Mate Rating: A different angle

If we can report lowball ratings to abuse@photo.net, and IF they are

indeed proven malicious or just plain dishonest, then they are

simply deleted. This has happened on my own images too many times to

remember. In fact just this evening another fairly significant

amount of ratings were deleted without my prodding (many higher ones

as well). Brian has often said that as long as ratings are given in

good faith, then regardless of the actual numbers, high or low, they

will stay put. If proven otherwise however (bogus account, to get

even...or whatever else) they are deleted.

 

 

Why then can't the opposite apply equally?? If people are just

rating away 7 after 7, over and over to the same people, isn't this

another form of abuse? Why not simply report those cheaters to

abuse@photo.net, explain why we believe these are another type of

*bogus* ratings. Then if management sees the situation similarly,

they can promptly delete every one of that photographers ratings. Or

at the very least each of the 7s. I can tell you this much, having a

members ratings entirely zapped away would get some major attention

very quickly. In some cases tens of thousands of ratings could be

deleted.

 

In the past, regarding the lowball ratings, it has never been easy

to prove ulterior motives, or insincere intentions, especially in

the beginning. Usually these manifest themselves after a measure of

time elapses. Only then can all of us (management included) see the

true colors, true intentions and only then they are zapped away. In

the case of bogus mate-ratings, many of these have been going on for

such a long time, there really is no doubt as to who is really

handing out these HIGH mate-attracting ratings. The hand out the

same ratings to the same people over and over again, even if the

work is average or below. In my opinion it is much easier to prove

because it has had time to manifest itself conclusively, sometimes

over years. I suggest then rather than waste time in the forums -

yes, just like this- lets instead just start reporting these obvious

maters to abuse, and see what happens from there.

 

Last month one lowballer not only had all of his ratings deleted,

but so were his images as well. In the most obvious cases, deleting

everything, ratings AND images would absolutely put these mate-

raters on notice in quick fashion. This way the ratings system

remains (since management seems to really like the system) and only

the abusers of the system are dealt with.

 

It is obvious these cheating maters are not being honest here and

all dishonest ratings should be deleted. Let all of us then start

sending these abusers to the proper department (abuse@photo.net)

just as we would lowballers or mechanical bots and get them out of

here once and for all. Once a few heads have been rolled so to

speak, everybody should start thinking twice before handing out more

of the same.

i am considering writing a Proxomitron filter that hides all threads with "rating" in the title

Vincent-

 

Deleting Low-ballers, Mate raters, Revenge rating, etc. sounds too extreme for me. Rating is so very subjective to the individual. Who decides what is each of the above? As the old adage says, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". When you "like" someone, you tend to over look the intimate, annoying, imperfect details and conversely so when you dislike someone. I believe this may just be human nature. What to do? Maybe we are just not capable of being impartial. Maybe we need "Big Brother" to watch over us and keep us in line. Hummmm........! I think this is where the human spirit of freedom of choice (bad & good) kicks in and says "I don't think so!"

 

There will always be good and bad, joy and despair, high and low, love and hate etc. Without opposite opposing forces, we would not be able to appreciate the other. How can one recognize "hate" without experiencing "love"? I believe it is not possible to mandate change in others. More laws do not make us safer, they only insure that more individuals will beak a law. I believe that we all are inherently "good". Extenuating circumstances are the determining factor. But then, that's what makes the world and it's people so intriguing instead of mundane and boring. Sure, I'd like to see everybody get along and be honest and caring, but (and this is a big but) I doubt this will ever happen, history tells me differently.

 

My opinion? It's people like you and me that do effect change eventually. My advice? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

NOT... here's a better idea: scan the TRP pages for early-rated and over-rated dubious quality photos. then, instead of reporting these or even rating them, simply give each one a very sobering and honest critique of its faults. say nothing of a personal nature. don't even attempt to smooth over the critique. keep it dry and to the photographic points. just stick to the business of the image itself.

 

then observe how subsequent ratings of the photo suddenly reflect your honest appraisal of the image. herd and halo-effect maters want to be seen and heard in order to ingratiate themselves with the high ratings cliques, so they comment and read other comments. as ratings gather on a pic, it becomes less clear who gave what, so there becomes safety in higher numbers (of ratings). many raters simply need a reason not to dole out a 7/6. so, you just give them the reason to rate the image 6/5 or perhaps 5/4. isn't that the goal here? then lead by example instead of playing cop.

Howard, I've happened upon a couple of images you have critiqued, but you mention you do NOT rate, but IF you did, you would give 3/3 or whatever. I don't understand how that will help much if you do NOT rate. If we all did what you are doing, it wouldn't drop the average scores at all and the image would still remain in the TRP. Plus someone who tends to rate based on the average score so far would rate higher than if a few more "honest" critiquers knocked that score down a bit.

Kim, I've too settled on Howard's approach - more recently without even mentioning what I'd rate it.

 

I do this when coming across the obviously mate-rated pics in particular, because on several occaisons my mere mentioning of the low numbers I'd give it resulted in a vindictive assault on my own posts.

 

So, I'd then have to report the vindictiveness to abuse@photo.net.

 

Then, I'd have to read in reply that regardless of my perceptions, the people may just have not liked my photo as they have rated across the number spectrum (3,000 "6s" and "7s" offsetting the few hundred "4s" and "5s," and a few dozen "3s", but no matter).

 

THEN, I'd have to read in this forum that people who complain about abuse are noted by the moderators and seen in poor light as "whiners."

 

SO. Not feeling particularly like a martyr this year (should scores of virgins and riches be bestowed, perhaps I could be swayed to change my mind), I just leave numbers out of it. If they're egomaniacal enough to rate blurry photos of weeds with 7/7 because the person is their reciprocating Photo Mafia pal, the they're also petty enough to devote time to reducing my posts' ratings, which in turn reduce their visibility, which in turn keeps me from getting feedback that I need to get better at this hobby.

 

It's kinda like working in a corporation. You must feel out the politics, choose your battles wisely, and still try to find an island where you might remain content as the system craps all over you.

I'm surprised at how many people don't seem to understand that mate rating is officially encouraged. Sorry I can't find the quote at the moment.

The official limit placed on mate rating is defined as preventing more than eight 7s on the daily uploads. .

I'll give you the Gold for this post...:-)

<p>

Although another way would be to continue rating, and not care at all about retaliations and other consequences...

<p>

P.S: Silver goes to Jayme's last sentence: "Be careful what you wish for..."

> Although another way would be to continue rating, and not care at all about retaliations and other consequences...

 

People who do not have an axe to grind and who care for this site should do just that. If TRP visibility matters to you a lot, for professional or commercial reasons, you probably shouldn't (and that's OK).

 

A lot of folks keep mentioning that ratings on their own photos don't matter to them, and these people should rate with brutal honesty. No reason not to. Also leave a critique, though in most TRP cases, it serves the readers of the image thread and not the photographer.

Vincent, I'm afraid that we are "milling water"., and not the law-ballers and mate-raters are going to disappear from the net, what ever way will be chosen to deal with.I agree with Jayme, it is the human nature, and many feelings emotions frustrations and ego are parts of that place.Maybe the reason the moderators are not taking actions about it, is because there is no way to realy change the human nature....

 

Another problem is the melange of different levels that are practicing the photography medium, and most of the 2 levels are rating each other, add to it all the emotions, frustrations etc...

 

Reading all the solution offered, I'm skeptical.

Pnina, let me ask you something. Seeing that your own top-rated photos consist of the same photographers over and over and over again, each of their uploads receiving a 7/7, how do you feel Human Nature plays into your own rating patterns? Also, do you consider that 'mate rating?'

 

Since you're posting on this string and mentioning "solutions" and your own personal skepticism, I'm really curious as to whether or not you see your own behaviors as part of the problem. While many of the photographs you've rated highly are lovely, I simply do not see how one sunset after another can receive an objective "7/7" from you time and time again - especially when you factor the likelihood of those sunsets being taken by the same photographer.

 

There are a lot of sunset/sunrise photos on this site, but only a few photographers who post them - some quite arguably medicore- receive consistent 7/7s from you? Is that objective rating, or mate rating?

Reporting the instances of mate-rating to the abuse department is a good step towards a resolution of the problem. It is certainly better to do that than to publicly accuse the person of abuse on his posted photograph's page. That is what I see happening now on several recently posted photographs. Unlike Howard's idea, which also has merit, these comments are not addressed to the photograph but to the photographer. They are literal ad hominem attacks and will be viewed by the adminstration as such. This tactic will only damage our position.<p>

Unfortunately, it is also true that the response from the administration on reported abuse will be similar to Christopher's all-too-familiar scenario elucidated above. Specifically, those who report abuse without absolute proof will be looked on as low-credibility whiners. Mottershead et al made that clear when the Golarka Subjugation was being resolved.<p>

With that in mind, it is understandable to me how one could believe that this abuse is being sanctioned by the administration. Regards.

You can do all of these things above (critique, honest lower ratings etc..) in addition to sending what one perceives as clear abuses of the ratings system to abuse@photo.net. Abuse of the ratings system doesn't have to be just for lowballing, but can also apply when somebody hands out 7 after 7 to the same people and then have the same in return given back to them. Neither you nor I will be deleting anything. If the abuse department sees the obvious in a particular case, THEY will be the ones taking the proper measures. Mate-rating is just another form of ratings abuse, and should be sent in to the department specifically designed for this purpose.

 

As for the "you might get what you wish for" insinuation; If my ratings are considered mated and deemed abusive and subsequently deleted, then great for Photo.net! The long list of others in addition would be miles long. A good cleansing might work wonders for all.

 

My point in short form is; since they're not going to change the ratings system here, then lets focus on the ones taking advantage of the ratings system. "Abuse" does handle lowballers, and can do the same with very obvious, proven cases of mate-raters! In the past we've been *accustomed* to strictly using this department for lowballing, when in actuality it should be used for both lowballing and mate-rating since BOTH are clearly forms of abuse. What part of this don't some of you get??

Christopher,I personaly like sunset photos, and am not tired of looking at them and scoring them accordingly( and not all of them rated by me 7/7) Christopher,The times I met your name at my folder it was always as far as I remember average rating, last time I went to see your folder and liked what I saw,and rated it according to what I thought and it was not average, so?

 

I think that there are a group of photographers that like my work,and I appreciate theirs as well, so please look the my body of works, there are names that wrote me and are not scoring me and I don't score them.I will not praise my work,but I know that in general it is a good work, (I'm an established artist in my country with a lot of " reciept"). So are you ready to assume that if you think highly of a photographer(s), you will follow his/their work? Thats what I'm doing. I rate and comment on most of the photos Ilike. You don't have to like my work, but not everyone must think like you.I think I rate honestly, I do rate/comment photos that I like.

and last,I rated your bird photo that I liked, do you know how many similar birds photos there are on the TRP? but that does not change the fact that it was a good one in that category.

Kent, I have answered you yesterday, that is enough, you can think what you want of me , I have written you what I think of your work, I have nothing personal against you.and I don't like your style .

Pnina - I would know I was doing something wrong if you liked my style. It's actually OT to this discussion though which is your participation in the mate-rating scam.

At the very least, the Brian should write a program similar to the low-ball remover but aimed at the high-ball. Regards.

Kent, respectfully, the topic of this discussion is not Pnina but how to properly deal with mate-rating. Public accusation is <b>not</b> an answer; it will get this thread removed. Regards.

It's not an accusation but a statement of fact. And I was referring to the discussion between Pnina and me.

Thank you Walter.

I just don't think Brian is going to do anything about this. This is not a new phenomenon. I think we should figure out what we can do to change the rating games and leave Brian out of it. Go tell them what you think of their photographs as critique. It's what critique is meant for. And shine a light on their games whenever you get a chance. What will happen is those with a modicum of integrity will stop.

Yeah, but what if they can't see their integrity's shortcomings? As of very recently, I'm starting to think that's part of the problem, too.

Christopfer I rated it because I thought that the background with the colors of the bird were original. I'm not going to defend my way of thinking, thats my taste and thats what I think and thats the wayI rate/ comment. BTW, let me thank Kent, that went right now to my folder and rated my photo 3/3 It is your privilege Kent..

It's what I honestly think of your photo. You shot the subject with her eyes closed and the focus is soft. It's not even average.

i've read this thread with interest. i like the work of virtually everyone who has posted here, and take that work on its own merits. i'm sad to see people writing in anger to each other. each of you is a committed photographer, and i benefit from viewing all of your work. for me, that's the bottom line of participating here. the rest is gravy. why get so worked up over it? what many term "mate rating" is an inevitable result of people trying to bond with each other and, perhaps, losing some objectivity as a result. flattery can work. in the end, if the poster seeks warm regards and high ratings, they may get it by using flattery, posting their ratings with their comments, etc. if they seek honest critique they may be disappointed. it may dilute the top photos pool somewhat, but to be honest, most of them are still very well done photos. i don't think the integrity of the site is badly threatened as a result. but more importantly, with all respect to all of you, time is precious, life is finite, lets spend more time taking pictures and commenting constructively on each other's work, and less trying to restrain or reform the rest of the crowd (ironically, maybe that's what i am trying to do by this message, eh?). i have very fond feelings for so many of you. let's try to get along. going back and forth and up and down and sideways on this "abuse" issue over the last year, i see the wisdom of reserving the label of "abuse" for the more extreme examples. so that's my two cents. peace, my fellow artists, there are enough judges in the world as is.