Number of ratings reported do not match no of people.

While going through my folders I noticed that on some of my

photographs the number of ratings that are reported in the DETAILS

view do not match the number of people who have rated the photograph.

I clicked on the number link in order to see the ratings distribution.

If I total the ratings from the distribution chart they match the

number of people, but not the number in the DETAIL view. An example of

one of these photographs is <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1909185" >this

one</a>.There are 88 members listed but only 87 being reported. <p>

I though at first that it was just an abuse deletion process that was

working but that does not seem to be the case. I clicked on each of

the members names listed under the distribution chart and each one of

them is an active member; in other words, no banned accounts. I have

noticed this with a couple of my photographs. It seems to be a

discrepancy of only one rating on each of the effected photographs. It

is not really a problem, but I am curious what is happening. Regards.

If you add up the ratings in the distribution you will find that it matches the number of names listed. However, not all the ratings are counted in the overall rating count and average scores. For a while now, we haven't been counting all the ratings in the total count and averages scores. For example, if two people exchange a relatively high number of 7 ratings, then their ratings of each other will no longer be counted in the overall averages, even though their names will be listed and shown in the rating distribution. It is interesting that nobody noticed the discrepancy until now.

They were probably too busy complaining that photo.net doesn't do anything about those damned mate raters . . .

Well, it seemed rude to interrupt the discussion.

What a cleaver idea :) I don't think it's going to slow down those

remarkably interesting discussions about the rating system though,

because the rating on the top rated page seems to average all of the

ratings regardless.

<p>

Please don't get me wrong, I don't care, I'll never get near the TRP

anyway but I wondered if it was an oversight.

Intrigued by this new twist, I took a look at a few of the top-rated photos to compare the number of ratings to the number of raters. Some of them did indeed exclude the filthy "7 exchangers." Unfortunately, the top-rated photos still had high scores from a large number of people who weren't exchanging 7s. Can anything stop the madness?!??!??!!

Sure, if people want to consider the ratings system to be a game that you can "win", then they should know in advance that it is Calvinball: there is only one person who knows all the rules and I can change them any time I want. It is better not to treat it as a game. At present, not very many ratings are disqualified, but there's no telling when that might change.

Actually, I think I was wrong.

I understand. One more question. Is this being done automatically via a program or is there moderator intervention?

<i>"there is only one person who knows all the rules and I can change them any time I want. It is better not to treat it as a game. At present, not very many ratings are disqualified, but there's no telling when that might change"</i><p>Go Brian, go!

Walter, I appreciate your interest, but consistent with the rules of Calvinball, I'm not going to say how it works. For those who don't recognize it, Calvinball is a reference from "Calvin and Hobbes". Calvin plays a ball game with Hobbes, and since he changes the rules all the time, he always wins.

Well Brian...it is your game board, but we are trying to play on it as well as we can. I am not sure if this is a good solution to the problem or not.

I assumed this was another post regarding bot rate deletions. I'm glad I was directed to it. Brian, what an ingenious idea. No one can argue the rules since we don't know them. I'm eager to see if this approach yeilds some success. It'll sure be fun watching.

Concur! Thank goodness, too. My fingers were getting tired on that other thread.

I can see the bogus accounts making a comeback. Lets hope I'm wrong!

"It is interesting that nobody noticed the discrepancy until now."

 

How long has it been going on Brian?

 

Just checked a few images. Looks like it is clipping 2 or 4 ratings on some of the image in the TRP. Instead of 40 7/7 they get 38. Still a 7/7 average. Just not noticeable enough I guess for them to bother bringing it up to you.

 

It's impossible Brian. Just forget it. The same names are still there in force. Some with 2,3 or 4 images in the 3 day. I have no idea how it could be fixed and even if I did, some would find a way around it.

 

The way other sites have done it is to tie subscription into ratings or even using. Most of the mate raters won't pay for service, they just move on as is evident by other sites history.

 

Food for thought: There isn't one (not one) paying member in the first page of the 3 day TRP. It think that is criminal.

 

 

I guess its futile. What a crying shame...

If I understand Mark's comment correctly, he is saying that certain members will compensate for this action by creating phony accounts. That could happen and snowball. I think I am going to subscribe to the Keith Laban School of Rating Methodology from now on. In other words, I quit.

I agree Dave. The worst will float to the top as the rest of us continue to sink. Reminds me of an old vulgar truism. Regards.

Don't quit Walter. Send the assumed accounts to abuse Mark and lets fight the battle with management. The fact that something is started is very good news. We would all hope Brian, that it's something that can have a meaningful effect. Thank you.

I reread my comment referring to Keith and how he rates photographs (he usually does not). That comment could be misunderstood. For the record, I respect Keith quite a lot. I "rate" him very highly. Oh no! Now I've done it. I see another rating deletion. Maybe I'll give up commenting too.

I just meant quit rating. They'll have to pry me off this site with a crowbar (paid up for three more years). Aloha!

Boycott the rating system.<BR> It's corrupt and corrupting.

Thanks Brian. Hope this helps, at least in the short term.

 

In the long term, even this can be gamed. Calvinball or not, your rule changes will have to be logical, and any such system can be messed with. Ideally, the only solution is to (1) reduce the reward and/or (2) ration the reward.

Unfortunately, I think this new "technique" is flawed. I hardly give 7/7 and my nightrider shot is the only one with a substantial amount of them: yet, the details say 62 ratings but there are only 61 names listed and a total of 61 when I go through the ratings chart.

 

Is somebody's name hidden, or this there another explanation?

Mark, I suspect a rate was deleted because it was posted by a notorious Mate Rater, not necessarily because you exchanged high rates. I checked one of my recent posts. It too has had a rate eliminated. One rate out of 78 will hardly make a difference. If it was posted by someone who hands out high rates across the board, I'm glad it has been deleted. I know it isn't because I've exchanged 7/7's with that poster. I've only posted 4 7/7s since joining the site and they were on images of 4 different photographers. I for one have no issue with losing some high rates posted by those just looking for reciprocity. My image is better off for the deletion. I personally encourage more agressive deletions. There's a list of people I would prefer never post rates on my images because it's become clear they're only looking for reciprocity. If I have a photo make it to the TRP, I want it to be on it's own merit.