beepy Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 When you go to "The Gallery" where you see the latest subscriber's photograph, there is a terribly misleading section on the lower left: <blockquote> Critics Circle <strong>New!</strong> <p> Look at the highest-rated photos of this week's featured critics: <p> Mary Ball<br> Nana Sousa Dias<br> Marc Gouguenheim<br> Bailey Seals<br> Seven Stuartson </blockquote> First of all - no, it is not new. Why mislead all the new subscribers? Second, it is <strong>every</strong> week's featured critics - it never changes. <p> Can someone just edit it and make it correct? <p> And who the hell is Bailey Seals?!?!? <p> :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 <i>"And who the hell is Bailey Seals?!?!?"</i> <p> This is a timeless question... with no answers!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 click on the name and u'll see...:o)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 One of life's great mysteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_jenoptik1 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 And who the hell is Bailey Seals?!?!? "And who the hell is Bailey Seals?!?!?" This is a timeless question... with no answers!! �[� Z , mar 30, 2004; 06:47 a.m. One of life's great mysteries. �[� Z has answered your question for you, but there's no mystery to this one. Even a novice can do 1+1 and come up with 4/4. For those of you who think it's illogical, that 1+1 = �[� Z + who is Bailey Seals, get a life. �[� Z is a problematic mentality of photo.net. Ain't no critic life there - just a load of numbers. Who cares if they're exponential. Nawww...critics aren't new - these ones are just living off their historical reputation. Kinda old hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 <i> get a life. </i><p> Sounds like a plan, James. Good luck finding one that doesn't involve insulting people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabrielma Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Back to the original topic, I tried their very useless information, and the e-mail one is supposed to write to if one is interested in joining or creating a new circle is stale (i.e. bounced back because "account does not exist").<BR><BR> Not to mention there is only one way of getting to that page (that I'm aware of). Any up-to-date developments in that, other than "wording"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_jenoptik1 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 <<Sounds like a plan, James. Good luck finding one that doesn't involve insulting people.>> 4/4. (Actually, here's a good plan: go around rating 10,000 digi-shots in an emotionally catatonic state. That's Mr Jenoptik to you, Mr Seals. You don't know me to call me on first name terms.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawel1 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Bailey Seals = Kasier Sosa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawel1 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Bailey Seals = Kaiser Sosa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 The thread has gone off topic but I think the "Critics Circle" was/is a good idea. It gives an opportunity for photos to be displayed other than what appear in the "Top Photos". I don't know the history of the CC however and why it failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Sorry Jimmy, didn't mean to bruise your ego so badly. Good luck in whatever world of politesse you live in -- maybe they have a photo website that only allows 7/7s. You and "Y Z" -- who deleted his images rather than let the hoi polloi rate them (a concept he wasn't clear on when he started uploading, apparently) can go there and pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful each other's photos are and how awful and evil are the people who dared say that some of your photos were average .... Puppydogs and lollipops and sunshine: what a wonderful world it must be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 No, Sammy Sose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Ya know, I was just sort of joking about the Bailey Seals thing - didn't mean to start the flame war. Sorry.<p>That said, �[� Z, I added a new folder "Pittsburgh" that awaits ratings. Now I'm really off topic - I'm curious about your rating strategy, so I won't say more, but may have a comment/question after you rate folder. But don't do anything different than you would normally do! (I know this is all sounding weird...:-) Sorry.) And don't rate if you don't want to!<p>Oh yeah, and now back on topic. Yes, the concept of the critics circle seems really good - and I too wonder why it stalled. It would provide balance against the tyranny of the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 [sorry - off topic again - sincere apologies] <p> Now rated - my philosophical question is - does it matter that pictures were produced with a pinhole lens? <p> Probably not - composition is composition in one sense. But the effects obtained with a pinhole lens are different - I'm wrestling to think of what subjects suit it. Cemeteries came to mind immediately - but maybe not good at all. <p> Still thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Some of you are confused. There are both critique circles and critic circles. Both were good ideas. Neither were maintained. Both died from neglect. Fortunately, there are other interesting ways to see and react to images and the photographers who upload them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 I was noticing some confusion - I was referring to "Critic Circles". <p> If they died - someone should remove the body. <p> I guess the "critic circle" can be created by viewing top rated pics by those that critique (rather than comment) on photos? Is there a way to determine who the top critiquers of photos are? by the way? I didn't see where to determine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Argh. Sorry - <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/">Critics Circle</a>. <p> Lower left of page. <p> At least remove the "New!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_bingham Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Bailey Seals is a highly educated and extremely gifted critic who has managed to incorporate the braille system into his use of photo.net. Cleaver man, but occasionally his secret reveals itself. His enemies and friends (both of them) know him as Z. Ah, excuse me, I meant both friends and enemies. I think. :^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Steve, how many insulting posts by you have been deleted by moderators on this site? Why do you pretend to be lighthearted about me yet try to get digs in whenever you can? Can't you just chill out? Can't you grow up, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 How would a computer determine who the top critic is? Most comments? Hmmmmm . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_bingham Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Hey Bailey, here is the deal. You enjoy rating ALL my photographs (before anybody else) even though I have politely asked you (twice) not to. I enjoy rating you as a rater, even though it displeases you. It has nothing to do with growing up and everything to do with you leaving me alone. Get it? You obviously are an educated man who insists on having things your way. In real life this is a dangerous trait that will prevent you from being all you can be. At 68 and retired with three very succussful businesses I am on the down hill slide and really don't give a rat's posterior. If you don't like my fun and games, stop playing the game. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hey Carl, er trying to drag the kids back on topic:-) <p> So, my first question was simple - is there a way to determine the top raters (by sheer count) on photo.net? Is it true that (I won't mention his name) has given the most ratings? One would posit that people who have rated a bunch of pictures learned something along the way that may be of interest (reflected in their top ratings). <p> Second, the distribution of ratings would indicate their ability to decide the good from the bad from whatever perspective they choose (well, it might also be meaningless - but let's not go there). <p> Your observation on number of comments... Hmmm... simple packages do a quick analysis of a section of text for grade level:-) So, statistics on the comments may help mine some "critics" worth tracking. <p> I'm assuming the resources don't exist to keep the "Critics Circle" under human management - but even if a person was available, some DB analysis tools could help them in their job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Carl raised THE Question... we are dealing here with subjectivity and art so there will be always somebody to complain and most of the time with a valid reason... <p> the more people to comment, the more differents opinions, the best IMO...<p> or may be... I have a suggestion here ... why not set the ability for each of us to give a mark to another member from 1 to 7 for the general quality of their comments/critics (for their ratings it is almost impossible since we do not have access to each others' ratings'file). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Steve, you can ask or demand or whine for specific individuals not to rate your photos but in the end by uploading you agreed to let anyone rate on photo.net, and if your request is denied you need to get on with your life and stop the inane, chilidish insults. Get a life, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now