Rating System Proposal & Vote

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by G-P, Mar 27, 2017.

?

Like or dislike the proposal

  1. Like

  2. Dislike

  3. Indifferent - don't care for ratings much

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. G-P

    G-P Administrator Staff Member

    OK, here we go again.

    We've read almost every thread on this subject going back a few years and here is a proposal that we'd like to get some feedback on:

    New Ratings System would consist of 4 categories and a scale of 1-7 for each:

    1.) aesthetics
    2.) originality
    3.) technique
    4.) processing


    In effort to encourage critiques if a photo is rated below a certain threshold for each (threshold TBD for each), rater must offer a critique on why he/she feels it rates that way. Of course critique field will remain open for ratings above that threshold (as we don't want to discourage critiques) BUT it would be required if you wish as a rater to rate below the threshold.

    See below for adjusted proposal based on feedback for photos submitted for ratings AND critique. Those photographers that wish to only submit their photos for rating would only get feedback in form of ratings as noted above.

    *Votes in poll can be changed as proposal evolves and is discussed.

    Admires will still be there for a quick rate as it is today.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  2. Thanks for offering the survey, Glen. I can't choose one of the available options, so I'll quickly give a reply here. I'm for a rating system but believe if an exceptionally bad rate demands a reason, an exceptionally good one should demand a reason as well. Insisting on a "critique" with a certain type of rate seems to come with problems to me. Someone who rates a 1, for example, could simply say, "Because I don't like it." Not sure how that helps and doubt the site wants to get into monitoring every critique for an appropriate rationale for the rate. I see as many 7s given for suspicious reasons as I do 1s. In short, allow a rating system and don't insist on accompanying critiques for any type of rate.
     
  3. My regards to for the survey. I understand 1 &2. Not sure that I understand #3 which may boil down to the possibility that I lack technique. And, does #4 mean "post-processing"? Tom me, 3 & 4 result in #1 which make the two latter ones unnecessary. I think that 1 & 2 are essentially the terms that were used in the original dual rating system and I would still argue for that combination to be resurrected. I think sunsets images are one example of why a single rate is insufficient: a fairly high percent of sunset photos have average to excellent aesthetics but most are below average when it comes to originality.

    As far as critiques go, a very high percentage are simply 'attaboy' comments. Perhaps, 25% of the 'attaboys' comments go on to mention 2 or 3 attributes of the image that the commenter likes. In recent years, I rarely see a comment that points out flaws in an image and suggests what might be done to correct them. In that respect, the word 'Critique' is a misnomer for what actually happens on the site.

    It appears that the capability to allow reviewers to give an anonymous comment and for posters to accept an anonymous comment has been abandoned in V2. The few helpful critical 'critiques' I have received in recent years were mostly anonymous. In the first decade of the current century critical critiques were much more common. I think that critical critiques are more often received with animosity rather than appreciation.

    If the rating system resumes, I would like to see (after 5 rates), how many rates are received for each value. It much more helpful to know whether a photo received 3-1's and 3-7's as opposed to 6-4's.. In each case the average is 4 but the take on it much different. It's even better, if you are getting separate rates for a & o. Why am I torturing myself by writing about this subject?
     
    hstelljes likes this.
  4. I voted for the proposal, even as one side of me wonders where the Golden Mean lies with regard to being simple enough to be widely used, on the one hand, and being refined enough to be of much value, on the other. I really just don't know.

    --Lannie
     
  5. It seems like a nice proposal (I didn't vote because I'm not a rate-er-izer), but why is the onus entirely on the viewer? Why doesn't the picture poster have to make a little more effort when asking for a response? Give him/her radio buttons to click, for example "I would like you to":

    • tell me what's right about the picture
    • tell me what's wrong with the picture
    • tell me whatever enters your mind when you look at the picture
    • I will thank you
    • I will not thank you

    [you must choose at least one: you may choose more than one]

    [okay, the "thank you" options will puzzle those silent photo.netters who are unfamiliar with the concept]

    With so many radio buttons to play with, we may have to search to find the picture ...
     
    G-P likes this.
  6. If those wishing to renew ratings win, maybe you will consider the option to switch off ratings for those that do not want it.
     
  7. John raises a good point. If you do bring back ratings, it is critical that the old system option to submit for critique or for ratings or possible a third option of both, be instituted.
    I strongly disagree with the idea of forcing people to justify low ratings with a comment unless the idea becomes blanket and all ratings must be accompanied by a comment. If only low ratings require comment you automatically skew the numbers upwards. Unjustified high numbers make far more of a mockery of the system than low numbers, even though the low numbers inspire more squawking than the high ones. I also think that 'technique is a silly category and should be dropped. The other 3 categories are part of what constitutes technique and as such render that category redundant. I will likely never use the rating system and was not sorry to see it go however I am in favour of any change that might give this site a pulse again and clearly there are people who miss the ratings. I do feel sympathy for the moderators who will once again have to listen to the din of complaints about sycophants and cheaters.
     
    hstelljes, MarieH, AJHingel and 3 others like this.
  8. I voted Like. OK no system will be perfect and no system will please everyone but if it kick-starts the "Seeking critique" into action and revives the comments given with more spice and interest then please Glenn lets go for it. I say this knowing my images will never be highly rated, but if the opportunity is there to encourage improvement then the site will help provide me with that. Let the members try your proposal, the basic nuts and bolts looks good and any system can be modified or tweaked at a later date. Best regards Ken.
     
    MarieH and Eystein like this.
  9. G-P

    G-P Administrator Staff Member

    @all - great points and I see what you are saying. OK imagine this:

    Photo presented to the community for ratings AND critiques (opted in - to John's point), by putting it up for "ratings and critique" photographer is asked what they want out of the critique. (to Julie's point, why put it all on the viewer). Viewer/Rater/Critique-er provides rating AND meaningful and thoughtful critique. But...it shouldn't stop there.

    Now we close the circle
    - the critique is then rated by the community. If it is a meaningful and thoughtful critique that addresses what the poster of the photo is asking for - then it will not only be an asset to the photographer that posted BUT ALSO an asset to the viewer (person that provided the rating and critique). As this builds we will have "critique ratings" (or something to that effect). Point is we recognize those that take the time and effort to provide meaningful feedback via critiques - they will have high critique ratings and will be recognized as such (exactly how TBD). To the person that says - "because I don't like it", will get a poor rating on his/her critique by the community and will carry that with them as well. Point is we are recognizing both positive critique behavior as well as recognizing poor critique behavior.

    Now (to Gordon's point) including the option of A.) submit for ratings only, B.) critiques only and C.) critiques AND ratings. If I get a critique from say John who's critique rating is 6.75 (out of 7) vs getting a critique from Glenn who has a critique rating of 2.25 (out of 7). I (in theory) will start putting more thought into my effort in my critiques to raise my score. Plus I will show shame in the town square and if my score goes too low I might be banished to the depths of hell for all eternity (wait...thats too dark)....but you get the point. Those that have high critique ratings should be recognized and those that don't should strive for providing the community more.

    Now comes the question - which always comes up: subscribers only or open to all? Subscribers Only virtually eliminates people making multiple accounts and playing ratings games. Open to all - means that becomes a reality again. Is the middle ground - to those accounts that have "seasoned" meaning they are free accounts but they are obviously here for the right reasons by their account activity. New accounts will have to earn the right to rate by account activity (TBD - could be new account completed milestones of X, Y or Z).
     

  10. ... mmmm ... that's some seriously delayed gratification plus lots of punishment and not much reward. If I told my dog (yes, we do chat) that, if he would sit, stay, lie down and do what I tell him to, I would give him a small verbal treat a month from now, I think he'd go looking for a new cookie-dispensing machine (that's me).

    Here's a pure fantasy that I would really enjoy: a critique forum into which *any* critique to *any* image which is longer than, say, four sentences, would automatically appear as a post in that forum, along with a link to the image. I think that I would read such a forum and I think I would be curious enough to go take a look at the picture and/or want to post a reaction. I also think people who write critiques would be aware that they would be talking to a much larger audience.

    The reason I suggest such a fantasy is that as it is, in order to locate interesting discussions, I have to go clicking blindly through images. It's like digging for gold by going out to a random spot with a garden shovel.
     
  11. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    I will start out saying that I don't rate, but do comment, though not so far in the current version. I almost never post negative critiques, though on occasion, I will make a suggestion that I feel will strengthen the presentation. There are a lot of folks who like the ratings, and find them useful. Personally, I am more interested in views. I do think, be it ratings or critiques, the individual contributing should have "some skin in the game" and be subscribers or whatever "seasoned" / "valuable?" individuals management might select. Things that are "free" are often valued the same.
     
  12. G-P

    G-P Administrator Staff Member

    Highlighting/Featuring photos with critiques that rated high - is something we could do as we would then have the data to call upon and highlight those critiques that were given ratings worth highlighting.

    How long or short a critique is could pose problems as someone that yammers on with little or no point made - we would not highlighted. By making it critique rating - we're focusing on the quality of the critique, not the length.
     

  13. Dern, Glenn. You're so earnest. Really bad critiques are where the fun begins ... especially if they're on really bad pictures, too. I know you'll be dumbfounded to hear it, but we photo.netters *like* to fight. Where's the fun in reading stellar critiques of stellar pictures?

    There's a site from which I buy stuff that rates their product raters (good ones get Top 100 next to their name, for example). I've gone there to leave a comment on a product I've liked and been so dismayed to find, already, four or five perfectly written ratings left by Top 100 raters that I've not said a word. Simply slunk (slinked?) away. Even a big mouth, leather-skin like me can be put off by a Top 100er.
     
    Supriyo likes this.
  14. G-P

    G-P Administrator Staff Member

    Where was my head!? Don't answer that.

    Got it...I think. Well, ....searching by Critique Ratings ranging from good to bad (among other filters) is also a possibility if we have the data to pull from.
     
  15. OMG this is already devolving into a train wreck. The 'closing the circle' concept is a black hole of circular reference.
    I voted 'don't care', and remain so, I don't care for ratings, but don't mind those who do. (with the caveat that it may be a demand on resources from better use).
    Mention is made of 'submit for critique' as an option or choice. Negative. All submitted photos are subject to critique. period.
    Bad critiques are pretty rare, aren't they? I spend my time on photos I enjoy, and haven't seen a bad critique.
    Julie: having to dig thru photos for critiques is a good thing. this is PHOTO.net, not essay net.
     

  16. Not to worry, Wayne. Glenn and the team are taking care of you. Just click on the avatar of those pesky "essayists" (presumably me; please? Do it now!) and you'll see a lovely Ignore button. Click that. Voila! One less "essayist" to be frightened of. (I haven't seen anything approaching an essay in comments on this site, but I will guess that you mean anything that is more than four sentences — oops! you wrote an "essay" in your last post! )

    Or maybe you're just worried that photo.net will run out of paper if somebody writes too much? I'd hate to think you don't tolerate diversity in the community.

    [Are we fighting yet? There you go.]
     
  17. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    I am for the "open" ability of all viewers to rate a photo. Sure, this can invite stackers, ax grinders, narcissists and misanthropes. So can any system--and after over 15 years here at PN--I know that a closed cohort of "special" members can wreak much more vile damage than the general public... :p
     
    michaellinder likes this.

  18. The mistake is, you took too much time composing your sentences. You should have quoted the other reviewers. :);):p
     

  19. What happened was, for me, like people who say they took up photography because they couldn't paint: upon seeing how Top 100 raters wrote, I knew I shouldn't even try and thus I quote instead. Photography *is* kind of like quoting is it not? [I think I like how much that last sentence would annoy those who are annoyed by too much of such annoying writing.]
     
  20. I took up painting because I couldn't paint.
     
    Gup and Supriyo like this.

Share This Page