Members' "most-frequently rated photos" link - odd behavior

I noticed this on my own portfolio (I'm acquainted with its details), but (as long as my

meds keep working) I'm not paranoid enough to think I've ben singled out. Here's the deal:

Last week, there were more photos in the view you get if you click on the "most

frequently-rated photos of this member" link, but, this week, several have dropped out of

this view. I searched, but can't seem to find the criteria used in generating this "Reader's

Digest" version of a portfolio. Since I sometimes use it as a quick introduction to another

photographer's work, I'd like to know that it works as it should. Can someone explain to

me how it does work? Thanks!

I am seeing the same thing. The criteria used to be over 10 rates. All my images have over 10 rates yet I am showing 1 short of the total. Perhaps someone can shed some light on the issue, minor as it may be.

This may be the result of "Calvinball" See this thread.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B6pJ

Laurie, I read that already, and rejoiced to see a reference to Calvinball. Thanks! But as far

as I can tell, that doesn't apply; at least I don't see the discrepancy discussed there. As to

whether ratings have been deleted due to purging a bogus account, I can't testify, as I'm

insufficiently anal-ytical to keep detailed stats. I <b>do</b> notice gross effects like

images not showing up that used to be there. If I understood what the criteria were, at

least I'd feel more oriented.

Not wishing to sound too strident, but: Is there still any hope of an answer, or should I

post it again as a new question?

I joined Photo.net and started posting some of my own images with the hope that I would be able to receive (and give) honest criticism. I must say that I have received valid, honest, well-meaning, and constructive criticism. Don has been an especially helpful reviewer of my work. But I have also learned that most people rate a photo and move on without providing any other input. I really want to know why someone rates one of my photos a 2 or 3. I also really want to know why someone thinks a photo deserves a 6 or 7. I have quickly come to the conclusion that a rating without comment is of no use to me. So, I have started only giving ratings when I have a comment to offer. The only purpose I can see to the ratings is that a high rating gets a photo a lot of visibility through the Top-rated photos pages. With the huge number of people participating in Photo.net those that abuse the system will always be able to stay ahead of the rules. If the rules to Calvinball are ever stated, even if they are only valid for a short time, the abusers will just find even better ways around the system. I am glad someone is trying to keep Photo.net a good place to exchange images and thoughts. However they fell it needs to be done is fine with me. I just want to learn and get better.

Doug, I'm sympathetic, and appreciate the compliment, but I am <b>not</b> trying to

start yet another thread on the woes of the rating system and its role in the decline of

civilization (though it may well play a part). I just wanted this recent change in PN's

behavior

explained. Eventually, guess I'll ask again, and then go take some pictures. ;-)

I think Doug may be correct:

<p>

<em>With the huge number of people participating in Photo.net those that abuse the system will always be able to stay ahead of the rules. If the rules to Calvinball are ever stated, even if they are only valid for a short time, the abusers will just find even better ways around the system.</em>

<p>

I don't know what the current scoring system is, and neither do the ratings abusers. Perhaps this is the way it should be.

<p>

In reality there is no reason why users of the system need to know how it works. Google doesn't tell anyone exactly how it ranks websites. This prevents websites from doing things to artificially boost their ranking, but it doesn't stop the better websites from being listed high in the rankings.

Bob, my question really didn't have to do with ratings as qualitative things, but just the

raw quantitative counting of 'em, and the recent change in the method used (inferred from

a change in behavior). I agree that any discussion of ratings qualitatively leads to all sorts

of silliness, and worse, but thought it was permissible to ask how this feature worked. Is

there an answer that can be shared?