Notice the Silence in Site Feedback Forum????

I am signed up for site feedback forum alerts.

 

A strange thing appears to have happened.

 

I have been cleaning up my e-mail of old alerts, and it was clogged

by alert after alert -- hundreds piled up -- mostly complaints about

rating.

 

Now, my site feedback forum alerts have almost stopped.

 

There were three each, Thursday, Friday and Saturday and the subject

of ratings seems to be a non-issue (unless I'm missing something,

and I did check forum topic postings to be sure before I wrote this.)

 

The saner ones of us predicted that Brian M. would work something

out to defuse the continual ratings complaints, if only to save his

own sanity and get some personal peace.

 

It looks like he has done that, and in the process given us all some

peace and an even better ratings system (for whatever quirks and

flaws still remain).

 

I hope I don't sound too Polyannish, because I'm not really, but I

think Brian took far too much outrageous punishment from some

members, and now he deserves some thanks and a well-earned respite.

 

Here's hoping it remains quiet.

 

Peace out!

 

John (Crosley)

I don't call surrendering the "average" rating system to one photographer and his buddies, and essentially rendering it useless for the average shooter by changing the startup page the correct way to address the issue. C'est La Vie...

Wake up John! Perhaps YOU think all is swell in the gallery, and that Brian deserves all this kudos. However, I have been around a lot longer than you and can say many changes that I've seen brought on here are clearly NOT improvements at all. The most recent changes to the TRP (that you think are so wonderful) are a perfect example. IF any photographer with any experience on this site posts an image right now, and ANYBODY that has marked him as interesting, or just so happens to follow his work, rates one of his images before going through the Rate recent queue, he will be penalized, and lose visibility because the TRP is now based on sum rathger than average. Here is an example:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3292358

 

This image received four ratings OUTSIDE of the rate recent queue. So what does that mean?? Well, because the current TRP is based on "SUM" rather than average, this image (with only six ratings through the RFC) had to compete with images that had 10-12 ratings. Even though his image recived a much higher average rating than most others, because this system is based on SUM of total score rather than average of ratings given, it was found on page 23.

 

And you call this an improvement?? Perhaps in your great wisdom and love for Brian you would like to explain how this is better, let alone even fair.

Actually, you won't find the word 'improvement' anywhere in my post. You may find the words 'peace' and 'quiet', 'quirk', and 'flaw' there. I think Brian deserves some peace. He took some horrible punishment that was undeserved from people who took a lot and gave very little.

 

No system is perfect, but many complainers under the old system were embarrassing in their lack of respect. I don't have any interaction or even know anything about Brian M. except through his few posts on this site and his stewardship, and I can hardly figure out the new ratings system and frankly hardly care much about it at all since I don't lust after TRP or such things -- I leave that to Mr. Chubb and his Altar (Ego), because Mr. Chubb makes no bones about it -- he has lusted after Top Rated Photo status from the start.

 

Scores and ratings are nice to have some way of keeping track of relativity, but experience has taught me that few of the world's great photographers would score well on Photo.net's old or new ratings scheme, which functions best for what it is -- a rating of photos that show off well in thumbnail and in a gallery format where the average viewer is marginally sophisticated about photography and is 'learning' and relatively unfamiliar with the vast range and depth of what has comprised the 'art' and 'science' of photography, together with its increasing history.

 

PN has some outstanding photographers and a great many -- almost assuredly a majority -- who are neophytes and 'working at it', encouraged by the work of standout members.

 

Me, I work for myself, and post just because I'm interested in others' views, but shoot to please myself, and am interested in the wide-ranging discussions in 'comments' that often follow my postings, as opposed to the ratings.

 

Yes, I pay attention to the ratings, but unlike Mr. Chubb's Altar (Ego), I'm hardly about to rant about them (or jump off a bridge, as Altar once contemplated, I recall).

 

I just had noticed the whole place had quieted down -- there were few recent posts about anything other than technical or informational issues, and for whatever it was worth, I thought I'd call attention to it.

 

I'm competitive too, but I compete again myself.

 

I know that the field of photography is a huge ocean of an 'art' and there's room for everybody with his/her own views and abilities, and it's not going to hurt me if someone snags TRP honors or scores higher than I, because that's not what I'm shooting for. My ego's (apologies Mr. Chubb and Altar) not on the line.

 

I'm shooting to capture 'the moment', 'the look', 'the composition', to 'learn something new or different' and to better my skills, and so if somebody is always getting their drawers in a knot because of ratings issues, it's kind of a huge distraction -- that's all.

 

Anybody who WANTS to complain will always find a reason to, and there is plenty of reason to complain, but why not pop a roll in the camera or a flash card in and go out and shoot some photos instead?

 

John (Crosley)

From my experience "Chubby" does constantly talk about getting POW, wanting 7s etc etc. However, I have always considered his remarks as humorous, tongue and cheek actually. Try reading his comments from that angle next time, you might see my point.

 

John, you stated this:

 

"I don't have any interaction or even know anything about Brian M. except through his few posts on this site and his stewardship, and I can hardly figure out the new ratings system and frankly hardly care much about it at all since I don't lust after TRP or such things.

 

Therein perhaps lies the problem, or communication gap here. I DO know how the ratings work, and I DO know how they have been reworked in the past many times. I also know Brian a bit better than yourself only because of having more interaction with him in these forums on a variety of topics. The fact that he even allows posts like some of my more recent ones to remain at all does speak volumes to me in that he does try to be fair and is not some egomanic dictator. I just happen to disagree with many of his recent decisions. As a photographer that has posted many images, given thousands of ratings, and almost 1500 comments on gallery images, I have a reasonable understanding of what IS going on. And to be truthful, in some ways I feel we as photographers who USE the site, understand some of these issues even more than Brian does. Afterall, he does not post images, does not leave comments, does not rate other peoples work, deal with lowballers on his images, watch his images bumped out of TRP visibility because of the ever increasing number of people mate-rating. There are hidden agendas by many throughout the site. You almost NEED to be involved in these parts of the system on a regular basis to fully grasp the significance of some of these changes that have been made. So, if I (or anybody else) sees an issue that has changed the system NOT for the better, it is very resonable to share those thoughts as well as WHY we think it's a step in the wrong direction. Sure, my opinion is that of just one person. But I do have a right to sound that opinion, and since I have been around for some time, with some involvement, it should at the very least be heard.

 

Many of the recent changes were not improvements in my opinion. Brian has been trying to deal with the mate-rating indirectly for years. The only solution as I have posted before it to directly warn those gaming the syetem, and then delete all their ratings if it continues. But as it is the making ratings anonymous, the Calvinball thingy, the changing TRP to rate recent SUM now, limiting number of 7s per day, etc etc.. have only really penalized honest people so it seems, diminished the entire process and had no effect on the mate-rating itself. It is still going on at full speed.

 

This is also not about ratings "lust" as you remarked, rather condescendingly I might add. It is and has always simply been abour fairness. People gaming the system is not fair at all. Neither is penalizing honest, long-time members as is clearly the case with rate-recent SUM being the current TRP default view.

John, I've got a different take. No one knows quite what to say yet. Brian has my sympathies, but . . . so far, I think the change in the default TRP has taken a significant bite out of feedback on the site. My estimate is that there are about 1/3 less ratings and comments being made overall from my own postings and looking at others. I've asked what the site statistics are on ratings and comments per photo compared to before the change, but the admin. declined to provide the information. If I am correct, it may be that the silence in the feedback forum represents people walking with their feet. I could be wrong, but the biggest impact in the change of the default TRP may be to take away the motivation for many present users to evaluate each other's work -- which is that their action is reciprocated. Potentially a serious problem I think. Would like to know the statistics. Would be delighted if I am wrong.

Vincent, if you have read what I have written about this great defect you are ranting about, you will know that I have never said I though it was fair. In fact, I made it plain on the first day of making "Rate Recent Sum" the TRP default that there was this "problem". It is one which is actually fairly easy to "fix". I plan to do so when I am ready. The reason that I don't do so right away is that this problem has the useful side effect that it penalizes people who have friends who rush to give high ratings to their every new photo. Given that such people have been "unfairly" dominating the TRP for quite some time, a bit of compensatory unfairness in the other direction does not concern me very much. Think of it as a little photo.net affirmative action on behalf of new and "friendless" people. The other useful feature of this "unfairness" is that it might cause people to realize that the TRP and rating aren't a game with "fair" rules that you can in any way "win".

Ben, concering your questions about activity in the Gallery, the number of photos submitted in the last few weeks is aproximately the same as before. The number of ratings in April versus March was a little lower, but then March was the highest month we ever had. The number of ratings in April was the second highest.

All I know is that the pictures in BOTH the default TRP sum and the old average category are just plain better than they were a few weeks ago. The most important effect of the change is that the really abusive posters seem to have gone elsewhere (God help whoever their new victims are!)

Thank you Brian, that's encouraging news, I'm glad that I'm wrong and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Any statistics on comments?

Well I am certainly in favor of "Fixing" the little problem called the TRP. However, just to be fair, the mate-raters are still very much alive *IF* this is in fact what you are waiting for slowing down before making a switch. They will never go away. They can however be dealt with, and I hope you are considering doing just that.

 

Would love to share more, but engine just fired up, and the boat is about to go into the water... the very flat water today. Aloha!!

Vincent, if you think mate-rating is so easily dealt with just by lopping off the heads of the mate-raters, how would you propose to deal with the little problem that, going just by statistics, you look just like a mate-rater. If I make a list of people who have exchanged a lot of sevens with other people, you're right up there. I'm not speculating. I've actually made this list, and you are in the top twenty or so of reciprocal high-raters, as I recall. So, if as you suggest, I started lopping off heads of people who exchange high ratings, your head would be looking a little detached, I'm afraid.

Slightly ironic that a post about people not arguing cases on the TRP started this string;)

Christopher:

 

Ironic -- maybe, but unlike previous posts and strings about ratings, this one didn't devolve into a pile on against Brian. Here Brian had taken some action, and he didn't have to be defensive at all. He sounds fully in control, knowledgeable, and just the kind of thoughtful guy I'd want controlling a multi-million dollar, web site with hundreds of thousands of members.

 

And, lest it be forgotten by any member/subscriber who feels Brian hasn't been through it, they should look up past years' portfolios and see that Brian once was a full contributor and a noteworthy photographer/member/subscriber.

 

Of course, because of his position, Brian dare not contribute (at least under his own name), but as the chief target of every ratings schema criticism and a former noteworthy contributor who has had his photos posted and rated before he stepped into his present job, I'd be disinclined to believe that Brian has any less of a feel for what the members experience when they post their photos and suffer the 'revenge of the mate-raters' and other atrocities, all in the name of higher ratings.

 

It all goes back to school and jobs where numbers (and grades) were the means by which we all judged our self-worth and many of you get paid based on numerical indicia, so it's built in that you will defend to the death any attack on your 'numbers'.

 

But remember, they're photos, and the 'raters' are mostly neophytes, largely unschooled in the niceties of the 'art' of photography, and the rating vote of an 'idiot' as some members call some raters counts just as much as the most erudite and well-schooled photography expert on the site.

 

Moreover, photography does not translate well into 'numbers' and 'ratings' as I demonstrated in a recent post in which I showed that one photo had one rating each from 2/2 throgh 7/7 because the photo simply was beyond the ability of PN raters to rate cohesively; it was 'outside the PN box'.

 

A guy most raters seemed not to like because of his harsh ratings, despite their overall consistency -- Bailey Seals -- once wrote me in a portfolio comment very wise advice -- 'lighten up' (among other things). I took that to heart, because (despite his sometimes thin skin) he is no fool about photography and Photo.net.

 

After all, we're all here because of our love for photography.

 

If you've found someone who'll pay you for getting high ratings numb ers, please e-mail me how, so I can share the secret, maybe participate, and when there's money on it, maybe I'll begin to share the others' upset over lower ratings a little more.

 

In the meantime, I took one very good photo today -- a lifetime keeper -- and that made my day.

 

All the rest seems a little sophomoric.

 

John (Crosley)

Brian, I can not believe that you are serioulsy throwing Mr. Tylor into that same rotten heap of mostly non-paying mate-rating members who have been purposefully corrupting the TRP these many months. Get real Dude! My last posting in this forum, if I may direct your attention to <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Bw9w" >HERE</a>, was a plea to rid the TRP of bona fide mate-raters. These people, as we all well know by now, rate each other abusively with <b>MUTUAL 7/7's</b> <i>irrespective of the quality</i> of the posted photograph.<p>

 

In response to that post, I sent Mr Stein the abusive accounts and he (or you) removed ALL of the 7/7 ratings that were generated from those accounts; well over a hundred 7/7 ratings from each account! I am truly very thankful for the action that was taken concerning this matter. Those accounts were obviously rating abusively. Unfortunately, those very same accounts are still active and are now generating a new "quota" of abusively high ratings. <p>

 

It is a night-and day difference in the way those flagrant abusers trample on the integrity of this site and how Mr Tylor and other honest, well meaning members attempt to restore some semblance of fairness here.<p>

 

My God Brian, you are an intelligent person. I KNOW that you are aware of the handfull self-serving abusers. You must be aware of the difference in the behavior of them and members such as Mr Tylor. At least, I hope that is the case. Sometimes a person just has to forget about the statistics and play the game from the heart. Regards.

So..just came back from shooting some pics at a local folk festival..and where are some pics from YOU all today?

I would have to agree with Mr Falkenstine's answer, which I quote here again:<p>

<b>"...I don't call surrendering the "average" rating system to one photographer and his buddies, and essentially rendering it useless for the average shooter by changing the startup page the correct way to address the issue..."</b><p>

He can see the problem. I can see the problem. A whole lot of other's can see the problem. The solution is straightforward. Regards.

John, your point is well taken. Just because I don't post (photographs) here does not mean that I am not active. It is very hard to be motivated to post any photographs on this site when it is in its present condition. Regards.

Walter Tatulinski:

 

I think you miss the point about the remark Brian made about Mr. Tyler and his ratings. He was not scolding Mr. Tyler about his ratings at all, if you read between the lines (I am a former attorney and trained to read prose VERY CAREFULLY). Rather, it seems to be a very good attempt to turn the tables on Mr. Tyler's attempt to use 'statistics' to judge the raters -- for the ultimate irony was that Mr. Tyler appeared to fall within Brian's 'list'.

 

Notice Brian did NOT say that he was threatening to take action against Mr. Tyler, only that IF he were to judge by the list he'd generated solely by the numbers of people giving and getting 7s, then Mr. Tyler would find his head severed.

 

Brian did not threaten to do that to Mr. Tyler, and a fair reading would be that instead of reading it as a threat against Mr. Tyler, one could read it instead as an ironic statement illustrating how poor Mr. Tyler had made his case about using statistics to judge mate-raters (We can assume if he were indeed a mate-rater, he would not have been posting comments like he was, and I think Brian took that into account when he 'turned the tables' a little on Mr. Tyler).

 

I just think you have confused a fun little remark of Brian's into something it wasn't.

 

John (Crosley)

(a guy who reads things very carefully, sometimes)

I enjoy photography, enjoy posting the images, that's were its really at for me. Today was a great Southwest Day, and I should have been on the beach in Mexico.

uh, John, its Tylor.

And in the naked light I saw

Ten thousand people, maybe more

People talking without speaking

People hearing without listening

People writing songs that voices never share

And no one dared

Disturb the sound of silence

 

"Fools", said I, "You do not know

Silence like a cancer grows

Hear my words that I might teach you

Take my arms that I might reach you"

But my words, like silent raindrops fell

And echoed

In the wells of silence

"Vincent, if you think mate-rating is so easily dealt with just by lopping off the heads of the mate-raters, how would you propose to deal with the little problem that, going just by statistics, you look just like a mate-rater." Brian Mottershead

 

Nice to se you show up Brian. How cool you even address me by name, I must be special to you today. Yes, I also noticed you think I am "ranting" above, and of course you also choose to insinuate that I am a mate-rater. No problems, no hard feelings, I do respect your opinion. Fortunately for me, it's time for my reply.

 

Well Brian if your so-called "statistics" say that I am a mate-rater, obviously your so-called "statistics" are once again quite skewed. This does not surprise me too much since Calvinball too was very much skewed (removing many honest rates... including ratings to photographers that did not even rate images at all!) Explain that one. The current system in place today also makes little sense, sending many excellent images to the dungeon. Promising in fact that people who've put a lot of time on the site are sent to neverland because they rate outside of the RFC. I do respect your thoughts on changing it back to something more resonable and fair "whenever you feel like it", but why put up a system that you yourself admit is unfair at all? And why immediately after all of the unfair domination of those pages by the mate-rating posse?? It just seems bazaar to me.

 

Mate-raters Brian, give 7/7 to the same people over and over and over again regardless of the images true worth. These people form large groups now, doing nothing but the same 7/7 after 7/7 after treatment. I in turn have rated 8737 images altogether in over two and a half years. How many 7/7 would you suggest a cheating, mate-rater would hav out of that many ratings?? Perhaps 2000?? More?? Well that IS the case with many of these people, go see for yourself, you have the numbers. My total of images rated 7/7 Brian is 64. A whopping total wouldn't you say?? In fact you yourself have stated in the past that the 7/7 should not make up more than two percent of an individuals total ratings. Those were your words not mine. I have not even give the 7/7 score to even ONE percent of the images I have rated. Yes, like I said, your system is skewed Brian, not my rating pattern. In addition, I have handed these 8737 ratings to over 3500 DIFFERENT photographers, rather than to the same people over and over like the maters do. Furthermore, the one guy I have given the most 7/7 ratings to Richard Van H. (a whopping total of THREE times) does not rate images at all! Yes Brian your data may suggest I am a mater all right, but I am respectfully suggesting to you your data is out in left field.

 

Now, about your suggestion that since I reciprocal rate, so I must be a mate-rater. Well, tell me why you even put the names up on the ratings page at all? Is it not so we can visit the work of the photographers that choose to rate our own work?? Is there some other reason I have missed perhaps? No, there is no other reason. I have simply chosen to visit the photographers that took the time to rate my work as well. NOTHING is wrong with that, (so at least we know where your data went wrong. After years of doing this you make a few friends along the way. I believe this is how it's supposed to work right? If not, then tell me why you even have an "Interested Persons" list? In time that list grows and I asssume your intention in creating that list was so people could follow others work. Even though I have done this very thing, I have always rated honestly! Bottom line, plain and simple. Walter Tatulinski who kindly defended me in this thread is one whose work I like to follow and rate. You know how many 7/7s Walter has received? A total of one. Kenneth Kwan, Jay Patel, Stefan Rohner, Wilson Tsoi, Rene Asmussan on and on... each photographer only ONE 7/7. If I was a mate-rater Brian, why would I complain about mate-rating so consistently?? Why don't I continue to just hand out 7/7s to these people that will obviously give them back in return?? I could easily game the system since it takes no real skill but to hand out 7/7s and a few flattering comments. Look at my comments Brian, why not read them yourself. I try to be very tactful, but will tell it like it is as well. This IS how we learn.

 

The truth is that I am not one of these people. The evidence also clearly supports this claim. If your numbers say that I am in fact one of those cheating ths system, then your numbers are in need of some good-ole readjustments. Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight!!

 

And John, you do claim: "I am a former attorney and trained to read prose VERY CAREFULLY". Perhaps gaining an understanding of the ratings system that is currently in place BEFORE you go praising Brian for it, or suggesting others are lusting after ratings would be a pretty good idea. You did say above: "I can hardly figure out the new ratings system and frankly hardly care much about it at all". Then why get involved at all if you know or care anything about it? I am saying this with respect toward you, just in case it sounds as if I am not.

 

Now, I've have some fish to clean, nice Yellow fin Tuna too... was a good day on the ocean. have a nice evening.

Okay, Vincent, you don't think reciprocal high raters are necessarily mate raters. Fair enough. So how do you decide whose heads to lop off? Does the site just email you for the list of people whom <b>you</b> think deserve to get blasted?<P>

Perhaps you genuinely feel that the people you are rating highly deserve those ratings. Again, fair enough. How does the site determine that the other people in the top 20 reciprocal raters don't genuinely like the images they rate highly? Are they cheaters if <b>you</b> decide the images are unworthy?

Vincent, a total of 378 of your ratings have been disqualified because you and the other person had exchanged more than 10 sevens. Only 25 people have had more ratings disqualified for this reason. (I recalled you as being in the top 20, and perhaps you were the last time I checked; but things have changed a little apparently.)

 

Some of the other people who rant constantly in this forum that something should be done about "mate-rating" are high on the list, too. The point is that "mate-rating" is not as obvious as it might seem. Mate-rating seems to be something that OTHER people do. Very few people, I reckon, sit down at their computer and think to themselves, "Who can I mate-rate today?".

 

Social rating is a problem on this site and all other photo rating sites that I am familiar with. The more the site attempts to foster "community", the more of a problem it is. It is sometimes dishonest, but more often, it is not. One person's "mate-rating" is another person's "mutual respect for high-quality work". If the admins are going to try to distinguish the two by making their own judgements about quality, we might as well just eliminate the rating system and have the admins decide directly which photos go into the TRP. That would be a different site, and a much less popular one. Some exchanges of high ratings are dealt with as abuse, but our philosophy is to alter the rating system to diminish the negative effects of social rating, rather than to treat it generally as an abuse for which people should be disciplined.