Ratings

Why is it when you put up a photo for rating that one of the first ratings,

normally within a few minutes, is 3/3. Irrelevent of the picture :-)

For the same reason that when you step outside on a lovely summer day, one of the first things that happens is large mosquito bite right in the middle of your forehead.

 

Which is to say, it's part of the territory. It's simply going to happen. There are people that reflexively dish out that rating for anything that they don't think is stellar, and they seem to crunch through a LOT of ratings. They're out there, just like the mosquitos, and you just have to take it in stride. That being said, I've just wandered through some of your stuff, and I'd say that many people simply won't "get" the street-ish stuff... they can't project themselves into the narrative of the image because they don't connect to it for some reason, and so they just see a snapshot. I'll confess to being pretty ruthless on rating images that I think are (aesthetically) lacking, because I hope that people will smack me around for poorly executed work, too. But "originality" is SO subjective that being uncomfortable with a stranger's estimation of yours isn't worth the time we've both spent typing! So, I'll stop now! I like your stuff, though.

With a high mark of 7 available and an average rating in region of about 5.5 the ratings on photo.net are quite obviously skewed. Looking at the ratings history of some members it's apparent that anything other than a 7/7 is unusual. If a ratings system is to work effectively it should at least show a mean distribution with as many poor ratings as excellent ratings, the bulk falling in between with the greatest concentration about the rating of 4.

Allowing for the fact that people are more likely to rate work that they like will account for a fair degree of skew but not as much as is actually seen. How often is work rated 1/7 or 7/1, such work does not seem to exist but it should !

A lot of very highly original work seems automatically to get a 7 for aesthetics, superb technical work immediately gets rated 7 for originality.

As a mediocre photographer I hold back from rating other peoples work and leave it for those better qualified, but if I did decide to leave ratings I hope I would do it after some carefull reflection rather than as a knee jerk reaction to the 'WoW' factor.

The standard on photo.net is high but contributers work should be rated on the basis of the general high standard of photo.net.

<i>"... one of the first ratings, normally within a few minutes, is 3/3. Irrelevent of the picture :-)"</i><P>

 

Respectfully, your perception does not match reality. Of your own last 10 critique requests, 5 do not have *any* 3/3's.<p>

 

That's not to say that "great" photos don't get "undeserved" low scores, because they often do. But I also see many mediocre photos get higher ratings than they probably should. As Phil Sutcliffe noted, the rating scores on this site are definitely skewed to the high side, and nobody (this is not directed at you) seems to want to accept that maybe some (or all) of their photos are below average (less than 4/4). Statistically, that's impossible.<p>

 

As to why you get ratings (3/3 or otherwise) almost immediately after you post a critique request, that's because when you post the photo it goes to the front of the ratings queue. Anyone who logs on to rate in the first few minutes after you post the photo sees your submission within the first few photos in the queue.<P>

In the end, ratings are only a popularity score from individuals whom you don't know. Don't worry about meaningless numbers, high or low, given by strangers. You'll feel a lot better at the end of the day. Keep shooting, share what you think is your best, and leave it at that.

Perhaps (or not) a more interesting question is how a photo that was put up for critique three days ago manages to get anonymous 3/3's. You really have to be intent on leaving an anonymous 3/3 to fight through all those pics.

It is entirely possible that I'm confused about some things, but I think when you first

submit an image it goes into the rate recent feature, where all ratings are registered

anonomously. That could account for some low scores.

 

I have noticed that if one of my photos happens to make it into a top rated list, quite often

I will get anonomous ratings of 3/3 days after anyone is rating or even viewing the image,

which would suggest there is a spiteful motivation or someone trying to climb the ladder

at my demise:-@ I think it is funny, you just have to laugh.

 

Overall, I agree with previous posters in that for the most part ratings are skewed on the

high side of reality (how many 7/7's should there really be?), and I think the originality

part is misused often. I also agree that 3/3 seems to be the preferred method of venting

your spleen or insulting someone on Photo.net. I have to admit I have seen members

criticized for negatively commenting against the consensus on a popular image, and I

think there is a general phobia about giving even constructive criticismfor fear of creating

animosity or retribution.

Great comments. Always good for a discussion. I was thinking we should:

 

- make a comment mandatory for a 3/3

- only allow 3/3 and 7/7 to be given for those who rate a lot of photos or whos own rating is above a certain level?

- Just remove the 1/1 and 2/2 ratings as no one wants to upset anyone with this rating and generaly just does not rate the photo if this is what they think.

 

 

Not loosing sleep over this :-)

Maybe we ought to track down some of those 3/3ers for an answer to that one!<br>

I wonder more about the rest of the initial stuff, mostly all being even 4/4s, 5/5, 6/6s ~ Is there any real evaluation happening at all?

I wouldn't worry about it... It really doesn't mean anything. I am just starting out in photography, so I'm sure I have deserved my fair share of 3/3's. but they are irrelevant. It's the critiques that matter. I have a few people that regularly critique my photo's, and I am truely greatful for even the harshest comments that they have to offer. This is how we learn. I figured when I joined this site, that is what the site was about, photographers helping each other to be the best we can be, not a popularity game. A 3/3 is just meaningless unless it is followed up with something. I admit, I rate alot of 6's, but to be honest with you, I don't normally look at something that doesn't peak my interest.

I made my first post on this thread after reading a post by Marc G. on a critique where previously he had been attacked for rating a work low but anonymously. To justify those figures Marc identified himself and gave a good,fair and spirited defense of his rating based on his view of the work. I wonder how many of those ladling out the 7/7s would be able to offer the same justification?

Marko,

I have come to this thread following a comment on my photo, for which I like to thank you.

I think there is a lot of 3/3 and 7/7 ratings, which are not understandable, even taking into consideration personal taste, experience etc. Everybody will accept 7/7 ratings, but wil have more difficulties with an unpopular 3/3. I think at the end the correct value is the average rating.

Anyhow I agree with Marko, that for the rating of 3/3 a comment should be obligatory, because the objectif should be to improve the quality and the approach to photography.

 

Heinz

Almost no one leaves negative ratings because(1) they don't want to be unpopular and (2) why take the time to rate a photo you don't care to look at (people open pictures they like; they skip over the ones with less potential--that's why a good photograph has thousands of viewings and ratings).

Here's an idea--is it possible to have a 7 for originality and a 3 for aesthetics? You won't see that rating on PN often, but it's entirely possible a poorly photographed scene is entirely unique. Originalty is often more difficult and photographers should be encouraged if they receive high ratings in this catagory. Bottom line? Maybe a picture deserves a 3/3, maybe it doesn't--a true "critiquer" will leave a comment telling you what you did well and what you did WRONG. Don't dwell on numbers.