public trial, and this hurts the community. If you think you have a case of abuse, there are established regular channels to report it. If you just want to rant, then try to do it without attacking fellow members.
     
  6. Bob, I'm certainly not complaining about the scores AZ/BS has given me, infact it would seem that by his standards they are high and no I'm not looking for praise. If I was only interested in the numbers and praise I certainly wouldn't be posting many of the images I have. But what is the point in someone rating my work when they know full well that their opinions are not wanted, other than spite.
     
  7. Dang, you complaining is almost as bad as Robert Byrd
     
  8. Rob, I am not complaining about a rating in terms of the scores given, but rather about the mindset of a ratter who has rated 25,000 images with little backup in way of comments. Frankly I would love to see the numerical rating of images die a painful death.<p>Nikos, I wish AZ/BS had joined in the previous thread. God only knows where you have got the idea that I am accusing him of abuse and that I have at any time threatened to leave the site is beyond me. If you are going to argue the least you can do is get your facts right, please!
     
  9. Nikos, I have no “grudge” against AZ/BS, didn’t even know he existed until a few days ago. This is not a case of a grudge against a fellow member and I resent the accusation.
     
  10. Keith, I think you might be right that the photo.net Gallery is not the place for you to post your photos. You seem to want to be able to control who rates your Gallery photos and how, and you can't.

    I will probably get around eventually to giving subscribers the ability to opt out of the rating system entirely. But apart from the ability to opt out, I am not planning ever to give people a veto over who can rate their photos, or set their own rules about how many photos the rater must have uploaded, or whether the ratings must be accompanied by comments, etc, as you seem to wish.

    If you want to display your photos on your own terms, then I suggest that you take down your portfolio in the Gallery and use your photo.net homepage (http://www.photo.net/homepage) to host your portfolio. This is a subscriber benefit, to which you are entitled. This gives you 15MB of space and (currently) unlimited bandwidth, and you will be in complete control of the presentation. The downside is that you will have to figure out how to drive traffic to your portfolio on your own. At present, anyway, apart from the fact that they are hosted by the same server and have a photo.net URL, there isn't much of a connection between subscriber homepages and the rest of photo.net. Also, at present, homepage users don't have access to the commenting engine available in the regular Gallery for user comments, so you won't have the ability to receive comments, other than through a mailto: email link.

    Many people already don't upload their photos to the Gallery because they don't want to be rated and critiqued by any Tom, Dick, or Bailey on the Internet, and they don't consider that receiving a share of 3 million photo views per day on photo.net to be worth the aggravation of receiving ratings and comments from people who they think are less knowledgable or cultivated in taste than them. You have to decide what YOU want, and the photo.net Gallery may very well also not be for you.

    As for Bailey: its good that he got around to rating your photos, if he hadn't already, so that the rankings of your photos reflect his opinion, as 21,000 other photos currently do.
     
  11. God only knows where you have got the idea that I am accusing him of abuse
    Well I don't seem to be alone in getting that idea. Bob's suggestion to keep abuse reports to the abuse@photo.net mailbox is very much along the same lines to my suggestion. Again, I did not state it as a fact. I said IF you think it's abuse, there are established channels to report it. On the other hand if it's not abuse to your eyes, then your creation of a forum topic to inform us of AZ's ratings of your images can only be seen as a rant. Which part of the above did you misunderstand?
    and that I have at any time threatened to leave the site is beyond me
    First of all, I didn't say the word 'threatened' and rightly so because your or anyone leaving the site (perhaps excepting Bob and Brian) is not a grave enough event to constitute a threat. In this context I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to get your facts right. Beyond the use of the particular word, in case you're wondering where I got the idea that you have suggested you are considering to leave the site, and since you obviously can't afford the effort to soberly reread your first post I have undertaken the courtesy of highlighting a revealing excerpt: Quite frankly why on earth should I bother posting my work here anymore? -- keith laban Now, given reasonable reservations regarding English not being my mother tongue, how am I supposed to read this? Please enlighten us.
     
  12. Brian, you are quite right. I will take down my images until there is an ability to opt out of the ratings system.
     
  13. Nikos I have never questioned whether or not I should leave the site, but merely questioned whether or not I should post my images to a Gallery that has a numerical ratings system. I apologise if it was my wording that led to the confusion.
     
  14. I'd like to invite AZ/BS, Rollo Tomasi and Kaiser Soze to rate my photos, even those for which I've requested no ratings. I'd consider it an honor to receive middling ratings from such esteemed parties.
     
  15. Brian, I am trying to delete my folder but I'm just getting a server error???
     
  16. merely questioned whether or not I should post my images to a Gallery that has a numerical ratings system
    As I said in my first post, I am not trying to dispute you and be negative towards you. All I am saying it that the question you pose above is personal and not of public interest. If you add a rant for another member's rating of your images, this goes beyond simple lack of public interest. It becomes an act of bringing personal disputes or disagreements with the site's functions into public discussion with focus to particular members, raising half-defined accusations that do not belong in a public forum.
    Beyond all this, your thoughts about the value of the ratings system are valid and respected. Similar thoughts have been discussed plenty of times in those forums (but fortunately not in terms of personal references) and the conclusion seems to be that the ratings system is here to stay, simply because there is no alternative to a site-wide curatorial mechanism. I'm sure you are aware of this because you are a long-time member and seem to read these fora.
    So, do what you want with your images, or even discuss with other members what could make photo.net a better place to be. But do it outside the context of particular actions of referenced people, simply because that would be a more civil way of doing it.
     
  17. And as a side note, I would suggest you to reconsider removing your work. It is interesting, and it has attracted the attention and thoughts of many fellow members. I personally feel you have gained from posting your work here, at least as much as the rest of us have gained from viewing it. Don't let a minor discontent grow on you and drive you into a hasty retraction of an interesting gallery, it's just not worth it.
     
  18. Nikos, I take your point, but please believe me I have always intended that my argument is with the system rather than the individual. AZ/BS is just one of many who make up the system.
     
  19. "Similar thoughts have been discussed plenty of times in those forums (but fortunately not in terms of personal references)"
    Sorry Nikos but I do have to disagree with you on this one. There has been a multitude of personal bitching about individuals ratings habits on this Forum, perhaps it rubbed off on me on this occasion, LOL!
     
  20. Still can't delete the folder.
     
  21. I have not read all the posts here and I don't really think I have to.
    Everyone who receives an unusually high number of rates from a
    particular member has to wonder what motivates that behavior - high or
    low. This has happened to me about a half dozen times in the last
    year and each time I was able to see a pattern from that member and an
    apparent motive when I obsereved how various other members were rated
    and compared it to mine. For all of you who think Bailey is just a
    high volume rater who has the best interest of the site at heart, ask
    yourself why he stopped rating me as soon as the default pages changed
    that no longer valued qualitative rates but simply the number of
    rates. (He was doing this to quite a few members, but significantly
    not everyone.) In fact at that time, he simply disappeared for quite
    a while. You may call it a coincidence if you like and I'm sure we
    has a story at the ready that you might buy.

    You wouldn't notice this sort of thing unless you uploaded regularly -
    a couple of times a week - over the past year. That's why Bob and
    Brian don't fully understand the ramifications of each change in the
    ratings process or in the way that certain members respond to those
    changes. If you uploaded reasonably good images without using your
    widely recognized names, you would understand.

    Kieth.

    It's a wierd game Bailey plays. Try to focus on one simple truth:
    one more rate moves you up a page and gives you just a little bit more
    visibility so that people who actually want to talk about your work
    will be more likely to see it. Rates on old images are of no
    consequence at all since photographers are not notified in any way
    when a rate without a comment occurs. You see, there's no point,
    since rates have a curatorial purpose only over the very short term.
    Nobody else rates old images. . . . in quantity . . . . without
    comment.

    The people who moderate the photo critique forum should perhaps
    contribute to it regularly. Then and only then will they understand
    what's going on. Copping an attitude against Kieth or me or Marc
    tells me you don't understand or care why so many of the photographers
    that I would have thought you respected have stopped contributing to
    this forum.

    Note the recent formation of ad hoc groups to avoid all the negative
    consequences of the ratings abuses. That tells me that you're not
    doing what is necessary to fix the problem. Raising money is great,
    but don't let that compromise the quality of what you're offering .
     
  22. If you don't care about the numerical ratings, why do you waste your thoughts on the ratings you receive? Forget about them, ignore them, it's very easy to do, they're just numbers.

    Taking down your pictures because of them is the opposite of thinking the numerical ratings are stupid. It's taking them very seriously.

    I too think the numerical ratings are silly, so I don't give any, not even to people who want ratings.

    In fact, to me the only purpose of the ratings is to cause two out of three threads here on the Site Feedback Forum. It's great fun, probably the single most entertaining part of photo.net. I'm sorry for all the people who miss out on the fun just because they have deselected it from their unified view :)
     
  23. Carl, many thanks, but it is not really AZ/BS I have the argument with, just the numerical ratings system in general. I'm afraid though that it's here to stay, getting rid of it is not an option, would spoil to many peoples fun, probably reduce the number of punters and therefore subscribers. I really do appreciate your support though! All the best to you.
     
  24. Ivar, I suppose it is the mindset of the ratters rather than the ratings as such, I know I shouldn't let it but it just gets up my nose.
     
  25. " ask yourself why he stopped rating me as soon as the default pages changed"

    Sorry, Carl, but although you may believe that I am involved in a Masonic conspiracy
    related to your photos, you are wrong. My life does not even revolve around Keith,
    either. :) In fact, I've been away for several months, only popping in sporadically. I
    have more time for photo.net now, and, ensconced with a new throwaway email
    address (in the event that a certain pesky Russian habitue here decides again to sign
    me up for email pornography) I am back, posting more ratings lately.

    If you are complaining that I haven't rated any of your photos lately, please don't
    worry, I will, soon enough. I'm sure you'll find something else to create a conspiracy
    theory about soon enough -- perhaps that I *am* rating your photos again. ;-)

    As for my rating Keith's photos today: Keith I am glad that you do not believe that I
    rated abusively. I didn't. I liked some of your photos and rated them as such.

    And Lex, I took you up on your offer. Thanks! (Diafine rules, dunnit....)
     
  26. At last, it's the main man :)
     
  27. Az, your numbers mean nothing to me and I suspect to many on photo.net. You are one of many here who seems to think that numbers have a real significance rather than simply acting as a filter. Your comments as an "experienced critic" might have had real meaning though, who knows?
     
  28. BS gave 50+ of my images here 4's at one point. (maybe even 3's) Nothing
    higher. Bill Mitchel has said my works sucks TWICE! I think I should stop
    showing my stuff! :)
     
  29. Brian, still get a server error when trying to delete my portfolio. Sh1t, it's late I'm going to bed. Night night all :)
     
  30. "Az, your numbers mean nothing to me"

    Doesn't look that way to me, or to others here. Rating your photos fairly is not
    childish behavior, yet you chose to use that word to describe it, complaining all the
    while in two separate discussion threads, including this one.... despite later admitting
    that I was not abusive in my rating. As Ivar already noted, you actually care so much
    about ratings that you are pulling your photos off the site even though when you
    joined you were informed about how the ratings here work.

    That's your perogative, but it surely will leave people scratching their heads at the
    Masonic Lodge meeting tonight!
     
  31. "gave 50+ of my images here 4's at one point. (maybe even 3's) Nothing higher"

    Ooh, you are such a fibber. Your pants are on fire. No doubt I gave a bunch of your
    photos 4's (maybe even 3's), but this was one of my favorite of your street photos:

    http://www.fullframeimages.com/ffi05.html

    And I'm pretty sure I'd rated it highly.

    (Actually, now I think you're just anti-Masonic!)
     
  32. Kewl. I've never been AZ'd before. I'm not sure I was ever BS'd before either.

    Seriously, AZ, BS, Rollo Tomasi, Kaiser Soze, whoever you are, if I ever had a bone to pick with you before consider it ancient history. I've decided the ratings game is at worst good for laughs and at best valuable input. It's as good as the person giving it.

    In your case I'd consider the ratings you've left me perfectly appropriate. In fact, I think you were too generous with a few images. Some of the stuff in my Tri-X/Diafine folder bores me - I only uploaded 'em for technical illustration purposes. But you took time to consider 'em and I appreciate that.

    I've been pondering the brouhaha...ha...hum... over the notion that there's something inherently wrong with rating lots of photos, as tho' it's impossible to fully consider the merits of an image without meditating upon it for a fortnight.

    Y'know, that's pretty much crap. In most cases either an image appeals to a person immediately or they won't stick around long enough to be hypnotized into a transcendental state in which the light begins to dawn. Sure, there are exceptions. We have paintings around the house that I liked at first and now make my gorge rise (could I possibly be any sicker of Southwestern art? It's gotta be the best joke ever played upon Americans by art dealers.); and others that used to seem like little more than wallpaper but have gradually earned some of my respect.

    Consider this: If you submit three slides of your best work for a juried show, how much time do you think the judge/jury will actually give it? For an event like the Fort Worth Main Street Arts Festival there may be thousands, even tens of thousands, of slides submitted in hopes of snagging one of the 250 spots. Now, I don't know how much time the judges actually spend but if it's more than a day I'd be very surprised.

    So, are judges fulla crap, like AZ/BS? Or does the feedback, however terse and impersonal, from someone like AZ/BS/Rollo Soze actually serve a valid purpose, that of inuring us to the hard realities of the art world?

    I only ask. I have no answers.

    I will say this: AZ/Kaiser Tomasi must have one helluva fast online connection.
     
  33. You mention that Bailey took time to consider them, then later
    mentioned the probability of a fast connection.

    This is symptomatic of the site and applies to most newbies
    who get a pass word and to Bailey in particular because he
    considers who the maker is as part and parcel of what he's
    looking at. The real question which maybe Bailey would like to
    consider is exactly how many seconds do netters with fast
    connections look at an image. Many times we do make snap
    judgements that take milliseconds, but I think that if you're
    actually going to rate the thing, you should take a few moments
    longer, don't you? Then maybe actually say something! . . but
    that actually takes time, doesn't it.

    You say that he 'considered' them. Maybe. But considering the
    volume, either it was a snap judgement, or he has no life.

    Bailey, I'll know that you've 'considered' my image and whether or
    not it deserves consideration by others when you rate it within
    three days after rate #20. Any number is fine.
     
  34. (It worked!! Piss him off and he'll start rating your images again .
    . . . but it's just a coincidence, right?!)
     
  35. "Bailey, I'll know that you've 'considered' my image and whether or not it deserves
    consideration by others when..."

    Carl, you mistake me for someone who cares what you know. I'm just happy to note
    when you're wrong. <smile>
     
  36. What you chose NOT to respond to speaks volumes.
     
  37. Oh Carl, today you popped up declaring dark motives by me for NOT rating your
    photos recently -- while being oblivious to the fact that I just wasn't around. But your
    latest conspiracy theory was full of beans, and I rated your photos today, and as
    expected, you are still complaining.

    I was away, and now I'm back, rating from A ... to ... Z :)

    I know that you've repeatedly complained about people daring to rate your photos
    without posting photos of their own that you can counter-rate, or that you don't
    understand numerical ratings or whatever -- even though it's crystal-clear to
    everyone else that this is permitted, and even though your complaints alleging abuse
    were found to have been ... unfounded. Many of your public postings went beyond
    the pale and were deleted by moderators, but I *also* have several archived private
    emails you sent me over the months that too were ridiculous, ranging from demands
    that I owe you explanations for my ratings, to repeated 'requests' that I stop rating
    your photos, to requests that I not be one of the first to rate your photos (because
    you wanted to hit the top photos page), to attempts by you to allegedly educate me
    on how to rate your photos.

    It's hilarious. It's pathetic. It's hilaretic! (Reminder: don't email me any more.)
     
  38. AZ, can I ask, in all sincerity, what you get out of rating an image without leaving a comment, or having no uploads, because I get absolutely nothing as a recipient. A rate has no value without a reference for it. If I get a 4 from an experienced and respected photographer, it means a whole lot more than a 7 from Joe O Uploads or Harry N.O. Comments.
     
  39. What's a guy got to do to delete his portfolio in this place? Still server errors.
     
  40. Keith, I can still remember this forgotten thread.
    Just over two months ago you arrived in the photo.net Gallery. I've looked at the annoying numbers and like it or not, your work is deemed to be either good, or very good!
    I would hate to see you delete your portfolio, especially since it contains a POW. Not sure if this site archives a version of your image to keep the POW listing in the Gallery intact. Whatever the case might be, I think that you have received an adequate amount of "verbal" feedback on your images. The removal of your high quality work would be a loss to the site IMO.
     
  41. Well, you can't delete the folder because of the POW. The Oracle database is trying to enforce a constraint that the table of POW's must contain valid photo-ids. When the POW table was added, code wasn't added to the delete-folder code so that any POW in the folder would be deleted first. It never occurred to me at the time that anybody would be deleting a folder containing a POW.

    Considering the reception that your photos have had on this site, including the POW, I think you are rather reinforcing the stereotype of the temperamental artist.
     
  42. You archived the emails that I sent you several months ago!?!? Now
    that's a laugh.

    I have stuck my neck out and taken you to task making the case that
    many others have made, as you well know. If anyone else is unfamiliar
    with your behavior pattern and how people tend to react, read Hanna's
    post, and Kieth's first post. There have been many many more, but most
    have been deleted.

    The changes that took place just prior to your sabbatical were
    designed in part to deal with lowball tactics by you and others. It
    worked. As I said above, you can rate my stuff all you want now.
    Maybe you missed that. .
     
  43. Keith, go in and delete out the images individually accept the POW image. Leave it. So your account will have 1 image in it. I plan on leaving a few myself.

    I have started deleting my images this AM and am having a heck of a time doing it. I have one folder deleted. I will do the rest in the coming days.
     
  44. Why? Is it all because of this?
     
  45. Peter, not particularly. You have mail... Dave
     
  46. Dear me, people do seem to be getting in a tizwaz over these ratings. I think AZ is performing a public service and should be congratulated on his efforts.

    Myself, I'm too fed up with flamefests to copy him.
     
  47. Y'know, I seem to recall having once checked the top-rated photos by The AZ Formerly Known As Bailey Seals and there were some photos that got 6's and 7's. He doesn't give everything a 4 or 5.

    I think we just have to accept the fact that some pholks (that's "photo.net folks") have exceptionally critical standards for excellence and in their canon a 4 or 5 ain't bad.

    Sure, we wish all our photos were perfect 7's. (I recall a brief appearance by one phellow, nicknamed "Hollywood," whose creations truly were perfect - in his own mind.) Perhaps it'll ease the pain to interpret ratings on a relative, rather than absolute, scale. With that in mind, a 4 or 5 from TAZFKABS may be more valuable than a 7/7-WOW!!! from other members.

    Finally, the numbers I most want to see associated with my photos have $ signs attached.
     
  48. Yesterday, Kieth. Today, Dave. These guys are the
    better-than-average-photographers that this forum needs in
    order to be viable. When the computer figures out a way to
    recognize their value, then, and only then, will this forum turn
    around and start to replace all the quality folks that have stopped
    participating.
     
  49. "there were some photos that got 6's and 7's. He doesn't give everything a 4 or 5"

    Yup Lex, there were one or two:

    http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-
    critic?rater=116858&period=2000&mem=1

    And Harvey, thanks for the positive words. It's a shame that some people with good
    photos and who came in knowing about the rating system nevertheless are or become
    thin-skinned about it, even getting to the point that they sent abusive or harassing
    emails. Childish behavior indeed.
     
  50. Jeez Carl, Keith, do you have any idea what a bunch of prima donnas you all sound like? Portentious predictions of PN doom as all the self-described "quality photographers" leave the site because the ratings system isn't perfect, blah blah blah. Marc G. periodically huffs and puffs about the perceived inequality and dramatically deletes his pics, you go on and on in God knows how many threads, no matter what Brian does the ratings. You really send people emails asking them not to rate your pictures and for explanations? Strangers on the Internet who probably don't use their real name? You truly care? It's not news that the ratings favor a bunch of mutual reaters and those people who create glossy-looking photos of typically attractive subjects. Beyond that, there will be a wide spread ranging from disinterest to greater or lesser enthusiasm for the posted photos that fall outside the "norm". No amount of agitation will change those facts. The reality is there are many, many phottographers on PN whose work is terrific who never get any visibility on the Gallery pages because their work is subtle, different, or not self-promoted. There hasn't been an exodus of talent; there have been people who couldn't accept the fact that they weren't getting enough adulation who have stopped participating. Your complaining sounds like the pouting of a 2nd grader who doesn't get as many Pokemon cards as he would like.
     
  51. Carl, you keep harping away on the issue of all the "quality" folks who have stopped participating. This is tiresome. While it would be great if "quality" folks kept on participarting indefinitely (and subscribing, and renewing their subscriptions), and all the "non-quality" folks went away, a certain rate of attrition is unavoidable -- of both "quality" and "non-quality" people, whatever those categories are supposed to be. Some of this attrition isn't even attrition: people go away for a while and come back all the time.

    It is unavoidable that a certain number of people will get what they are looking for (visibility, a confidence boost, some feedback) from the Gallery and then move on. A certain number of people will realize that they are not going to get what they want from the Gallery without more effort than they are prepared to give, and they also leave. Nobody is shackled to the site. Also, if you let yourself get drawn into the competitive aspect, seeing every low rating as a setback to your "Top Photo" prospects, it can be a pretty intense experience. People get burned out, and personally I think it is good for them to take a break.

    The question is not whether there is attrition but whether it is increasing or decreasing and whether people are being replaced faster than people leave. It so happens that the attrition rate is declining steadily, and furthermore the number of new participants is increasing constantly. This is shown by the increase in the raw traffic statistics, subscriptions, memberships, photos uploaded, comments written, ratings given, forum postings, etc, etc, etc. Of course, anyone can retort that all these new people are "non-quality" people who don't replace the "quality" people who have left. That is entirely a matter of opinion.

    Incidentally, just yesterday we had 8.5 million hits on the site, a record. (Monday and Tuesday are generally the big days on the site; so it will be interesting to see what happens today. In May and June, we were struggling to handle only 7 to 7.5 million hits per day, and we wouldn't have been able to handle this number.
     
  52. Have not had a chance to read any of the new posts yet but for the moment am just posting two new ones below.
     
  53. Brian
    ”Many people already don't upload their photos to the Gallery because they don't want to be rated and critiqued by any Tom, Dick, or Bailey on the Internet, and they don't consider that receiving a share of 3 million photo views per day on photo.net to be worth the aggravation of receiving ratings and comments from people who they think are less knowledgeable or cultivated in taste than them.”
    Yes I dislike numerical scores for images, but your statement above is certainly not my position in regards to comments. As an example, I have made alterations to several of my print files as a direct result of comments given on my uploaded images by various contributors some of whom by their own admission are less than experienced. Comments can be of great value no matter whom they are from or whom they are addressed to. OK, some comments are less than helpful, the “Sorry don’t like it, don’t know why” or the “Wows” but on the whole I really value them. I just feel more could be done to encourage people to comment as well as or instead of rating. But there again it’s not my site and I don’t have the daily grind of running it and dealing with bloody awkward geezers like that Laban chap.
     
  54. AZ/BS
    ”Rating your photos fairly is not childish behaviour, yet you chose to use that word to describe it”
    Rating my photos as such is not childish behaviour. Going through my entire portfolio the day after I made it perfectly clear that I had no respect for your scores was I believe pure spite and very childish.
    ”despite later admitting that I was not abusive in my rating”
    As I have already said your scores were not abusive and I have never said that they were, however I believe your intention was.
     
  55. "your scores were not abusive and I have never said that they were, however I believe
    your intention was."

    So I *meant* to be abusive but was ... unsuccessful? That is just too funny. And this
    lack of success helped to drive your photos off a site which you joined *knowing* that
    anyone could rate any photo at any time? Hmm. And you say you *don't* care about
    my ratings? Really.
     
  56. Keith, I'm not sure the AZ Fomerly Known as BS was being spiteful. Maybe he's demonstrating a sense of humor that's not mutually appreciated.

    And you've gotta admit, asking someone not to rate you is kinda like a dare. I understood that when I uploaded some technical illustrations that didn't merit ratings and said as much in a note attached to each photo. Some folks rated 'em anyway. No biggie.

    Kinda like a kid running up to you and saying "Don't poke me!"

    So you poke him.

    He runs away, then scampers back and says, "Don't poke me again!"

    Poke.

    It's irresistible.
     
  57. "Maybe he's demonstrating a sense of humor that's not mutually appreciated."

    May be. And maybe some folks don't know a poke from a tickle. In any case I rated
    fairly, as Keith admits, and I did nothing that he shouldn't have known from Day 1
    was permitted here. I'll rate any photos I want to, and I usually rate whatever photos I
    see, good or bad ... dared or not. :)
     
  58. " I did nothing that he shouldn't have known from Day 1 was permitted here."

    Forbidden here, that is
     
  59. It's interesting to read comments from people who do not
    participate regularly in the photo critique forum. They say we
    shouldn't take it so seriously and that nothing will change.

    Things have changed. I've made more than my share of
    complaints, but always with ideas for ways of improving this
    forum. Several of the problems have been corrected and I would
    like to think I played I role in shedding light on the behaviors that
    caused them.

    Again, you wouldn't really understand unless you uploaded,
    rated, and commented on a regular basis. If you don't do all
    three, then this forum should be of no interest to you.

    It should be obvious that raids, pokes, jibes, and/or 'humor' have
    nothing to do with discussing photographs. If it has never been
    accompanied by anything positive, then it's just mean spirited.
     
  60. oh puhleese, now we can't add an opinion unless we've rated, critiqued, and commented "regularly"? Who in the world appointed you and your whining-in-arms mates arbiters of all things important around here? I've supported this site financially, participated on and off here for a year and a half, posted, and commented on people's pictures just fine, thank you. What I haven't done is turn every discussion about this site (or every POW for that matter) into a personal gabfest like you and your mates. That truly doesn't mean my opinion is any less important than yours. Try to get a grip on your arrogance.
     
  61. While not going quite as far as Kochanowski I think he has a point. The rules are pretty clear and it would be a real help if people accepted that (a) anything they post can be rated and/or commented upon and (b) didn't take it all so personally.
     
  62. I’m just about up to date with the posts now and the following are a few responses.
    Hanna
    You took the words out of my mouth. Well said.
    Peter
    I find all the numbers annoying when not backed up by a comment. I know it’s probably not going to happen, but I really feel that comments should have more emphasis than ratings.
    Brian
    I admit it, I am the stereotypical temperamental artist, very sad but I guess it goes with the job.
    Harvey
    I’m disappointed. Do you really believe that the numerical rating of images without the backup of comments are “performing a public service and should be congratulated.”?
    a. kochanowski
    I have never sent an e-mail to anybody concerning ratings or the gallery. Please, get your facts right.
    Lex
    Can we agree on a “spiteful sense of humour “?
    Comment for no one in particular.
    I admit it, I am confrontational, I wear my heart on my sleeve and say it as I see it, admittedly sometimes without enough thought. I't's got me in trouble on more than one occasion, but that's who I am.
    Instead of just reacting in my usual hot headed fashion and having given matters much uncharacteristic thought, taken on board many of the points made in this thread and also haven taken a lot of advice, this is what I’m going to do. I will take a complete break from the Gallery for the next couple of months, will leave my images untouched where they are and add no new images. I will also take a complete break from making comments about the Gallery and the ratings system and post no contributions to the Feedback Forum. Generally chill out.
    If at the end of this break I feel I can just accept things as they are I will resume posting images, If not I won’t and I will delete my images. Either way it will do my blood pressure the power of good and make the work of the administrators that much easier.
    Time alone will tell.
    OK, let's be 'avin yer :)
     
  63. Puhleese, yourself. You have a bit more than a hundred rates
    and comments in your rather long tenure, so it's fair for me to
    conclude that you don't care a whole lot about this forum. It's also
    reasonable to conclude that you're therefore not familiar with the
    changes in the dynamics of the forum as changes occur , ie
    'normalization', change in default top page, images placed in the
    rating queue, etc..

    Have you made any helpful suggestions about how to improve
    this forum?

    Your POW reference is curious. Maybe you'll notice that there
    have been a few changes made there, too.
     
  64. What bothers me most is the defensive attitudes of the moderators, Bob and Brian [less so Brian in this case]. In my days of moderating one tried to take a more middle ground. And this doesn't seem to be the first time either, nor will it be the last. There are enough harsh word from subscribers, heros, and the rest of rest to go around.

    The ratings system is one of the flawed parts. maybe a simple change of requiring comments with ratings would be a solution. In this case it does not appear to be like what James O'Niel pointed out in another thread. And I wish I had as many comments in my portfolios as some here. (As a note, I care not about the ratings, but the comments. Yet in todays world of not enough time we have to take the ratings as the comments.) Though opting in or out is not a solution that I think works. Maybe its time to make those that rate work for their ratings. And in the end the people that post photos will see what makes their photos work or not work.

    I for myself would hate to see Keith's gallery go. I haven't yet to go through and rate the images WITH COMMENTS, but loosing is images would be a loss for those of us that wish our images matched his own.


    Please Keith, keep your images in the ratings portfolio.
     
  65. oh, OK, so I have to spend all my waking hours rating others' photos in order to both have an opinion that your whining is irritating and be aware of the ratings changes over the past year. Yes Carl, some people can read without necessarily feeling the need to write long forum posts and impress their opinion in every debate. But have it your way, yours is obviously a mind immune to logic. As to POW, I quit participating in part because I was bored to death reading your and your pals mind-numbingly long exercises in going nowhere, including in my own POW.
     
  66. Somehow I knew this was about your POW.
     
  67. AZ, my question was not a rhetorical one and not intended as a criticism. I would really be interested in the answer.
     
  68. "I’m disappointed...“performing a public service and should be congratulated.” "

    That was written partly with my tongue in my cheek but, on reflection, I rather think I stand by it. Given that photo.net is a collaborative effort where the viewers are, to some degree, the curators, I'm warming to the idea that we should all take the trouble to rate images when we look at them.

    If AZ is actually prepared to go through the images and give an indication of how much he likes them then he's doing us all a service. It's certainly causing me to rethink my policy of commenting on everything I rate. Given the interesting responses I've had, it's making me think that perhaps, in future, I'll copy AZ and just rate without leaving comments. I'll probably still get as many flames but what the hell - it's time to live a little dangerously...

    :)
     
  69. Harvey, you can start on my folders. Tear me a new one. ;>
     
  70. Harvey me old dude<p>Cool ~ be real groovy if you’d score for me tooooooooo<p>Hey, this chilling is way neat :)
     
  71. Hit me, Bailey! My masterpieces have been neglected long enough.
     

Share This Page