ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - Ratings Abuse

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by mark lucas, Oct 19, 2003.

  1. How long is the abuse of the ratings system by two members of this
    site going to be allowed to continue for?
    I won't go so far as to name the two involved, but I'm sure that
    enough of you must be as suspicious as I am about them. The Gallery
    is filled with many mediocre photographs by them and yet they garner
    so many ratings.
    I'll stick my neck out here and say that I reckon 8 out of ten of
    these raters to be bogus. Look at some of the names - they're
    hilarious! They all seem to post the same or similar one or two word
    superlatives followed by an exclamation mark. In fact, some of the
    more imaginative three to five word comments are as hilarious as the
    names they've made up.
    If, as I predict, you are as suspicious as me, have a look at some
    of these "users" and the pictures they've made comments and rated
    on. None of them have uploaded any photos or a profile. When I
    looked at my raters I came across very few of this type of "user".
    Now, I know some of you are going to say "sour grapes" and "but
    these people you say are made up have rated many other photographs".
    Well, to the first point I will say that, if and when I do get a
    very highly rated photo, it will be through my own merit, and to the
    second point, if you were going to invent fictional raters, wouldn't
    you do the same?
    The odd thing is, is that these two have some good photo's in their
    folders and I don't know how or when this addiction started - it
    isn't necessary.
    There are some fantastic images condemned to the lower pages of the
    gallery, whilst this pair artificially boost image after image.
    By the way, I think if one of them left their lens cap on, the other
    would still give them a 6/6 or 7/7.
     
  2. I reckon the abuse of the ratings system will go on about as long as they have a ratings system. Pretty much has since the first hour they started I suppose.
     
  3. I won't go so far as to name the two involved,
    It's your own fault if nothing gets done if you don't alert someone at abuse@photo.net
     
  4. Ok- so you don't name names, you don't provide links- you've given no alternative to the current system, or any plan of action- you haven't confronted these "abusers" and you haven't notified abuse...


    so, basically the purpose of your thread was just to bitch and moan, right?


    I'm sure Brian and the mods will get right on driving out your faceless/nameless "abusers".
     
  5. Erin, I didn't think it appropriate to "name names" in a public forum.
    For your information, the moderators have been informed and are looking into it.
     
  6. She can rub her legs to make things click,
    She's one groovy yankee chick.
    Maybe she's a southern hick,
    but don't you call old Erin thick.

    Anyway, back to the case in point. I rarely bother coming here because people just bitch and moan about the ratings, or ask the same dumbass questions. Look through thearchives to see what's been said on this before.
     
  7. Is photo of the week really that important? Let's just ditch the rating system entirely.
     
  8. I too have been abused by this RATING SYSTEM. My pictures are the best yet they are rated just 1 or 2. I will not stand for this anymore.
     
  9. For some reason, my indifferent photos seem to be getting mediocre ratings; I would like that fixed while y'all are at it. : )
     
  10. Hmm, Leonard "0 uploaded public photos" Whistler has posted a sarcastic response. Seeing as he's only been a member for all of five minutes, I'll ignore it.
    And thank you so much to "A Z" , who has seen fit to go into my folder and rate practically all my images average to low - and who also has no uploaded photos, like Mr Crame.
    You people just don't get it. Why do some of you take it as a personal attack? This wasn't about my ratings, how would it improve them? It is about everybody on this site (who uploads their photos) having a mockery made of them by two dishonest individuals.
     
  11. Marc, the answer is that the rating system is a big turd. And no matter what photo.net does to try and make it better, well....you can't polish a turd.
    People need to stop looking for affirmation from faceless nameless unqualified people on the internet. I would venture a guess that 80% of the people rating photos on photo.net don't know anything about image critiquing or even photography in general. But that's okay, because 98% of the photos posted here suck, so it all evens out.
     
  12. thank you so much to "A Z" , who has seen fit to go into my folder and rate practically all my images average to low - and who also has no uploaded photos, like Mr Crame. You people just don't get it.
    Hmm, Some cheese with your whine...
    No, actually you don't get it. If you bothered to pay attention to the rules of this site you'd know that uploads are not and have have been required in order to rate.
    Also, notes of abuse should be sent to abuse@photo.net. If you think that I or anyone else abusively rated your photos, please complain. But I rated your photos fairly and no differently from anyone else whose photos I've rated in the last four years here.
     
  13. Report abuse to abuse@com if any.. and I am sure there are in Pnet ... agree with you about mate rating a Pain In The A## .... but as far far as AZ is concerned I think he/she made quite fine/nice job to you... In My Opinion... the fact that he/she has not post any pics should not be of a concern. Actually he/she was nicer with you than some other raters that came to your pictures... Non posting pictures doesnt mean no ability to critic... isnt it?! ...and dont worry he went mine too...:) ..rating them average or better sometime and I thank him for time spent. We need more people like AZ here <p>
    PS: I am not AZ!!!
     
  14. Please, allow me to stress that this has NOTHING to do with my ratings. The reason I laboured the point of people having no uploaded photo's is because this issue of bogus accounts doesn't really affect them. Just suppose that I am right and justified in what I stated in my original post about bogus accounts, are some of you suggesting that it is okay? It's very hard to prove, I know, but, if you have a suspicion of who I'm talking about, have a look at their lists of raters and click on some of them.
     
  15. <<How long is the abuse of the ratings system by two members of this site going to be allowed to continue for?>>

    Mr. Sintchak said it best I believe. Remove two rating abusers and 4 more will rise up to take their place. There simply is no way to end it w/o completely removing the rating system.

    It's just not worth getting worked up over. There will always be those that judge their self-worth by an arbitrary number on a website. They will do anything they can to raise that number. Ignore them and search out the truly spectacular photos on photo.net.
     
  16. Hello everyone, I just got burnt on a photo I put up today. I got a 1,1 and a 2,2 rating by two members(?). These 2 people have no public photos to show of their own, funny. I agree with most of your comments, I don't think this will harm the site if it is looked at with an open mind. There are many bitter photopgraphers in this world and this site is perfect for them to vent by abusing the rating system. I look at it this way, if they intentionally low rate one of my pictures, it must be because the are incapable of producing such a shot and they are jealous. I'll take that as a compliment any day!
     
  17. Dimitrolos Krajci & Xavier Cobos, how about some feedback on the ratings you gave me?
     
  18. mg

    mg

    Mark, read again Richard's post. I sympathize with you generally speaking - though I have no idea who are the 2 people you are refering to. All I can say is that I can name at least 10 more - but what for...? :)
    <p>
    Write to the abuse department ? I don't know. Doesn't seem to be of much use either, so I've stopped. Have a look here:
    <p>
    http://www.photo.net/photo/1753235
    <p>
    Is this in your opinion a 1/1 ? Can it ever be rated that way ? This picture has been published by the way. You may like it or not, but you don't see this sort of images very often, so it's not a 1 in originality. And in aesthetics, it's sharp, it's at least a more or less decent composition, so no matter whether you like the angles and the colors or not, you can't say that this belongs to the *worst* images on the site. Fact is that there are all kind of folks on the site who rate based on their own preferences, regardless of the actual (objective) merits of the picture at hand. If a picture is reasonably well done, eventhough I don't like what the author tried to do, I'd never go below 2/3, and that would be very rare. 3/3 or 3/4 is more like it. I've received quantities of 2s as well, from people who just registered on that day itself and disappeared for ever a day later. I can name at least 3 people using fake accounts on this site - yes, I'm sure, but I won't name them, because nobody cares anyway.
    <p>
    The entire rating system has been changed into a farce by those who abused it, be it on the high or on the low side of the scale; and there are thousands of abuses out there which make it quite impossible to find really great pictures via the long term top-rated pages. If you log on every day and go through most of the 3 days top-rated above 5, chances are you'll see good and great shots, but if you don't, the long term will be hopeless.
    <p>
    Basically, we are left to browse pages more or less at random, and I regularly find a great picture rated at an average below 5, with 2 or 3 or 10 or 25 ratings. That's photo.net. The top-rated pages are no longer really presenting us with the best pictures (not sure if they ever did anyway), but rather showing us, mostly, those who succeeded in manipulating the system well enough. The highest number of comments and other non-average searches are far more interesting than the highest average searches anyway - at least that's quite okay.
    <p>
    Regarding averages, what hope is there at all when you consider that photo.net can ban members for abuse, and yet let their thousands of ratings remain on the site ?
    <p>
    Forget it. Just try to find better photographers one way or another, and mostly, don't expect this site to ever be fair. It has even stopped to *try* to be, as far as I can tell - probably because too many of its members were abusing the system. I gave up. Couldn't care less anymore. I upload a picture now and then, not as much as I used to. I don't take the ratings from unknown folks even half-seriously, I more or less stopped commenting on the site, I still look around and rate the few shots I really like a lot (that's not many), and that's it. Forget about ratings or forget about the site - that's the choice you've got.
     
  19. I look upon both the ratings system and the comments as a way for identifying photographic "kindred spirits".
    If someone rates one of my images 6/6 or 7/7, chances are that I will also find some of their work to be of equal value. Intelligent comments (of the favorable sort of course <grin>) will also prompt me to examine their portfolios. Using the ratings system in this manner results in my getting the opportunity to evaluate and comment on work of photographers that, in many cases, have escaped the notice of the photo.net "crowd".
     
  20. Mark has made a fair point here, but I get the message that it is
    useless to try and stop it. What a pity. Lifes not fair and neither
    is photo.net and we have to live with it, OR DO WE.

    If there were more Marc's around and we all complained and
    reported it, maybe, just maybe, it would lessen.

    I have noticed something similar, but have no proof, but I know I
    thought I would challenge one of these photos the other day, and
    lo and behold it was removed, without any reciprocal comment.

    Surely, if more of us challenged, then perhaps these mediocre
    photos would cease to get on the top pages.

    Way to go Marc, very brave of you.

    Now I'll just sit back and wait for the hate rates to start on my
    folder too.

    Alethea
     
  21. "I more or less stopped commenting on the site"-Marc Gouguenheim
    -well, that is a pity.
     
  22. You mean you take ratings seriously?
     
  23. Marc more or less stopping to comment really is a pity. There are many ways to search besides ratings (e.g., number of comments, requests for critique, etc.), and I recommend all of them.

    But, at the end of the day, my motto here is simple: A comment is worth a thousand ratings!

    Forget the ratings - more comments!
     
  24. I just got burnt on a photo I put up today. I got a 1,1 and a 2,2 rating
    You mean that shot that's got no midtones, in which the TV set is burned out? I can see why it got a bad rating. (I'll rate it later. ;-> )
    These 2 people have no public photos to show of their own, funny.
    It's not funny, it's how photo.net has always worked. You did know the rules of the site before you uploaded, didn't you? After all, you registered at photo.net over a year ago.
    I don't think this will harm the site if it is looked at with an open mind. There are many bitter photopgraphers in this world
    Lots of thin-skinned ones, too.
     
  25. On the old FIDOnet, which I think is still limping along somewhere, one of the main
    (maybe unwritten) rules was codified as, "Don't be too annoying, and don't be too
    easily annoyed."

    Complaining to the proper individuals about a concern over abuse is fine. Whining
    about it publicly when it you may not have proof is annoying... and useless.

    It's natural to feel bad after liking your own photo and finding that your feeling is not
    shared by others. Complaining publicly and demanding to know why the photo was
    rated low (from individuals who probably aren't even reading this thread) is clearly
    being too easily annoyed.

    Enough is enough: indeed.
     
  26. who cares what people rate?! Any tom dick and harry can do that without looking.

    don't take it seriously man, not worth your energy or effort.

    ever wonder why those people who uploads ZERO photos and yet rate tens and thousands of photos? keep wondering pal.
     
  27. I think this thread is losing it's way somewhat. The point was, and still is, about two people inventing fictional users to boost their exposure.
     
  28. Dear AZ,

    You have an interesting view on this issue. It's all a matter of opinion, regarding what one person thinks of one photograph compared to another. But when a photograph gets 5 and 6's, you kind of feel like you did something special. Then you get 1's and 2's for the same picture, with no critique, no explanation, and no constructive criticism. What can we learn from a very low rating with no comment?

    There are many great photographers on this site, and those of us who consider ourselves amateurs, have allot that we can learn from their constructive criticism and comments.

    Oh and by the way, thank you for your valuable comment:

    "You mean that shot that's got no midtones, in which the TV set is burned out? I can see why it got a bad rating."

    I'd be lost without your highly constructive criticism.

    Thin Skin Danny ;)
     
  29. Marcus, those 2 people are probanly in this thread. oh well..;)

    take it easy man.
     
  30. The abuse will continue no matter what action is taken short of ending all ratings. If you don't want to be victimized then don't post. I rate photos because people have gone to the trouble to post them and want honest opinions and I try to do just that. Yes, I have ZERO photos posted but unlike the advice I state above my reason is for the lack of a scanner. Hopefully someday I too can be abused! ;-)
     
  31. What can we learn from a very low rating with no comment?
    Whatever you want to learn. No one is owed explanations -- or even ratings. You take what you can get, and if you disagree or agree, so be it.
     
  32. Do yourselves a favour, take a few months off, post no images to the gallery, make no comments about the rating system. It worked for me. I can’t believe I used to get so uptight about it all, I’d even take my old chum AZ/BS for a beer if he were ever in this part of the world.<p>Kind of gets things into perspective. In the great scheme of things the Gallery/ratings system is of little importance, like a mosquito bite, irritating if you scratch it but leave it alone for a while and it doesn’t bother you any more :-}
     
  33. Esteemed AZ,

    Thanks for the wonderful insight. Everything makes sense now, ratings and comments don't mean anything, except whatever meaning we may decide to choose. Your wisdom is brilliant.

    I will remain indebted to you for all of your invaluable ratings. I can't wait for your next 25,000+

    No one is owed explanations -- or even ratings. You take what you can get, and if you disagree or agree, so be it.

    4 years -> 25,000+ ratings per year -> 17+ ratings per day

    And no one is owed rating or comments, man you got issues. Maybe a hobby like stamp collecting or Bingo may be helpful. But don't worry, if you agree or disagree, so be it. :)
     
  34. Keith has made some good points, but it doesn't entirely solve the problem of community participation which has been stated numerous times by site administrators as a give and take relationship. Many of my mediocre uploads have received undeservingly high ratings and attention; why, I have no idea since I've not gone out of my way to solicit them. I feel an obligation to give something back, but given my limited expertise, time and command of the critique language, I restrict my participation to the occasional comment mostly to less frequently viewed images and limited to the technical domain.<br><br>I would agree that the rating system promotes an adversarial site culture which is truly unfortunate and perhaps the only obstacle to the site's success, so here's a suggestion. Abolish the rating system to all users except those handpicked by site administrators, or have a $50 level Patron-Plus where one pays for the privilege of ratings and critique by site appointed, respected members who can earn a hero's icon for doing the dog work.
     
  35. Liked I said, any tom dick and harry can rate, but it takes a person who truly cares or truly wanna share to give comments, be it good or bad.

    People who leave ratings for the sake of clicking are just that, clickers.
     
  36. I don't think it makes sense to discuss AZ-BS. Historically s/he is one of major *attractions* on this site. Probably, nobody here takes her/his ratings (always without comments) seriously. Brian seems keeping that member just to lower overall increadibly inflated ratings. Don't waste your time, Marc is right.
     
  37. Marc is among the few high profile and respected members, which makes the last paragraph of his comment all the more disparaging. There may never be a perfect solution to the problem, but as responsible site members (which number in the great majority), couldn't we influence the site culture however small the increment? Talking about the problem doesn't solve the problem; solving the problem solves the problem. We can solve the problem by uploading images without seeking to be a big fish in a small pond, participate professionally when appropriate, and in a positive manner, influence those less familiar with the spirit of community culture.
     
  38. man you got issues
    When what I said is wrote the people of photo.net themselves say about ratings, Danny. If you can't discuss the issues without amateur psycoanalyzing, then it's time for you to cool off. Or grow up.
     
  39. I don't think it makes sense to discuss AZ
    And an excellent example you're setting, Vlad. ;->
    Brian seems keeping that member just to lower overall increadibly inflated ratings.
    You're evidently as good a mindreader as you are an example. Sheesh.
     
  40. When what I said is wrote the people of photo.net themselves
    Translated, that means: What I wrote is what the people who administer photo.net themselves say about ratings.
     
  41. I'm afraid I'll have to mark this thread as receiving a 3 for aesthetics, as I really don't like reading about people whine, and I give it a 1 for originality (this sort of thread is more common than kitten & baby photographs, I tell you!).

    I motion that not only should Photo.net abandon the aesthetics/originality rating scale, but that they implemend a whining scale of 1-7. The higher that a thread/photograph/column is rated the more likely it is to be deleted! Using that scale I give this thread a 7!
     
  42. All I would like to state is that it is great to have non-photo contributors on this site. They are an invaluable source of information and guidance, when appropriate comments are offered to back up their ratings. Leave the comments out and the ratings mean nothing. 25000 ratings is an awesome contribution, but constructive comments on the photos considered and rated as poor, would be more useful.

    No hard feelings AZ, you have your opinions and I have mine.
     
  43. No hard feelings AZ, you have your opinions and I have mine.
    How can I have hard feelings when your argument is reduced to avoiding the issue and taking personal potshots? You're not worth hard feelings, Danny.
     
  44. "Mysterious" A Z - just what is your problem? Daniel's final post was a peacekeeping effort and seemed like a fair sign off, drawing a line under this. But you just don't seem satisfied with that and had to take a swipe at him. Why? You completely missed the point of the original post, only to go on and post a complete load of unintelligible psychobabble. As was suggested earlier, maybe it's time you found an alternative hobby!
     
  45. gib

    gib

    A Z stop by my portfolio any time.

    I noticed the original poster had a bunch of ratings of 5, 4 etc and a rating of 1....ratings are for the site, comments are for the photographer, the current system is imperfect...and so it goes...Me, I am going out to take photos once the damned rain stops.

    regards to all
     
  46. gib

    gib

    whoops wrong thread about the 5, 4 and 1, time for more coffee for this dullard. sorry about that.
     
  47. How silly. Original post was about one thing. Rest of thread about another. Stupid bashing of AZ. Consider:

    Certain TRP's have rated thousands of photos wiht average ratings of 6/6.

    AZ/BS has rated 25928 photos on this site, with average ratings of 4.32 for originality and 4.6 for aesthetics. That seems about right, even generous. There are not 25928 4/4's on photo.nut if you ask me.

    Most importantly, for those that care about the ratings, who check their photos to see what ratings they have, are happy to get ratings. Well, that means, on his own time, without pay, without ulterior motives (ratings on his own photos) AZ has helped out 25928 of you with a rating. Pretty damn generous if you ask me. And, he *does* comment at times. Feeling seems to be that there should be more comments, which, broadly, I agree with. Maybe you simply meant to politley ask him to comment more, and the bitter foolishness just slipped out instead.
     
  48. 200% agree with you Andrew!<p>
    Be happy to get rating then you can get known and possibly commented.
    People who rate over thousand pictures around 4.5 in average cannot be accused of abuse (although you may desagree with his taste, subjective notion if any).
    <p>Daniel compared this 'hobby' which looking at picture and rating them as collecting stamps,... may be so what... other are posting picture in a site to be viewed, rated and possibly commented... world is made on this basic model.
    <p>Personally I dont get the point to give a 1/1 to some picture (better to go next or leave a comment). I see much more abuse on the other side of spectrum, where some received too easily 6/7. The problem here is not the rating itself (generally you rate what you like or more exactly who you like, whatever you expect in return ...) but the system of sorting is mainly based on this criteria. So that if you dont get rating, you will hardly get known by many people so the chance to get comment is thin...
     
  49. Your response is typical for someone who doesn't actually
    participate in the ratings process very much.

    Here's how it really works: If someone gives you a 4/4, it means
    'I don't think your photo is 'all that' and the computer puts the
    image pretty far back in the queue if it's one of the first ten rates.
    If everyone gives you a 4/4, you are not likely to get more than ten
    rates and probably maybe one comment . . . if you're lucky.

    If, on the other hand, your image averages above 5/5 for the first
    ten rates, those rates were probably acquired fairly rapidly and
    your visibility on the three-day and 24-hour pages will get you
    quite a few more views. People will respond or not, but at least
    your number of views increases your odds.

    A bell curve analysis suggests that most images do indeed
    deserve a 4/4. What you're forgetting is that you have no way of
    knowing if those 4/4s have been placed on images averaging
    3/3 or are they more often found on 5/5 images? If it's the latter,
    then you'll have a hard time explaining to me who benefits from
    these many hours of downgrading.
     
  50. Getting a rate is easy if your images are half way decent. Only
    the poorest images fail to get ten rates if a critique is requested.
    The question becomes, how quickly will you get those ten rates?

    If the first five are high, the next five come quickly. If not, you will
    be one of many who gets ten rates - eventually - without a
    comment. There have been numerous posts from people
    who've made it clear this doesn't help them at all.

    I do agree that 6s and 7s without discresion are also abuse, but
    we're really at the point where there is really only one noninflated
    rate that you can use to promote an image. . . . a 5. Most of the
    raters on the list just signed up and don't understand all this.
     
  51. Carl I get your point and your analysis of the current process is quite accurate, and... that is THE problem... it leads to natural inflationnary of rating which now became totally absurd. Coolers, moderators, balance-brigade whatever you wish to call them, are needed here. If you see a bunch of very average class pictures getting and within 24hours ... rows of 6 and 7, and obviously a good chance to get commented (which I think is the most important thing here), tell me what will you give to just a good picture. <p> SO I can agree with your analysis of the current general process you described although I totally desagree with the process itself, which I find perverse.
     
  52. I think we both posted twice at the very same time!! ... ;-)
     
  53. I haven't rated much in the past because I am new to photography and felt ill-equiped. I rate more now. Similarly, I joined photo.net when I started photography. My photos received little attention. As my work improved, I have had more attention and made front-page TRP. I don't understand this bell-curve. Persumably, people on photo.net are not interested in snapshots, failed attempts, mediocrity, we want to make art. Making art is hard. Some of my hesitancy to rate stems in part from the fact that many of the photos here (and many of mine) are indeed 3/3 or 4/4 and I felt uncomfortable rating thusly. Recently, I've been trying give more honest ratings, like 6/3 (original, but poor excution) with comments.

    Dammit now I've been sucked into the rating debate. Look, we all know Brian isn't going to change the system anytime soon, he as said so repeatedly. And we all know that the system is abused. And we all, presumably, have lives, so we don't care *that* much about bloody ratings. Most importantly, we all seem to think comments are a Good Thing. So let's all make more comments and try to behave, until such time as Bob or Brian says, "Hey, we're thinking of changing the rating system, any ideas" when we can then eat up all of pnet's bandwidth with our endless suggestions.
     
  54. Too many people rate irresponsibly . . . . . that is, they don't
    really consider the consequence of their behavior. . . . or they do
    and have some sort of agenda. Objective rates are not
    necessarily in the minority, but they've been contaminated to the
    point where what is uploaded and what is promoted is clearly
    influenced by this. The assertion that a lousy process still
    manages to get good results is wishful thinking in my view.

    My most conservative 'pop' shots are the highest rated and have
    the most views. My most creative 'interesting' shots, like the
    ones I'm uploading now, are buried.
     
  55. Kudos for rating in spite of all this . . . and also for daring to give
    a three point spread between originality and aesthetics. I've got
    a couple 6/3s you can look at! (I'm serious.:))
     
  56. Thank you Mark, that's all I was trying to say.
     
  57. "Do yourselves a favour, take a few months off, post no images to the gallery, make no comments about the rating system. "
    Good advice, Keith.
    Go try to win a photo competition at your local camera store of your little town(if you have something like that), if you want attention, it will make you much happier than watching for better-than-average ratings from nevermet nobodies on photo.net... Or, lately, for useful comments.
    This is equivalent with "go get a life" but said in a much nicer way:eek:)
    If nobody takes the ratings seriously, nobody will be "abused" so there will be no point of doing it. There are plenty of good photographers here who never put a citique request, nor look on the "top rated"pages. They occasionally post excellent pictures on words/no words type threads, or comment/advice if you ask them.
     
  58. "Many of my mediocre uploads have received undeservingly high ratings and attention; why, I have no idea "
    Because you have an exotic name, mr. Chang?:)
     
  59. "Brian seems keeping that member just to lower overall increadibly inflated ratings" -Maybe A.Z./BS is Brian Mottershead himself!!!:eek:)
     
  60. I wasted 4 comments on this thread. That could have been 4 comments on 4 photos of somebody. I feel bad now. I don't want to count all the comments on all this kind of threads.

    Of course, my low skills don't let me give great comments, so it's not a great loss. But YOU, guys!!!!! shame on you all.
     
  61. "Maybe A.Z./BS is Brian Mottershead himself!!!"
    Mmmmm.....must admit the thought has crossed my mind :-}
     
  62. I think the problem is the available ratings. I work in a company where I as a supervisor go out and inspect our retail outlets (along with all the other supervisors) and it was soon discovered that to get an accurate idea of the condition of things you could NOT have a fence sitter rating, i.e. a middle number that screams AVERAGE. I think the same is true here. When you can rate 1 through 7, then 4 becomes an almost useless number. I rate lots of 4/4's but many times I almost feel bad about it. It may be below many other ratings already posted, but 4/4 says "It's an ok photo, nothing great but nothing horrible." I think 4/4's have inclined people to overrate in many cases because 4/4 is perceived as BAD in comparison to what the photographer wants or may expect to see.

    In my personal opinion, a scale of 1 through 6 would be much more appropriate for the purposes of this site. 1, 2, 3 are obviously poor and 4, 5 and 6 are obviously good and there IS NO middle of the road. I mean really, what can be deduced from a rating of 4/4? It is as if the photo were never taken. And as I say, I rate many 4/4 because that's the current system but I'd much rather see the mid-point eliminated.
     
  63. Just so you're clear about this . . .

    A 4/4 is a mark on a photo that says 'send this one pretty far back
    on the list' if it is within the first ten rates. After the first ten, it
    doesn't matter because the default TRP promotes an image with
    more rates regardless of what the average rating is.

    . . . . after the three day period, a rate means very little unless it's
    truly exceptional where it supposedly competes with others in
    the longer views (although people don't check those pages very
    often.)

    So you see, rates mean very different things depending on when
    they're applied. Not exactly intuitive, is it?
     
  64. Carl,

    Intuitive it is not, that's for sure. But when I'm looking at photos to critique I'm not thinking "Oh, this is one of the first ten ratings...." I'm just trying to honestly give my opinion of the photo and I think that's what it SHOULD be. I will say that thanks to this thread I'm putting much more effort towards commenting on more photos instead of just rating. But even then there are some photos I look at and can rate but have nothing to say about.
     
  65. I guess I'm asking people to pass over images where they can't
    think of anything to say about them in favor of those that could
    start a conversation. I think too often people rate things they
    understand, good or bad, but pass over more challenging
    images where they're not quite sure what to make of them.
    That's the opposite of what a critique site should be about, in my
    view.
     
  66. Carl,

    You hit right on it for me. There are many photos I see that I don't personally like for what ever reason and I don't comment or even rate, just move on. Then there are some, LIKE YOURS, that I really enjoy but I have no idea what to say short of the stupid insipid "wow", "neat", "nice shot" that I feel not only waste the photographers time, but also insult his intelligence AND show my ignorance. OK, that being the case I shall endeavor to dive right in and learn something. What a novel idea :)
     
  67. I joined this site so I could improve my photography, learn and be inspired. I also enjoy offering insight, to the extent of my abilities, on photos that prompt me to do so. As has been mentioned, ratings are only good to propel one to the top pages improving visibility and thus increasing one's chances to receive comments and more ratings but if you're not too popular or your images are just average, then you lose. I've experienced both ends of the spectrum. It's ironic because it's those photos (which never make it to the top 5-6 pages) that could use more comments so the photographer can improve. I personally would rather receive more comments and in particular constructive criticism or insight rather than drive-by ratings. It's a shame however that the system is set up in such a way that many images go by unnoticed. I have often to my great dismay come across some outstanding photos that never made it past 10 ratings. A real pity.
    Perhaps ratings of 3 and below should require a comment to go along with it and limited to paying members only, or members who have an active portfolio. After all, a "below average" photo merits an explanation or better yet, a suggestion to improve it. Certainly not a fool-proof system, but may discourage drive-by low ratings. I don't base myself on ratings, rather I enjoy when people suggest ways that I can improve my photos. I think many folks would too if only they had more visibility. In the meantime, I'll just keep shooting and hope that I keep getting comments so I can improve :)
     
  68. WJT

    WJT Moderator

    Margaret, there is great merit in what you have said. As you know, the rating sytem has been the subject of virtually countless threads. The discussion is to the point where The Brian would like to prohibit any furhter commentary on that subject.

    As I understand, the problem with requiring a comment in order to give a rating is that the rater could concievably leave nothing more than a word or two, and then be allowed to rate low. That is why the requirement, which we did have at one time, was abolished. However, your idea of combining that requirement AND paid subscribtion sounds feasible, at least to me. I myself do not have a problem with the system. It is not quite Nirvana, but it does work.

    Unfortunately, all of my above comment, and yours too Margaret, is off the subject of Mr Lucas's original posting. I hope we don't get flamed to severely. As far as addressing Mr Lucas's post... I do not, nor ever will, subscribe to the practice of "witch hunting". Regards.
     
  69. Well, Mark, I noticed blatant retaliation yesterday, very open too,
    and the whole group openly discussing it as well.
    Don`t know if we are thinking of the same people here.
    All I can say is that although attempts
    have been made to change things, it is all a political
    game. You canvass for rates and comments,
    you punish honest ratings if they are low,
    or comments if they are not soothing,
    you campaign to eliminate the competition
    and voila, you are on the TRP by default.
    That is how it works.
     
  70. Always interesting to see these discussions. Carl's points deserve special attention here, because he is, in my view, the single individual whose portfolio I have reviewed who has the best poorly rated photos (there should be an award...). Look at his rust shots sometime, everyone.

    OK, how many people here think that if you had everyone at an artist's exhibition in 1905 rate the art, Picasso would have come out on top? I do not think the ratings here will ever be a good measure of the quality of the photographs. And even if you could assemble a qualified judges panel to review every photo that came through here, there would be lots of gems that slipped by them.

    All the ratings do is serve as a filter, and the system here has been good enough to let us filter them in many ways. If I had to suggest one way to change things, it wouldn't be a change to the ratings, which the powers-that-be have been good enough to change periodically in one way or another, always shaking things up a bit and moving some new shots or photographers to the fore. I would instead change the default filter periodically, so maybe one week highest aestetics come up, one week curators ratings, one week highest sum of ratings. Every now and then stick up the long term ratings for a day, or have a sort that is not ratings based. (And, just for fun, let's have it sort the lowest rated pictures first at some point).

    On individual ratings, well, this is a community and will always show the flaws and foibles of a community. We go looking for our friends, we look at what interests us, we avoid what we dislike. We have to accept some level of imperfection.
     
  71. If a person wants to be more visible on this sight one of the easiest ways to acheive this is to leave comments and critiques on the photos they view. There are so very many people on this site yet there are a core of people whose names I recognize, whose folders I've looked at simply because they make observations critiquing and I am driven to see their work. You want high visibility, leave comments.
     
  72. I feel that these photographers that are moaning about low ratings are expecting to receive constant praise! How can they post their photo's ( with the intention of having them judged ) and moan every time a bad rating is given? That is sad...

    I do however think that maybe the rating system should be changed such that when a rating of 3 or less is given, a comment on why the rating was given should be compulsory.
     
  73. Jarryd, I completely agree with you - I just wish this thread could have stayed with the original post!
     
  74. ratings yeh, is as interesting as the people who are dooing the rating. if someone rates me very well or very down i go for his/her page to see the work in there own portefolio. so i can understand there ratings. a rating does not only tell the quality of your work but also telling you something about the intelligence and artistic schooling of the person who is giving the ratings. i am a photographer who`s intersted in content "what is it all about" more then for instance aesthetics, this seems no item on this site. i think that is a pity. aestatics is just taste, superfacial and originality as allready was explaind is very occasional. beside "content" there should also be a mark for "integrity", a lot imiges seem to be stolen ideas even if they seem original, there was an nice example of the ladies ass or puting an nude on the attic or old factory hall. everybody like to see that again and again so it is the perfect cliche, still it get a skyhigh score, that makes ratings in this systeem for what it seems. So don`t be disapointed by people who does not understand your work. i see this as a platform where i can show my work rather than i can see or people are compleet enough to understand my work. but i must be ohnest sometimes i am surprised. i posted this answer before on an other question but it seems to fill this question aswell. sorry about my povre english but i am a duthman. yours , mike
     
  75. I think a big problem here is that there's a wide range of reasons people have for being on this site.

    For example. I am here to learn... sure I could post photos that have been published or won competitions, but what good would that be? As I see it this is a great place to post a photo that might have been an experiment or an attmept at something different... I can (hopefully) receive feedback that I might be able to think about next time I try to compose a similar shot and ultimately improve my photography.

    For other people, a primary objective is exposure. I must admit, I love the idea that 1100 people or whatever looked at x photo this week. It's nice to be noticed. There is value in showcasing one's work.

    For others this appears to be a competetition, at least that's how it appears with people who persist in drive-by low ratings without stopping to give thought to what the photographer was thinking and don't leave constructive criticism.

    So I think the etiquette says bring on the bad marks so long as you're prepared to help the photographer learn and don't be afraid to give slightly higher marks if you can see what the photographer was trying to achieve... from personal experience, there are a lot of exceptional photographers on this site and it can be intimidating to those of us who don't have as greater depth of experience and encouragement works wonders in convincing people they CAN participate.
     
  76. Mike: "ratings yeh, is as interesting as the people who are dooing the rating. if someone rates me very well or very down i go for his/her page to see the work in there own portefolio"

    I find this interesting as often the work of people who burn me is quite boring to me... on the other hand, if someone who burns me has a great portfolio, I am more likely to take notice.
    Likewise, I often find a correlation between people who rate well for experimental stuff with composistion etc and interesting, high quality portfolios.
     
  77. Anyway,

    A week has gone by now and this thread is about to disappear into the ether. Unfortunately, the two I originally referred to are still dominating the gallery with their often mediocre photos, scoring far more hits with their fake users than many far more deserving photos.

    I can only assume that the moderators felt unable to act through lack of proof or weren't too concerned about it (I hope it was the former). I had hoped for more support on this than I got, but, alas, it was not to be. That's not to say I didn't receive some e-mails of support though. It would appear that the accusations that would have been hurled at these supporters would have been far more vehement than those reserved for the fraudsters themselves.

    The only answer I can think of to prevent this is to allow patrons only to rate photo's. Perhaps all non-patron ratings could be deleted from the system (I assume, perhaps naively, that this would be easy to do), and we could start again from there.

    Oh, and before any of you say "but you're not a member", I'm signing up this week (once I can figure out that bloody Paypal thing!).
     
  78. I was thinking about solution to this problem and it`s quite simple,
    rating system should be connected with your experience, for example if you have 40 photos with more than 10 ratings then you`re able to give someone 1/1, with 20 photos you can rate at 2/2, with 10 photos with 10 ratings you can give someone 3/3, if you havent got photos with more than 10 ratings you can give someone 4/4, 5/5, 6/6 and 7/7.
    What do you think about it ??
     
  79. I think the trouble with something like that is that it would be unfair on people who already have photos rated.
     
  80. First off, a rating is only worth the credibility you give the person rating. If they offer no comment, then the rating itself may not have credibility. Secondly, abuse is part of society itself and we are a society here at photo.net. This is no different than petty crime or vandalism of any sort and is, in its own strange way, these peoples contribution. Like art, they are stretching the boundaries and as such they may be viewed as 'abstract' rather than 'normal'. I enjoy the overall experience here at photo.net and don't intend to allow my emotions to destroy the opportunity here, which is to learn and savour photography as art. Look for the good always, Jos.
     
  81. Jos,

    I must say I am rather bewildered by your attitude. Would you feel the same way if your property or vehicle was vandalised?

    Would you say the criminals are merely expressing themselves when they daub their names all over your wall with bright red paint?

    How odd!
     
  82. Mark

    Have you posted a comment on the image of these mate raters.
    A genuine critique (but no rating) may help guide others in their
    viewing and therefore to more constructively critique/rate the
    image.

    Possibly if these people get some genuine critiques it may
    lessen the value of their ratings 'achievements'.

    I have done this a few times and it has produced results. I am
    NOT suggesting personal attacks or accusations they are self
    defeating.

    Louis
     
  83. As a few members here have said in this thread, the ratings system will always be a very very VERY poor representation of what is good and what is not on this site in general, and I have seen many great images with low ratings. Whatever. Try not to take the ratings all that seriously.

    However, on the flip side, I must say that it is incredibly COWARDLY when you see that someone has gone through your whole portfolio and lowballed everything and then you see that they didn't even have the courage to put anything of their own up. It's a bit annoying at first, but then you realize that person is just too much of a coward to put their own work up for scrutiny and then you again see that in the end it really matters very little what that individual thinks, and the ratings don't matter too much either. And then you move on.
     

Share This Page

1111