PN force extreme ratings to make comments, please!

I would like to bring this up again... I believe that it is only fair that you force someone that gives extreme ratings

anonymous or not to tell the photographer why they rate with those numbers. It seems that 5/5 is the average rating.

4/4 and 6/6 is below and above average - no explanation needed. Anything else should be justified with a minimum of

25 letters forming words... In my brief time here I have found this to be an issue that drives good artists away.

Reciprocating ratings mean nothing.

One will argue that this will stop people from rating or will make all ratings 4-6. I doubt it. It will cut the number of

ratings to probably half but they will be true and reflective. Anonymous is fine but please tell the photographer what

she/he is doing wrong.. or right!

What exactly are "words?" Does this count? "qwert qwert qwert qwert qwert" Or this? "hey, photo, comment useful no" Or this? "Bewogen, overbelicht, slordig en met een rare zweem".

To clarify: I do think that comments are very useful to the photographer and I think it would be great if people left as much comments as possible. However, I think it would be difficult to determine what is useful and what not, given that not all comments are in English.

 

Also, 4 is (supposed to be) average, not 5.

 

I guess that, in order to combine anonymous ratings with required comments, one would also get anonymous comments. I'm not sure if that helps as much as a comment with a name to go along with it.

We'd love to poke anyone leaving ratings without comments with a sharp stick, but we have not yet developed the software that allows us to do this.

 

I've though of scheme which auto automatically leaves a "WOW!" for anything rated a 7, "Love it!" for images rated a 6, "Nice shot" for a 5, "Not bad" for a 4", "Try harder" for a 3, "It sucks" for a 2 and "Ughh!" for a 1.

 

This will make everyone happy I presume, since all rating will be accompanied by a default comment.

 

Those wishing for more detailed "autocomments" could have them for a small fee. They would include "Love the composition and lighting", "You really nailed the exposure on this one" and "I wish I'd taken that".

Patrick, thanks for responding. It does count because it shows the intelligence of the commentator. I get your point. It may be hard to force a true statement but it will improve the system, don't you think? (By the way I did not try to translate your last quote, but, I would if it was under one of my posts.)

No probibly not , however if admin made it so in order to give a 1-1 /2-2 /3-3 ...then a simple list on the ratings que makes the person at least click on a line of type generated by admin that gives ideas to the artist ..

As follows

 

3-3 =

 

A =unfocused , exposure way off , compostion bad

B=Not to my taste, simply do not like .

C other then area to explain ....

 

just an idea ...as a newby here i dont think ive had many images that have avoided the anonimous 3-3 s

 

I recently had a macro image that had recieved 16 ratings all 6-6 or higher ...

2 days later 2 peopel came in and rated 3-3 anon ..and 3-4 ...

this had the effect of crushing its average ...and quite frankly is very frustrating for all involved ...as youve been here a long time ,Patrick ...perhaps you would be willing to look at and give me your opinion of the image in question ...Its in my todays images gallery under the name of ICU ....

 

just had another image i posted today with same results 6-6 or higher than a 3-3 and a 3-4 anon ...

ah well ...thats life I guess ... I do really wish some kind of solution could be found ...

regards jeff

Antoni, if you read some of the many previous discussions on this issue you'll gain a more complete insight into this complex matter. As you yourself observed, you have been here a brief time. These issues are as old as the site itself and have been discussed many, many times before, including your own questions and suggestions.

 

There is no critique and ratings system that will satisfy everyone. I also participate on a writers website that has struggled through several adjustments to the critiques and ratings system. In every case, no matter what the webmasters try, some people will be pleased with the changes while others will complain that they preferred the previous system.

 

It might help to consider the numerical ratings and written critiques/comments as separate and distinct issues. Ratings are not intended to teach. They are part of a competition, which many, many photo.netters enjoy. I've made this analogy before but it's useful: the ratings system here is like Olympic scoring for gymnastics and figure skating. The scores are not intended to teach the athlete, and it is never appropriate to demand that the judges explain the scoring or to take on the role of teacher. That's the job of the coaches and trainers.

 

While I occasionally hear claims that good photographers are being driven away by the current ratings and critique system, there is no evidence to bear this out. There are many, many photographers who prefer photo.net for its honest, sometimes brutal, critique and ratings system, compared with the inconsequential mate rating and friend-seeking of sites like Flickr.

 

The fact remains that despite the flaws inherent to any variation of a ratings system photo.net can implement, the vast majority of top rated photos are there because they deserve to be there. It is a popularity contest and the ratings reflect popular consensus. That's all. They don't teach, but you, as an artist and thinking person, have the capability of interpreting the numbers to learn what you can.

 

I'm inclined to say that complaints about the ratings and critiques are driving away photographers who might otherwise enjoy offering feedback. But I have no evidence to support my observation.

Bob, most 3/3 out there are not even looking at the photos. That is the problem. If you make them stop and think for a few seconds they will act different. I think it is worth experimenting with, try it for a week and see what happens...

Lex, I hear you and respect your view. The cream rises to the top applies here. The Top Rated Photos deserve to be there, no doubt.

Btw ,Bob ....

I have devoloped some new software you might actually like .......

 

If some one rates an image with a 3-3 or less they are immeadatly transported to the moon and left there ...

 

:-) ......

I truly feel for you admin types at times ....

 

I do beleive that simply wieghing the voting like that would stop alot of the sheninagins ....25% for anon

and 75% value for named members .....

Don't you all think that there is room for improvement ?

on a brighter note , admin took off those nasty 3-3 and 3-4 on the image ICU ...now lowest rate is an 4-4 ...

however simple point is that many attempt to skew ratings using the anon que ...

Change the value of those ratings when combining with named members , and the incentive to drasticly change an images overall average using the anon que goes away ....just a simple idea that might be appealing and may be pretty easily to implement .....

"Bob, most 3/3 out there are not even looking at the photos"

 

While I admire your telepathic skills, I'm afraid none of the photo.net admins are telepaths and so we cannot

determine what is in the minds of our members when they rate an image. If they do so with their eyes closed, there's

currently no way we can tell.

 

We suspect that a 3/3 rating means "I don't like it", rather than "I have not looked at it", but we can't be 100%

certain about that.

 

The only way we could prevent people from deliberately skewing ratings would be to limit everyone to giving only a

5/5 score, but after lengthly committee discussions, that proposal was rejected.

 

Personally I've come up with a foolproof way of preventing ratings abuse. Abolish the rating system. That has many

advantages. People will get less upset, Josh won't get 100 complaints a day about unfair ratings, the average blood

pressure of gallery participants will drop by 10 points and the server won't have to spend as much time computing

averages and looking for abusers.

 

Not having to give ratings will obviously free up time for people to give more critiques, so we win on both counts. It's

so simple I don't know why it hasn't been tried.

Okay, I have to add my two cents after all. I believe most of the anonymous low raters are inexperienced photographers as opposed to just mean people. They rate images as snapshots and not necessarily based on what went into creating and editing a photo. Just look at some of the top photographers' sites - they all have their share of low anonymous rates. The more experienced people stand by their assessments - usually? - and have the confidence to leave a name with/without a helpful comment. Ignorance is bliss, and it really is less painful if you ignore the low- rates -without- comments.

It is a good idea Bob, I am sure it has crossed a few of the great minds here. So in your plan how would they figure out the Top Photos?

Bob, looking at something does not mean seeing it. I never implied that they have their eyes closed :o)

hmmmm ,,,I am currently looking in the mirror to see if i am still wearing my cloak of invisabilty ,...must be ....

 

:-)

Liz, I agree with you. Do you think that explaning their rating might help them grow as an individual and therefore as a photographer?

Liz , I agree that most are probibly new members learning , which is why I believe that admin should have in both ratings que a brief professional explanition of what a 1-1 means then a 2-2 THEN A 3-3 ECT ...as any who rate a 1-1 0r a 2-2 it does not get recorded , perhaps that would be a way to fully incorporate all ratings instead of using only 3 through 7 as is the current way its done ...Add into that a weighted sytsem where using your name has far more wieght than rating anon ,,....I think youd be suprized how rapidly this problem would take care of itself ...

Jeffrey, I agree with your ideas, but I'm still not sure newbies can be depended on to leave educated and informed ratings, even with prompts.

You are looking for too much from numbers. Ratings are just one kind of information. A quick "what do you think of this". They are not meant to teach anything other than that.

 

If you want to know what exactly people are feeling about your images, you need to focus on comments and critique. Looking for that information from a number is futile. It is not what the system is there for.

Josh , very true ,however as a new member I can say that its hard when starting out to have an idea of what a 4-4 or 5-5 means ..by having a heavily wieghted voting system leaning towards those who leave name . AND giving an approximate scale for new users to use when rating I believe would virtually stop this problem from being discussed daily ....just my 2 cents for what its worth from the guy with the invisiblity cloak ...

:-)

I've already said this: "Get rid of the negative grades". Start form Good and go higher:4, 5, 6, 7. If you don't like a picture don't rate it but if you have something to say about it say it. That system would be kinder to the delicate human nature.

"It is a good idea Bob, I am sure it has crossed a few of the great minds here. So in your plan how would they figure out the Top Photos?"

 

We'd look at the total number of characters in all of the critiques of each image combined. That would reward the most interesting and most discussed images. Those with a lot of short critiques of a few long critiques would be top of the list.

 

Of course we'd have to look out for people taking out new accounts and posting the entire works of Shakespeare as a critique on their own images but those wouldn't be too hard to spot.

 

If we did keep ratings, Nick's suggestion is something I've been saying for years but nobody ever listens to me. Instead of a range of 3-7, simply make it a range of 6-10, or even 7-10. Than every image posted on the site would be good. Who can argue with that?

Nick, shifting parameters around won't fool many people. They'll begin to regard a 5 as unacceptable and demand fractional increments between 5 and 7.

 

The same thing already occurs with some scoring for athletic competition. Unless a gymnast or skater falls flat on his/her face, every competitor gets a base score that on the surface appears to be very good. Then they get into decimal points and fractions.

 

Do the same thing here and it's a sure bet within a few months people will be complaining about the "low raters" who give only 6.275 while others got 6.418.

 

Another factor that is commonly misunderstood about the top rated photos display: one or two low ratings will not kick a photo off the TRP. I've experimented with the system and proved this repeatedly by submitting my own photos. I've received a handful of high ratings that weren't enough to get my photo into the TRP. Then someone would add a rating of 3 or 4, which bumped up my total ratings enough to get my photo into the TRP. If their goal was to "lowball" my photo to reduce its prominence (which I doubt and, besides, my photos aren't that good), it didn't work. By rating it at all they helped ensure it got into the TRP.

 

Right now the ratings system helps provide a more even and, arguably, "fair" distribution of prominence. While the highest rated photos may not always have the highest prominence, which is dependent on the search/display parameters chosen by the viewer, the current system appears to help minimize the impact of extremes in ratings.

 

This equitable distribution is, of course, annoying to those who only want the greatest prominence for themselves. Most of those complaints are self-serving. And this dynamic proves that the ratings system and TRP are part of a competition, if not by designation then by default, with critical appreciation of lesser significance to the most enthusiastic participants.