the 3/3 guy strikes again

something needs to be done about the 3/3 guy. this is so unfair.

not just for myself, but for so many fine photographers who post

there hard work here. there must be something that can be done to

stop this blaten degregation of artistic work,and the demeaning of

this great site.

i,ll give you an example, it,s not a Mona Lisa, but it ain,t a 3/3 eather

I've been getting a few 3/3's here and there. Ansel Adams I am not, and I know it. But I was surprised to see scores THAT low.

 

Of course, maybe my photos really are that bad, sometimes. :) But still...it felt rather low, regardless! I guess it just shows that my treasure is someone else's trash, hmmmm?

 

Jennifer

When you refer to "the 3/3 guy", you imply that all 3/3's on photos in your portfolio come from the same person, or even predominantly from one person. This is not true. On a scale from 1 to 7, 3 means somewhat below average: the low side of average, if you will. Most photos submitted for critique on photo.net should be in the the 3 to 5 range. So, your sentiment that 3/3 is "very" low also doesn't make sense.

1.I didn't see any link to the "Mona Lisa".

 

2.Since i am a perfect example of 3/3s receipient , it seems to me that most of the times a 3/3 reflects on my ability to take pictures rather on the malicious 3/3 guy actions.

<b>Will 1 and 2 rates ever come back?</b> without them, the rating scale is rather odd: A 3 could mean anything from bellow average to plain garbage. When the 1 and 2 were available, most members did not felt so strong about a 3.

<p><i>"On a scale from 1 to 7, 3 means somewhat below average: the low side of average, if you will."</i></p>

 

<p>Actually, according to the site's definition, a ﾓ3ﾔ rating means "below average", not ﾓsomewhat below averageﾔ. Perhaps itﾒs time to update the rating definitions.</p>

The scale isn't odd. It is a 1 to 7 scale, and you can rate photos 1 and 2 if you choose. At present the 1 and 2 ratings are suspended indefinitely, but they are in the database, you can use these values if you wish, and they might be used again in rating calculations at some point. In a 1-7 scale, 4 is average and 3 means "below average". There should be as many 3 ratings as 5 ratings, and the vast majority of photos should be rated in the 3 to 5 range, with only exceptionally good photos being rated 6 and 7, or exceptionally bad photos being rated 1 and 2. Since they are currently suspended, I don't expect people to be using 1 and 2 ratings, but if they were in use, there should be as many 6's as 2's, and 7's as 1's. It is not a 1 to 5 scale, just moved up 2 points.

I'd be curious to see just which picture you think the 3/3 is inappropriate on. When people complain about 3's in Site Feedback and cited a specific image, it has been almost universally an image that a reasonable person could rate that way. Far from blatant degradation.

 

That said, I've also been reasonably impressed with just how childish and ridiculously people can behave around ratings here, and it wouldn't surprise me if many of those ratings were designed to manipulate averages. That's reprehensible, but those people are going to be utter losers whatever the rules are. It's a big site with an open door and the top rated photos (seemingly everyone's goals) are usually a) good photos, and b) not inclusive of all good photos or representative of the range of good work submitted. That's just the way it is and nothing the Brian does can change that people who want to will find a way to game the system. Hopefully, that's not the only reason we're here.

Heh, it's supposed to read "...that Brian does" above, though it is a little funny to think of him as "The Brian".

maybe your right Brian, maybe most of us only do average and below average work,and we should come to terms with that fact,knowing we only do average work,and not bother posting our work,because we by now already know what the rateings will be. thanks for the advice.

sincerly Mr.Average(aka;joe baker)

Joe, the statement is true by definition. The majority of any population is average for that population, or only slightly above or below, on any dimension you care to look at. It is amazing that this tautological statement surprises people. In fact, numerous studies have shown that most people consider themselves above average. For example, a large survey a few years ago of college football players found that more than two-thirds of them thought they were among the best players on their teams. Of course, it is statistically impossible that most of them were correct.

 

If it is any consolation, photo.net photographers are no doubt much above average, as photographers, compared to people in general, since many people barely know which end of the camera is the front. Being average for photo.net means that most people will consider you to be a pretty darn good photographer. But in the rating system we aren't comparing ourselves to grandma. The universe is "people submitting photos for critique on photo.net". Of course, photo.net photographers are much below average, on the whole, compared to the photographers who belong to Magnum Photos, or who are employed by National Geographic.

 

Many years ago, I used to play tournament chess. I was "above average" for a tournament player, judging from my rating. However, the odds of my beating Gary Kasparov, who was the world champion at the time, were still only one in a thousand.

Brain, if you saw my comments in the forms I think they should show the persons name next to there rate just like they do if you rated by a member so non member don't show ratings, that's why I don't think non- members should be able to rate I kind like the rating thing . I think it makes it fun. as a beginner that I am. I have the fun on this site and enjoy it very much. and if they leave a low rating they need to leave a comment to help us improve or to look at things in other ways. but you will find out the guy that left the 3/3 will always be there and stuck in your mind why did he rate this so low and you cannot go to his page to see his work. if you rate on my picture I got to your page IF know who you are and look and see what you have done good or bad..just my thinking but no need to response to this on my behalf. like I said before if more people would join for the low cost of 25.00 a year the people that own this site could afford to make it better for all of us. Now watch the comments I get from the non- paying people...........:D

the above was for Joe baker Not brain sorry

As much as I enjoy this indefinite respite from 1's and 2's, I must agree with Mr Marcus above and reiterate his question: when will the lower ratings return? To have them only hypothetically available, as we do now, really unbalances any meaning that this system had. <p>

But do not just bring them back for everyone to use, because then you will have the same trolling situation that prompted their suspension. Rather, allow their use only by paying members who have a demonstrable track record on this site. There are many previous threads in this forum with suggestions regarding this topic. And you can do the same for the "7" rates as well, because we <i>all</i> know how much abuse those have caused.

Sorry...it was Mr Keller who posed the question to which I refer.

I think the 1s and 2s should be brought back. I have seen a lot of photos on this site that, in my opinion were exceptional. Of course these photos were averaging in the high 6s, but every now and then you would see a 1 or a 2. Of course whomever left these low ratings did do not on the merits of the photograph, but rather for self agenda or just ot be rude and obnoxious.

 

So here's my proposal: Bring back the 1 and 2 ratings, and even let it be anonymous, but randomly pick anonymous 1 and 2 ratings and display the name next to the rate. When someone is prepared to give a 1 or a 2, have a small discalimer that states you could be chosen randomly to have your name displayed next to your rate. Matter of fact, this would be a good idea for all anonymous ratings. It's about time people stop hiding behind a curtain.

Brian, here's a thought I just had, it could work, not sure how tough it would be though...

 

People would be much less likely to mate rate or dish out dirt if we had an allocation of the number of 1,2,3,4,5, 6 and 7's we could actually give.

 

I'm not sure what mechanism could be used to calculate how many we have in our pool to give out but how about this...

 

We all know that things usually conform to a standard deviation, if you were to take the total number of images submitted per day (or week probably may probably be better), and divide that by the number of active users per day, then a figure can be calculated as to how many of each rating (ie 1,2,3,4,5,6,7) each member can give per day.

 

So, we may have 1 (1) to give, 4 (2)'s 20 (3)'s 40 (4)'s 20 (5)'s 4 (6)'s 1 (7). To further fine tune, since some people rate more than others, a multiplier could be calculated based on the average rates per day a person has given in the past, this way people who want to progressively give more ratings can do so - but they are still limited to a standard deviation. Whether they choose to use all their avialable rates is another question.

 

Some thoughts if something like this were to be implemented:

 

New users, would need an initial seed quota for each rating in order to get started.

 

Paying members, could perhaps have a flatter curve with more at either end available.

 

To stop people hordeing their cache of rates, they may need to be aged? or just reset every day?

 

I know this would be complicated to implement but it MAY be an end to posts of this nature.

Not that not having rates worries me but, I submitted a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4038126" >picture</a> for ratings hours ago and it has not collected a single number (not even the authomatic 3/3 that started this thread). Does that means that I have only collected the invisible 1s and 2s? am I too impacient? Just wondering...

i still think the name of the persons rating needs to show. there the one that rated at what ever they rated it at....:D

Since I'm a non-paying member (simply because I don't use any of the benefits offered by membership, nor do I host pictures here...in fact all I do is offer answers to questions I can, and rate some images because they are requests) my opinion doesn't count (sarcasm), but until the owners decide to make this a pay site only, people are pretty much allowed to rate, post questions and answers as they see fit, provided they follow an unspoken decorum of the site, which is to do so in a polite and friendly manner. Many people who post here use the site in a variety of ways, some to host their images (instead of getting a site of their own), ask questions without returning the favor and answering questions, and to just answer questions, thus sharing their experience with others. If this site were to be a pay site only, I couldn't justify the expense, because I don't need or use any of the benefits of paid membership. I do, however, offer years of experience, which if I had to put a price on it would certainly be more than $25. I also, just to help support the site, do click thru's, which according to the membership page, contributes 50% of PN's operating bidget. The other 50% is thru paid memberships. So actually I contribute more than people who pay $25...by click thru's and years of experience. And I think PN is better off having experienced users here who can offer advice, rather than just a bunch of people who aren't quite as experienced. But thats just a worthless opinion (sarcasm again).

 

As for the ratings, take them for what they are...just numbers. You don't win anything by having all 7's. One should take them for what they are, opinions. There are lots of people who won't like your image, and that's normal. Most successful artists shoot for themselves, and don't care what people say who don't like their work. That too is normal...thats how it works in the real world.

 

Alexis

There is, of course, also the posibility of submiting the pictures for "critique only". If you cannot accept that some people rate your images (relativelly) low, then you can always use that option. I myself use the ratings option because I have the impresion that more people will get to see my images. But I would trade all my (very rare) 7's for usefull comments.

</p><p>

This topics are really becoming repetitive. Take a look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009jfh" >this thread</a>. Also, if you think that your image did not got what it deserved then use <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/nw-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DowH" >this other thread</a>.

Hey gang, Brian's made it crystal clear that the ratings system is primarily used as a sort mechanism for the TRP, which has to have SOME sort mechanism. A low rate stings, sure - but without a comment as to why they thought that, it's nothing but a squiggly line, and means squat. Every time a person rates with a "3," they have the option to comment as to why it's a 3 in their mind's eye...if they don't? Useless remark you shouldn't take to heart. No one can like everything - they can hate nudes, birds, sunset landscapes, lighthouses...it's their preference, just like their favorite flavor of ice cream. They don't have to like chocolate just 'cause the mayor of New Orleans does.

 

Best part about this site, I think, is the forums, and the gang of fellow photogs you can ask to shoot you straight, critiquing with honesty they know is welcome.

 

Give up rating for New Years - it's working for me.

 

Focus on soliciting feedback from folks here who won't cut you slack...and thank 'em all for it. The kudos will always be nice, the non-commented low rates always annoying.

Well said Alexis!

Alexis Neel dont you have a link going to your own site for your bussniess? i think most people would have to pay to advertize here. is that why you dont post your pics so they have to go to your webpage? Free advertizement? :D