Just curious...

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by chrisspracklen, May 27, 2006.

  1. ...as to whether anyone else out there is getting sick and tired of the huge disparity in ratings that their
    pictures are given.

    Having just loaded a floral image that I felt was pretty 'original', (insofar as I haven't seen anything quite
    like it on the site before!), as well as being reasonably pleasing to the eye, I was very encouraged to
    receive a 7/5 rating from the first person to leave a score. Then, lo and behold, two 3/3s!

    Could I ask someone to please explain how we are supposed to interpret these ratings? Is '4' the average
    in terms of all the photo's that are uploaded to Photonet, or is '4' the average in terms of, say, the top
    10%?!

    When I first joined this great site the marking seemed to be fair and well-considered, and I found the
    whole Photo.net experience to be positive and enjoyable. Nowadays it seems that there are any number of
    rogue (or, disenchanted) raters around who seem to seem to get a kick out of deliberately downgrading
    perfectly decent images for the fun of it.

    I'd just be interested to know if there's anyone else on the site who is as fed up with it as I am.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Best regards,

    Chris Spracklen
     
  2. It's a good candidate for a POD . . picture of the day. It's an unusual approach to a beat-to-death subject. Like so many 3/3 rates, I'd be interested in knowing if one rater . . . just one . . . could defend it with an intelligent paragraph.
     
  3. Many thanks for your encouraging feedback, Carl.
    Kind regards, Chris
     
  4. Chris, one way to feel less offended is to know that ratings are from Average people, and even though we're all alleged to be photographers, there is too much variation in levels of competence to say we're among peer. The site policy, as I understand it, is that people are entitled to express their displeasure for the work of others without the need to demonstrate their worth - much the way politicians are evaluated.
     
  5. Chris if you try anything different you will be given 3's like bees to honey. If people would take the time to look and try and understand what the artist is trying to say there would be alot less fustration.Different does not mean bad. I see clearly EXPERIMENT attached to this photo. So you are to me looking for feed back not 3's. People attach 3's without looking. I will never understand why people can leave rates without knowing who they are. I just don't get that. When ever anyone leaves me a (known) rate I attend there site to judge the source. And I care more when I get a 7. I want to know why the person liked my image.Most often it is because they have a similar style .The problem with 3's is your photo is not going to be seen, and that is the only reason I am here. To be seen. This photo as you say is indeed different so you will be marked low. So far I have not rated,so perhaps I should say nothing. I would rate if I was comfortable with this system. When I look at work I don't see numbers. As for the photo I like it for the reason that it is different, I crave different. I look and try and understand how you got there. I am also here to learn. I wish more people would attepmt to be a little different, but I understand why they don't, 3's. Regards.
     
  6. I am almost tempted to start going for 3's, it would be more amusing.
     
  7. God bless middle class flower photography stress.
     
  8. That's a very good question.

    I think you are safe in assuming that people rate on different criteria. Both of your ways of considering a 4 are probably accurate.

    I do recall distinctly passing your image for a rate. I skipped it because I wasn't willing to give it the time needed to determine the reason for the heavily processed look -- or just what you were trying to do with the image. At any rate, your image does draw attention to its manipulation or processing. Surely that turns some people off and not others.

    Personally, on images like this I'd like to see some sort of articulation by the photographer as to what he or she was really up to, maybe a little more than "trying something new, or different" -- sort of a show-me-your-path-and-I'll-walk-with-you-a-while kind of thing.

    Your image looks like a spot color print job to me . . . or perhaps a silk screen print. I'm sure that to some that is appealing on its own (or at least, on principle, it's enough to warrant a higher rate), but some are going to see it as ruining a perfectly good flower picture (maybe someone's mom).

    I will say that I don't consider this image as transcending the class of other flower images here on PN. That isn't to say I won't, though.

    As to your apparent frustration with the ratings -- you are in the majority I think.
     
  9. A healthy turnout on this thread :)

    Here's my advice on ratings, give up on them as a vehicle to judge the worth of your work. As has been stated above, the breadth of the pool of membership that rates come from is greater than the breadth of appreciation of your experiment. When I first started out here I didn't understand that, now I do.

    Don't be disheartened, carry on trying new things, there _are_ people here who will take note.
     
  10. WJT

    WJT Moderator

    Yes Ben, that is good advice. Not to be argumentative, but as long as Chris keeps getting slammed with double 3's, and suffers the concomittant loss of visibility in the Gallery because of those low ratings, precisely who, may I ask, is "going to take note" of him? He, you, me, anyone can try all the new stuff he cares to and no one will ever see it. Ratings = Visibility; that is the Law of PhotoNet. It is as true a law as the one that Newton observed when an apple smashed into his head. Regards.
     
  11. WJT

    WJT Moderator

    On another note but in the same theme, I ask: What ever happened to the group of Resident Critics that were on this site? There was a whole list of them on the PhotoNet homepage. <p>
    I was just looking at some of my older posted photographs and came across one of them, Bailey Seals. His moniker is on several of my older works. Not that I have any great love for Bailey, but at the least he was objective and honest in the ratings that he gave. When he rated low, you knew that it was a lousy photograph, not just one being slammed by some puerile nameless moron. Regards.
     
  12. Walter,

    Well the one person who I'm most trying to please always sees my work, anything else is a bonus. Ratings imho don't really do a great deal for improving critique through visibility - if you don't beleive me then look at the overiding quality of critiques placed on the first page of images in the TRP. 7/7, excellent, wonderful, blah, blither, bluster, etc.

    The best way I've found to engender high quality critique is to offer it up yourself, what goes around comes around.

    Of course, we're all here for different reasons.
     
  13. "Having just loaded a floral image that I felt was pretty 'original', (insofar as I haven't seen anything quite like it on the site before!), as well as being reasonably pleasing to the eye, I was very encouraged to receive a 7/5 rating from the first person to leave a score. Then, lo and behold, two 3/3s!" You now have a few more 3/3's. There are many viewers that dislike overly saturated and PS'd flowers, landscapes etc., etc. images and I don't blame them. "Reasonably pleasing" is entirely in the eye of the beholder and most of the "beholders" here did not agree with you. Shoot for yourself and hope that enough veiwers appreciate your work to make the effort worthwhile.
     
  14. At first I was disheartened by the ratings. Now I don't worry about them too much, I'm more interested in the comments. Also, when people direct-rate I visit their portfolios, which gives me a feeling for where they were coming from with their ratings. I find those much more valuable than anonymous clicks, good or bad
     
  15. Well I think you have raised an excellent question! One of my images, from 30 ratings, received scored 13, 7's. Yet someone out there in their strange fantasy world gave me a 3! Kind of stings. Don't know if I will enter anymore photo's myself for actual ratings but I will post images that are dear to my heart. I think this is an EXCELLENT site to learn, meet others, have a good time on, and see amazing work.
     
  16. By the way I really dig your work! Thank you for sharing.
     
  17. To borrow on another thread, from looking at ratings in several filter modes, I would bet that many of the high ratings come from people who also buy a lot of Thomas Kincade prints (or would if they had the money). The dark oversaturated photoshop stuff is really getting a little tired.
     
  18. Just not too long ago I remember there were lots of lowball raters who were all eventuaally
    deleted. It took over a year to catch them, and their names were ON the photos. Why then
    wouldn't the invisible names do the very same thing today?

    I bet you some of these low raters are doing it just for causing pain, and now they are
    invisible. Guaranteed!
     
  19. Chris,

    My advice is to not be concerned about these ratings. Those who rate photos on this site may or may not know anything about art or photography. Many would say that ratings (especially low ratings) come from numb nuts anyhow. They are all anonymous ratings and you have no opportunity for any discourse. Besides, ratings are meant for the benefit of the site to rank photos and not for you as a member. It doesn�t make any difference that you joined the site to put your photos in front of others to have them rate it for you. In addition, some of the ratings may not even be done by humans. Bots appear frequently and the phony accounts show up too. Bottom line, do not pay any attention to ratings.

    I wouldn�t rely too much on critiques either. It appears that most of the more advanced photographers have dropped out of site or have just quit participating. That leaves mostly amateurs to comment and after awhile you get tired of �Great Shot�, �Good work�, �Wonderful�, �Lovely scene�,�I love this�, or other similar comments. Bottom line, do not pay any attention to critiques.

    Since you can�t rely on your images being viewed because the 3/3�s rob them of their visibility, you can�t rely on the ratings because you do not know who is rating them and you pretty much can count on compliments and not critiques in the comments, perhaps you might want to think about not posting any photos at all.

    Hey, you are the one that counts anyhow. If you are not capable of judging your own work then maybe you are just wasting your time. Bottom line, why spend any time here at all. In fact, why even take pictures. You are just going to show them to family and friends who tell you they are great because of your relationship, if you post them here they�re going to be rated by bots and idiots, if you ask for comments you just get those that falsly compliment you hoping for a return compliment.

    Give it up. Sell your equipment and go for a different hobby. By the way, how much for that Nikon D70?
     
  20. Hello Chris, yes, utterly fed up. In fact I deleted a "floral" that picked up five 3/3's overnight. You've done one better than that.

    I looked through your portfolio, it's of the highest standard. Nothing there that would warrant a deluge of low ratings.

    You know, there may be some milage in tying to post images that are technically good but collect 3/3's.
     
  21. Yes, you could always take up creative writing.
     
  22. ...to everyone who has a taken a moment or more to post replies to my question. Many of
    you have picked up on the frustration I have felt and have been kind enough to take the
    time to post a thoughtful and helpful answer. I really appreciate it ~ thank you.

    ユ A number of them show a similar sense of frustration with the rating system ~ I believe
    there to be some wise answers here that we can all benefit from hearing...

    ユ Several of them display a fine sense of humour ~ I enjoyed the smiles!

    ユ Several more have rightly pricked my conscience ~ my own time is very limited and so I
    give very little of it to making constructive comments on other people's work, preferring to
    give a considered rating in an attempt to show my wonder, approval or otherwise. I
    shouldn't really expect any more than I'm prepared to give. But, most of all...

    ユ They ALL display an honesty and warmth for which I am especially grateful.

    Thank you again!

    Best regards,

    Chris Spracklen
     
  23. I've finally worked out where all those question marks come from!

    Doh!

    ユ No more bullet points then!

    Chris
     
  24. FWIW Peter, I really like the honeysuckle photos that you deleted, you should put them back up, even if it means minus a critique request.
     
  25. They may go up under the pseudonym Trine Terzetto.

    Creative Writing!? I write science fiction now

    ;-)
     
  26. This does not directly address the issue, but here's two cents' worth of my thoughts.

    I like running through the photographs on the critique forum, putting circles in dots which I try to do with uniformity (i.e. give out the same number of 1's as 7's as 4's, etc). This allows me to scan lots of images so that I can learn what works and what doesn't, and I can give a small feedback to the photographer about whether I think it has worked or not. I comment on about one in a hundred when I feel a photograph is particularly good or doesn't work for a specific reason.

    However, I know that it upsets many people to get low ratings from anonymous people, and I for one would at least like to be accountable for my actions. Is it possible that dots-in-circles could be done non-anonymously, so that a photographer can come back and ask for an explanation for the rating he has been given?

    In general, I think it might be better if there is more connection between ratings and critiques, so you can see who said what and gave what.

    Cheers,
    Dale
     
  27. Maybe the site should have the (LPR = lowest picture rated) to even things out....:D
     
  28. One more thing And it would be placed in the (WPOW= WORST PICTURE OF THE WEEK..:D
     
  29. Many viewer are used to skip any photo they either don't understand, don't get excited, or fail to keep their eyes open without clicking the "skip" button. Although they used to do that with 4/4s, somehow "the collective wisdom" has come to the decision on making it even harsher with 3/3s. Some agree that ignoring could be the ultimate solution to this no solution, and as an amateur, I have found it not really so difficult to learn to accept that to some my stuff is only worth 3/3s, and turn to focus on those precious comments. But please, show some respect to these top photographers, for their works not only inspire others but also keep this site on the lead, especially when they are challenging themselves and showing some avant-garde, experimental works in front of us. It is true that not all breakthroughs are so appealing, especially those still on the immature stage, but why cannot people learn to respect those they dont understand and just click the skip button but give 3/3s (and possibly more automatically discarded 1/1s and 2/2s)?
     
  30. If you are talking about the Peony photo, it would seem that the 7/5 rating is the outlier, and that there isn't a huge disparity in ratings, especially on Originality where everyone more or less agrees that the photo isn't that original. The Aesthetics scores vary more. There will always be outliers. Who knows why the 7/5 rater gave such a high score on Aesthetics? Maybe he likes red and green.
     
  31. wow, a ratings thread. bringing back the memories....
     

Share This Page