proposal for a change in the rating system

Discussion in ' Site Help' started by peterkrenek, Nov 5, 2006.

  1. It has been reported that sometimes a good photograph(er) is given deliberately
    low ratings in order to promote other pictures. Would it not be good to change
    the rating system in a way that the anonymous rater (in the Photo Critique
    forum) would not see the identity of the photographer until the rating has been
    given ? Furthermore, the ability to change the rating would be associated with
    a loss of anonymity of the rater. I do not know whether this has been already
    proposed, but I think there is a lot of animosity in the rating system, so some
    kind of change may be necessary. What do you think ?
  2. What about photographers who include a copyright notice on their images. Are you suggesting that be prohibited?
  3. Not at all, Bob. You may know the numbers better, but after looking at the Critique forum, I think that there are not so many photographers doing this. It is up to anyone's will to include the notice. But of course, you are right, that if my proposal were to be in effect, such photographers would not get rating approach equal to others. So perhaps my idea was not ideal...
  4. There are not many photographers doing this because they don't feel a need to. However if their name wasn't associated with the photo when it came up for rating, I suspect that a great number of photographers would start to do so.

    A fully anonymous system (nobody knowing the photographer or rater) has some attractive features but would be difficult to implement because of the certainty that some users would include copyright watermarks and it would be very hard (and probably unreasonable) to prohibit users from adding such copyright watermarks or posting their images inside a "signed" frame.
  5. In my opinion, the rating system is really a lazy way to give someone feedback. I've done it but it is more subjective than sitting down and typing in a comment. Still you'll get some feedback. Unfortunately one doesn't really know how to interpret a low rating because there is a lack of feedback.

    I'm troubled because I suspect that there are some amateurs or younger photographers with little experience who have posted obvious low quality photos. Low ratings without feedback will discourage their growth as photographers.
  6. Victor is right. As on the front page of this site it states:

    "We are now a group of more than 100,000 photographers working to help each other become better."

    I fail to see how the myriad of low marks without comments and critique can make a beginner/youngster or even a seasoned photographer become better.

    I do think the site does a good job with forums, there is a wealth of information on forums about how to take a good photo. Unfortunately the rating system does not do a good job of saying whether the photo already taken has merit. I think that a system has to be devised where written comments are compulsory along with ratings. One rating and a carefully constructed comment is worth 10 anonymous, comment-less ratings. Even if the rating are high.
  7. How about this? If you're going to give a rating below average, then a comment is required. Additionally, it would be very helpful to know the status of the photographer's skill and age. Such as, I would certainly be inclined to hold off on being super critical of a teenager who's just getting into photography or someone who's just an unskilled amateur. I tend to think everyone who posts is a good photographer and judge them based on what I've seen and shot myself.

    And mostly, the critiques are often congratulatory for good pics while the bad ones just get low ratings.
  8. On one hand it is true that the anonymity of the rating system can significantly distort an image score. Anonymous raters can judge maybe sometimes very hastily and give those 3s without thought. Whenever I give a 3 (I do not vote anonymously) I do it after a good thought. Furthermore if I finally do it I know that I have also the obligation to give a critique explaining that 3 etc.

    On the other hand showing your name when you vote and giving 7s and 6s in order to receive complimentary votes back is something that I have witnessed as well. In this case I could see this evolving to something like cliques, networks of voters etc.

    I think a good solution for this problem would be to keep the anonymous rating system but to put a limit to it in the same way there is a limit for the posting system. For example a member can get 4 or 10 or any other appropriate number of ratings per day. Then he/she would think twice before he used his ratings inappropriately. He/she would think "is that a really that bad photo? Should I waste a vote to give a 3 or a 2 here?".

    What do you think?
  9. I like what Victor proposes. I think it would be great if a below average rating forced the user to leave a comment. The comment could even be anonymous. This way, if you get a low rating and the person can't provide a decent reason for it the photographer could at least disregard the rating. The 3/3 would still be there, but at least the photographer would have an idea of what that person was thinking and what that person's motivations were behind the rating.

    I don't have a problem with the low ratings I've received. I'm here to learn, not to get my ego stroked. But I hear rumblings. I've heard rumblings that when the server was down and nobody could see the images that there were still 3/3 ratings being handed out. Hearing things like that makes you question the validity of the 3/3 ratings.

    A 3/3 rating with a thoughtful intelligent critique is a blessing. A 3/3 anon rating is simply a mystery. Forcing someone to leave a comment, even an anonymous one would take the mystery out of it.

Share This Page