Jump to content

Photo.net is UN-Balanced


dougityb

Recommended Posts

Several days ago I noticed something interesting about many of the

photographs that are showing up in the top rated pages search engine

(TRPSE) and other places in the gallery at large.

 

What I noticed was especially alarming with regard to those pictures

that I would consider mediocre. My observation was that many of them

only contained two or three ratings values, mostly just 6's and 7's,

and that some of them even had no opposing commentary. Even in the

POW you get opposing commentary and a swing of ratings across the

board.

 

Well, I think I figured it out.

 

Average to below average images don't reach the TRPSE because of mate

rating and inflation, as is commonly believed. Instead, they reach

the TRPSE because no one opposes them.

 

What I concluded was that a critical element was missing in these

images, and that element was, in my opinion, BALANCE.

 

Mediocrity is a value judgement, that's true, but is this the reason

why images of ridiculously low quality are reaching the TRPSE with

scores in the mid 6/6 range? Because there is no one out there

anymore willing to speak up and say: "In my opinion, I don't think

this image is worthy of a 6/6 rating and I'm using the one rating I

have on this image to make sure my meaning is clear."

 

Where is the balance?

 

What have we done to Photo.net?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the TRPSE should display photos sorted by the number of words of comments (!) they got. Not the number of comments, as a 6/6 or 7/7 in place of a comment as often seen are of no value - not to the photographer nor to others looking at his work - but the number of words.

 

This sort order is not less valid than the number of ratings (remember, the TRPSE sorts by default by the NUMBER of ratings, nothing else), and at least when one gets to such a page, one is more likely to find something interesting to read and to consider. I've seen many pictures with dozens of ratings where not a single comment adds any value ("wow", "you did it again", "great capture" and the likes). On the other hand, some pictures have very interesting discussions and it's not always obvious to find them when one has not visited the page for other reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one needs to practice discernment as illustrated by two examples.

 

An image appears in the gallery, or the default TRPSE (D-TRPSE), which sorts by number of ratings. The image is of average quality and you recognize the photographer as new and inexperienced. A low rating will do relatively little to encourage this photographer. Leave a comment. If the image is good, leave a rating and a comment, or one, or the other, as you would normally.

 

An image appears in the gallery, or the D-TRPSE. You recogonize it as of medium quality. The photographer you also recognize as one who's either experienced, or has appeared frequently on the D-TRPSE default page. The image is mediocre, but has very high ratings. Rate this as you think it deserves, and leave a comment if you feel the need to explain your rating.

 

I think what happens is that, in example two, members pass up the opportunity to rate one of these inflated photographs because they are afraid of backlash. So, they step aside. The image rises and rises, finally reaching 20 or 30 ratings with a score of 6.this and 6.that, when in fact they believe it deserves less. Who bears the ultimate blame for it reaching the top?

 

The 20 or 30 friends of the photographer who gave it 6's and 7's? I don't think so. Don't we all tend to be more generous to our friends? Yes, we do, whether by a little, or a lot.

 

The photographer themselves? I don't think so. They have only one vote.

 

Or is it the membership at large, me for example, who watches quietly and inactively from the side, convinced that my one rate will make no difference? Or afraid that the cost of getting yelled at, or bullied is not worth it.

 

I'm not at all suggesting revenge, or vendetta, or even reform. There is no way in cyberspace that a ratings system can be fair without being overly complicated.

 

I'm calling for anyone who has refrained from rating out of fear of abuse to realize that they are not alone, that there are hundreds of fellow members all around that are feeling the same thing, and are equally cautious because of the possibility of backlash. I'm calling for everyone who is disgusted with mate rating and inflation and a ridiculous TRPSE to get their hands out of their pockets and get involved.

 

My point is that the system will never be able to control ratings abuse, but that an apathetic membership is certainly no help, either.

 

My point is that there are members complaining all the time about ratings inflation and a poor system and so on, but who stand by with their opinion in their pocket while poor work is exalted.

 

My point is that it's not mate rating and inflation that are to blame for people's concerns over the quality of the TRPSE. It's the fact that everyone is standing around watching and not doing anything about it.

 

Don't you see? It's not the proliferation of 6's and 7's that are responsible. It's the lack of anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Digital Doug (*.*)

Besides the fact that I haven't been able to get the TRPSE to work for the last week, I am in agreement with your opinion.

But I think you have unreasonable expectations. It would be nice if people didn't have big egos, that photographers didn't practice self gratification, jerks didn't retaliate for low ratings, and cliques didn't exist. Unfortunately, this is PN reality and as the site grows my guess is that it will be more difficult to achieve balance.

The comments mean a lot more to me but unfortunately, this is a numbers game. If you want to see photos selected by the TRPSE, you need high numbers. High numbers generally provide more comments. If you have 20 or 30 friends who give only 6's or 7's, and occasionally someone else provides a rating of 3,4,or 5, the low rating will have little impact. I would love to see more of my photos in the top 100 but I am not that good and I don't have the fan base of those who are consistantly at the top. That is frustrating to me and others. I don't have all the answers. Perhaps the critiquing circles are the way to go.

Let the circle nominate a certain number of photos for the TRPSE. That might improve objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an addendum to my previous comment.

 

Perhaps Brian Mottershead(who loves to quote statistics)could do a statistical analysis of the top rated photos over the past three months or so to see who consistantly gets high ratings and who is consistantly giving the high ratings.

 

Perhaps a critiquing circle could be created to reexamine the top 100 rated photos and make appropriate comments with no ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart: YES. But....<p>

Culturally some people are seem to be taught "if you can't say something nice don't say anything". So you get something mediocre which a few people give 6/6 to and no one puts another side. I got involved in some time consuming stupidity with someone by calling a spade "a spade" (OK calling a soft porn pic "porn"). The person who took me to task was clearly offended because I'd said - in effect - that he liked porn. I've had flack from someone who shoots "postcards" - and sells them - because I said one of his very pretty pictures was a bit of a cliche. And I won't even talk about the fuss I caused when I said someone had made a good picture by re-using something which was unimaginative. <p>

Have you noticed how people seem to tie Aesthetics and Originality - I've got a spreadsheet with all my scores in. 58% have the same score in both categories. 39% have the same score +/- 1 and only 3% are +/- 2. How come ? Why can't people say "its clever, but horrible to look at", or "Beautiful, but I've seen it 1000 times before" ... what we get instead is "I like that ... 6/6". <p>

 

And statistically people are twice as likely to tell me they like a picture than why they don't. No one who has scored a picture 3 in either category has said why. Not a good basis to improve my pictures.

<p>

<i> James </i>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to this.

 

Anyone who rates on a different basis to the way you rate is wrong and therefore should be restricted from rating.

 

Doesn't matter who you are or how you rate, this is the way a lot of people see things.

 

"The only way to win is not to play the game" - War Games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, you're making these statements as an illustration of the way people think, correct, and not at me in particular, right?

 

Well, I couldn't disgree more vehemently with this idea that to not play is to win, and if people see it this way, then I sincerely feel very sorry for them. These same people should keep their mouth shut when it comes to verbalizing what's wrong with the TRP, too. This philosophy might work in tic-tac-toe, and nuclear arms build-ups, but it doesn't have to work here. At least I hope not.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't care how people judge an image. I don't care whether they rate it because the love the photographer, or hate the photographer. I believe every certified member should be able to rate according to their own conscience, if they have one. I don't care if someone hates an image I love, or loves an image I hate. That's not the issue.

 

I do care, and very much, that many are not rating and commenting on rising images they dislike out of fear, or frustration, or fatigue, and that these missing rates are the reason for ratings inflation, the success of mate rating in general, and the deterioration of the TRP's into fan club scrapbooks.

 

People can choose not to play, that's fine, but I'm taking a stand against being pushed off an image by snide remarks, retaliations, insults and the like. I'm allowed, even encouraged, by Photo.net to rate according to my conscience and my asethetic values. If they're wrong, then past and future ratings will out weigh it. Brian has preached this for months and months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to be smart too...:-) How about this ?

<p>

"The only way to have a good photo.net gallery is to have no gallery at all." - The Looser's Philosophy, chapter 1, page 1, line 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

I think Doug's comments are worth bearing in mind, or at least reading at a level beyond that of the response which you have offered.

 

This is one aspect which dissuades me from taking up a subscribing relationship with photo.net, or 'freeloading' any images for that matter. As much as I respect Doug's stance against the politics of in-groups on photo.net, I wonder why the weight of honest critical appraisal should influx on photo.net from a bottom-up approach, as opposed to top-drawer-to-bottom-approach.

 

And yes, I have tired of seeing the underwear drawer on the top rungs too.

 

Kind regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy now young stallions!

<p>

I was at first incensed by Bob's comment, too, but then I looked carefully and I believe (hope) that he is merely trying to sum up the mentality of mobs and crowds in general: <p>

 

"It boils down to this [so Doug, don't waste your time. If you low-rate an image, then the photographer posting that image will think] <s>Anyone who rates on a different basis to the way you rate is wrong and therefore should be restricted from rating.</s> [You're wrong. My image is worth more. You shouldn't be here.]

<p>

[Doug, it]doesn't matter who you are or how you rate, this is the way a lot of people see things." <p>

 

The war games quote seems pretty much not to apply, since this isn't tic tac toe or nuclear strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For over a year people have been bitching about low ratings to the point where they harass people into giving up on ratings. So fewer and fewer people ar egiving out low ratings. I'm not talking about unjustifiably low ratings. Have a look at the POW page. most of the times when someone leaves a negative comment they won't rate, but if the same person leaves a good comment they will rate.

 

Yay! Glad to see we're at least making people feel better :)

 

ugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is that if you get upset by ratings, the only way to win is not to play the ratings game.

 

I have images on the site. I get ratings and comments. Some of the images have made it onto the "top" pages (at least for a brief moment). However I don't really worry too much about whether the ratings I got were "fair" or that images I like a lot didn't get much attention, or that some people didn't like them. I don't play the ratings "game". I don't have "rating buddies", I don't selectively rate only good or only bad images. I just don't get hung up on numbers and visisbility. My guess is that vast majority of gallery users think this way too. Not the ones who post here of course, since if you don't think it's all a big deal, you'd have no reason to post.

 

This is a sociological issue, not a numerical or photographic issue. Sure things aren't "fair and even", sure some people will find a way to "cheat" no matter what photo.net does.

 

Sure there will be brief moments when "top" images appear which have only 2 or 3 ratings, but they will fade.

 

My advice to "not play the game" is to not get caught up in the hype. Take pictures, post them if you want to, enjoy whatever attention they get, don't worry, be happy. There aren't any prizes. Nobody "wins" anything.

 

Maybe once we have all the harware issues sorted out with photo.net there will be time to look at the rating system for the 3,975th time and come up with scheme #3,976 which will be absolutely fair and even, allowing only the very best images to ever appear in the top images list, and totally preventing any rating manipulation by anyone - while of course preserving all existing scores, ratings and comments, and correcting for any time related "rating inflation" without getting anyone pissed off with the changes.

 

It may take a while....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find the ratings very useful at photo.net - What I really look for are the comments, but even there it seems that a lot of them are not really involved with constructive criticism. Too bad, but what is out there is still very interesting.<p>

Looking at the ratings of the small bunch of photos I have myself uploaded the last two weeks or so I noticed that aestethics and originality are very closely correlated. This indicates to me that they aren't really separate judgements, but rather the same reflection to the question "how much do I like this picture?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the ratings that are bothering me. It's the NOT ratings.

 

But your advice is good, Bob. Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, I'm one of those that wants to play the game. There are many, many, many of us that want to play the game, but are not because of this or that reason.

 

The 3976 ratings revision will only lead to the 3977th, and so on. It can't be fixed because not everyone is using it and what administration is doing only addresses those that do use it, that is, those that rate 5's, 6's and 7's.

 

The answer is in those of us wanting to play coming out into the field. It's not a spectator sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young stallions, Doug? Tossing my mane in the air I still think photo.net has failed to penetrate the issue (top-down). Perhaps I am insisting with the stubbornness of a mule, if only because the carrot at the end of the stick are the ramifications for the nature of this "community" in the longer run (Is this explicit passivity really the community which photo.net is destined to become along its development?)

 

If so, what is a young photographer to think? Thus far and no further. Artistic development in a community aborts itself when it practices avoidance - precisely that form of "not-knowing" which renders critique spiritless in either its numerical or qualitative form.

 

Kind regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me disabuse some of you of the notion that no matter

what changes are made to the system, it will continue to be

broke and therefore no time should be wasted making

improvements.

 

I have an image with 99 ratings - my highest. The average is

barely more than 5.0. That never would have been possible in

the days before the number of ratings default page. My images

tend to get what they deserve because the people who respond

are quite random because I'm not out there showering people

with praise trying to gain favor. If I say I like something, I mean it.

If I offer constructive criticism, I do so because there is

something I like about the image that makes commenting worth

my time EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THAT ANY FORM OF

CRITICISM REDUCES THE CHANCE THAT YOU WILL GIVE MY

IMAGES A LOOK IN RESPONSE. There are exceptions and I am

grateful.

 

Doug, You're asking us to spend time trying to fix the averages,

but it's the number of rates, not the value that I use to find

interesting images. As far as I'm concerned, AVERAGES DON'T

MEAN ANYTHING. - it's all about getting enough visibility through

ratings - ANY RATING - so that someone who cares enough to

comment will know it's there.

 

So no, I'm not out to correct funny numbers, although I agree with

your analysis entirely. If you want to fix the system, visit the

people who treat it right.

 

You can give me a 4/4 anytime you want, and you'll be doing me

a favor. (The people who comment without offering others the

chance to join in the discussion by not rating it don't understand

the realities of the current system.) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic problem is you can't please all the people all the time.

 

You have "newbies" who just want someone to tell them that their image would be better if uncle Joe didn't appear to have a lampost growing out of his head. Then you have those for who the whole thing is a giant contest and their goal in life is to get the top rated image while ensuring absolutely fair an impartial ratings.

 

Now you can get the second by using draconian restrictions on who can give what rating to who, anonymizing everything, analyzing logs for evidence of rating conspiracies, limiting the number of "7"s, making people rate every image they see, making people take and pass a "ratings test" to make sure they know how to score properly and other such complex and involved schemes. All it's going to do for the newbie is confuse them and make them look for another website with friendlier rules. It's also likely there are a lot more "newbies" than competetive top photographers.

 

So what do you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst part is... in the beginning if you got a low rating, without a comment, from a photographer whose work you liked or oppinions you respected you could usually email them for clarification and get a decent response. Now most people think you're just complaining about low ratings because of what's happened so many times it's rare to get that and people are even offended when you ask.

 

I've done the same in the past when someone has asked me to clarify a rating. But I guess people aren't really looking for your reasoning, just hoping you made a mistake. I guess they want to hear "Oh I didn't look at it close enough, or I was having a bad day, let me go change it." Because what usually seems to follow is that they go through your portfolio and look at a photo that they can justify giving the same rating to and only rate that one or usually more than one.

 

It's quite funny and sad at the same time.

 

I remember one time when someone rated a whole bunch of my photos with a variety of different scores. I was suprised at some of the ones he liked and some of the ones he didn't so we had an email discussion and he went through a lot of them and told me what he liked and what he didn't like. He also had interest in doing similar work so I went over what I liked in those photos and why I thought some were better than others as well as some info on how they were done. Things like that used to happen fairly often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which would you rather see: An interesting image with no comments? Or a somewhat interesting image with terrific comemnts? In the last 5 days I've been involved in the best discussions over completely average images. Why? Because I spoke out, and someone else spoke out, and someone disagreed, and someone disagreed again, and someone disagreed with the third person, etc. The images are almost, but not quiete irrelevant to a quest for interest. It's the reactions that are interesting. My opinion only.

 

The average number of ratings images show up for a while and then vanish. Three days. After that, I believe, images are retrieved based on quality of rating, is that not true?

 

I'm not asking anyone to fix the system. I'm asking people to use the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst part is... in the beginning if you got a low rating, without a comment, from a photographer whose work you liked or oppinions you respected you could usually email them for clarification and get a decent response. Now most people think you're just complaining about low ratings because of what's happened so many times it's rare to get that and people are even offended when you ask.

 

I've done the same in the past when someone has asked me to clarify a rating. But I guess people aren't really looking for your reasoning, just hoping you made a mistake. I guess they want to hear "Oh I didn't look at it close enough, or I was having a bad day, let me go change it." Because what usually seems to follow is that they go through your portfolio and look at a photo that they can justify giving the same rating to and only rate that one or usually more than one.

 

It's quite funny and sad at the same time.

 

I remember one time when someone rated a whole bunch of my photos with a variety of different scores. I was suprised at some of the ones he liked and some of the ones he didn't so we had an email discussion and he went through a lot of them and told me what he liked and what he didn't like. He also had interest in doing similar work so I went over what I liked in those photos and why I thought some were better than others as well as some info on how they were done. Things like that used to happen fairly often.

 

I agree with Carl completely. There is no fix for the ratings system. And I wouldn't call all of it abuse I just don't think there's a good way to do something like this fairly. The only solution I think will work, will be to eliminate the emphasis on ratings in some areas of the site.

 

For instance, the ratings and ratings critique queues shoulding be ordered by highest ratings. Most people don't manipulate ratings for high ratings. They want the exposure, to get the exposure you need the high ratings. So as long as ratings dictates so much exposure there will be people that obsess over ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah but Stefan, inasmuch as I agree with you that the ratings qua ratings are of limited value from the standpoint of assessing the worth of photos, they do have significant ramifications for what we can and can't see on the site. Like it or not, the TRPSE (using Doug's acronym)is the primary vehicle for a person's work to be seen by the wider PN community. Doug's points, to me, are valid because the sum total of the practices Doug decries is the swamping of many images in the maelstrom of these practices. I freely admit that I too have succumbed from time to time to the urge to be merely courteous, rather than entirely honest. It has called into question not only my ability to follow my conscience when rating the works of others, but indeed also (and perhaps more selfishly) my ability to truly gauge the worth of my own work. Translation: I have lacked courage and courage is what the artistic endeavor is all about. Courage means laying your efforts on the line and to accept the praise and the blame for those efforts with equilibrium. Likewise, it means being true to your conscience and principles when meting out the praise or the blame to others, and doing so in a manner that is candid and respecting of the others' dignity. That's what we all have to learn in a hurry if we want the site to be a viable means of testing our craft in the forge of public scrutiny. If we don't learn, then people whose gifts are waiting to be accepted by this community will remain locked out and left in the cold obscurity of the back pages of this site. I'm no longer religious but its just a sin to quash the hopes and aspirations of those people who want to try and find some manner to express themselves through the joy and challenge of capturing light in a box by practices that will ensure no one sees their efforts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...