Repetitive Requests for Critiques

I may be incorrect, but wasn't there a time where a photo was

submitted for critique request only one time? I see where the same

photos by certain makers keep showing up again and again with really

no changes or alterations to it. These people looking to bolster or

gather ratings by increased exposure? I would like to see one shot.

Once a photo has had it's shot in the critique request forum that's

it.

Much debate over this issue can be found <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006tZZ"><b>HERE</b></a>.

and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006omn">here</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00767k">here too</a>.

This is a problem which I find to be a turnoff, but photo.net is not convinced...

John,

 

Seems a few things they're not convinced about. Doesn't appear they much listen to their subscribers

After reading some of the discussions for some time now, I think some of the problems noted repetitively should need some attention, but I doubt if anything will happen. While some improvements have been made (new servers) the only changes to the overall format were made not because of input, but because the servers were overloading.

Brian did make a change. He removed the option to delete a critique request, thereby removing the possibility of resubmitting it to the list. If you're seeing the same image, rather than a similar one, and it has all the rates and comments intact, and you're quite sure that you recall seeing it on the unified forum list before (which addresses the timing of the request) then there's something funny going on.

 

I suspect you're seeing similars or ones with rates that had been received prior to the RFC.

Carl, I was quite pleased to see you state that change. But <B>it is</B> still possible to delete and re-request. I just did it <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=007VGp&photo_id=2105376&photo_sel_index=0">here </a>. <BR> I labelled my critique as test test test.

Carl, this morning I did exactly what we're talking about as a test, successfully. I simply deleted the request and reposted the exact same photo with no alteration an hour or so later

I recall removing the ability to delete critique requests, as Carl says. It isn't clear to me how this capability has sprung back into existence.

Recently, I delected numerous critique requests of mine, simply because they were old and no longer topics of attention. With the crash yesterday I also deleted a series of requests, because they were only coming up as blanks anyway. The intent here was to purge useless files but hopefully also make a small contribution to reducing server load.

Curiously while having morning coffee this AM I watched a photo reach the bottom of the critique list as other users uploaded. Shortly after hitting the bottom of the list and disappearing from sight it popped up again at the top of the critique list. Same comments and ratings. I decided to give it a go, but waited a short period. It works. Simply delete the request, return to the photo in it's full state under one's folder and request a critique. Up it comes. Happens quite often, actually

I am one of the MANY PNetters who will delete and then resubmit a photo

critique request. If the ability to do this has been eliminated from the system,

then so be it (I don't think it has). Despite much discussion, it was never

against the forum �rules� to do this.

 

Why do I resubmit critique requests? From my experience, it appears that

photos are taken out of the initial critique viewing cycle when they have

reached 10-11 ratings. I am of the opinion, which is shared by MANY other

PNetters, that the cutoff for removal from the initial critique viewing cycle

should be increased substantially, as 10-11 ratings are NOT enough to reach

a consensus as to how other PNetters perceive a photo. This is especially

true if you have received ratings, but few if any meaningful comments, or if

your ratings cover a broad range from very low to very high.

 

The argument has been made that if a photo is really good, it will rise to the

top. While this is often the case, it is NOT always the case. Once a photo is

taken out of the regular critique viewing cycle, it�s chances of being viewed by

most PNetters is slim to none, because most PNetters don�t take the time to

view anything but the first two or three Top Ratings pages.

 

PN has a worldwide membership covering all time zones. By resubmitting a

critique request 3-4 times during its first 24 hours in the critique forum, you

have a greater opportunity for it to be seen by PNetters who might otherwise

miss it.

 

While we�re on the topic of the critique forum, I�ll also add that, like many

PNetters, I would strongly favor a critique system that requires that a comment

be made prior to rating a photo. This should definitely be required for giving

very low ratings (1-2) and, perhaps, for giving very high ratings (6-7). I would

also favor a system in which ratings lower than 4 can only be given by

PNetters who have uploaded photos of their own. It disgusts me to receive a

rating of 1-3 from someone with no uploads of their own, especially from

those individuals whose average ratings are well below 4. This change would

eliminate a lot of the bogus raters from the system. While it�s certainly possible

that there are an equal or greater number of bogus raters who overrate

photos, the fact is that an inflated rating is much less likely to offend than an

inappropriately low rating. I would also favor a change that would eliminate

the lowest AND highest ratings for a photo in calculating its average ratings

scores.

 

Well, I�m glad I got all that off my chest. I�ve read all the arguments for and

against implementing changes such as those that I�ve mentioned above for

the critique forum. Be assured that I�ve carefully considered those arguments

during the process of formulating my own opinions regarding the forum.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

<i>"These people looking to bolster or gather ratings by increased exposure?"</i><BR>

<i>"Despite much discussion, it was never against the forum �rules� to do this."</i><BR><BR>

While there may be some people who do this in search of "increased exposure" (and many others who are oblivious to this "problem" and are honestly "rebooting" their request), I think that if this is viewed as a problem, it would mean that the problem is utilizing this "loophole" in the system to seek exposure; giving weight to this would then beg the question of "are ratings important?" Notice (as if nobody hasn't) how good ratings (good ratings attract good ratings, bad ratings attract bad ratings...or some innate malevolence I guess) bolster and propel you to the "Top Photos" (a misnomer, in my opinion); if ratings are sought for exposure, then it follows that bad ratings on a decent or very good picture is a way of undermining that photo's potential to being recognized...and this drive for recognition then validates the view of many who think the process is an inherent competition, which is at odds with the many voices who cannot possibly understand why people get so upset about ratings abuse and the need to <i>reform</i> the system.<BR>

So, of course, I've come to believe that the strategy of the Elves is to ignore and hope that the issue will go away (which it won't).

I agree with Steve, especially about the timezones. On some times twenty people rate or comment within an hour, on other times it's close to none. That depend very much on the hour you post and who is awake then. When Americans wake up, it's here (Holland) late afternoon. I reposted my pictures for the reason that many people can see them and say something about it, so I will learn from it; not to spoil the system. I regret that this function is disabled. I think the interactivity of Pnet loses much of it's power with that discision.

 

Kind regards, Marc van Naamen.

<i>I agree with Steve, especially about the timezones. On some times twenty people rate or comment within an hour, on other times it's close to none. That depend very much on the hour you post and who is awake then. </i><br><br>

But if less people are on Photo.net it also means that there should be less people uploading images and bumping your photo down the list. Therefore your image should get seen by approximately the same number of people no matter what time it gets posted. The only difference being <b>which</b> people see it. The short of it is that reposting critique requests is a selfish way of gaining exposure. I'm glad its been re-disabled. A much more selfless way to gain exposure is through offering critiques.

I have observed many instances when lots of photos are being submitted to

the critique forum, but little rating is going on. Strange, but true.

 

I maintain that a major problem with the critique forum is that the quota for

removing a photo from the initial critique viewing rotation is too low. Currently,

it appears to be 10 or 11. It was suggested on a related thread that the cutoff

should be raised to 20. IMO, that's a GREAT suggestion.

I agree that time zones are a factor, and already know a bit about how to "time" the release of an image....but..more on this later.