Critique forum users getting the shaft!

I know it's not intentional, but many of us using the critique forums regularly feel shafted by poor performance and lack of changes to the

way things work. Viewing followup comments is the one page that allows us to maintain dialogues on our photos. That's how we know

we've been responded to on someone else's photo. Many of us get a lot from engaging in back and forth discussions and it becomes

impossible when we can't access this information.

 

We have been told there are changes coming to the way critiquing and rating will be handled, especially limits on daily submissions to try

and cut down on the bulk that goes through the critique forums. We are well aware that you know there are many people using the system

selfishly, uploading photos for critique like crazy and rarely critiquing or rating others' work. You've talked about addressing that as well.

You should. The whole ratings system needs reworking, but I'm content not to pay too much attention to ratings and just utilize critiques

and comments. I've been a member for a year and a half. An active one. For that amount of time, I've been hearing admins acknowledge

the need for revamping the critique forum and I'm fed up now with the lack of changes. I know many of the admins are overworked and also

fed up. Don't know what to say about that.

 

I think at least providing us with monthly updates on what is being discussed, what will be attempted, and when we can expect a

reasonably well-functioning critique aspect to this site is warranted.

I have a proposal. Totally unofficial, just a notion borrowed from another non-photography-oriented critique site.

 

How would folks here feel about having to earn credits before they can view critiques?

 

IOW, you can receive critiques. Anyone who is eligible to participate can write critiques.

 

But before the photographer can even read the critiques, he/she must accumulate credits. Those credits are accumulated by critiquing other photographs. For each critique you write, you earn credits. Then you can spend them to see your own critiques.

 

Thoughts? I'm working on my own time trying to figure out how to make this work, by borrowing from an existing model that seems to work elsewhere.

Lex, it's a great idea and I'm all for it. I've read it suggested and suggested it myself many times. Hasn't gotten me

anywhere yet. I imagine you'll give it more thought and substance than I have, so go for it. Let me know if I can help in any

way. Happy to brainstorm because I think it would really improve things here.

Another photo site uses the idea of credits earned from giving critiques, being needed to earn the right to put images into the forum to ask for critique. The critiques themselves have to be of a minimum length to avoid "great shot" counting as a critique. They also give extra credit for the first 3 critiques in order to try and garner critiques for less popular or conventional genre or images. On paper it all sounds good and in execution it seems to work fairly well although it is not without problems.

 

Trying to design a system that will encourage people to participate and at the same time prevent the people who are only interested in taking from the system from from clogging up the forum is not an easy task, but it is nonetheless overdue.

Keep in mind I'm tossing this idea around as a photo.net member, not as a moderator or in any official capacity. I don't have any more clout than anyone else in this. But I know that admin are very interested in improving the critique function. It's not being ignored, simply given a lower priority in the interest of keeping the entire site up and running as smoothly as possible.

 

I anticipate that while such a model for critiques could be interesting for some members, it won't be a perfect solution. I've noticed some modifications to the model on the site where I've seen this implemented, and am not enthusiastic about some of the changes. A bit too much social networking with a hint of the polarizing "friend/enemy/frenemy" dynamic going on.

 

To tell you the truth, I thought I'd have a more specific proposal ready by now, after having first mentioned it months ago. It's turned out to be more complicated than I'd anticipated. And I do have other things going on besides photo.net. I can only estimate that I might have a more specific proposal within a couple of months. Beyond that, actually trying to implement it is another matter, with, perhaps, a vetting or testing process.

 

Again, totally unofficial. I want my proposal to be as close to a turnkey solution as possible, so that it can be evaluated, tested and tweaked without placing yet another burden on Josh or anyone else to actually flesh out the idea. And it's still possible such a proposal simply won't work.

Lex--

 

Understood. Life outside PN, indeed!

 

I'd be all for having a two-level system, if that's not too complicated. One that stays pretty much as is for those who are

not as interested in in-depth critiques as much as mate-rating and pats on the back. The other would be your system, as

an opt-in option. Those of us willing to spend time critiquing and wanting to engage with other willing participants would

opt-in to the more fine-tuned system.

 

I think it should also be made clear to newcomers who want to opt in that their critiques can still be valuable, since many

often express the feeling that their thoughts would be worthless to other more experienced photographers. First off,

innocent and fresh eyes can often provide a lot to more experienced, sometimes jaded, photographers. Second, a

critique, as you've suggested in other forums, doesn't have to be a "do this, do that" sort of thing. It can simply be

reactive. What do I see? What do I feel? It can be asking questions about a more experienced photographer's methods,

etc.

 

I've sort of instituted, and I've heard others speak of this, a self-imposed regulatory standard. I rarely comment any more

on someone's work if I see that they have a lopsided track record in terms of their own participation being mostly about

themselves and mostly of the "taking" variety. I have even started telling photographers whose work I like, but

participatory habits I don't, of my feelings. A few have actually reacted positively to my suggestions. Most ignore me. I

get over it.

Fred, thank you for bringing your well-deserved respect and credibility to this issue. Your reputation as an outstanding member of the PN community has finally drawn a responsible, and mature conversation that many before have tried to attain and failed. Kudos

Lex, your idea is better than what we have now and is worth a try in my opinion.

Fred.... How about limiting image postings versus comments (utilizing the same programming method used to count 24 hour image postings) to only persons whose "Comments on Gallery Photos & Portfolios" are equal to or greater in number volume than their "Critique Requests"! For members who are already behind, they can make comments until they catch up. We certainly seem to have way too many "participation challenged" posters that just want everyone to "look at me, look at me".

 

I received a response from Josh Root on this issue a little while back and the issue seems to be how to control someone just saying "Great" on a couple hundred pictures, just to stay ahead. I hesitate to suggest multiple word responses because I'm guilty myself of one to two word comments many times. A complicated issue, but for now I check to insure that the poster has a good track record before I offer a comment. This may seem trite, but it sure makes me feel better... Mike

Mike, the type of system I'm evaluating (and hoping to determine whether it's adaptable to the photo.net environment) is inherently self-policing.

 

If someone attempts to earn credits by leaving fawning praise, whether in the form of a monosyllabic "Great!" or 100 words of unfettered praise saying pretty much the same thing as "Great!", the person who spends credits to read such a comment could choose to either leave the comments intact or decline them and apply for a refund.

 

This is essentially how the Urbis system started out. It's undergone some modifications but that's the basic model.

 

There's a continual dynamic involving earning credits by critiquing others, spending credits to see the reviews one has received, and assigning a value to the critiques.

 

For example, some folks won't mind spending credits to keep reviews such as "Great!" They might not even mind spending even more credits to reveal 100 words of effusive praise, saying basically the same thing as "Great!" So that critic would receive a relatively higher value from that recipient.

 

Another person might be willing to spend credits to read a single word of praise, but will want a refund for uncritical praise that is obviously designed to earn the reviewer credits rather than contribute to the overall value of the site. So that person could apply for a refund of credits spent on an overpriced bit of fluff.

 

Yet another person might reject any and all unfettered praise, however brief, and be willing to spend credits only on thoughtful critiques, no matter how hard hitting.

 

You can only imagine the work involved in setting up algorithms to assign these values. That's one reason why it's taking time for me to evaluate whether it's even feasible for photo.net. And even if the basic model is a good idea, that doesn't mean it's workable in terms of the requisite programming, which is beyond my expertise.

If we were going to do something like this, my quick take is that we would be better off with a system where people have to accumulate "points" in order to submit their images, not to read their critique. Setting it up so that you have to spend points to submit will ensure that we keep the number of images in the critique forum down to a managable level.

 

I'm not really going to dig deep into the discussion tonight though. For once, I'm trying to actually have a weekend where I do weekend things instead of just work 7 days a week.

Josh;

 

I agree the solution is not going to be earning comments but rather earning the right to ask for critique by offering critique. If I understand Lex's proposal correctly, anyone can comment but whether that comment becomes visible is based on the recipients desire to buy the comment. This is likely to set up a system were the selective pressure is on how likable the critique is. Some of the critiques I have given are, I am sure, the least popular comment on the page, probably not the least honest or helpful however. Again, referring to that other photo site from my previous comment above, they allow patrons to rate the comments left on their work, which can add to the general point score of the critique contributing member.

 

Fred's suggestion for a two tier system seems like a good idea. Quite possibly for many people the system is fine as stands and at the very least some number of members will almost certainly scream bloody murder if it is changed. Also splitting the stream would hopefully create two less congested systems which could help both be more responsive.

 

Good to see you taking some time for family. For many of us the weekend is when we have more free time for PN so just let us chat away. You can always get back to us during " office hours "

I 'm glad the subject is up. (thanks Fred).I saw something like that systen in another photographic site, and talked

with people that left saying it was too cumbersome , BUT I agree that the "great" and

" wow" system has to change, as there are people that only ask for critique and don't give anything in return, or

something shallow that feels like doing a" duty" I don't see a reason if a photo is well executed why not say so, but

telling why it is good .. so I hope a change will be done, maybe learning and checking what does not, and what

works before the offered new way will take place. As long as it will make a better system of critiqueing a photo.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm pretty happy with the way it works right now. Forcing people to add comments to post a request will lead to stupid posts that are just out there to be filler, which will lead to complaints and more work policing content. This will require tedious work on people's part, which I for one don't think is necessary or productive. We're grownups here.

 

What I like best about this site is the simplicity. It's not perfect but nothing ever is. It suits my purposes of having an easy way to view many new images and easily get to look at a portfolio of a photographer whose work looks interesting.

 

I could live without the sniper 3/3s but that's a minor nit that I allow for. I don't rate photos because I find it too arbitrary, though I do use them as a barometer. So I guess I'm guilty too. I prefer adding comments myself.

 

Josh, have you done queries of submissions vs. comments and/or ratings? That sounds like something that wouldn't be complicated since you're coming up with those numbers on the workspace/profile pages anyway. A quick green/yellow/red color code at the top might make people aware of it in a way that won't make work for people or force them to put in useless comments or spite ratings. This code should be available on the profile pages that we look up, just a small block in a corner or next to the name. I think it would be a good tool in that people seeing it could choose not to bother with people with bad ratios, making it self-reinforcing.

 

Ray

Ray.... I would say "Wow" or "Great", but.... :-) sorry, nothing says we can't maintain our humor in this. Seriously, I think your idea is a very workable and easily accomplished <u>first step</u>. I would love to be able to see this barometer prior to offering a comment on an image.

 

Mike

Why not start simple by just reducing the number of images that can be submitted in a given time frame to the critique forum and just see if it improves things.

Lex--

 

The thing I would worry about is: Would a system like the one you're thinking about mean that people who didn't like

actual, honest criticism could poorly rate honest but negative (even if constructive) critiques they receive, thereby

insuring that people would be unlikely to leave honest comments?

 

I wonder if there's a way that it would not just be up to each photographer to rate the critiques they get. That way we

could all be a little more objective. I've seen many critiques on others' photos that I thought were extremely well thought

out and helpful and I would like to be able to give points to those folks.

I want to thank everyone who has participated. There are some great suggestions out there. Here's hoping we can at least effect some

beginning changes relatively soon.

 

Ray and Michael, that proposal sounds like a great first step. I do think we need more, though.

 

Lex, I'd love to hear your ideas more fleshed out. There's a lot of potential there. I have another reservation about what

seems to be tying together only the critique side without including the submission side. I think some people's works

naturally generate a lot of comments. In a sense, they would be penalized by the fact that they get a lot of comments by

having to comment more and more. While there's fairness in that, my hope, as others have mentioned, was to tie our critiquing habits to

exposure.

So that, when I do more critiquing, I'm interested not just in getting more critiques but in getting a variety of critiques

from different people through exposure. I'd like my reward to be more time in the critique queue, therefore more exposure

as opposed to being rewarded by just being able to read the critiques I have. I may not fully understand your theory, so

forgive me if I'm missing something that pertains to what I'm saying.

 

I think Josh and Gordon have good perspectives on this. I agree that we would have to "buy" submission credits, which

might really cut down the number of submissions, which I think would add to the overall quality of the critique forums. I

think it should not just be number of submissions allowed, but tied to time of exposure in the queue as well. For

instance, I only post about two images a month for critique. I don't have any intentions of increasing that rate. But I sure

would appreciate it if the one or two a month that I post lasted for more than a few hours in the critique forum.

 

Jim, it seems like your suggestion is the easiest and could be instituted quickly if the will existed. I don't know diddly

about programming, though, so I could be completely off base on how easy such a procedure would be.

 

Tim, your check's in the mail! :)

Fred, the Urbis model that I'm evaluating for applicability to photo.net's needs uses an algorithm to weigh the value of critiquing the critics. Over the long haul, refund requests or other evidence of dissatisfaction will not dismiss the value of an individual's critiques, assuming they are outweighed by the majority of recipients accepting the critiques and assigning a higher value to those critiques.

 

The system is inherently self-balancing. For example, if I offer a constructive critique and the recipient rejects it and either requests a refund or even assigns my critique a lower value, I simply won't bother critiquing that person's work again. Problem solved.

 

Likewise retaliation is minimized. If someone writes an obviously irrelevant, insulting or simply boneheaded critique, I simply apply for a refund and/or assign a lower value to that person's overall critique rating. Applying for a refund and assigning a value to a critique are separate actions, each calculated individually.

 

(In actual practice, I very, very seldom do this. Instead, I prefer to leave a record of these ... critics ... so that others can see for themselves why I assigned a low value to the critique, even tho' I didn't request a refund. For example, I write haiku, senryu, etc. I've actually had "critiques" from people who counted each syllable and wanted to argue about whether it was haiku based on a syllable count. This is the equivalent to asking for a critique of a pinhole photo and having someone ignore the context and suggest getting a sharper lens, perhaps a fine German made optic? And, oh, BTW, don't stop down so much.)

BTW, here is a perfect example of the problem faced by those who might offer critiques and ratings, if they weren't threatened with some form of intimidation, retaliation or mere fits of pique:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7557542#

 

Since I'm highly resistant to pique, I went ahead and critiqued and rated that photo as I felt appropriate. Wanna take bets on the reactions?

 

There are very good reasons why it seems fewer critiques and ratings are offered, and not all are related to the numbers of photos submitted.

Hmm, found my way here following a previous exchange with Fred...

 

I really don't think "critique credits" and so on are the answer... My feeling is that those that are interested

in viewing and discussing photography in a more considered way would probably be better off doing so elsewhere,

in a more appropriate environment. In the real world, that would be a gallery, perhaps... And in the real world,

not everyone gets to have their work exhibited. There's a reason for that.

 

Displaying a portfolio on PN (in its current form) is much like having an art exhibition at McDonald's. By no

means a bad thing, in itself, but common sense says that most people will be more interested in their fix of

burgers and fries - gear chat and ratings - than taking the time to consider the work on display.

 

If photographers are looking for serious discussion regarding their work, this site is a largely a waste of time

for many, at least as it stands... The apparently long-standing and frequent complaints about the dubious

benefits of the current critique system are direct evidence of that.

 

It seems that Fred has suggested a two-tier system... Well, why not go the whole hog and make separate sites...?

It appears that PN is trying to cater for everyone at the moment... Nice idea, in theory, but in practice I think

it's probably better to have separate sites, catering for specific interests and needs.

Although I agree wit the bulk of what Paul has written, I do believe it is possible for a single site to cater to

the needs of people with different intentions. I think the problem arises when you have a group of people using a

forum as a way of showing their images and a group of people looking to recieve critique and enter into dialogue,

both having to compete with one another on a single multi-purpose forum. I realize the forum is named the

critique forum but it has clearly been pressed into service for other purposes.

Paul, sorry, but I don't agree with you. First there are people that are ready and giving well thoughts evaluations and critique. Second, in the past, there was a group at PN founded by a very good and well known here photographer that called it "picture this", it contained about 20-22 members, that uploaded photos only for critique, and it was without their names( the member uploading a photo was called

" picture this"). A member of PN that wanted to become a member in the group was on " probation" and had to write critiques for some time, and if he was doing it well enough, was accepted by a dicision of 2-3 people that were in charge( and the number was limited to the 22 members.. It worked for a long time , and I must say that I have learned a lot by being a part of it, it was dismatled here ,when the management of the site changed and they left. another attempt was done , but it did not take off because it did not overcome childhood problems., but was a good attempt never the less. So it is possible !

 

It depends of course what you are looking for. What one does with photography in general, depends on each individual, there is the internet and real life,and of course not all participants in the internet will be exposed in galleries, but it is not a contradiction, and I know some members here that were exhibited in Galleries, publised in papers and photographic magazines . and not only one or two. people learn from exposing here, and I don't see PN or other sites as exhibiting at Mecdonald, I see it as a learning tool.

Paul--

 

When I suggested that I and others, in fact, have some good serious discussions about our photographs and have

managed to learn a lot from each other, you went and found what you considered a pretentious critique and did a little

tearing apart of it, subsequently apologizing for being a little over the top in doing that. That action on your part suggested to me that you

have an agenda. Instead, maybe you should have read

more of the dialogues I've had with people, better yet you should participate . . . or not! You could also have read those

that some of the people I associate with here have with me and others. You'll see that it's not a waste of time and that

there's potential. I'm having a hard time telling whether you see deeper discussions as a waste of time or as impossible to have here. You

are seeming a bit cynical and jaded. You are focusing on the least common denominator, which

will likely keep you below the curve in your perspective. A lot of people have expressed a desire to go a step further with

their photos, their discussions, and their learning. Improving what we have here is a reasonable goal while at the same

time recognizing that not everyone wants to do more than share their family snapshots or be patted on the back for the

cute pic they got last night of their kid eating birthday cake. Considering the amount of much more awful shots of kids

eating birthday cake I've seen out there in the "real" world, anyone who wants to improve theirs is OK in my book. And if they just get a

thrill in sharing them with others, I wouldn't consider standing in their way. Those who

are interested "in a more considered way would probably be better off doing so elsewhere." True. Also true that not everyone has that

opportunity. Some live in very small towns with no galleries at hand. Some are cooped up for other reasons. Some use the internet

because of how convenient it is. I notice, for example, that you have a web site so you seem to see some value in straying from the "real"

world yourself. What you

say applies to many aspects of this new internet world. We'd probably be better off speaking to each other in person rather than

typing our words. We'd probably be better off going out for a walk rather than sitting here typing to each other. We'd probably be

better off in a library rather than doing all our research behind our own desk. Not happening. I appreciate getting to talk to

people out of my state and out of my country, getting other cultural perspectives on certain things, etc. The internet is

the real world now, or part of it. Better get used to it. And no reason not to improve it to make it function in a way that will

best suit us. Even McDonald's has started offering salads. I no longer have to go next door to Sizzler.

Gordon, we wrote simultaneously, but I want to add, that it can be done for people that want to give and get genuin evaluations. It will not fit maybe, for all PN members .