Critique: Bad Scores for the sake of Bad Scores

Hello-

 

I have put two images up for critique. The first one did fairly, but

felt that another image better represented what I was trying to do.

Both images had some pretty low scores, but I have NO IDEA what

warrented that!

 

A critique is not about just saying "i like it" or "i don't like it"

and that is exactly what is being encouraged by allowing people to

rate a photograph without leaving feedback. If i wanted to be judged,

I would enter the county fair.

 

In particular I disliked one person who gave me a TWO for both

aesthetic and originality, I went to look to see if he genuinly

disliked my image or if he rates low, his average rating is in the low

threes!

 

I can see this person just going through the critique area, looking at

each photo for about twenty seconds and say "it's sucks, it sucks, it

sucks, it rocks, it sucks, it sucks, it sucks, it sucks..." Making

people leave feedback would force people to think about what they do

not or do like about what they are looking at that way more than just

their very first impressions reflect the critique.

 

It would likely result in fewer scores as a whole, but i would much

rather have information which i can use for future project. I am not

sour about my poor response from the critique, I'd just like to know

how I can be a better artist and photographer.

anno...please forgive me if I come across the wrong way, I don't mean to be cruel. When I saw the post in question, the one with your comment "<i>but please tread carefully as it is extremely personal</i>." I thought to myself "anno your setting yourself for some cheap shots buddy". Unfortunately it seems I was correct. I rather like the shots...actually more then rather I think there very good...but others are gonna say "that�s not photography" (I think they're wrong) and so those you will have offended .<p>And then there's the others...the ones that will take <B>BIG</b> offence to your "<i>thread carefully</i>" comment...as they (with some justification) will say "if you can't stand the heat get out of the damn fire"...<p>And so I must close on that note but will add this; I boxed for a couple years (I was lousey). Even before I got into the ring I knew no matter how good I was, I was going to take some hits. Well my friend...you�re in the ring, you�re taking some hits <B>BUT</b> keep shooting like you are, you�ll come out a winner.

Anno is yet another of those people who take this whole ratings thing altogether too seriously. Nobody is going to confiscate one of your kids if you don't get high ratings on the PN website (your wife, maybe, but not the kids!!). So, just relax and enjoy a stress free existence!

The ratings are not intended as feedback. The ratings are a ranking system, like a poll, to determine whether the servers should put the photo in front of people or not.

 

If you think you can learn something from the ratings on your photo, that is fine, but the way to do that is to look at the averages and the overall distribution. Trying to figure out the meaning of an individual rating is not a sensible thing to do. If a photo averages out as "Good", there will almost always be some people who will think it "Very Good", or even "Excellent", and there will be people who think it "Average" or "Bad", or even "Very Bad". It is a statistically based system, and that is the way statistics are.

 

If you can't tolerate critical comments on a photo, or low ratings, because it is "personal", then, really, it is not wise to post it.

anno--I'm pretty much a what-you-see-is-what-you-get person. I'm open about myself and my life. For the most part, I figure if someone doesn't like me because I'm female, blonde, overweight, divorced, single parent, outspoken, etc. etc. that it's their problem, not mine. (that's not to say that it doesn't ocassionally bother me) Problem is there are lots of people out there that like judging, whether it's our photos, our looks or our lives. My guess is that there are some who will take offense to the theme of your photos and rate them accordingly. That's their problem, not yours.

 

My first thought as I looked through your folder was, "Is this a photograph?" Then it changed to, "Hmmm...this is pretty artsy stuff, but it's kind of disturbing." (remember, disturbing doesn't equate with bad) My final thoughts, not something I'd hang on my walls, but it is something that belongs in an art gallery.

Ok- First of all, my feelings are not hurt, these images have already been through critique once from classmates who i respected and actually cared about their opinion.

 

It isn't that my feelings are hurt, or that I cannot "take the heat" If people actually read the post it even says "I am not sour about my poor response from the critique"

 

To me, this is about what a critique is. For a critique to be a critique it needs to be more than "thumbs up/thumbs down". THAT is what my post was about not the poor ratings.

The ratings will never be more than a thumbs up or thumbs down. They are not required to be associated with comments. They are just one person's opinion. Don't dislike the person who rates low any more than you should like the person who rates high. As you get comments, take from them what you can. You're right that ratings are not necessarily good feedback, and they cannot be equated with critiques, but this is pretty old ground to cover. If you have a suggestion, Brian would probably look at it, but it has to serve two masters: 1) a systematic means to curate the galleries, 2) a means to provide meaningful feedback to photographers. Right now, the ratings do the first and the comments do the second. Thus, Brian's point that the ratings are for the site, not the photographer. Despite that, they result in many if not most of the complaints about the gallery/critique fora. At this point, the site isn't willing to require comments to leave ratings.

 

Too much ramble from me. Onward.

Bob-

 

Please do feel compelled to reply here, this is all I have to say on the subject. It is already starting to run in circles, and I am repeating myself. No need to continue.

 

<<The ratings are not intended as feedback. The ratings are a ranking system, like a poll, to determine whether the servers should put the photo in front of people or not.>>

 

If this were actually the case, then wouldn't as accurate a score be necissary? You'll never avoid jerks which just go about rating low entirely. And some folks opinions just are not valid "I don't like these images, because your a faggot" (not saying that was the case with my other 2/2, but it's possible that it could happen)

 

However, I think that some of that would be reduced if some how the critique page was encouraged to be constructive, and not just "i like it, I don't like it".

 

I think that my suggestion would benifit both the photographer and the site as a whole with more accurate, well thought out ratings.

 

Like I said in my other post, my feelings are not hurt. I can "take the heat". "Self Portrait Three" was ripped apart at final critique in college, yet I included it not only in my presentation but also in exhibit at the museum which it was displayed at last year.

 

If I couldn't accept poor scores i would have kept it in the body of work, but hid it away in fear that poor things would be said again.

 

But the thing which i am complaining about is not the low numbers, it's the lack of feedback as a whole, should I reconsider the value of this image? Could there have been something better which I could have done? I feel that one of the primary purposes of this website is to educate and I do not feel that the critique galleries are up to par with that purpose.

Generally, I just don't bother requesting critiques anymore. I

hardly ever get any feedback. Since ratings are more important to

the site I don't expect this to ever be changed fairly. I joined to get

constructive criticism. It just doesn't happen. I get much better

feedback at the other photo sites since comments are required

for critiques. You should join one of the other ones as well.

"the thing which i am complaining about is not the low numbers,

it's the lack of feedback as a whole. . . "

 

It's surprising how much time people spend talking about

numbers when meaningful feedback - comments - is ultimately

what they really want. The solution to your problem is to

reconfigure the photocritique forum so more people who might

be inclined to comment on your rather unusual image would be

attracted to the forum.

Anno. I've got more reason than most to understand your subject matter since my sister was, for the first 20-something years of her life, my brother. Actually I think your work is pretty good, although its not much to my taste. <br> Now we used to have a rule that said 1,2 or 7 requried a comment. But the comments were more often than not "this rocks" or "this sucks". I'm sure Brian could re-instate it, (and Brian despite the intent the site has for the ratings system, many mebers view it differently) - but I doubt it would give you the feedback you want. <br>

I think it is simply good manners to explain a score at either end of the scale. If I give you a brace of 7s without explaining myself it might do your ego good and you wouldn't complain, but if it is no more help than an unxplained pair of 1s <br>

Personally, if I get high or low scores and I don't recognise the name, I have a look at what they post and what the rate highly and make my own mind up if I care about their opinion. <br>

If your talking about Brian Potts giving your Self Portait 7 2/2 look on the bright side, if he averages 3.25 you're just 1.25 below his avereage. If I gave you a couple of 3s you'd be more than 2 below my average.

I received 2/2 on my latest post today as well. I simply e-mailed the guy privately asking if he would mind sharing his reasons for the low score. Maybe I can learn something, maybe not. So what, life does go on and there are people who see things differently and or possibly people with hidden agendas wherever you go.

 

I certainly agree though that there are far fewer comments now than ever before. When a change is made, one would hope it is a change for the betterment of all involved. By eliminating the need to comment on 1,2 or 7 ratings...you have NOT enhanced the quality of this site nor it's environment one single bit! That is an opinion shared by most.

People who used to 'explain 1s, 2s, and 7s rarely said anything

meaningful. I do think the requirement was a deterent to mindless 1s,

and 2s. Many of us who never used to get any except for an obvious -

by timing - retaliation now get them on every other image. They're

mindless . . . and don't matter statistically because of the ten

image plateau. That was the whole point of picking ten.

 

I wouldn't waste my time with an email. They don't think of the

person behind the image. Why should you bother with the person behind

the mindless rate? . . .

I have to disagree with you here Carl. At present, a low 1-2 and even a 7 is just a click away. Before, one would at the very least say something that justified their rating. Many times the comments WERE somewhat meaningful. More commenting was also encouraged because you HAD to get into that habbit. I admit that I am often too tired or perhaps lazy to offer a good reason for rating a 7. Just slap it on! Look at the quality of comments lately...even worse now than I have ever seen while being a member here. The entire site has lost a fair measure of fun that existed just a little while ago. Of course I reckon not all share this opinion, but I know for a fact that many do. At least I am able to catch up with other more important things nowadays. Perhaps I should see the silver lining in all of this and keep quiet!! Back to work!

photo.sig...<b>Calm Down</b>...you gotta get used to the fact there is such a site, does a lot of things wrong (there, is that better?). One of the things they do right is require a comment of 20, 30, 40 (?) words for the critique to be counted. Yes you can call it a -2 (on the scale of -3 to +3) but that -2 does not become a factor in the shots overall rating unless a suitable length comment is made.<p>So I although I can rate a photo.sig users shot as a -3 and say your shot sux's and you're an ass...oops it also filters out words like ass...so I can't say that...<p>I'll try again; -3 your shot sux's and your anal is allowed <b>BUT</b> since my comment is too short the -3 is not included in the sum of scores for the photo. Seems to work really well (unless of coarse you really want to call someone an ass...).

If some people had not abused the system, there would still be compulsory comments for ratings like 1, 2 and 7.

<p>

It so happens, that too many people were distributing 7s like candies, with comments that bearely said more than "Wow !" So Photo.net decided to get rid of the dozens of "Wow!" by making it possible to rate without commenting. I'm not quite sure why the same logic applied to the 1s and 2s - since there aren't that many ratings as low as this, and even 3 words explanation are better than nothing.

<p>

What I know is that this change made it very convenient for folks who registered on PN and started immediately to rate my folders with 2s all the way and nothing above 4. Some of these folks rated 14 shots of mine with an average lower than 3 and never rated more than 13 other pictures on the site. Be it. The rating system is at least now the real farce it was apparently fated to be.

<p>

I used to write comments with all the low ratings I gave. Well, no longer. And I've rated 1 folder I liked a lot and less than 10 other pictures in the last 3 weeks. I expect to rate less than 10 pictures a month in the future; if I rate any picture at all nowadays, I must really have a good reason to do so, and I may rate below average without bothering writing a comment.

<p>

Why ? Because the rating system is an absolute farce anyway.

<p>

Another reason why I more or less stopped posting constructive comments is that ad hominem attacks were more often than not the reward I got for stating my dislikes.

<p>

I've now simply joined the ranks of those who said long ago "Dish the rating system all together"... If PN can't find a way to make sure the rating system works well, then why do we still need a rating system ? Let me guess... to attract the crowds who are prepared to pay for the right to receive their friends' 7s day in day out ? Well, then just forget about photo.net as a critique site.

<p>

I've already moved to another site which gives members the possibility to simply opt out of all the rating nonsense, and on which I get 3 to 4 times more, and also more thoughtful comments, than I did on photo.net when I recently uloaded the same picture as a test.

<p>

That may be something photo.net now really needs to consider, or perhaps the members of photo.net will... If you can't or don't want to take control of all rating abuses, photo.net, let members opt out of the rating nonsense, or all reasonable folks will leave...

Many outstanding photographers have already left the site. The top pages (with all due respect) are not half as good as in months past. It started in my opinion with unfairly banning Anna's ratings. That bad taste has simply never gone away. The mate-raters AND balance brigade thugs only made things worse. Allowing lowball-7 ratings without a comment has not helped even a little. I have said all along if you want to get rid of the nonsense, then ban the ratings altogether. Otherwise it would have been better off left alone as it was.

"Another reason why I more or less stopped posting constructive comments is that ad hominem attacks were more often than not the reward I got for stating my dislikes."

 

After reading the forums for some time I only recently uploaded some images and started actually doing the ratings and critiques thing, and that has been exactly my experience.

 

The way the ratings system works is bogus, and while I can accept the argument that ratings are for the site rather than the photographer, too many people take ratings far too seriously.

 

Excuse my newbie naivete, but what photo.net needs is a way for photographers with like interests to find each others work. I don't take ratings seriously and I rarely take comments seriously -- all I want is to find interesting photographers. But this site offers no way for me to find, say, every photographer who has taken mindless and derivative photographs of Mesa Arch in identical light.

 

I don't see that being solved.

 

Marc, I'd appreciate knowing what this other site is.

I agree andrew, I sometimes wonder if at least one of my low ratings was because it was an alternative process...

 

"this isn't a photograph! it's a... well... IT'S NOT A PHOTOGRAPH!"

I agree with many of the things said by both sides on this issue. And agree with the comments above that the changes made starting almost one year ago have made things worse and far less enjoyable. I too participate far less than I use to <applause in the background> ........................ But it really doesn't matter what I think -- or what you think ........................ What does the majority think ?

 

Most businesses use a technique called 'marketing' to find out what their customers want ............................... Period.

 

 

At some point -- We must all be willing to walk a mile in another's shoes ..................... And from that point, stop, turn and view the world from 'their' perspective .................................. Halfway, between this spot ...................... and the spot where You now stand ..................................... lies the 'common ground' .............................. Typically the tool used to locate this common ground is called ........................ Compromise. A word I don't recall ever seeing in any of these threads.

Why is it that so many of the people who have written here get so upset because people don't like their pictures? It's a fact of life that you can't please all of the people all of the time and there are bound to be people who really dislike your images simply because they really dislike your images.

 

Actually, one simple (five minute) change that might defuse all this grumbling is to change the rating descriptions from "bad", etc to "really don't like" and so on which is in any case what the ratings are measuring.<div></div>

Anno, don't worry about low ratings. I've been handed some 1's and 2's myself and they really don't matter. If you want more feedback on your images start offering more feedback to others and it will come. So far you've only commented on 10 images. Start a concerted effort to leave thoughtful critiques on others work and you will find people willing to reciprocate.

 

"The ratings are not intended as feedback. The ratings are a ranking system, like a poll, to determine whether the servers should put the photo in front of people or not." - Brian Mottershead

 

Brian, I applaud your efforts to improve the system, and you have improved it in my opinion. And while I appreciate that the rating system is intended to be a poll resulting in a statistical ranking of images, in truth this poll quite often results in a statistical ranking of photographers. Or to be more specific a statistical ranking of friends. At this point the server will determine which photographer (friend) will be put in front of the people. The photograph itself becomes irrelevant in certain cases. Anna was just one example.

 

Brian I realize of course that I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. These circumstances are a result of human nature, so we must accept the fact that the rating system does not produce the cold hard statistics we would hope for and is therefore misleading. There are people who believe these flawed statistical rankings, and go along with the myth that the top rated photographers are indeed producing the best images on this site. Sadly that is not always the case, and it's naive to think so.

 

Ken, I agree with your comment. There is always a middle ground, and compromise is what we should strive for. Since I should now consider myself to be one of those "balance brigade thugs" I should point out that compromise was my goal. If photographer "A" wants to rate every image produced by photographer "B" with 7/7's so be it! Let them! But if another photographer thinks one of those images is worth a 3/3 they should be encouraged to rate it as such without fear of reprisal. Without them automatically being considered to have some "agenda" or being "jealous". The result would be a more statistically accurate ranking of images from a wider range of judges. The illusive "middle ground". If we all keep talking maybe we'll get there someday. (-:

 

Lastly I think people should be allowed to opt out of the rating system if they desire. I don't know if I would personally because I do find some enjoyment, and at times amusement in ratings. But if a "comments only" gallery were created I may very well go that route!

Don't take it personal Bob. I purposely used the word thugs for fun! We humans do have intelligence. You can tell when someone is rating honestly, or if someone is rating to even the score with a hidden agenda. (which has not really been an issue lately in my opinion) Same goes for the mate-rating.....which still continues to a fair degree. And, will probably always be an issue as long as man and ratings exist.

My Pictures are aesthetically terrible. Nevertheless I continue to post, and rate pictures and get ratings etc, etc. Anno- people don't have to comment on your pictures and as Brian said it really is up to you what you get out of the ratings. Maybe you should try to realize that everyone is different, has different tastes, feels different things for different pictures. By marking a picture a "2" they are telling you they consider your picture to be "bad" in their mind. Maybe instead of doing the little song and dance that has become all to familiar around here you can step back, and try and put yourself in the viewers shoes. I've posted some pictures here that i was so F*ing thrilled about, I mean I thought these pictures were great. And when that first batch of 2's and 3's came through, I was heartbroken. I cried I really really cried. I guess I was kinda mad to, these people didnt even bother to comment or anything. But, then it occured to me... "A hundred million Red Chinese can't be wrong". lol Really, I mean you don't get 25 2's on a picture if it's GOOD.(unless you're Marc Gougenheim) So, ok. I realized, ok- I'm not Doug Burgess, Yuri Bonder or Phil or Marc or Anna or Ansel, I'm new at this and my equipment sucks. So, I stepped back. I went through the gallery and started to look at the pictures there the same way I had looked at mine. What did I like about them that I liked about mine? What were the similarities, and in looking at OTHER peoples pictures it was MUCH easier to see the "bad" things about them, and thus also identify the "bad" things about mine and therefore understand the ratings and lack of comments. It's like I take each rating I bestow upon a gallery picture and I think "Would I rate my own picture this? Why or why not?" I do NOT decide what my rating on that picture will be based on that, but I just try and use every picture as a comparison.

 

 

So, you are not me. Maybe you've been doing this for 20 years and have a whole closet full of Hasselblads and Leicas, but maybe you could try and figure out why people are giving you those ratings. They really shouldn't need to tell you. You should be able to figure it yourself if you really wanted to.

 

This though? This forum? This whining and questioning? It won't give you ANY answers about those 2's. Which is why I'm suspiciuous of the motives behind all these attention getting ratings threads, lately.

I spent the last few days looking at the images of the folks who gave me very poor ratings.

 

One took pictures of bugs and flowers and the other took a picture of ducks and a picture of a park bench. I wondered to myself "what's the point?" and came to the following conclusion:

 

I am, not saying that no photograph of bugs or flowers can be good. I have seen many good flower photos, but these were not it.

 

I beleive that there are people out there who combine "aesthetic" and "originality" into "I hate it and it sucks" and give no thought into the meaning of the word.

 

I don't know how much more original my work can be, I created the process! I know that Man Ray made images of himself as a woman, I'm sure I'm not the only one to do it, but my style is completely different. And certainly more original that just aiming a camera at a flower and exposing, how many times have we seen that?

 

It seems there are two types of photographers that will never get along: The Pretty Picture Takers and the Interesting Picture Takers. Interesting does not mean pretty, and Pretty does not mean Interesting. But if a pretty picture taker looks at an ugly picture they wonder what's the point regardless if it is interesting. An Interesting Picture Taker will look at a photograph that is pretty and not interesting and wonder what's the point. (and if a person routinely takes pretty, interesting pictures, I'd say that they are Interesting Picture Takers)

 

I personally think it is a waste of film to go about shooting endless pictures of flowers with no consideration for expression, technique or documentation. We see pretty pretty things all the time, it isn't unusual and we do not over look it, so it is not mundan either. Flowers being flowers or ducks being ducks is not an interesting document, flowers with no compositional merrot is not an interesting composition, flowers with no personal attachment is not an interesting expression. If a botanist took polaroids of various plants for scientific means, is it art?

 

In closing, it is not that my images deserve a "2/2" from these people, it is that it does not fit their deffinition of what art is. Likewise their photographs do not deserve a "2/2" from me. However, for some of their images I might give them a higher score for originality or aesthetic, I consider these words and their meaning when scoring photographs and do not sit around and say "it sucks" unless I honestly cannot find any aspect of the image I like other than proper exposure, unless it is obviously a zone system image. Anyone can be trained how to make a precise exposure, all they really need to know is 1 stop up=1/2 the light, 1 stop down=2x the light, meter off of middle grey. Using exposure for for aesthetic purposes is another thing entirely.

 

In the future I will examine and investigate ratings where aesthetic is the same as originality to see if they actually have any merrot. It is obvious that some people are so closed minded and arrogant they cannot appreciate artwork that isn't exactly like their own.

 

I still think something should be done to gain more accurate ratings, but I suppose that just is not going to happen.