Could this be a solution to solving the rating problem and adding to Photo.net revenues?

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by steve_lowther, Oct 21, 2008.

  1. A feature that I am proposing for consideration is the "Qualified Judges Rating" which would be open to subscribers
    only. Images from subscribers could be requested for qualified critiquing just like critiques are requested now. There
    simply would be another option in addition the regular "Request Critique".

    The judges would be selected (and maybe given an icon) by a process that could be hashed out by suggestions from
    members. One way could be a minimum average score for images posted. Another way could be selected by a
    moderator(s) from applications by those who would want to be judges.

    I can't help but think this would be a sure fire way to enhance revenues!
     
  2. I think this is a good idea...some critique would be good too. I'd love much more constructive comment on my
    images, where I could improve, and what works. I enjoy adding some comments to those images which I feel have
    alternative/additional potential, but it'd be much more educational to get a more 'qualified' opinion.

    My concern is that it would use an inordinate amount of time!
     
  3. And what incentive would these "qualified" people have to spend their free time to provide this service?

    If you want professional critique, you have to pay for it.
     
  4. "..And what incentive would these "qualified" people have to spend their free time to provide this service?..."

    Publicity? We all know that photographers love to give their work away to get publicity. Perhaps qualified photo critics operate using the same business model? Altruism maybe?

    I suspect there would be a problem with numbers as usual. Far more people wanting the service than volunteers qualified and willing to provide it. If you could make it work it would be great of course...
     
  5. Yes, I didn't mean to crap on the idea in concept. It would be great if we had a bunch of expert photographers who loved spending their free time handing out advice. But the fact is that Bob is right, we would have too many people wanting the service and not enough people interested in giving out the advice.

    Expert critique is hard work. And given the number of ungrateful people on the site who cannot accept anything negative about their images, I expect that we would have a hard time getting experts to subject themselves to that sort of abuse without crossing their palm with some coin.
     
  6. Josh, you do bring up some salient points.

    It seems to me, however, that photo.net has more than proven that people are willing to donate lots of time for no remuneration. As evidence of that, look at the number of triple film cannister icons. I think that in itself is some pretty convincing evidence.

    I think it would be too much to expect every image submitted for qualified judging to have multiple, full critiques. This is also a solution for the aberrant raters plaguing the system as well. It would be expected that the qualified judges would give fewer 3/3s on 5/5 images. Perhaps any given 3/3 or lower would require a critique.

    An idea is a delicate thing. If there were no ratings or critiques given on photo.net, just think of all the ways we could "dump" on the idea if it were proposed as it now exists. But it seems with the profound sense of community we have here, you administrators have proven to us we do have an adequate supply of expert photographers who would spend time critiquing and rating.
     
  7. "It seems to me, however, that photo.net has more than proven that people are willing to donate lots of time for no
    remuneration. As evidence of that, look at the number of triple film cannister icons. I think that in itself is some pretty
    convincing evidence."

    Unfortunately, the film canisters denote the quantity of posts, not the quality. You can't tell if the comments were
    from qualified individuals giving sound advice or just someone running off at the mouth with nothing better to do with
    their time than spend all day on photo.net!

    "Qualified" judges wouldn't give numeric ratings because they would know such an activity is meaningless. I presume
    any "qualified" judge would give a well reasoned critique running to at least 100 words and preferably more than that.
    If they could not find at least 100 words to say about each image, I'd have to seriously doubt their "qualifications" and the true value of any critique they gave.

    If the scheme could be tried with a wave of the magic programming wand, I'm sure it would be worth a go. However, since it would require programming effort, it would be up to Josh to assign it a priority in the large queue of jobs that the programmer(s) are already working their way through. I suspect it wouldn't be near the top.
     
  8. Thank you, Bob, for your input here./// We perhaps could take our cue from the Professional Photographers of America criteria for judging prints. Their "qualified" judges ONLY give numeric ratings because their criteria give it meaning. It is true that there is discussion when there is a large enough discrepancy between the highest and the lowest scores. /// It seems to me that the rating system on photo.net is not meaningless, but rather is sabotaged by those who really aren't yet qualified to give ratings. I have seen this for myself when as a photo instructor, my class of high schoolers will give poor ratings because a homeless man in a picture is "ugly". I have a lesson called "beauty where there is none" that I have given in hopes to broaden the minds of my students. It contains images of not only the homeless, but of warthogs, war, and other moving scenes that are not "pretty" on face value.
     
  9. "We perhaps could take our cue from the Professional Photographers of America criteria for judging prints. Their "qualified" judges ONLY give numeric ratings because their criteria give it meaning. "

    Not much I can say about that. Anyone who thinks a number is useful probably can't really be helped a lot. Photography isn't an Olympic sport..
     
  10. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    How many "Request Critique" photos are put up on Photo.net every day?
     
  11. people enjoy teaching and when photo.net launched photocritique circles some years back it was a smashing success -- too successful in that it took a lot of time to group people e.g. people of varying abilities with others to make a good group based on peoples applications Unfortunately there were not enough resources then to keep up with that. I think it would make a very attractive additional feature for photo.net, especially if it required folks to subscribe in order to join.
     
  12. "How many "Request Critique" photos are put up on Photo.net every day?
    Around 1000.
     
  13. Raj,

    That's a project I've talked to Jin about already. We've got a bunch of other stuff on the table, but bringing back some form of critique circles is on my list of things to do.
     
  14. If the galleries on the PPA site are representative of images that score highly on their criteria, then perhaps their criteria are quite useful in judging slick-looking postcard/poster-style cliches. If your goal isn't to produce superficial eye candy, their criteria may be counterproductive.
     
  15. You have to remember, Mike, the PPA promotes the commercial genre. These are people making their living selling portraits and weddings, and they do quite well with developing and promoting that genre. Different people naturally gravitate to different genres, and there will always be those who denigrate various genres as inferior, trite, or unoriginal. And that's fine. The administration does a great job of promoting room for everyone one's taste on photo.net.

    I am suggesting that the PPA has tackled the problem of ratings. You need not bring it wholesale to photo.net, but it could provide some valuable insight to a problem addressed long before there ever was an internet.
     
  16. "Not much I can say about that. Anyone who thinks a number is useful probably can't really be helped a lot.
    Photography isn't an Olympic sport.."

    Bob, numbers are useful as a device to reflect how an individual gauges quality. One could conclude from your
    remarks that you have no use for ratings, but your portfolio shows you have had plenty of your images submitted for
    ratings including your latest three. I saw none that were for "critique only", but admittedly I didn't check every single
    one in your superb portfolio. So I am left to doubt the sincerity of your statement above.

    Photo.net uses ratings extensively. Without the rating system there is no path to the collection of outstanding
    images one finds on photo.net. One could go so far as saying that without a rating system, photo.net would not
    have its backbone, only an amorphous mass of images.

    Ratings are as useful to one as one's respect for the rater. The masses of faceless anonymous raters we know
    contain their flawed individuals. Our respect is low for the rouge rater who only knows how to dispense 3's. But for
    me since I have seen your work, I would respect your opinion anytime -- in the form of a rating. And a critique would
    be welcomed gravy.
     

Share This Page