Ratings - again

Dieter Hoffman, Eppo Smit - my apologies. I can't find the particular photos of

yours that I rated last year that drew such unconcealed ire. And to everyone

else who got a low rating from me - my apologies as well. Since I don't know any

of you, no harm is implied or intended.

 

I just now discovered the comments made to my site. I realize that I'm more than

six months late in responding.

 

There were a few happy comments for a nice rating. You shot some good stuff that

I liked. A good rating does not mean that the photographer should not strive for

improvement. But no highly rated photo drew ire - as in "Gee! You rated me too

high."

 

And to those who got low ratings - I didn't like the photos. It's subjective.

What's the difference if you like it and I didn't. You folks seem to have great

confidence and no lack of opinion. I had no idea how unhappy it can make someone

to get a low rating. No harm or insult was intended. And if I am out of line

then you'll have all those 7/8 ratings so that I don't count. And in the event

that you receive low ratings without comment, you should use some introspection

to examine yourself. If you seek teaching, there are courses. Even comments can

be off base.

 

The three photos I have posted are not because I have only shot three

photographs. My ego is not tied to your reviews.

 

I have heretofore only been casually following the threads about rating ire. I

haven't rated anything in some time and really don't intend to do so again. I

see no need to raise such animosity. For Eppo and Dieter, I single you folks out

because your comments were really excessively reactive. Other folks on this site

should know to avoid you. As in - "I gave you [me] a 3/3. I wanted to give you a

1/1 but you won't see it" - Eppo. Your ire seeks to intimidate someone from

giving an opinion. Revenge is really not very pretty.

Frankly Victor, I don't think you owe either of these individuals an apology or explanation.

This is why anonymous ratings were started.

 

Vic don't take great offence to their comments, just consider the source which is what you want people to do after you made your comments, I think?

Thanks. Just looking for a reality check. I have tried to be honest in the past and where possible I have attempted to give postive input to this site and contribute to this community.

"This member has rated 671 photos on this site, with average ratings of 4.14 for Aesthetics and 4.06 for Originality."

 

1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = 28

 

28/7 = 4

 

Personally, I'd say this is great, your ratings seem to average roughly in the middle of the range provided.

 

Originality 0 6 85 451 121 7 1

 

Aesthetics 1 9 107 346 198 8 2

 

Standard deviations are small, though distributions do show some skewing. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I personally feel that some resemblance of normal distribution make ratings more meaningful.

 

I suppose I should try to sum up my thoughts somehow. Percentiles hold a lot more meaning. There's no shame in being average, after all, most people should be by definition. It means a lot more to get a decent score from someone with high standards than high praise from someone who's easily impressed.

Yes, I thought that ratings started at 4 and went up or down from the average. Still, it's subjective. Meanwhile thanks for the statistical analysis. It's nice to know I fell in the statistical distribution.

See my comments under Anonymous ratings.

Just another reason why I no longer rate nor put up photos for ratings. This is getting beyond ridiculous. No offense intended.