fastest 3 rating in a critique?

What is the fastest you have ever gotten a 3 rating after posting a photo for

critique?

 

I just posted a photo at 8:34 PM, and by 8:36 PM, I already had a 3 rating for

both.

 

Does this site automatically pass out 3's as you post a photo in the critique

area? Are there that many luckers waiting to ruin your rating level? If you

are thin skinned here, forgetaboutit, you won't be here long.

yes, unfortunately there are "that many luckers"...

 

take away their anonymity and the whole thing comes to a grinding halt.

Two minutes is slow, I've posted, then used the prompts to go back to the critiques site, found my pic up, hit it, and had a 3/3, elapsed time no more than 30 seconds. Have also received higher ratings in same period. I think some days or nights, someone is just monitoring the site, not necessarily with ill motives, either

There are bots lurking to give ratings on every posting, just to mess with the ratings system. From time to time the admin deletes the accounts, and those ratings dissapear. Bummer when they are 7/7s

 

<Chas>

I've seen a set of images "bombed" with three 3/3's and four 4/4's inside of 5 minutes. I could tell it wasn't just mine because everything around mine got "hit" at the same time with the same exact number pattern.

 

I love the articles and the forums on photo.net, but I've opted out of posting my images or using critiques. The system is broken right now.

I had a 3/3 rating within a minute!

In most of my photos 3/3's are coming in the first, seconds after uploading.Stopped paying attention , and stopped rating at all, write comments only.

I think the 30 second mark seems about right. You can get one or more 3/3 in the time it takes to go from submit to look at the image in your folder.

 

The last shot I submitted had around 10 ratings within a couple of minutes, all but 1 was from new members. Shortly afterwards, those were cleared out and were replaced by another set of "new member" ratings.

 

Plus ca change.

What are BOTS and BTWS also anymore I should know about? Thanks

If people would actually post the URL's for the images that they are having problems with, I could look into them and remove any bogus ratings accounts.

 

But if people would rather just complain.....

I think ratings may be a fatally flawed idea from the beginning, providing only the means

for a popularity contest and a source for constant complaining. It is the most complained-

about thing on the public forums. Perhaps it is human nature actually to want something

to complain about and, if so, ratings certainly seem to be serving that function well.

Ratings in themselves will never provide helpful information. They will either anger people

who think their work is better than the ratings they've received or they will lift the spirits

of those who get better marks than they thought they would get. They may even give to a

precious few the feeling that they have been judged soundly. All will be wrong. If the rates

are anonymous, they are simply a random few numbers by people as varied in taste,

talent, and insight as a global internet site can provide. Your rates may come from ten

people who think only saturated landscapes are worthy of a rating of 5 or higher or they

may come from someone who thinks only black and white photos are really worthwhile. If

they come from named raters, you can assume they would like a high rate in return. Note

that on photo.net the standard rating is now a 6/6 among named raters. A 5 means under

par and 7 means over. To complain about anonymous 3/3s without also complaining

about the more frequent 6/6s pretty much shows just what ratings are really about.

I don't think we were complaining, just discussing the fact that this happens. I appreciate the ratings system, but I crave the critique portion. I want to hear good AND bad from this community on my work. It is the best way to learn. Constructive critiques is what most here want, we could care less about what someone gave you rating wise. I good or bad critique is 1000x more valuable than someone giving you double 7's. The best way to learn is to listen to the best, and this place had the best group of photographers on the web.

 

I just find it hilarious that people come here just to post double 3's to every photo posted. They truly have no life, but if they are happy (being miserable), then so be it.

I have basically bailed and gone to another Photo community for most of my activity and postings. Someone that has remained on PN because of friends they've established over time told me that they had read the rating system had improved. Ugh, I think it's worse! See Ya...

Regardless of the tireless, well-meaning, and much appreciated (by this member, at least) efforts of Josh, Jeremy, and others, the rating system here is not noticeably better than before. The problems are not restricted to just the BOT ratings but are really inherent in how the rating system is implemented. <br><br>

The whole idea of the rating system is to sort for presentation the thousands of photographs submitted to the Gallery. If your received ratings are low you get shut-out from the TRP and do not get any visibility at all. None. If someone suspects that he has been the target of a BOT he can notify Josh and he will do his best to remove the rating. <i>But it is too late</i> at that point. The damage has been done, the photograph has been effectively sent off into oblivion, and removing the bad ratings will not restore it. The only thing that will is too delete the photograph and resubmit it for critique. Which, of course, starts the whole futile cycle over.<br><br>

And that is only part of the problem. What do you do about the non-BOT, drive-by lowballers? They are ostensibly legitimate members but low rate everything. And what about the ones that low-rate everything except for their own circle of friends? They, I am sure, appear as good members, too. <br><br>

No, I think it was best said sometime ago by one of PhotoNet's administrators that this site's rating system was concieved and implemented at a time when the Internet was a kinder, gentler place. Under the current conditions our present system will only continue to devolve and generate more dissatisfaction with this site performance. Regards.

Agreed, Walter.

 

When the admins say they are considering changes, I hope that among them are

alternative ways (other than ratings) that one's photos can get visibility.

 

The ratings system is so flawed and would be so difficult to make work reasonably well

that I doubt the amount of attention paid to it will ever pay off in its becoming effective.

 

Please spend that time on figuring out equitable ways to get our photos seen and

commented on by more people.

 

That would show some true dedication to site improvement.

Some sensible guidelines would be helpful, if the photo has:

1.Obvious subject or theme

2.Draws attention to the subject in some way(selective focus, framing device,lighting, big in frame ect.....)

3.Is free of distractions.

If it meets these three criteria then should be at least a 4. If not then a 3. If one rates lower than 4 then a constructive comment should be required.

Just my dollars worth- with which you get this and a pepsi at Barnes &Noble!

Oh yeah, the answer to the original question- 10 seconds 2 3,3's.

Some of these problems are due to the fact that our system was set up at a time when the "bar" was a lot higher to get your images digitized and online. That bar is a lot lower, and anyone with access to a computer and a $200 digital camera can post images here.

 

In many ways that is great. Everyone should be a photographer, or at least that's what I think. However, it does create some issues when a hundred images are submitted to the critique circle every hour (that is just a guess, not hard fact).

 

We are looking at what ways we can work to get more images in front of more people who are interested in viewing/rating/critiquing them. so far, my favorite ideas are along the lines of "critique groups" where 20-50 people who are particularly interested in insect photography, could use their time and expertise to help each other.

 

But that's just one concept and there are many other ways to go as well.

Josh, I think have separate critique threads going - one for each category - is a great idea ... at least that way you get photographers with similar interests giving feedback on each other's stuff. Most of us probably have a certain category (or two) that we particularly love.

 

The 3/3 rating in itself is not bothersome to me, it's as someone mentioned above, where it seems one person will run off a string of 20+ 3/3 ratings - either this person got burned by someone and is venting or their skill level has escalated to the point where their stuff is so much better than a lot of the other folks.

 

I am also curious about the thought process of giving a 3/3 rating ... 3/3 seems to mean this image sucks big time to me since nothing lower than 3/3 is counted, right? 3/3 is the lowest rating that can be given, right? If that is the case, I wonder if the 3/3 raters actually mean 1/1 or 2/2 LOL

 

And I still think a 10-based rating system is more natural. 5/10 is 50% - usually a "pass" like in school :)

To be honest, vote 3 to me anytime if you want to.

 

I just think that a photographer has to make the call her/himself as to what there photo is worth.

 

If it pleases certain people, then thats good. If people spam 3 because they have low self esteem, then so be it.

 

Unfortunately, some people with thin skin come here thinking that this site is the real deal and that everything about it is accurate and above board. (and I am sure it tries to be).

 

If the so called "rating system" is working as well as it should, then we would all be expert photographers doing 100% work 100% all the time.

 

But it would be nice to get a nice accurate gauge of your work here, but alas......that will never be.

 

Maybe one day? I Dunno.

 

Cheers (excuse my ramble).

I just stumbled on this thread as I was looking why NONE of my pictures appeared on the

Forum all of a sudden. None. They receive anonymous ratings though. Typical examples

are the following breakdown: 3-3, 4-4, 6-6, 7-7.

 

I keep looking in the hope of seeing my pictures appear and receive real comments. No

way.

 

I do not think that anonymous rating should be allowed, period. If you rate, then you

should do it in a public way. It would stop a good part of this non-sense.

 

There is surely a way, too, to block ratings that come in in a matter of seconds, or say, in

less that 30 seconds. Rating a picture, or anything as far as I am concerned, in seconds is

ridiculous. Or let's say rather that I am not able to achieve such a miracle.

 

Thanks for reading me. :-)

 

RogerG

cheers Roger.

 

you have a very good case there roger.........:)

I enjoy rating pictures - I have no profesional training so my ratings may be worthless to others, but they're given freely, and with consideration. I also give critique when I feel comments are appropriate, or when I enjoy a particular piece. Its on these terms that I participate.

 

As regards small critique forums on a subject basis - this is an excellent idea, no anonymity, and eventually the knowledge that your pictures, (and their's) would be judged by your peers, and hopefully the very people one would be likely to end up respecting.

 

Shaun