PN policy

Too many times i have been annoyed by people that rate (way too low) without

having the decency to leave their name..and reason why.. i have a friend

called 3/3 just for the name of it who rates me almost seconds after a

posting..always... well i admit im not taking the perfect shot at all times but

i do believe in the PN policy that one shoud help each other making our

photographs better..if i rate a photo that low(below 4/4) i always give a

comment why and try to give away a few tips...so my suggestion is that all

ratings are filled with names...not for revenge but for helping each other..

when that is said:i upload my photos to get better from tips on how to improve

my photos...i dont need to..but i love photography and i just want to...so

please, have the decency to tell me if you rate low..why..?even if its just i

didnt like it.........so how does other members deal with this?

best regards --willy--

We ignore them!

 

Ignore the numbers, they're worthless. Give solid, useful critiques and comments on other member's photos and you will receive such. And that's worth a lot more than a bunch of worthless numbers.

 

<Chas>

You mean like on this one? : http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=5704654

 

I don't think its just one person here or one there, its everybody who rates, have a look at just about anyone on this sites ratings given, pretty much all have 3/3 or below ratings given, its a matter of what you like!

 

Just learn to live with it and go on!

yes like that:) the numbers are as you pinpoint worthless i agree but it still p..me off:) he he...maybe it would be ok to have a rating system that helped us get useful critique and maybe a button that said: ohh i dont like this...he he..dont know... i just got tired of getting the same 3/3 at all my photos seconds after posting..its just as it is automated ;)maybe its me that really sucks :) oh well..never mind:) i still enjoy PN and all of the fine photographers here:) have a nice day --willy--

Willy, I just took a quick look at a small sample of your photos. Of the five images I looked at, <b>none</b> of them had a 3/3 rating, much less a 3/3 that appeared right after it was submitted for rating. I think that your perception of the "problem" is not accurate.<P>

As for the photo.net policy, when you invite people to rate your photos by submitting them for ratings, they are entitled to give them whatever ratings they think are appropriate. As far as site policy is concerned, no explanation is required. Back when explanations were required for low ratings, they caused more hurt feelings, fights, retaliation, and other abuses than the low ratings alone.

I don't understand why people get so uppset about ratings. If one rater gives a 3/3 and six others give 5/5 or 6/5, even if the 3/3 is just some wise-ass playing around, what's the big deal? I find the ratings I give are almost always in line with the other raters, I occasionally differ, but we all have different tastes.

 

As often as there are cronic low raters, there are equally cronic overaters. Some people over emphasize the subject in their ratings,i.e., if you like bird photography you may tend to overate an average bird photo because you are a bird photographer yourself. I consider the subject of a photograph its least important aspect. The only pictures I won't rate are the digitally created pictures. If it's not a scene that a photographer can see through a viewfinder, then in IMO, it's not a photograph. I know these pictures often get high ratings because they tend to be unique and colorful, but if the impact of the picture is created on a computer rather than by a photographer I won't rate them. As you can see, you can't please everybody, I think you have to consider the overall rating and not obssess about one or two low ratings. AFAIC, my photography is for me. I find it interesting to have a photo rated from time to time, sometimes I'm surprised by the results, more often though I'm not.

 

Of course the weak link in the system is that we're offering up photos as 2"X3" JPEGs that may look spectacular on a monitor or coming out of a printer, but loses it's impact when posted on the web. IMO, all ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. Good or bad. Good luck.

I find it interesting that quite often the 3/3s are anonymous, but I almost never get ratings below 5 from people who are not anonymous. This certainly is true for Ken Dennis' picture above:

<p>

Members Who Rated this Photograph Directly

 

Pierre Dumas 6/ 6<p>

Dennis Jonesphoto.net patron 6/ 6<p>

David McCrackenphoto.net patron 5/ 6<p>

Anna Morris 7/ 7<p>

Average 6.00/ 6.25<p>

 

<p>

The lesson: Pay attention to what people think who leave their names behind.

Karl, I'm not sure that's the message I would take away, and I'm not referring to Ken's

photo specifically at all. While the anonymous 3/3 ratings are annoying, you will find that

the vast majority of people who rate with their names give out 6/6s. There are some you

will start to notice who quickly and meticulously give out 6/6s and "superb job" and

they've rated literally tens of thousands of photos. Also notice how popular they are, and

how high their own ratings are. Ratings are, on this site, in no way close to an honest

appraisal of work. They are often either a pat on the back from someone who hasn't taken

the time to even look at your photo but want s something in return or a meanspirited

weasel gettin his or her rocks off by making someone feel badly without taking ownership.

My advice, find people whose work you respect and admire, give honest comments with

insights, and hope that they will respond in kind. Paying attention to ratings either high or

low is a misleading and probably useless exercise.

That is just TOO funny. I was looking for the right place to put this exact same post. It is

somewhat frustrating that I post things looking for critique and some feedback on, and I get

what looks to be the results of a random number generator - which is not really that helpful.

 

Oh well. At least I can take heart in seeing that it is a universal thing.

Mike:) it nothing but a heartsigh about the 3/3 raters...im well aware of this and wont let me be upset from this...but it still irritates me that someone seem to not evaluate proper..and if i give someone low i always follow up with a comment on why..thats decent and respectfull...otherwise i dont bother either rate or comment..

best regards --willy--

The 3/3 seems to be a number that makes people upset because it's below average. 4/4 is above average ... there's nothing in between.

Dale-- 3 is below average and 4 is

average, and 5 is good (which would, to me, be above average but not great). So 4 is just

what you are looking for, in-between.

I'm new to PN guys, but I rather quickly got my panties in a wad over the ratings dilemma. I just as quickly pulled them back into their proper position after reading several enlightening and balanced posts...like the ones here today. Fred's last line sums it all up perfectly. "Paying attention to rating either high or low is a misleading and probably useless exercise". Personally, I pay no attention to any numbers unless they have a name attached & after examing their work, I've determined that their critiques/rating are of any value to me. I recently received a 6/6 only to look at the members portfolio & finding that they had only 3 or 4 shots that quite honestly I'd be embarassed to post. That's just being brutally honest...I know you've all had the same thoughts from time to time. Now that I've offered what I believe a mature reply...damn,those anonymous, tasteless idiots who post their ignorant 3s sure do piss me off!

Hey Fred, thanks ... I guess I am always looking for a scale out of 10 so people can choose 5/10 at an exact 50% mark.

Sure, I can get really pissed with the 3/3:s from time to time. But, like Fred is mentioning, I've also noticed that some people give high ratings (for example 6/6) just to get high ratings them selves (so it seems).

<br>And this kind of "friendly" ratings between members is as bad as the automatic 3/3s. I want a total rating that is "correct", if you know what I mean...

I have promised myself, I promise all of you, and lastly I have promised my Creator that this will be my last comment on this subject. I posted a photo for critique tonight and although it may not be the best damn pet picture on the site, but being as objective as I can be...it wasn't bad. For originality I received an ave. of 4.10 for 10 critiques. I'm such a newbie that I haven't yet learned to resize a photo to attach to this little rant...but if anyone cares to take a look, it's in the My Animal Kingdom...a dog owned by a local woodworker- it will be easy to spot. Was it incredibly original...perhaps not, but here's my point. We're supposed to be rating against the best photos our peers submit. My problem is this. Two shot of cats looking straight into the camera, nothing interesting in the periphery, nothing interesting about the cat- originality: the two averaged 4.45. Cat on a table - 4.85, Cat on a desk- 4.73, silouette of a cat- 5.0... and it goes on and on. My shot had dimension,i.e.,objects in foreground, decent DOF for a beginner, sepia toned, which I think made it a bit out of the ordinary (maybe that's kind of like ORIGINAL...compared to other shots). So I don't gt it. Well, maybe I do. My dog lost out to several shots of cats showing full frontal nudity. Perhaps the assertions made by several in various posts I've read lately are true put a naked p.... or a child in the photo and you're sure to get some 7s. I will now go forth and attempt to totally ignore all ratings both good or bad that do not have a name and an explanation attached.

agreed Willy...you have a nice day as well! john

Well it is still a hot subject here for many people...so what are we to do with this..? well nothing can be done im afraid..if PN not would remove their rating system.. A good and honest comment gives more to me than a avg 6/6 or for inst..3/3 that just p.. me off.. people will alvays have different opinions and the ratings will alvays follow that...nothing to do but cope with it.. but i STILL encourage people in the PN commununity to follow up their low...OR HIGH ratings with a decent comment to help,get help educate or be educated from other members...i do hope PN still will work like that:)

have a nice day:) --willy--

I think that anon 3/3 raters should collectively be referred to as "schmucks on parade" from now on. They are cowardly, petty little people. All one has to do is see some of the beautiful shots given this rating without comment. These are people who, most likely, grow up to be people like Karl Rove.

I wonder if PN staff could change the rating system and still maintain an anonymous rating. My idea is to have the rating broken down to Members - Anonymous then a combined average. I welcome comments but find it fustrating with every picture submitted getting a 3/3 within seconds (OK minutes) of submission. I pay little attention to the numbers and a lot to the comments, but I do see the numbers giving a view without having to leave a comment as we all don't have time to comment on lots of images but can rate quite a few in the same amount of time. Thanks for taking the time to let me vent!