Ratings Experiment - Join In

I've been thinking about this for some time after reading all of the

complaints and observations about "Ratings".

 

I'm guilty of tending to comment/rate (in particular,rate) photo's

that I like more than those that I don't.

 

Some people are "guilty" of "mate rating", some of "revenge rating",

some of using fictitious user accounts to boost their ratings,

others of systematically doling out 1/1's for no apparent reason.

 

Here's what I'm going to do , probably at great risk of attracting

some flak : I'm right now going to HONESTLY rate the front page of

the Gallery according to my personal taste and basing the ratings

around the Photo.net guidelines - try it!

Waste of time. I prefer comments, both to give and receive. But people don't leave them anymore, so it's a dying cause.

 

I should put up some noodie pics, then I'd get loads of comments and ratings. "Waahoo, awesome" 7/7 on the nudie pics "this isn't as good as your other work" "boring" 1/1 on the non-nudie pics.

 

Oh well.

I just rated all the photo's on the front page of the 24HR view, and I was surprised at some of the Ratings that I felt obliged to give in keeping with photo.net guidelines.

 

However, if we all try to be more level headed and honest with the ratings, when we do produce a better than usual picture, will it be more obvious to us?

Mark, I only rate pictures I like or feel an affinity toward. I don't see the point in rating every photograph out there, possibly with a 2 or 3, and having to explain 'why'. In about 800 ratings I have given out only a single bad one, and it was in a spirit of retaliation (the picture was pretty crappy anyway). I prefer to abstain than to impart my personal aesthetic views on the public out there, with words like 'bad' or 'very bad', directed towards people I do not know personally. At least, so far...:)

That's interesting, Leo, and probably indicative of a lot of users - it's certainly true for me.

 

However, how will people know for sure how others feel about their pictures?

Mark, my experience is that:

A) Ratings don't tell how one person really feels about a certain picture (thats why they are regarded as a mere 'poll' by the cognoscenti).

B) Comments never come with bad ratings.

C) Truly negative comments fail to make an impression, if you believe in the value of the image you have posted and which is being critized.

The only thing that works and can help people grow in this context, in my experience, is a constructive comment about some image the commentator feels some affinity to. I don't really know about the rest...

Why not leave a comment on all the top rated images instead?

Actually,

 

Let me tell you something I never expected and which may show how appreciative people can be about honest ratings/criticism.

 

A user, as part of my "experiment" had his photo criticised and rated low by me and responded by rating my most recent upload highly, when he could have easily left a revenge rate. He felt that because I left a comment my opinions were validated - that is what this site needs more of.

Carl,

 

To answer your question, I left a comment on most of them as well.

I'm glad the experiment turned out ok. Not sure, but I might try it myself one of these days.

Please do - maybe it could catch on!

Mark, I'm sure you are doing this in the best spirit. I used to do the same thing for a month or so. So did a couple of other photographers. It turned out that we ended up being considered a "brigade" by those who could not understand the low ratings they received. What followed was retaliations, insulting posts and what not. If many people join you in this experiment, I anticipate that the atmosphere on the top-rated pages may get sour. I hope to be wrong. I may or may not join in in your experiment this time, but clearly, if everyone on this site would just do what you suggest, the TRP would look a lot better.

<p>

Finally, Carl Smith wrote:

<p>

"I prefer comments, both to give and receive. But people don't leave them anymore, so it's a dying cause."

<p>

Carl, if you read my post, I'd be very interested to know where you got your information from. Based only on personal experience, or acces to data...? I'm asking this because I shared this impression, but Brian provided data showing that the number of comments had doubled in a year. So, of course they may be other factors and statistics required to find out whether there are more or less comments per image, and which images get the highest number of comments. But I believe that these statistics would be very useful. You may want to see my discussion with Brian and others on this exact issue in the current 1/1 ratings thread. Regards.

How about a new concept. When I see an image that I find interesting, I click on it to make it larger. Sometimes I even revisit an image a second or third time (maybe more for the exceptional images). Simply count clicks to show interest - with all pictures placed in catagories. This would give some indication of the interest level a picture generates and would be relative within the catagory (a very useful feature). I noticed with most of my pictures the interest level seems to be in the tens of thousands (and higher). This would indicate to me that this would be a VERY hard thing to distort!

 

If photo.net wishes to have a means of rating pictures so others do not have to wade through hundreds of thousands of family snapshots, this might be a way to do it. As a rating system has no real value to the photographer or the viewers OTHER than assisting the viewer in finding interesting pictures (as opposed to boring) to view, this would certainly do the same thing as our current rating system only without the cliques and anamosity - and without bruised egos! I can't eat 7s (and my ego is probably too big anyway) but I certainly would like to know which of my images others find interesting enough to click on and enlarge.

 

 

Of course comments and critiques would still be welcome to aid the photographer. As photo.net is the grand-daddy of all photo sites, there are a couple dozen clones - all doing the silly rating thing. Perhaps photo.net could start another trend?

Saying the number of comments has increased is kind of like saying the job market has improved. Are they meaningful? Are they the comments [jobs] people really want?

 

I say this from personal experience and it is an opinion shared with many of the friends I have made on this site. It is what it is, the system has been diluted by the vast majority of people who want pats on the back or who want to viciously attack others they don't like. I personally think the ratings system died first, and took the comments with it. Brian can point out there are more comments, but how many more users are there? And how many of these comments are anything more than "Yay" or "THIS TURNS ME ON!! YAHOO!" I'd like to know, but I doubt statistics on something like that are easy to come by.

The number of photos submitted has increased by about 25% in the time that the number of comments has doubled. So most of the increase is in the form of more comments per photo. The average length of comments has remained the same, about 150 characters per comment. Comment length has not varied significantly for about three years.

 

It seems a few vocal people have convinced themselves that comments are declining and are now regularly trying to convince others of this.

If it is long-time members basing this opinion on their own portfolios, maybe the fact is people are tired of commenting on their photos and are spending their time commenting on the photos of new people.

 

I don't know. But whereever this "people are commenting less" meme is coming from, it simply is not true.

I'm very happy with the awesome amount of feedback that I get...<br>However, I will admit to spending quite a lot of my time in the PN Gallery leaving comments and appreciating other photographers' portfolios. In general, I don't play the ratings game and it shows up when you look at the TRP for the last three months (by number of comments). Most images listed, received many more ratings than what I have. In short, commenting only SHOULD work to your advantage... I sincerely hope that common courtesy will prevail at photo.net

"It seems a few vocal people have convinced themselves that comments are declining."

 

It doesn't help that those of us who complain focus on different aspects of the problem, and that some folks seem to be more interested in their own portfolio rather than a vision for what the site could be that would benefit everyone. But it also doesn't help when you misrepresent what we're saying. The focus on comments has always been on quality, not quantity, and because this is more difficult to measure imperically, you persist in denying that steps can and should be taken to improve content. Ultimately, I'm not that concerned about a real or imagined golden age of genuine photo critique several years ago. I only know that when a significant number of people whose comments and images I admire cut back or leave, and that they clearly state their reasons for doing so, then I have to wonder if changes in the process would improve both the quality and quantity of all types of participation in the gallery.

 

The statistics that you publish are simple, crude, and offer little insight. Using more complex searches to determine the frequency and types of interaction of various subgroups could give you much more insight into the nature of the gallery, but this is all beside the point if you are convinced that changing what we have now could cause a drop in the interest level and subsequent subscriptions.

'Commenting only' is the route many of us have taken and is an indication that the system doesn't work as intended. Those who are willing to think about an image and share their insights realize that rating is actually counterproductive, so we leave the rating to others, many of whose rating patterns suggest a quick glance, especially among that critically important group of recent signups.

<b>Carl (smith)</b> Nudes are the majority of my portfolio. They get a wide range of scores - this assertion that Nudes get good scores for being nudes just isn't backed up by the facts. No-one has ever said that my non-nudes aren't as good (or compared them at all).<p>

<b>Brian </b> Up to Dec 31 I had 1535 scores and 233 comments, about a 7:1 ratio. Since Jan 1 I've had 250 scores and 21 comments, about a 12:1 ratio. I'd say people <i>are</i> giving out fewer comments. Other's mileage may vary.

James, YOU may be getting fewer comments, but that doesn't mean that fewer comments are being written overall. People have a tendency to generalize from their own case to the population as a whole.

 

There could be many reasons why you are getting fewer comments. Here are some possibilities, in random order, without any idea whether any of them are the explanation in your case.

 

1. You have slowed down in the number of pictures you are posting so the total number of comments and ratings has declined even if the average number of comments and ratings per photo has staid constant.

 

2. After an initial period of posting only a few photos, which were well-received and received many ratings and comments, you have posted a large portfolio, including a lot of second-tier photos, and therefore the overall average of comments and ratings per photo have declined.

 

3. The best work gets the most comment, and you posted your best work at the beginning, and are now are posting the really good/new/different stuff less frequently, and therefore receiving fewer comments and ratings.

 

4. You were more active in the beginning with your own comments and ratings. There is a constant influx of new people onto the site, and if established members rest on their laurels, their work will eventually become less prominent.

 

5. People have commented on your style, etc, and now feel that they don't have a lot more to say about your photos, other than "Another good one, James". Maybe they like your stuff, but they want to see something different, and spend their time commenting on the work of interesting newcomers who they have not commented upon before.

 

6. Your comments and ratings were coming from contacts you cultivated when you first joined the site, and many of those people are no longer active or are less active. Constant attrition being par for any Internet forum site, if you are interested in maintaining the level of comments and ratings, you need constantly to cultivate new contacts from amongst the newcomers to the site, who tend to be the most active. While easier to do than when completely starting out, this does require some effort.

That addresses the issue of maximizing interaction with your images, but can't we recognize that that dynamic compromises the integrity of the ordering of images on the TRP since it emphasizes campaigning and lobbying totally separate from the value of the image itself?

Carl, campaigning and lobbying are features of any democratic system. I don't actually care at all whether the photos on the Top Photos page get there as a result of campaigning and lobbying as long as they are photos that are excellent and which people on the whole want to look at. That seems to be the case, despite the occasional one that seems to owe its place more to campaigning than to merit. Besides, all that campaigning and lobbying generates hits, meaning ad revenue, for the site.

 

Perhaps you would be more pleased if you got to choose the Top Photos, supposing of course that you would be immune to lobbying and campaigning. But I doubt that 80000 people per day would be more interested in your selection than the one produced by the rating system, warts and all. Nothing against you: I don't think 80000 people per day would be interested in my selection either.

I understand the need to maximize hits per day, but I'm not convinced that using those hits to generate a precise ordering is an integral part of that process. Being rewarded for gaming the system - this isn't a simple vote, after all - attracts some users, but turns off many others.

 

I think many of us are of the opinion that a significant number of TRP images, say in the top three pages of the default view, don't deserve to be there. Others do, but not on a daily basis.

 

I would much rather see your selections than what we have now . . . . with the proviso that the curator of the day be rotated among the elves and that the group of elves be expanded so that no one's biases are inflicted on the site more often then, say, once a month. The elves are anonymous, so there would be no lobbying.

 

Could we please set up a default page with only the thumbs on view (no names and stats) and try it for a month? If people don't like it, they're one click away from what we have now.

James, I didn't mean to say nudes always garner good comments or ratings, but they tend to get a lot of them regardless.

 

And Brian, I'm not particularly concerned about my portfolio, or anyone else's in specific. But the system certainly seems to have been flooded to the point where new ratings on those of up who have been here a while (or new comments especially) just don't happen much any more.

 

I also agree with Carl (Root) that your statistics on the number of comments (and ratings) are wholly useless and too crude to tell us anything. I'm also not going to say there's an easy way to come up wiht meaningful statistics either. Particularly for the comments.

Well, Carl S, the statistics I've quoted may be simple, but they are a problem for someone who wants to argue that comments have decreased, because they show, inconveniently, that they have increased. Both in absolute numbers and per photo.

 

I guess people want more complicated statistics so they don't have to abandon their opinion. So they can say: well maybe comments have increased, but not "real" comments, so I'm right after all -- "real" being defined however required to make the opinion true.

 

Similarly, average length of comments hasn't changed for three years. That is a simple fact, rather inconvenient for the folks that think otherwise. Perhaps more complicated statistics will allow people to believe that comments have indeed gotten shorter, except for all those comments that shouldn't count, and which perversely seem to make it look like comments haven't gotten shorter.

 

But since it doesn't seem that people are going to let facts get in the way of their opinions, I think I'll just quit now with the statistics.