I know it has been said before...

... but how long will we have to wait before the administrators amend

this "little" problem?

 

What I mean it is that there are lot of NON photonetters who create

an account, do not upload any photo, and all they do is to rate the

other people´s work very low, without any comment, of course!

 

This is what has just happened to a great photographer <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2040015">Carlos

Morales-Mengotti</a> (His photos are really good), and he has decided

to leave this site..

 

How long?

Some will choose to cut off their nose to spite their face - part of the classic perpetrator/rescuer/victim role-play. Carlos' statement is just as negative as his perpetrators, and we'd be fools to play the role of rescuers.

I am not familiar with Carlos work, but even if I was, good or bad, I dont think low ratings are any reason to leave this excellent site. Hell I have also suffered the odd crazy score of 1 and 1 or 2 and 2. So what! Ignore them. Enjoy the 5's 6's and 7's and ignore anything below 3. Take notice of any comments and observations and enjoy each others art. Any photographer posting an image on this site will do so largely because they themselves like their own images, it is that individuals art, their own way of showing the world what they see and how they see it. Not everyones gonna like it, and maybe now and again someone simply wont understand it. Now and again some fool is gonna score an image 1/1 without telling you why they think its only worthy of a 1/1. I believe those people should be prepared to say why they rate ones image 1/1 as maybe they can help us all produce better images.

 

This game is surely not all about ratings, its about shared ideas and knowhow. I would rather have 10 comments on my images, than 10 ratings. There are some excellent images posted on this site each and every day, they are a delight, lets just enjoy each others art and learn from one another.

 

Anyone wanna leave because of a low rating, then go now because you dont believe in yourself. Any believers in themselves please stay and let me continue to enjoy your art, your interpretation of the world around you, and thanks for sharing it with me.

 

Max Zappa

It is unfortunate when good photographers leave; but not everybody has the temperament to accept public critique and feedback from all comers on the Internet, including the idiots. The premise of the site is that anyone can rate photos, provided the ratings are honest. There is no requirement that the ratings be consistent with the photographer's views, or even the views of the majority, or even that the ratings be intelligent. Stupid people with no taste are just as welcome as anybody else.

 

If you put up your work in a public Gallery, then you have to be prepared for people expressing an opinion, including dislike. The only difference between photo.net and regular galleries is that in a regular gallery, the photographer won't necessarily hear the negative opinions.

 

If photographers cannot accept that some of the opinions expressed on photo.net may not be to their liking, then it is probably just as well if they withdraw and find a venue where they don't have to hear all the opinions of their work, only the flattering ones.

The great musician Richard Thompson once made a great quip about people

critiquing his work on internet bulletin boards, the people he directed it at (he has a

rather enthusiastic fan base who go over everything he does with a fine tooth comb

looking for obscure and mostly non-existant references) liked it so much they used it

for a t-shirt;<P><B>"They are worse than professional critcs, they're amateur

critics!"</B><P>And you know what? That applies here too and in spades. some

people get their jollies giving bad scores to strangers. May it is better a better release

from their misarable lives than kicking the dog. But in any case , I certainly wouldn't

take any ultra-public and anonymous scoring system to heart or very seriously.

<P>perhaps what photo.net should do is institute a no rating score option and if you

want to make a comment on a photo you have to take the time o actually think about

something and put into writing.

On the other hand, what bugs me is when people don't reply to written responses. There seems to be a whole lot of people just looking for praise and high ratings, who couldn't care less about critical input. Come to think of it, there are a lot of mindless, gushy comments on photos too. "I loved it!" is no more useful than a rating without any comments; it says nothing of why the pic works.

i think brian did a study and found that the photonetters that dont post photos, are more generous, (rating wise), then the folks that do post photos...am i wrong brian?

I'll repeat my usual comment.

 

The gallery is a popular public gallery. You'll get popular public comments and opinions. It's not a professional gallery and you won't get professional comments. You might wish it was and wish you did, but it isn't and you won't.

 

If you don't realize and accept this going in, you will inevitably be dissapointed.

Here's the more "laid back" version of what I wrote recently in a similar thread. I have also decided that it will be my stock answer every time someone brings this up:

There are more than a few little things that have annoyed me about photo.net over the years. But they all pale when compared to the constant whining about the ratings system. It is singularly the most childish, insecure, egotistical thing I have seen in a web community. You would think some of these people were still in grade school. I wonder what happens in real life when some jerk is mean to them? There's no "site feedback forum" or �abuse@photo.net� in the rest of the world.

 

I have nothing against useful critique, in fact I regularly seek it out from those I respect. But trying to call the ratings system a "critique" is like calling the Arizona Cardinals a NFL play-off contender. I suppose it COULD happen, but it rarely does. A while back there was some attempt to make up "critique groups" of 5-10 people who had loosely aligned interests. I was sad to see the effort fall apart. But I think it did because people don't really want to hear what is wrong about their images. They just want to get patted on the back and hear "Good for you! Great image!".

 

If people were actually interested in becoming better photographers, they would be able to ignore the "clueless" ratings and focus on the important ones that contain useful advice. The fact that they can't do this just goes to show how little this is about photography and how much it is about ego and "look at me".

If people don't want their photos rated or commented on, they're perfectly free to get some web space someplace else, and link it from their photo.net profile.

 

The only downside to doing that is that their images won't show up in the photo.net galleries. But as long as there are galleries there will have to be some means of determining what gets displayed in them. Democracy may be an imperfect means of doing that, but there really isn't an alternative.

 

I just hope that these delicate flowers never have a public exhibition, or publish a book, or run for public office. Somebody somewhere won't like them and may say bad things about them.

"I have nothing against useful critique, in fact I regularly seek it out from those I respect. "

 

The PCF should be able to provide a place for legitimate photographers to show work. The fact that so many have decided not to, at least not to ask for critique, should tell you that this isn't about whining about ratings for some of us. It's about a failed system that doesn't do what it promises.

 

 

"But trying to

call the ratings system a "critique" is like calling the Arizona Cardinals a NFL play-off contender. I

suppose it COULD happen, but it rarely does. "

 

It does happen, but it's in spite of, not because of the current setup. Bob and others who imply that all the content is amateurish is simply wrong.

 

 

 

 

"A while back there was some attempt to make up

"critique groups" of 5-10 people who had loosely aligned interests. I was sad to see the effort fall

apart. But I think it did because people don't really want to hear what is wrong about their images.

They just want to get patted on the back and hear "Good for you! Great image!". "

 

That seemd to be true of some groups, but not the Atget group. Members have asked for them to be reinstated and they could be done better now that we understand the pitfalls, part of which you've described.

 

"If people were actually interested in becoming better photographers, they would be able to ignore the

"clueless" ratings and focus on the important ones that contain useful advice. "

 

You don't understand the system. You won't get visibility if you don't get enough ratings and ones that are high enough to spawn the "me, too" types to follow suit. No visibility; no comments. I'm getting fewer comments than I used to in part because several of my friends have given up.

<em>It's about a failed system that doesn't do what it promises</em>

<p>

What does it promise to do - and where does it make that promise?

"Perhaps what photo.net should do is institute a no rating score option and if you want to make a comment on a photo you have to take the time to actually think about something and put into writing." - Ellis Vener.

<p>

It's really as simple as that. And those who blame it on the artist's ego are really showing how simplistic their vision is. As Carl Root points out, ratings determine visibility on photo.net. So, basically, what some of you are saying is that Carlos should get what ever visibility he can get before the first jerk kicks him for the simple joy of doing so, and that Carlos or anyone else should enjoy the kicks, whether honest or dishonest, with or without comments.

<p>

It's not about people not accepting criticism, it's about some people refusing the idea that negative commentless and senseless participation is what will decide whether your pictures will or won't be seen by those who are here to help.

<p>

I don't think Mr. Carlos M. would object to any negative critism from somebody who has something substantial to say about his work. In fact, I can assert that Carlos takes criticism very well, as I have already been very critical of some of his works. And if Mr. Carlos would have an exhibition (and I'm almost certain he already did), who are you to say that he wouldn't greatfully thank his critics ? Please, people, stop assuming that those who complain are necessarily brain-dead. I see that even the site administrators are having a go at this sort of things nowadays, and that simply goes against the terms of the site: ad hominem attacks are theoretically NOT permitted on photo.net, and I suggest both members and administrators make sure to remember that. Do nothing to change the site if you don't want to, but at least be faithful to the principles you have set. I believe many people in this thread owe apologies to Carlos. Nobody was forced to post in this thread, but everyone is still supposed to be polite INCLUDING site administrators, if I'm not mistaken.

<p>

Now, the solution... Ellis Verner already posted it for you. Photopoints.com already proposes a "comments only" (no ratings) option, and takes care that things remain civil. And offers various areas for users to chose the level of criticism they are looking for. If photo.net doesn't do something along these lines, more and more people are going to get annoyed by incivility, lack of feedback and annoying feedback, and they will end up on photopoints.

<p>

I'm getting far more and more constructive criticism on photopoints than I had been getting on photo.net for the past year. Nobody's forcing photo.net to do the same thing as Photopoints, but fact is: this is the sort of threads you end up with as things are now. The reason for it is not that some artists are over-sensitive, but that artists might not get here the feedback (positive AND negative) that they were looking for.

<p>

Photo.net's apparent lack of concern for all this and the way the site lets "idiots" and jerk raters decide of everyone's fate is, to me, simply sad.

<i>Now, the solution... Ellis Verner already posted it for you. Photopoints.com already proposes a "comments only" (no ratings) option, and takes care that things remain civil.</i>

<p>

Doesn't solve the problem. We still need some way of determining who shows up in the galleries. Without ratings, your photo isn't going to. That's fine, I guess, but as I suggested, you can just go out and get some web space and link it to your profile to accomplish the same thing.

<p><i>

So, basically, what some of you are saying is that Carlos should get what ever visibility he can get before the first jerk kicks him for the simple joy of doing so, and that Carlos or anyone else should enjoy the kicks, whether honest or dishonest, with or without comments.

</i>

<p>

Could you be a little more dramatic? Nobody suggested he should enjoy anything. If a particular user is repeatly persecuting another, the photo.net staff will certainly deal with him. Absent that, there is going to be a certain percentage of jerks that 99.9% of photo.net users simply ignore.

<p>

Is there some reason to suspect that Carlos is any more plagued than anyone else? Because if there's a pattern, photo.net will surely deal with it. Or is he simply thin-skinned?

Policing the site and setting site rules is certainly a solution, but the first is impractical given the required resources and the second merely invites a new set of problems.<br><br>The more viable solution, in my view, is to promote a site culture of tolerance and acceptance while recognizing its flaws and imperfections. Why would the doing of a saboteur cause Carlos to leave if not for his unrealistic expectation of a perfect site for purposes of self-promotion? Did he ever participate in a sensible discussion on the matter when it concerned others? As a matter of personal maturity, he should know his cause will elicit more sympathy and support had it been other than throwing a tantrum. And what happened to the idea of spreading some good through exerting a positive influence, one member at a time? Must everything be cast under the most negative light?<br><br>To be honest, a positive tone is what's most desperately needed in these discussions, as the silent will take cues from these threads and act accordingly by drawing their own (often dangerously negative) conclusions.

If PNet needs a way to sort good pictures from inferior pictures, it can keep ratings. Ellis and I after him were suggesting the creation of a comments only area, not to get rid of the rating system entirely since that's what most people apparently want.

<p>

If you feel the present rating system lets the best shots come to the forefront while bad shots remain hidden, then leave the ratings as they are, and you'll get this:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/2040221

Uploaded on Jan 11, 32 ratings, averages A=6 and O=6.25.

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2044572

Uploaded on Jan 11, 0 ratings before mine.

<p>

Which picture is better ? What if I had rated the second picture a 2/2 ? How much visibility would it then have ? What if I had not rated it at all ? What would happen if Mr. X would rate the first picture a 3/3 ? Etc. Those who like the present system ought to answer these questions, but I leave it to them.

<p>

Now, how would we sort good and bad pix within a comment only area...? Good question. We might not even need to sort them out, we could just rotate them. But of course, if the comments only area becomes very popular some sort of selection will perhaps become necessary. There you have 2 choices - both of which already exist on photopoints:

<p>

a) Have a "select" checkbox for people to indicate (anonymously) that they feel the picture deserves more visibility. Of course, anyone may then create 100 fake IDs to select his own pictures, and the system can still be abused, and perhaps it will be; but I would imagine that the abusers are more interested in points than critical comments.

<p>

b) Simply rotate for one or 2 weeks all pictures uploaded each day - nobody has more visibility. Then count the number of comments an image has received (excluding comments from the photographer). The more comments ("of more than 25 ords each"?) an image has received, the more visible it will be. This can also be abused of course, but who would want to.

<p>

At least, you end-up with a system where all participation is purely positive, and which is fair, and can only be abused **positively** - meaning that you can't "vote" AGAINST anyone, although you can still criticize pictures.

<p>

The alternative is to let all folks be abused and be deprived of visibility by others, for what ever reason. And finally, you can opt for a reform of the present rating system, which will be costly and time-consuming. These are the choices we have. And all this has nothing to do with Mr. Carlos, except for the fact that he would perhaps still be here if some of the above had been implemented.

You wrote: "Why would the doing of a saboteur cause Carlos to leave if not for his unrealistic expectation of a perfect site for purposes of self-promotion?"

<p>

I thought I had already answered this in my 1st post, didn't I ? How about simply getting fed up with the negative attitude some people have shown ? How about simply not getting the QUANTITY of IN-DEPTH or at least SINCERE feedback he was hoping for ? And what self-promotion are you talking about ? This must be some sort of joke, I suppose. Point is: you know nothing about Mr. Carlos, and you are not here to assume thing about people, but to enjoy critiquing pictures, reading threads and posting works. All these assumptions about people I see over the net are ridiculous. And no, I do not have the same ears as Mr. Spok in Star Treck - just in case the idea would have crossed your mind...:-)

Marc, I apologize if my words offended you. I have much respect for your photography and your intelligence, so let's just call it a disagreement (or better, a difference in viewpoint) with no hard feelings.<br><br>As for your previous post, although I can't speak for the administrators, I believe the message has been consistent: One can not worry about next year's fashion when ones pants are on fire - meaning human resources are stretched to the limit, and Brian is probably swimming among alligators trying to get the new system up and running. Yes, the site is imperfect, and yes, it can use a revamp, but short of a million dollar investment or many more unpaid hands working tightly guided by a fully embellished business plan, we'll have to live with what's in existence.<br><br>So the counter message has also been clear: Do the best with what we've got, and believe in the power of small changes (including positive member behavior) which can cumulatively result in huge improvements.

Most of the folks that cause the problems don't read these forums and if they do, don't have the sense of being part of a community. They are part of the wave of newbies who are attracted to the games called 'rate these images'. Some are maliceous but most are just, well, newbies who just bought a camera. They, not Ellis, or Bob, or Marc, or Brian decide what images get visbility. Keep in mind that they are not told that they are in fact determining the selection of the top pages.

 

Bob, as I've told you repeatedly, the name of the forum, the photo CRITIQUE forum, is itself a promise. The front page says 'upload your images to get rates and critique' or words to that effect.

 

Why is it, I wonder, that no one who uses this forum in the way that it was intended - uploads images regularly, and rates and critiques a broad section of images - is of the opinion that this forum accomplishes its' stated goals.

I'd never heard of Carlos before today and now that he's gone all he's left behind are two pictures. One of a girl, and one of a man, which I assume is himself.

 

How will I know he's a great artist except by the testimony of others? I wonder if his statement would be more effective if he were to leave his work posted and state that he will not be loading any more because of, etc, etc,

 

ON the other hand, I agree with Charo. The photonet constitution was not written in blood or stone and should be able to be modified without citing the past as the reason for the future. I question whether photonet wants to be the biggest site of its kind at all costs. You can be sure that all paid members will continue to subscribe if the site goes to a pay to play policy, and you can be sure that membership will continue to increase as there will be many who want to join, photos or not. If thousands of users depart, so what? You're not going to lose the paying members, in fact you will probably attract more. Being the best site of its kind is not the same as being the biggest. When this and related issues come up I always see a reference from the administrators on how big the site is, how many new subscribers signed up, how many images are in the data base, etc, together with how things have been from the beginning, and so on. If the management wants to harken back to the way things were from the beginning, then let anyone who post in the forums, which is how photonet started, but require participation in the gallery for members only, since the gallery was a subsequent addition.

This is really a hot topic these days it seems. There are a couple recent threads where people ponitificate endlessly about the rating system (myself included). I'm going to try to be brief here.

 

Yes, abuse happens and should be dealt with as expediently as photo.net is capable of doing. [Job description: deal with upset people and ass*(&es behaving badly, for no pay and little appreciation. The application line forms here for people who haven't pissed anyone off already. What, no one?]

 

Yes, some people get their noses out of joint just because they get honest ratings that happen to be low. For them, a public rating system may not be the best thing for their egos, but it might do wonders for their photography if they can stick it out. Then again, given certain overall tastes within the mass market of the forum, it might not.

 

Yes, other systems seem to allow people to play a little more to their liking, but not without other issues.

 

I would like to see a reasonable discussion of all of this, but it is difficult to get that to happen. I can certainly understand photo.net not being very welcoming to some people in that discussion because of the voice in which they have complained. When photo.net is ready to make changes again, I suspect that they will welcome that conversation, though.

 

The rating system isn't intended to be critique. Critiques are for that. They just aren't very directly tied to visibility within the forum.

 

But I guess I'm not sounding sympathetic to the cause of reform, even though I'm certainly open to it (like that matters) and willing to help figure it out however I can.

Another thought on the Size Matters or Does It line of thinking:

 

Not that it matters to many, but I've been considering participating less because the site is too big. My photographs are not as flashy as some of the more popular work here and I have to very aggressively push them in the Critique Request Forums and on the TRP to get them seen. With changes looming in the amount CR's one can post on the same photograph, I sense my work will experience a decrease in exposure. Is there such a thing as too much competition? Is it present here? Is the size of photonet apart from its quality of any concern?

If receiving a low rating is the reason for a photographer to leave this forum then that's aclear indication of how thin the skin of the leaving photographer is. <p>We are all here submitting our pixs knowing that tastes, opinions, cultural backgrounds and momentary moods are very varied. We cannot pretend that a particular pix impress positively everybody but, on the contrary, adverse critiques, ratings or comments may cause us to think and rethink about the qualities of the pix submitted. <p>We all learn more from criticisms than from praises. The present system is not perfect and can be abused but, as very wisely our respected Marc G. points out, any other alternative could, as well, be abused in the end.

Brian Mottershead wrote:

<br><i>There is no requirement... that the ratings be intelligent. Stupid people with

no taste are just as welcome as anybody else.</i>

 

<p>Thank you, Brian, for admitting publicly what I've lamented since you took over.

Photo.net could be (and Philip Greenspun intended it to be) an excellent repository of

photographic knowledge. Under your stewardship, however, photo.net is becoming

the online equivalent of Popular Photography.

 

<p>Congratulations, Brian. Your plan to

keep photo.net alive appears to be working. The unfortunate part is that you care

nothing about quality, and actively encourage mediocrity. You've turned photo.net

into a $500,000 chat server.

 

<p>Excellence and profit need not be mutually exclusive.

seems to me that the people who have most to complain about pretty much have themselves to blame. some posters wish they had unlimited opportunity to continually flood the critique forum with their photos. many of same posters wish that only "qualified" critiquers be conveniently on hand to rate these offerings. but if you have people uploading their so-called mediocre work to that forum then who do you expect will be on hand at that time to rate your work? okay, so you want volume ratings. fine. then be happy with getting lots of ratings but don't expect quality ratings, because you cannot have it both ways. ah, but perhaps the best critique-circle idea for these folks would be to set a particular time for the like-mindeds and friend-raters to simultaneously flood the forum with a photo and each rate the other. or is this sort of one-hand-washes-the-other type of practice already going on? it wouldn't surprise me, because I see too many badly conceived but "pretty" or "shocking" photos get lock-step high ratings when any rational thinker in a ratings-neutral * situation would know better.

 

* as in a competition without knowledge of title, maker, or description of photo and with the commenter-rater's work not a subject of response.