rating on PN seems to be irresponcible

Ive seen a good number of photos by numerous photographers get ratings from 7

to 3 , on photos that most people would love to call their own . If this

rating system does not improve in a hurry , you may end up with a shallow depth

of photographers . Photonet is fully responcable .

<i>on photos that most people would love to call their own . </i><p>How do you know what "most people" think?

I've found that the only rating that counts is your own. If you like the photo that's all that really matters. For some reason there are a lot of bitter people who sit around and low ball photos, I wouldn't worry about it and just shoot to please yourself. The people who really want to help are the one's who rate and leave comments, trust them, they are trying to help.

Actually, except for the ratings of a few people who try to mess up the system by putting in thousands of 3's or 6's, the ratings are not that far off. Where they are weak it is because of a failure to recognize very high level work, or low rate cliches. I wonder how many hundreds of pictures I have had to look at with the same pink sunset, blurry bluish water, and rocks. Probably close to 1,000. They all look the same. But people keep giving them 4 to 6 ratings. The next generation of digital cameras will probably have a number of cliched photos already on the card, so people can pretend they took them.

I have had extensive experience with the ratings system, and although I have bones to pick with ratings (and the fact that rating is often done from a review of thumbnails and not the full photo), in general the ratings tend to be pretty reliable overall. On more than one occasion, I've posted a photo that got 'x' rating and later posted a sister - perhaps from the same roll and series but perhaps with minor variations. In general, such postings end up with almost the same rate, if one accounts for the time of day posted and whether or not one was posted on a 'slow' day or not -- such as special holiday where few (or many) would be expected to be online.

 

There are some photos that are truly wonderful that can't scare up a decent rating; and some of those types of photos do not get a good reception here -- they belong in special collections -- for instance, see the special annual edition of B&W Magazine for photos that hardly would get recognized on Photo.net, in part because much of their 'worth' as photos depends on good reproduction of a high range of tonalities, from dark blacks to the very whitest white -- something that can't be replicated on a web site.

 

And many of those photos have artistic content or aesthetic content that does not comport with the vast number of neophytes who form the largest number of raters on Photo.net

 

You have to make allowance for such things; if you take each rating seriously, and don't look into the background of who is rating and what individual motives may be (or tastes), then you are going to have a very unhappy time here.

 

But if you look at the broad number of ratings, and you can pick out from the non-anonymous raters, someone whose judgment you trust who often picks out what you think are your best photos, as I have, you have the beginnings of making peace with the ratings system.

 

I know when a certain individual, 'y', rates one of my photos, that it truly has resonated with that photographer whose portfolio impresses me, and whose opinion counts. I can identify such ratings of course, because they are not made from the 'queue', because queue ratings are anonymous.

 

From time to time, I have complained about ratings, but only once in recent memory has a badly rated photo turned out to have genuinely bad ratings -- instead the 'bad' ratings soon were deleted as 'bots' (robots -- computer programs which rate the queu) were uncovered and their ratings deleted -- a continual problem, but one which one can expect is being addressed with great seriousness by the Administration (we don't want to discuss it much, because the Administration needs some secrecy to conduct their anti-bot campaign.)

 

Indeed, many photographers on Photo.net are 'shallow' and 'neophytes' at that, and their votes count as much as the most sage photo critic in the membership. That's part of the deal, and you must live with it. Nearly every suggestion that one can imagine has been proposed, but there are far too many problems with each of the suggestions -- this is a compromise system which actually works pretty well.

 

(That is not to say there aren't certain kinds/types/aspects of photography that don't get their due -- there are. But overall, the rating system works pretty darn well, considering all the bad things that might be associated with it -- experience has been a great teacher in that regard, and the Administration, over many years has worked out decent compromise solutions -- and like all compromises, they are bound to please no one immensely, but they do work overall.

 

You have to live with the fact that if you produce photos that aren't in a favored category (birds once was such a category here; sunsets another, and so on), that ratings will trend lower, but if you look at the individual ratings on each of your photos overall, and then go to pick the best photos overall, I suggest that it is most likely that what you consider your best more likely than not will have higher ratings than what you consider your lowest.

 

And if you look at the highest-rated photos (and folders) of this year or all time for Photo.net, you'll know that the rating system does good work well, at least in isolating the best work.

 

Moral: Don't get your back up, they're just numbers, sometimes tossed out in haste and often by neophytes, but they do have worth.

 

Of greater worth, or coursse are the critiques, and you should make an effort to critique others' work intelligently and to treat those who critique your work with great consideration so they'll come back and share their knowledge and impressions with you on a frequent basis.

 

That's the greater worth of this sytem.

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

John (Crosley)

As posted before, I no longer look at the ratings per se, but see how many views a photo I post gets. IF hundreds and hundreds of people stop and look at a picture I took, that is enough for me to realize it piqued their interest and has some merit versus some really awful shots I posted that only a handful of people even looked at and no one bothered to rate.

 

If they don't want to rate it, or give it 3/3 who cares? The ones that get a meaningful critque are are truly useful in helping to learn an grow as a photographer

I'd like to know how this occurs: i clicked on my latest critique request literally 1 second

after it was posted and it received 4 ratings. In 1 second. How is that possible? It physically

isn't.

 

Something strange has been going on for some time now and it has hurt the whole

system. Many friends i know here have stopped posting requests for reasons like these.

Most complaints have been a lack of responses, but things are strange indeed.

 

John, i have taken your mindset and in my experience and where i am now in photography,

i don't really need advice. But i feel that one of the most rewarding aspects of this site has

deteriorated.

How do I know what most people think? Takes one to know one !

Perhaps just common sense ! How do you know when a photo is bad ? It takes about the same amount of common sense. Of course there is always an exception , but also a very small number of those .

As I see it , the rating system is corrupt and unfair .

YAWN

"As I see it , the rating system is corrupt and unfair." Heard the "unfair" before but I do believe the "corrupt" is a first. You may want to get another hobby Robert, this one seems to be getting to you. The process of photography should be a stress releaser, not a stress inducer.

<i>Photonet is fully responcable . </i><P>

Actually, it's my fault. I told all those people to give those ratings you don't agree with. A dirty trick, I know, but I gotta have some fun.

Robert, it's not the system that's "corrupt" and "unfair". It's the raters who are "corrupt" and "unfair", or at least some of them are. You'll have to ask yourself, why do you post photos here. Is it because you love photography and want to share your work with other photographers and maybe get valuable feedback or do you post photos here to get a numerical rating that, at the end of the day really means nothing. There are plenty of mate rating groups that I'm sure will be happy to have you as a member, but come on, does that really help you get better as a shooter or just stroke your ego. Don't get me wrong Robert. I felt the frusteration before, but you can either stay frusterated or jusy change your mindset.

Robert, you've got a pretty good portfolio. If you are happy with your work, who cares what everyone else thinks! I hardly ever break the top 100 in TRP and you know what? I don't give a S**T.<div></div>

There you Kelly. Well said.

Missing the Point!

 

It is easy to say the ratings don't mean anything...

 

The bottom line here is, most new users are drawn to P-net because they see a tool to improve that work and get honest critical response. They see the posts and high rated images and think "WOW, this site is great."

 

Then they join and add there photos and post a few and get CRAPPED on by a mindless bot or a random clicker.

 

Now they think, "wow.... is it worth renewing my account!"

 

The biggest problem here is the lack of accountability.

 

I keep hearing that fixes are on the way, and I know it is not a lot to spend for an account, and they are busy. But really... It is the Biggest flaw on the site.

 

Make the rating system non-anonymous... require a name and comment.... that is what the site is about, Right? Getting an honest critique!

 

I guess we shall wait and see!

<i> "The bottom line here is, most new users are drawn to P-net because they see a tool to improve that work and get honest critical response." </i>

 

<br>

<br>

How does ratings improve your photography? If you want to improve your photography, get a book, or read some of the valuable info that gets posted in the forums. If you want an honest critique, ask for one? You don't have to subject your photos for ratings to get feedback on them. I've met plenty of people on here that will give me an honest critique without assiging a meaningless number. Most of the photos get hit by anonymous low raters. The bad photos get hit more than the better photos. Keep clicking and calm your nerves. You don't get money or a trophy for being on the TRP.

Whoops, forgot to choose html

 

<br>

<br>

<br>

<i> "The bottom line here is, most new users are drawn to P-net because they see a tool to improve that work and get honest critical response." </i>

 

<br> <br> How does ratings improve your photography? If you want to improve your photography, get a book, or read some of the valuable info that gets posted in the forums. If you want an honest critique, ask for one? You don't have to subject your photos for ratings to get feedback on them. I've met plenty of people on here that will give me an honest critique without assiging a meaningless number. Most of the photos get hit by anonymous low raters. The bad photos get hit more than the better photos. Keep clicking and calm your nerves. You don't get money or a trophy for being on the TRP.

Bottom line for me is , until the rating system is changed and cleaned up I dont need it or plan on using it.

If you like it then good for you !

Will,

 

"If you want an honest critique, ask for one?" This is what we are asking for when we post to the Critique Forum. And, for this, I will say that more times then not, it is only the very best shots that get a lot of comments. Run thur the forum anytime of day and you with find that less then 50% posted receive more than 2 comments and most of those are "Nice Job."

 

I read books and I practice, I post shots and hope for responses.

If you want to know Why I feel the way I do, then I personally invite you to look thru my portfolio photo by photo and see how many I have submitted for critique and how many remain Blank and then leave your own comments and/or critiques.

 

Do the numbers mean anything.... well. if you are getting few comments, then yes! it is the only input I am getting and I want it to be HONEST.

 

Regards

 

Your thoughts on my work

John, I explored your portfolio. Not bad. You stated something interesting <i> "I will say that more times then not, it is only the very best shots that get a lot of comments." </i> Well, isn't that true for anything in life. The pretty girls will get asked out more than the ugly ones, right? A Corvette will get more looks than a Chevette. Get my point. Most of the photos that are getting high rates and lots of comments are deserving of them. Not all of them, mind you. I see a lot of garbage getting on the top rated photos because of the mate rate posse, but you can spot them a mile away.

 

<br>

<br>

You also have to understand that only certain types of photos get high rates and comments. They're usually either naked woman or dramatic landscapes. I noticed that you shoot a lot of street photography. Nothing against your style, but it's not a crowd pleaser. I will say that, the more you comment on others' photo, the more comments you'll received. Most people are nice enough to return a critique.

I had promised to forgo any more pointless debate on the rating system so bad me for posting this.

 

I just wanted to thank John Crosley for taking the time to express so eloquently sentiments which I share and have tried in the past to communicate here regarding the rating system. No it is not perfect but it does offer up useful information, even if we end up being told something we would have rather not heard on occasion. If you are not prepared to deal with the answer then refrain from asking the question.Most importantly it's only numbers they can't hurt you and if they do not agree with you own opinion of a shot disregard them. I have had some fine shots given little or no attention and some mediocre shots of popular subject matter given lots of attention and better ratings... it all comes out in the wash.