The anonymity thing

Several weeks ago, I posted for criticism and ratings an image that I

thought was pleasant enough but nothing spectacular--the interplay

between the subjects made the shot appealing to me (I captioned it

"Good company"). The 10 ratings the photo received averaged 4.30/4.30;

among the ratings was a 1/1. Of course, I'd like to know something

about all of the raters--those persons who gave the image 6s, 5s, and

4s (and one 3)--but I'd especially like to know something about the

person who thought the image was god-awful and what led that person to

such a conclusion. Yes, perhaps he or she was just having a bad day or

maybe he or she simply detested photos of couples enjoying each

other's company; in any case, such knowledge would be useful. It is a

particular disservice not to be provided with the means of obtaining

that information.

I do not think you are going to get that information that is why there are anonymous rate in the RR.

It is clear the if you get 4,5,6 or 7s the chances of the 1 be right is very low.

I think that person had a bad day.

On several occasions I have suggested that, in addition to the "photos rated highest by this person" information in the individual profile, we have "photos rated lowest by this person" information. I think it would be fascinating. No takers so far. And there is always the chance that the person who rated your photo a 1/1 wasn't really a person.

Cheers.

I do have a suggestion that may help improve the rating system. However, since no moderator has responsed to my last suggestion, I'm not sure if they want to hear another one.

 

How about adding this rule to the rating subroutine: For every 20 rates given, throw away (delete) the highest and the lowest rate. If there is a tie breaker, break the tie by the date that the rater joined PN. Of course, whoever rate get deleted, that person can come back an rate that same photo again if he/she wants to. Of course, that same rater may give you another 1/1 or 7/7 too...in this case, it may be deleted again in the next cycle. Note: 20 is just a suggested number. You could go with 20, 50, 100, 250, 1000 cycles instead of 20, 40, 60, 80, .... and so on.

 

Actually, this idea isn't original. I learned this by watching Figure Staking event on TV where they throw away the lowest and the highest score. I think that would make the system fairer. What do you think?

As a practical matter, having the person's name is unlikely to produce much useful information anyway. My guess it that the 1/1 people would often just ignore request for more information. Sometimes they might not, but as a trade-off against revenge rating and the need for more moderation time, that information might not be of enough benefit in the grander sense. I'm for transparency in general, though - the only reason we have to deal with anything else is the tragically misguided ways in which some people spend their online time.

 

On the other hand, I think the photo's-lowest-rated-by idea is simply likely to produce trouble. It might be an interesting way to learn about critics' biases, but here, given the way some people behave, would likely be mis-used and abused.

Phong - I think it's another complication that the people who want to abuse the system will find a way around easily.

Instead of publishing the rater name, why not just publishing his/her rating habits instead (no name! Just his/her rating history). For example, if I got a 2/2 from a rater who has never given any rate higher than 3/3, I would consider that's pretty good. Well actually, I would consider that rater as art hater and just ignore him/her.

To Marshall,

 

How aobut given the photo owner the ability to remove one of the lowest and highest rate. Note, the removal screen will ask you to pick one of the low and one of the high; you must pick both low and high for it to work. For example,

 

1/1

1/1

5/5

5/5

7/7

 

If you like, you can fix your rate to

 

1/1

5/5

5/5

 

by removing the 1/1 and 7/7. If you do it again, it will become

 

5/5

 

Does that seem reasonable? That's what I call "Power to the People"!;)

I would gladly trade any 5/5 or 6/6 ratings I get for a 1/1 with a commentary. The rates get the photo noticed, that's it. While I like the notoriety ratings provide, I'd prefer the instruction and feedback. I guess I could go critique only, but there is still the ego to boost, and even 20 1/1's means that someone hates your work bad enough to take the time. I'd just like to know why!

Hi Chris,

 

Me too! I would be happy to trade a 6/6 or even 7/7 for a 1/1 with a commentary. However, I don't think that will ever happen because...how many time have any of us have given out 1/1 "and" leave commentary? If we don't do it, we can't really expect others to do that for us.

I agree with Chris, lets face it most of us post our pictures to get feedback so that we can improve our skills.

Maybe it is an idea if you give a rating you MUST give a a comment.. like on other photo review sites (PP and so on) AND what about if someone givs you 1/1 you have the option of requesting a comment from him/her - this could be 100% anonymous so the the person giving 1/1 does not feel revenge is on its way.

Rating on photo.net isn't "feedback". I can't imagine how anyone ever got the idea that it was, and other sites that pretend that rating is feedback are just pulling the wool over your eyes. Rating on photo.net is about visibility for your photos, which may lead to real feedback, in the form of comments.

 

Some people believe that rating can provide them with some information about how popular their photos might be by the standards of public taste. I think that might be true -- but only if there are enough ratings on a photo, and only if one looks only at the distribution and the averages. An individual rating, by itself, is of almost no value as feedback. Except in rare cases, where you are very familiar with the tastes and rating history of the rater, a single rating doesn't even become all that useful if you know who gave it.

 

These are basically the premises of the photo.net rating system.

Brian, no doubt about what you're saying. I find it whimsical, amusing and often uproariously funny the things said about ratings in general. They are useless except as a tool for visibility, and if you know how to play the photonet game, you can be a very average photographer and get lots of visibility. I have no aspirations to be "discovered" on photonet, but there are many, many excellent photographers, many of whom go out of their way to help a kindred spirit improve his or her craft. It's a community, and perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree for a sense of relationship with others sharing a similar passion. I love that I get some visibility, and I truly smile when I get 1/1's sprinkled with 6/6's. I'm not that bad, nor that good. But requesting feedback when your work is rated on either side of the bell curve shouldn't be like pulling teeth. And when I get ratings across the spectrum I know I've succeeded in producing a decent photo.

I propose an idea before but I never got answer, why not force people to put a comment when rating from 3 and bellow?

Then either they rate bad and comment or do not. They can still be anonymous but at least we will get our 1 and 2 but commented or?

Because the comment would be something like "%^*$&*(&)*(*()".

This happens to me often. Ashamed as I am to admit it, I've noticed quite often that someone will rate my photo in the 4-6 area...then someone else will, and someone else...then all of the sudden after some number of plausible ratings, someone goes in and give it a really poor rating, like 1/1. I'd understand if the first 10 ratings were not higher, but the fact that a whole handful of readers saw the image as at least average, that the person going in and putting a 1/1 there is certainly doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with the image.

 

I don't care really, I much prefer comments, positive or negative, to a blind rating.

Barry, ok I supposse that was Finnish, but then not need to be anonymous.

Shawn, probably the person rating an image like that 1/1 is reacting with exasperation to the high ratings, and going lower than he might otherwise in order to cancel ratings that he feels are higher than the photo merits.

 

Of course, this is not really proper and if there was proof that someone were doing that, such as high proportion of low ratings, or perhaps even a comment admitting it, we would remove the rating.

 

However, unless there is some evidence, we don't act on mere suspicion, and generally take the attitude that people are entitled to their opinions, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Generally the too-low and the too-high ratings come out in the wash. (Actually, since we scrutinize the too-low ratings more than the too-high ones, it is generally the too-high ratings that don't come out in the wash. This is reflected in the averages.)

OK guys, I think we're taking this rating stuff a little too seriously. I mean, I don't get paid to take pictures. I do it because I like to take pictures. If you enjoy the pictures I post, I appreciate it. If you give me 1's and 2's with no comment, peace and joy be with you. The only rating system I care about, and the only one you should care about, is the number of my shots that are hanging in frames on people's walls. ( And that number is considerable. )

Remember, take pictures that mean something to you, and don't agonize over what anyone else thinks.

Personally, except for that occasional child-like innocent "ohhhh....!' I get when I see a 1/1, it doesn't really affect me. What always means more is, even if you HATE my photo, you are perfectly so entitled, but help me grow, or see another perspective...and offer me a reason. Hate it, I don't mind, just be decent and tell me why.

 

What I DO find very interesting, is when I am personally very happy with something...and it gets mediocre ratings...but something I put up that was mediocre to myself, gets great ratings. We know ourselves the least, indeed, sometimes.

 

If I'm serious about it, I knock off all of the 1s, and all of the 7s, and see how it fared in the 2-6 range...usually, knock on wood, that's not dramatically affected...by negative people...and hey, even I can suck up the occasional 2/2 if it's an honest opinion.

 

Shawn

Shawn, there are a lot of people who aren't as open minded and friendly as you are. You could test that out, you know. Just go ahead and give some of the top photos 1/1 and leave kind comments to see what happen next.

As a newby, I will share my multiple perceptions regarding a rating system about which I

cannot yet understand.

 

It seemed like no one was visiting my newly hatched location, so I started asking for

critiques. The few I've gotten are valuable.

 

It's always great to have someone appreciate your work. It's always great to get

constructive criticism. It's also great to get comments wide of the mark in terms of your

intent, because your intentions may not be clear.

 

The rating system is an odd duck - next to useless, I can't say for sure; for me, the jury's

still out on this.

 

Since I'm presenting images which I expect to attract a certain amount of disdain, I'm not

completely surprised at the number of 1/1 ratings I got. Oddly, sometime a week or 2 ago,

all the 1's evaporated??? Ok. Odd. It's nice to not have any scarlet letters for awhile.

 

At one point I was trying to figure out which images were getting new ratings, and

intuitively felt the recap on my main page wasn't correct - but I also have a life, and was

willing to let it go without needing to tally these things.

 

I find it facinating to look at the spread on some images, just about every number from 2

to 7 in both categories.

 

Ultimately, I'm reminded of John Steinbeck's comment when accused of being a

Communist by the right and a facist by the left, "I must be doing something right."

 

Any way, I've reached a stage in my personal development where I get my enjoyment from

the work. Like Rick Nelson sang, "you can't please everyone, so you'd better please

yourself."

 

cheers.

Larry

"Rating on photo.net isn't "feedback". I can't imagine how anyone ever got the idea that it was"

 

That's a good question with a simple answer. The definition of "rating" (according to Webster's) is "a relative estimate or evaluation", this might explain how people got the idea it was a sort of numerical "feedback" or "evaluation".

 

"Rating on photo.net is about visibility for your photos, which may lead to real feedback, in the form of comments."

 

Brian, I whole heartedly agree with this statement. The key word here is "visibility". Unfortunately the relative numerical "rating" of an image defines the amount of "visibility" an image receives. Thus, the higher the rating, the more visibility & comments. So therefore the converse must be true, lower ratings, lower visibility, & less comments.

 

Here are my observations after participating on PN for approx. 18 months, for what they are worth:

 

When I look at an image that sits at the top of the TRP, the majority of the comments I see are of little value. While they may be considered "real feedback" by some, I find most are little more than ego boosters. Of course we all like ego boosting pats on the back, but is it "real feedback"?.

 

Instead of trying to fix something that means nothing, why not move on to other opportunities? Why not allow each photographer to choose their area of "Specialty". This would be optional of course. This way we could look at the more images of those photographers that share our similar interests. Incidentally, I do scan thousands of images to find a minute few I find interesting in my chosen area. I believe I am not alone in my endeavor.

 

While I enjoy seeing others images that do not share my similar interests, I think it would be helpful in finding those that do have our similar interests if we could chose a specialty area. Thus, improving our learning curve & all the while promoting more valuable feedback from others with our similar interests. While I realize I can scan the "critique requests" specific area, it's just not the same.

 

For example, let's say I am interested in Macro shots. I could look at a list of photographers who have listed themselves as having this specialty; "Macro Photography". I would be able to easily find those with a special interest in macro photography. Thus by viewing their portfolio, I could make valuable comments, ask these photographers serious questions and learn more about "macro photography", without having to scan hundreds of images having nothing to do with Macro Photography.

 

Nothing else on PN would have to change. The rating system could remain unchanged. The TRP could remain unchanged. The only thing that would change would be that if I, as a photographer, chose to list my specialty area, others could find me & I could find them more easily. Easier than having to scan thousands of images to find a few of interested in a specific area. This would be just another tool to assist in our goal of improving our photography skills. Is this not what PN is all about?

 

Does this make sense?

Great idea, this is somenthing that could be easily added in our personal datafield and then find this trough the search feature.