Plans to disable rating of photos that aren't submitted to the photo critique forum

I read with interest Brian's plan to disable ratings on photos that

aren't submitted to the photo critique forum.

 

I have to admit I've mixed feelings about this. These days I rarely

submit my images to the Critique Forum; I simply don't want to play

that game. I also never rate images posted to the Critique Forum and

rarely comment on them. However I'm increasing commenting on images

posted to the Critique Only Forum. My reasoning for this is that I

believe the majority people who post to the Critique Forum are only

concerned with ratings, whilst all of the people posting to the

Critique Only Forum are naturally soliciting for critique only.

 

The downside of this approach is that very few people see the images

I post these days. This is something I simply have to live with; I

realise you can't have your cake and eat it (hope this translates

into USA speak ;-)

 

If Brian does go ahead with his plans I will of course loose any

visibility I had on the site. Again I'll simply have to accept this

in order to continue taking the path I've chosen.

 

I can certainly understand why Brian is planning this move. Many

people in the past have abused the system by not submitting to the

Critique Forum, informing their "friends" of uploaded images by email

or whatever and soliciting the usual "WOW" and 7/7's.

 

 

But the fact is there are probably others with an approach similar to

my own, who have no circle of "friends" nor do they receive the usual

WOW's and 7/7's from their "mates". A quick peek at my statistics and

others who take a similar approach confirms that the number of

ratings we have received is almost matched by the number of people

who have rated us; the very antithesis of mate rating.

 

Perhaps in order to weed out those who are abusing the system it's

inevitable that others who aren't will disappear with them?

 

Sorry for the ramble. Any thoughts anyone???

<p>Would it be possible to have this be a user's choice? Perhaps

something like "Allow unsolicited photo ratings? (Yes/No)" in with

the other account preferences? Making it an option for individuals to

decide would take care of both situations nicely. Those worried about

being harassed can be protected, and those looking for public

comments and ratings would still have that feedback.

<p>Of course, this would trigger a debate is whether it should

default to on or off. :)

So the only people who can rate are the Critique 'circle'?

I do not have a circle of mates to boost my ratings, nor do I really want one. I don't really care for the ratings system, either on the recieving or giving end, but instead prefer critiques. Ratings without critiques (%99.9 of ratings it would seem) are of no value to me. They tell me nothing of what people liked or disliked about my images. They do not point out errors that I missed or offer opinions on how my images could be changed for alternate results. Sure, not all people leave critiques that are overly useful, but those that leave something at least took the time to give an opinion.

 

Having said that I suppose that it comes as no surprise that I submit my images only to the critique only forum if I wish to get comments. I would prefer people leave comments rather than ratings and if unsolicited ratings were disabled, it would suit me just fine.

 

- Randy

I agree with everything Randall said, and think Matthew has some good ideas too. I would at least like to see it <i>REQUIRED</I> to leave a comment before a rating could be given. At least that way, the artist's would know what the rater was thinking when the rating was given. Yes, there would be fewer ratings, but they would mean more. <br><br>I think Brian's plan may be the best one. I know I pulled everything I had off pn because of the b.s. I came back to participate in verbal critique and a meaningful exchange of information. I don't plan to rate a single photograph from this point until something changes, nor do I want anything I submit rated. If these things are addressed, I would be glad to anty-up the $25 and become a supporting member. Just my 2 cents. <br><br>-s

I think the option of allowing ratings (like available in the past) would be best but, barring that, I would prefer Brian's plan of disallowing unsolicited ratings.

Keith if photo.net will make this change I will have no problem to continue subscription and to start uploading some of my new images .... and delete some very old ones :). Looking at your photos you do not need others to tell you what to do. Average visitor here can usually tell if he/she likes the image or not - what you need that for? Sure it is nice to know that some people like your work. But if somebody really likes your images it will find you - rates no rates or no exposure won't make a difference.

 

Many photographs taken by me are showing a split second moment I witnessed in nature and was more or less lucky to freeze it. I do not arrange anything and use mostly available light lately so, majority of unprofessional comments on improvements usually have no value to me. If one has an uncontrollable urge to rate my work one will have to go somewhere else to make him/her happy. Rates won't upset me. On another hand if one wants to know the true value of ones work it will have to send images to be judge and critique by very good professional judges. Here you can only be misleading by ratings or critiques if you will try to depend on them. Best regards to all of you who look at photography as your passion not a silly rating game.

i'd appreciate a box to check off when uploading photos too. i don't like my photos going through circulation either.

<b>Trevor</b><p>

 

I always value your input but in this case I simply don't understand the point you are making. Could you expand a little please. Sorry, no doubt it's just me being a little thick as usual. TIA<p>

 

<b>To Carl Root</b> (if he's about)<p>

 

Carl I know that you have campaigned in past for ratings to be disabled on images not submitted to the Critique Forum. As I said in my previous post I have mixed feelings on the subject. I'd really value any further input you may have to help me understand the pros and cons of your argument. TIA

<b>Brian</b> (if he's about)<p>I'd really appreciate hearing your argument if you have the time. TIA

Hi Keith... I think you really have nothing to worry about here. You are out of the ratings system already, and you have a sain mind: so just remember to thank God for both. :-) Theonly problem you have - just as much as other people in the critique only gallery is that you don't get much exposure AS IT STANDS NOW. But... I'd say there is hope. Especially 1) if a couple of people are interested in somehow reviving the dead "critique circles", or 2) if the critique only gallery can be thumbnailed - which I have already requested, and which would make it a lot easier to travel through the critique-only photos.

<p>

As for Brian's "plan to disable ratings on photos that aren't submitted to the photo critique forum", I think it makes perfect sense. The goal is to prevent people who game the rating system from arriving in the TRP with a couple of friendly ratings from friends. Can't be a bad thing, can it...?

Hi Marc, I agree. If Brian's plans are intended to weed out those who are abusing the system then so be it, it's for the greater good of the site and as such any loss of personal visibility is probably a price worth paying.

 

By the way, the Critique Only Forum's recent uploads are thumbnailed.

 

I'm out of the ratings system but I'm not so sure about the sane mind ;-) Best K.

They are THUMBNAILED ?! Ahhhhhh... 3rd good news this week... Thank you for the news and thanks to Brian for implementing this. Hope it will help the critique-only pictures to get more comments... I'm on my way there...:-)

I am quoting what I have posted in an other forum ("Why am I getting less and less ratings?"). I think this is the rightplace to state my point of view. I appreciate what has been said here before, and maybe I will post just in the "Critique only forum" from the next days. I also want to thank all the people who spent their time to leave a comment about my photos. I have learned a lot from them, as I learnt a lot from the pictures of people who rated mine without leaving any comment (I went to their pages, obviously). From now on my photography won't be any longer the same. Please, take some time to consider this point. And, also, take the point to consider what I posted in the other forum (reported here below):

 

"Unless you are an Ego-maniac, you haven't time enoug to submit all your pictures to the rating forum. Morover, people may want to upload pictures in a folder because they make a work complete but - still - think they are not suitable for rating. Other subscribers, instead, may think those pictures deserve rating all the same. This could end in a new posting of pictures. I am a newcomer, here, and this is just what happened to me. I thank the people who,rating, invited me to submit those pictures. In another forum Brian Mottershed wrote that a lot of people do not rate the pictures they don't like. While this sound generous, it doesn't help people to get a truthful idea of other members'idea about their work. Another point would be: "what about eliminating rating lower than 4 as so many people feel insulted by such poor rates"? And, finally, I am realising that a lot of old members have a "snobist" attitude towards newcomers. They ask Brian to ban them or they (simply)ignore them, their postings and their picturs. Instead of writing them with suggestions and tips, they prefer to dispose the dirty water with the baby... Now, I have just realized there is a new forum about this issue of rating unsubmitted pictures".

Good Morning to all:

 

My first thought is that Brian's idea is a wonderful one, however only time will tell if this helps the problem. I think it's worth the risk. As this will most definately change the TRP, why not go one step further and require a comment with each rating?

 

I also have quit submitting images for critique and have greatly reduced giving ratings to others images because of the rampant abuses. I tire of ratings from individuals with no images of their own and no comment of how to improve my images. I have always welcomed constructive critique and given the same, this however has not become the norm. I do not want "7/7", "great job", or "WOW" in my critiques, neither do I want a rating of 2/2 without a comment. I just want honest, constructive critique. I am here to learn, not to receive high ratings or validation that "I am a wonderful photographer". I can get this type of gobbledygook from my friends and family. While certainly it's ego boosting, it's not helpful in increasing my knowledge of photography.

 

So I say, it can't hurt to support Brian's plan. Go for it!

Marc, http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1481 click on the word "New" in the Critique Only catagory. Has been that way for a while now.

As usual, my initial reaction was positive . . . until I saw the downside. Keith, one of my many suggestions for improvement has been to eliminate non-RFC images from the TRP and I still think this is a better solution. That way, an image can accumulate the rates that at the moment are still necessary to put an image in your favorites pages. I don't have statistics on this, but I still think that a lot of people get introduced to unfamiliar photographers by browsing their friends' favorites and given the number of people who I suspect would be attracted to this option, the favorites pages might be severely compromised in the long term.

 

I think Brian's goal is to encourage participation in the ratings system and TRP by trying to make the playing field more level, bit by bit. We learned from his comments of the "comment only" section that he wasn't going to allow those images to be included in the comments sort of the TRP because he wanted to discourage it's use and was offering it only because so many had requested it. The idea here is to encourage people to request critiques, rather than opt out entirely.

 

Maybe Brian is now more committed than many of us thought to trying to make the TRP a more attractive place for the more experienced photographers to participate. Oddly enough, "Calvinball" - changing the rules and not telling us what they are - could play a major role. I would try to come up with several creative sorts, including improved versions of the old "curator" sort, and switch them a couple times a day.

Carl, thanks for responding. I hadn't even considered the effect that disabling the ratings on non RFC images would have on contributor's favourites pages. It just highlights what a complex problem this is and how a single change can effect more than it was intended to. Who'd want to be in Brian's shoes?

 

Perhaps as you have suggested it would be better to simply eliminate non-RFC images from the TRP but allow them to still be rated. This could also be applied retrospectively which would shake up the longer-term views more than a little. Could be fun! ;-)

. . . or include non-RFC images only occasionally in the default TRP.

 

Calvinball!

I'm waiting for Hobbes to appear. The site could use the sanity.

There are several reasons why I'm planning this, although I don't know how soon I will do it.

 

First, we increasingly have subscribers uploading photos to the site which are not intended for critique or rating but simply for exhibition in their portfolios. Actually, at present it isn't just subscribers, but I intend to clamp down on the use of the site's bandwidth for non-critique purposes, except by subscribers. In other words, if you aren't a subscriber, you will be welcome to upload photos for critique but not for any other purpose. Since the Photo Critique forum is limited for non-subscribers, a non-subscriber who wants ratings has an incentive to subscribe, which he does not have today.

 

Second, I think all photos that are submitted in order to be rated and to compete for a position in the TRP should go through the same process. Any photo that is submitted for critique today goes through the Rate Recent queue where it will be seen by a cross-section of the raters, not just by those familiar with (and friendly to) the photographer. Ratings given via the Rate Recent queue are lower on the average than those made directly on the photo, and some people who are gaming the system do not submit their photos to the Critique forum because they know that will get high ratings from friends and wish to avoid the lower (more impartial?) ratings that they would get in the Rate Recent queue. Or they will submit the photo for critique only after they already have some high ratings from friends. This puts the photo in the TRP, and gives it a halo effect. Effectively, today we have two "flavors" of ratings: those that people get directly on the photos, mostly from those who they have succeeded in attracting to their work, and the Photocritique queue ratings that are given in the "Rate Recent" feature. These two flavors of ratings are significantly different, and some people can and do game the difference between the two flavors.

 

The easiest way to resolve these issues is simply to switch rating off on a photo until it is submitted to the Photo Critique forum, and this is the option that I favor.

 

There are other options. One is to allow rating of photos that haven't been submitted to the Photo Critique forum, but only count those ratings in the averages (and for TRP purposes) if they are made after the photo was submitted for critique. This would allow people to get ratings from friends without those having any influence on the TRP. We have this a little bit already. Today, the TRP only shows photos with 0 ratings (in the 1 day and 3 day views) if they have been submitted for critique, but it shows all photos with 1 or more ratings, regardless of where the rating came from. I don't like this option because it creates two flavors of ratings: real ratings that are "for the site" and count towards the averages and TRP; and "friendly ratings" that aren't for the site and don't really count, and which are basically just a substitute for a comment. I already have a hard enough time getting people to think of ratings as being for the site, and not just as another way of communicating with the photographers; so I'm not very keen on adding to this confusion by creating two classes of ratings. This approach also doesn't provide as much of an incentive to become a subscriber.

 

A variant of this is simply to make the TRP show only photos that have been submitted for critique and to count, for TRP purposes, only the ratings made after the photo was submitted, but still let all ratings count in the averages. Technically this is more work, since it means that TRP has to be computed from different ratings averages, Also it is subject to the "two flavors of ratings" objection that I just mentioned, and doesn't deal with the subscriber/non-subscriber issue. So I don't like this option very much.

 

Another alternative is to only count for TRP purposes ratings given in the "Rate Recent Queue". This might be done only with certain views and/or periods. For example, only ratings from the Rate Recent queue might count in 1-day, 3-day, and 7-day views. This is more complicated and has the same "two flavors of ratings" problem of the other alternatives. It also has the problem that the position of a photo in the 1-day, 3-day, and 7-day views would be based on relatively few ratings, since most photos only get about 10 to 15 ratings in the Rate Recent Queue, although this might go up if the RRQ was the sole determinant of the photos rank in the TRP.

Brian, thanks for the explanation, I'm just glad it's your problem and not mine.

 

I'm all for a level playing field and as far as I can see the option for all images for rating to go through the Rate Recent Queue would be the fairest and easiest option. I'd even like to see it applied retrospectively with existing images that have no request for critique around the time of uploading not being eligible for any of the TRP views.

 

Of course as someone who doesn't rate and rarely puts his images up for rating this would effectively render me invisible on this site. But this is a price I would be prepared to pay in order to see a fairer process and hopefully a process that displays a better selection of images.

 

I can't help feeling though that it would be a pity to loose many of the images in other views such as the contributor's favourites pages.

I sometimes put up for critique, other times don't. For a while it was because the second my images went in the RFC it would get Faith/Golarka/Yani/ into oblivion so I stopped using it all together. It was obvious to myself (and a few others) that Faith wasn't the biggest fan of anyone who threatened the 'main' alias in the TRP. Giving high rates to himself and low balling others. I would have 3's the second my images hit the RFC. Infact toward the end of the Alias wars the first 3 rates I would get were from the terrible trio and they were all under 4's rendering my images invisible.

 

So if this went into affect retro, I would lose half my ratings if not more. I get the same ratings now going through the RFC or not. Of the last 3 images I put up 2 were through the RFC. Same results on all.

 

Not everyone circumvented the RFC to 'game the system'. Some of us had what we considered legit reasons. Faith and his 130 aliases weren't a creation of mine but I sure had to deal with it for a year and found a way around it.

 

If I lose my ratings, so be it, but it wasn't because I 'gamed' the system, it was because I wanted to have an enjoyable time at p.net not constant aggravation that was caused by one person and 130 aliases.

The 130 aliases was a different group. The Faith group was only a handful.

At the moment, I'm thinking of just turning off rating of photos that haven't been submitted for critique. This wouldn't disqualify old ratings, although there might be other reasons why older ratings could be disqualified. I haven't disqualified very many ratings so far; far fewer than the number of ratings that I've deleted from sock-puppets.