Photo ratings display needs "Ratings Given" style numbers to be useful

<p>Currently the ratings under the details tab for individual images displays only total number of ratings and the average. This is not very useful, especially if the number of ratings are low or if there are rogue ratings (1,2,3).</p>

<p>A list of numbers of ratings from 1-7 (as on the photographer ratings page) would be very helpful in figuring out exactly what viewers feel. As an example, here are three possible cases with 4 ratings each:</p>

<p>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <---- rating<br /> 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 <------ number of respondents (case 1)<br /> 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 <------ number of respondents (case 2)<br /> 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 <------ number of respondents (case 3)</p>

<p>4 ratings, 4.00/7 average <---------- current display on photo.net for all of the above three cases</p>

<p>As we see, the current display does not really say much about the image or it's impact on viewers. From a detailed display we can make out that<br /> case 1: image is average<br /> case 2: image is better than average<br /> case 3: image draws strong opinions</p>

<p>In fact, even if just the mode (maybe with some control over the difference range) is displayed besides the average, it will already be a big help. e.g.<br /> 4 ratings, 4.00/7 average, modes: 4<br /> 4 ratings, 4.00/7 average, modes: 5<br /> 4 ratings, 4.00/7 average, modes: 3,5</p>

<p>So, is there anything in the works, or planned, or have I missed something (besides the labor)? Can this not be put beside the ratings currently shown, or at least on the page which shows the names of everyone who has rated?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Currently the ratings under the details tab for individual images displays only total number of ratings and the average."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a reason for that. People obsess way too much over individual ratings. If someone gets 5 ratings of 5 and one rating of 3, they obsess over that lone 3. That is why the system was changed and individual ratings are no longer shown, in any format.</p>

<p>I think you are implying that ratings have some sort of meaning, Indraneel. In reality, I think the ratings game was created just for fun. I can see no other purpose. Although, it may be a way for friends to keep in touch with each other.</p>

<p>The ratings system as it exists (<em>Real existierender Ratingsismus</em>) really has only one purpose:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you put some of your photos up for ratings, they will display more or less randomly at the bottom of threads where you have responded.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other than that, the system is clearly useless, to judge from the 3s given to my obviously 6 or 7 photos. ;)</p>

<p>Besides when people were able to identify who gave the numerical ratings, the equivalent of 'denial of service' attacks was all too common.</p>

<p>I agree, ratings may be just a game with no intrinsic value, but like all ratings (SAT and GRE scores come to mind) they do provide <em>some</em> information about something. Surely it can be left to the photographer to make whatever sense he/she wants to make out of it, rather than to not show the values as in "For your safety, photo.net will hide the actual ratings and show you only a useless preview."</p>

<p>I find a very good reason to know the actual ratings. Photography is a medium of communication, and it would help my abilities (not only in photography) a lot to have any indication at all of whether that communication has been at least positive or negative. In our busy lives with few/no ratings and certainly no comments, every small bit helps. Probably impossible, but I can at least try to find a point of view from which the world will not be all about me?</p>

<p>As to who rated what, it would certainly help more.. but in the interest of rater's privacy, that can certainly remain hidden. There is no such argument for a breakup display of the ratings where the rater's identity is not revealed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think you are implying that ratings have some sort of meaning, Indraneel. In reality, I think the ratings game was created just for fun. I can see no other purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, those ratings have no purpose whatsoever, . . . None of those photographs on the sites main page across the top, or the random photo generator have anything to do with ratings or visual exposure to the viewing public.</p>

<p>Indraneel,</p>

<p>Unfortunately the trend for photo.net has been to move away from exactly the detail you are asking for. That, by the way, is not an 'unfortunately' aimed at photo.net itself which I think does an amazing job of moderating and controlling this site. Rather it is aimed at the fact that it was only a minority of people who used such detailed information for 'positive' / learning purposes, and they were outweighed by others who engaged in all sorts of ridiculous vindictive activity whenever they were able to identify a lower rating to a person. End result is that its all been dumbed down to a level where there are still ratings but in a highly aggregated and de-personalised manner.</p>

<p>That doesn't stop you from seeing the list of raters for one of your image and contacting them directly to ask for qualitative feedback by the way. Just a thought...</p>