Ratings on the rise?

Brian, have ratings been on the rise? The TRP in the last few weeks

has gone nuts. I have never seen such high scores being given to just

about anything.

 

Just a few sharing rates or is the site on a whole rising?

Dave, I've noticed they've gone way up, too. There's still the same group of mate raters with the obligatory 7/7's and I think that group has gotten larger and even more vigilant in their rating practices. I think ratings for the average Photo.net user has dropped with the anonymous rating system. Of course, this could just be my post-modern paranoia.

 

I think number of ratings, in the end, was a better method for showing TRP. Just a thought.

i agree with the comments above, and also wonder if the number of comments on photos has changed. my subjective experience is that the photos i have posted for critique in the last few months, versus about six months to a year ago, receive less comments and tougher ratings. this site seems to me to be a more competitive and less friendly place with regard to photo critiques. i hope for a day when the obsession with ratings ends like a fever that breaks, and the site managers and users focus more on giving each other meaningful and constructive feedback. the site is a wonder in many ways; my perception of the current trend re photo critiquing makes me sad.

Beautiful forum posting, Dave. You've done it again! 7/7

Basically by changing the TRP to total score rather than number of ratings, you have given even greater advantages to those in the habbit of mate-rating. Those images will now have even more visibility than ever before. I have seen with my own eyes, image after image that was rather ordinary being mate-rated to the first page on the TRP. I have also seen outstanding photographs down on page seven and beyond. These people were clearly not a part of this problem. When looking at who their highest rated images were from, none were of that same group of people on the first page. Brian has said he changed the TRP from total score, TO the number of ratings because of this very problem two years ago, to minimize the rewards of those doing this. Well they're back, so now what??

 

In addidtion, the time it takes to rate the people that took the time to rate my images, seems so much longer with all of the clicking and scrolling. This is not an exaggeration either. The entire experience has been somewhat diminished for me.

 

Brian has at least acknowledged recently that these recent changes of making the raters anonymous has somewhat de-personalized the experience here as well. Yes, there are less retaliations I would imagine from those changes. But like I've already said before, it's like throwing out the baby with the bath water. You tossed out something very positive, a more personal, interactive experience along with the dirty water!

 

Change is *supposed* to be for the better. So what's better??

Less aggro for Jeremy and whoever else looks after abuse@photo.net?

<i>"i hope for a day when the obsession with ratings ends like a fever that breaks, and the site managers and users focus more on giving each other meaningful and constructive feedback."</i><p>Ah, yes, that was the way the site was back <i>before</i> the ratings were implemented in the first place. I personally think the amount of constructive comments has gone up and the ratings abuse down since they because anonymous. The site is infinitely better this way. Seems the ones who miss it the most are those who loved mate rating and the ease in which one could add mates whenever a good rating was given on their images by reciprocating quickly and surely. Much harder to do that now. <p>I do not see a slew of higher ratings than before the ratings were anonymous. If anything I think overall, slowly but surely, we see higher ratings as the site becomes more popular and more amateurs join. Sometimes seems like less sophisticated photo-bugs rate very highly whenever they see another tourist calendar chocolate-box sunset or any other shot that is better than they think they can do. Not meant to be condescending towards less experienced photographers, just a subjective observation. In the same token I think the ratings on more controversial or more "artsy" images have gone lower.

"Seems the ones who miss it the most are those who loved mate rating and the ease in which one could add mates whenever a good rating was given on their images by reciprocating quickly and surely. Much harder to do that now. "

 

Um Richard, mate-rating is flourishing. What planet are you on??

MY SUGGESTION would be the sorting option to be able to look at top photos in reverse orders, i.e. show what's hiding at the bottom of the pile FIRST. This would give the bottom end just as much viewability as the top...and would make it much more interesting..is the real yecky stuff at the bottom, really?

Working through the images shows many of them with excellent quality not at the TOP but deeper down in the pond, often some 200+ images need to be skimmed thru before jewels start to appear.....

Guess I do not pay so much attention. But I still feel the community has a better "attitude" since the ratings went anonymous. I guess the hard-core mate-raters are trying harder, and perhaps succeeding, but as the same time many others gave up and it shows. Then again perhaps I'm not as attracted to the types of images receiving the worst sort of mate-rating and therefore do not notice it as much.

John, no need to skim through 200+ images; just go to page 1 and click previous to start at the bottom. And you're right, I often do this for a diversion and find many interesting shots deserving of greater visibility. Your suggestion to reverse the order, at least occasionally, is a good one and would do well to stir the stagnant pot.

Mate rating was bad enough before, but now you can stand in front of a wall, take a picture of someones graffiti and get an average of 6 for originality - if you're in the clique, of course.

 

It's embarrassing.

It seems to me that the first page of the TRPs is the most ambitioned prize (after the PoW, of course), that all of us would like to reach; no doubt that it means more visibility, not only for the shown shot, but for the rest of our portofolios too. Then many people would do whatever is possible to send theirs shots there, and that means the good moves and the not so fair ones.

 

This kind of things have been happening since I joined, and before that too: new set of countermessures is introduced to skip the "wrong behaviour" or "unfair gamming" of some photographers, but after a couple of weeks they find the way around the new obstacle to re-enter the game. The worst problem of this, is that some people do not play fairly, but they think they are doing it right.

 

Perhaps a more sophisticated solution would be to make the TRP default option an aleatory one, one day it can be the nbr. of ratings, the next the most originally rated, the next the most commented ones, and so on.

 

But this would mean more work for Brian, and I'm not sure anymore that it would solve the problem. This is a never-ending story.

Originality 7, Aesthetics 7, Comment "nice graffiti" or "nice colours".

 

All eventualities covered.

Not sure whether ratings are on the rise since ratings became semi-anonymous. But what I have noticed is that ratings have always been on the rise if we look at very large time periods. The day I saw hundreds of pictures every month rated well above 6/6 in average, it became obvious to me that the rating system had stopped to be of any use for us to find the best pictures in the TRP. And that happened about a year and a half or 2 years ago, I suppose...

 

I also remember writing in some feedback forum thread somewhere, when 7/7 rubber-stamping started to appear, that mate-rating was to be stopped one way or another as soon as possible. I did announce that the number of high ratings on the site was bound to rise, and that mate-rating groups were going to grow larger and larger. I wish I could find this thread again. What you see in the TRP nowadays is basically something which was easy to forsee. People like me who still consider that a rating of 5/6 is very good rating have for long understood that PN ratings no longer have any credibility, and have been outplayed by the new powers that be - i.e the mate-raters...:-)

 

One of the most obvious solutions to this problem, as I see it - and as I said long ago -, is simply to limit for each photographer the number of extremely high ratings he can distribute. For so many years on photo.net, I've been asking myself how the site could find any legitimity to the 7/7s distributed by those who rate dozens of pictures per day a 7/7 or a 7/6. Can we actually PREFER EVERYTHING ?! Makes absolutely no sense.

 

The solution today would be to create an "8" rating. If we create this "8" rating ("outstanding" or "stunning") today, it will become the ceiling of the rating scale; it will mean MORE or BETTER than "excellent", and of course, each individual photographer will have A LIMITED NUMBER of 8s to spend.

 

This would mean that everyone would from tomorrow onwards need to take the time to look back (if they wish to) at all the pictures they rated so far a 7/7, and they will have to CHOOSE which of these pictures they wish to give an 8/7 or an 8/8 to, instead of the old 7/7. Then each individual would be given the same weight in the system, whereas now, it is obvious that those who use more 7s simply win "the game" - and it seems they believe there's some worth in winning it...:-) Creating a higher rating than 7 is photo.net's last chance to save the rating system imo, as it will give more weight to reasonable raters as opposed to mate-raters and idiotic raters. For this to work, the number of "8s" must be limited AND new members should not be able to use 8s immediately upon registration.

 

Till the site does something of that sort (or reforms entirely the system), the site's tacit law will always be: those distributing 7s like they'd print fake bank notes will always take the front spots in the TRP.

Mark, when n number of folks dump their n number of images in the stewpot that is photo.net, the grease floats to the top. the heavy stuff floats to the bottom. The average in between should be the yummy stuff. The n number is not controllable. The type of grease at the top is an unknown. The size of the pot is a variable which adjust itself constantly to the n number of images. The ratings/points are essentially the stirring stick that agitates the ambiguous pot. The grease on the top becomes the most visible part. Top heavy ratings cause the grease layer to get thicker and thicker. For me, 7 is high enough. Adding an 8 would cause lumps in the grease. Since I consider the 7 to be overused right now and the "1" rating highly underused, I would consider metering the 7 and the 6 as well.

Hanna; thanks, going in reverse gear does make the bottom ALREADY AVAILABLE.

How about limiting the amount of times within a set period that you can rate another members pictures?

 

I know it's not perfect, but surely something can be done? I know I've complained several times before about mate raters, but now it's more obvious than ever!

This is not just "mate rating" thats causing this in my opinion. Perhaps you read the points i brought up in POW icemushroom...it wasn't meant as a "dis" to that photo per se but to digital itself.

 

I shoot an F5 and have been sitting in the back row looking at all the "Top Dogs" seascapes etc getting solid 6/6 7/7....wondering, what exactly gives these pics there sureal look that everyone goes gaga over...try to define that..they arent truly high quality when zoomed but have this "dreamy", "storybook" quality that the average viewer is thrown back in his chair by.

 

The folks above here all sound like vet photgraphers. I know very little on the techno end BUT do have eyes....So it suddenly came together while trying to define this "look" of digital...they cannot shoot through windows or show glass as we know it or as film does it. Its true, pay attention and go try find just one good shot of a reflection...look at what appears to be reflection in the images themselves...any image, any reflection..its like painted on and all muddled rather than being a true spectral highlite...zoom a film one then a dig one you'll see what i'm saying here.

 

Ever look at thermal images? Pay attention to the glass, black putty. It won't penetrate glass either. Now i'm not some raving lunitic obsessed with destoying the digital industry but i think the trend you are discussing here is more inflenced by this phenominia than peoples friends boosting ratings. It also has very dangerous implications for how we view photography as a whole on here.

 

We rate in 2 ways here...art, composure, skill.etc...and quality. Now hoards of people are looking at some bird shot with a high end digit rating them through the roof...and they are very stunning no doubt..but why?...its from what the camera CAN'T do rather than something it does better. Its what your NOT seeing...light refraction, that gives it its sureal look. The windows are the weak point where you can find this "flaw", but it actually goes across the entire spectrum..it will relect things as objects yes..but it cant deal with refraction yet....doesn't have the megs.

 

REFRACTION..the process by which,or the extent to which,light,sound etc is refracted when passing obliquely through the interface between one medium and another or through a medium of varying density.

 

I been under the impression that photography was 2 things...art/creativity or replication of reality as we view it with the human eye and/or the combination.

 

Now we have the majority of the highend large format/quality cameras and the guy behind them, whos been learning for 30 years how to express art with reality...being blown away by some novice with a $150 digital and photoshop. People see a world with a huge missing element and unknowingly label it as something superior as opposed to inferior...their brain doesn't have to calculate the massive reflections, and it becomes a world less complex than this one subconciously...the camera doesn't even shoot a window as we see it, how can it give a true rendition of our world here?...One point here, take any one of these 7/7 digi shots and greyscale it...looks a lot like b&w infared to me.

 

A guy doesn't plunk down 10 grand for a lens cause he's an idiot.. these lens are all about the gathering of light in the highest form possible. If the camera or medium itself can't deal with whats coming in to it then it belongs where this post is titled.

 

Maybe i'm way off base here, and someone much more knowledgable can explain this better, i only been putting 2+2 together and if i am only even partialy right on some of this then the definition of what we call a 7 is in big trouble.

 

Going to attach some of the very best digital glass shots i could find. Hope this is ok to do, reposting. Its only done to demonstate the point here and to get some answers. I find the bottom right most interesting..it attempts to do it but fizzles out...thats from the image above it. In none of these or any i have seen from even across a street...they will not penetrate glass.....yikes.

Can't edit on here i guess? Anyway i renamed subject thinking it would title my post, i see that title at page top now, but not beside the thread...so to clarify "belongs where this post is titled.", i titled it "the digital landfill site"....its late,i'm new....sorry.

You have missed the point. BTW some of the worst overrated images going right now are all done w. Film, shot poorly or mismanipulated..you're on a tangent. Here's a link to a nice film image...http://www.photo.net/photo/2720384

Paul,

With the utmost respect, I don't think you've been around here that long to appreciate fully what I, Mark G and others are talking about on the subject of mate raters spoiling the site.

 

Unfortunately you appear to have missed the point. I don't think it's a problem of digital images myself.

Well, I suppose ALL of us should look at the ratings we have been giving out. Dave's curve appears to peak over around 5/6 and he doesn't or rarely hands out the nasty ratings. So he's actually a high scorer himself. Lately, I have started to hand out lower ratings than before.

To John Falkenstine,

 

You wrote: "Since I consider the 7 to be overused right now and the "1" rating highly underused, I would consider metering the 7 and the 6 as well."

 

I would have agreed with this obviously, BUT... let me clarify this idea of having an 8 rating... It's got absolutely nothing to do with adding an additionnal rating for the sake of adding one, because I do not, at all, think that a scale of seven ratings is too short... The reason why I'm proposing 8s is simply that it's now too late to limit 7s... Why too late ? Because some folks have already distributed dozens of 7/6 and 7/7 each single day for a few months. So, 7s have no value anymore and we can't limit them either because they are everywhere - and many would shout if we were to change the ratings they gave to lower ratings...:-)

 

Besides that, John, you also mention here that Dave N. is a high rater himself... But... If one only rates what he likes, his average will be quite high over a long time period, although he may in actual fact be quite demanding. A mate-rater, on the other hand, rates higher in the first place, but mostly, would rate 30 pictures a day at 7/7 and would rate the same photographers high all the time - good shots and bad ones alike...

 

Finally, to Mark Lukas...

 

YES, based on the above, limiting the number of ratings (or "high" ratings) a given photographer can give to another one over a period of time makes sense too - although it may deprive really great photographers from receiving their due... At this stage, I'd say such a limitation is still worth implementing, BUT... it would only help the site if it would have a retroactive effect on the hundreds of 7/7s exchanged by mate-raters over the last months... Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of reform photo.net can hardly give a try to. Why ? Well, how do you think a mate-rater would feel if he'd loose in a day a couple of hundreds of 7/7s preciously collected from a couple of zealous mates...? You wouldn't want these folks to cry all day long, would you...? :-) Photo.net can't really afford financially - I suppose - to annoy too much such a large crowd - or can they...?