The case for a minimum 'standard' for comments / critiques!

<p>Anyone that knows me will know I am not a great fan of the ratings system on this site. I do rate photographs but never without giving a comment / critique or both first. As I have said many times before, we are submitting our photos for critique and so a critique should be compulsory if anyone wants to give any input to an image. I appreciate there are others that do not agree. However, I do continually ask those that run this site to encourage critiques which, as far as I can tell, has not yet happened.</p>

<p>While I thought it hilarious that one member went to great lengths to have me banned from commenting on his images, I do think there is a need to stop people making useless comments. One particular member is apprearing all over the site with comments that of no use to anyone. I can understand a new member saying, 'Nice' or 'OK' to get a feel of how the system works but I cannot understand a person with many thousands of comments getting away with comments like this.</p>

<p>Other sites do require a mininmum 'standard' for comments / critiques. I am wondering if it is something this site should think about. An example of a minimum standard would be asking those critiquing the image to construct a sentence or sentences containing a minimum amount of words.</p>

<p>I use the word 'standard' loosely!</p>

<p>I'm not saying that we wouldn't ever look at it. But it's such a hard thing to define that I predict it would be a nightmare to deal with for me and for any of the site volunteers. One person's "useless" is another's "encouraging praise".</p>

<p>I am well aware of the interest in some segment of the PN community to get more "useful" comments on their images. It's something I happen to agree with. Mindless praise doesn't help anyone grow their art or skills. And once we get this ImagePro thing ironed out, I can get started on improving the critique situation.</p>

<p>FWIW, you can't really be banned from a specific person's images. I mean, it is possible. But anyone who was really causing enough of a problem on the site that it would require banning from commenting on some other specific person's images would probably just be booted from the site.</p>

<p>I think unless you can precisely define the difference between "useful" and "useless" and come up with a computer algorithm that can distinguish between the two it's unlikely that such a scheme would be workable.</p>

<p>You can do a word count, but you can make a useful comment in 5 or 6 words and a useless comment in 50, so I don't think you can do it by counting words.</p>

<p>There's also an inplicit assumption that everyone would prefer a true and honest critique over mindless paraise. While it sounds good in theory I'm afraid that egos tend to be fragile and those who say that's what they want might not like it so much if that is what they got.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bob, for the record, I am well aware that many people on this site just want mindless praise to feed their ego. There are no assumptions from me! However, since the wording on the site is 'Submit for Critique' and not 'Submit for Mindless Praise' I do think I have a valid point. Having said that, maybe 'Submitting for Mindless Praise' could be introduced as an option.</p>

<p>How about the person, who's photo is being critiqued, decide whether the comments are useful to them or not. If they don't find them useful, they could just disregard them. I'm not really sure how important it is who else thinks the comments are of importance?</p>

<p>Ratings really serve little, if any, purpose -- other than for entertainment. It really surprises me there is any controversy about ratings.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Mark, there are no perfect answers. However, when a member is commenting on thousands of photographs with one word comments I think it is time for them to be repremanded! Agreeing or disagreeing with the comment is fine providing it is an intelligent comment. Saying 'OK' and nothing else is just annoying!</p>

<p>How about if members could report by email those members we know are playing the mate-rating game (it's fairly simple -- many of us know exactly who they are and can prove it by the reciprocal 6/6 rates being perpetrated accompanied by the mindless comments David is talking about . . . I don't need a mathematical algorithm to precisely define "mindless" any more than I need one to recognize pornography). Those members could be issued a warning to stop the game playing. If they don't comply, their ability to rate and receive rates could be at least temporarily stopped. I know several of us who could come up with at least 10-20 names within the next 10 minutes.</p>

<p>Let's not mix ratings and critique issues please. They are seperate problems and need to be addressed as such.</p>

<p>I will say that the way to solve ratings cheating is with server side math. It's much faster and much less emotionally influenced than user-reporting.Jin is coming up with some secret formula that will allow the cheaters to cheat all they want with no effect on the TRP or other rankings.</p>

<p>I concur with Mr. Goldsmith, but I would also go to the extent of removing the ability to rate anonymously. The mindless comments are at first seen as being generated simply by one who does not have the intellectual wherewithall to form a cogent evaluation of what he is viewing. But in reality these comments serve as vehicles to inform the rated recipient of the desire to be rated reciprocally. Midless comments are frequently of the form of:<br>

"<em>Nice..Wow..6/6 anon</em> ."<br>

They are an integral part of the Mate-rater's game, with the anonymous ratings being it's backbone. Get rid of both.</p>

<p>Sorry Josh, did not see your last post before submitting mine. I welcome the day Jin finalizes his secret plann. Regards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I welcome the day Jin finalizes his secret plan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not nearly as much as I will.</p>

<p>while I have a lot of sympathy for Fred's idea and agree with his observations it's not something that bothers me personally, I merely observe it. What surprises me is that even people who should have no need for it fall into that trap. But as you say, the best way is indeed to do it by way of query's.</p>

<p>David's idea, although a nice one would merely lead to quantifying. The simple truth is that whatever system you design it's succes will always depend on those that use it and are willing to share and exchange.</p>

<p>However, since you're already considering to split the rating from the critique section why not provide some positive incentives (and no, I don't need any). I remember vividly the discussion about the gold cups that originally were meant to stay up for a year and now, after a lot of complaints are something like a lifetime award. Although the Elves are very clear about the selection, as in said photo only to be worthy of discussion, in people's minds it's selected as the best of the week. So why not select a comment of the week and hand out a nice cup or other such insignia.<br /> On the other hand you could appeal at the competitiveness of people in a different way. Let the Elves choose a photo that can not be rated but where the best comment is rewarded. Such things appeal to people and would more likely than not prove productive and find some followers. Handle them like you handle children and puppy's. Positive reinforcement always works.</p>

<p>BTW would it be possible to remove all ratings for people who would like that. It would also be a clear statement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let the Elves choose a photo that can not be rated but where the best comment is rewarded</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The irony of that is that we'd probably then have to have numerical ratings given on comments in order to determine which one was "best"...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>of course not. Do you really think I would propose to replace one flawed system with another? Let it be the same "mystery" as the POW. Subjective as it is, it seems to work. For some probably on the basis of "there is always next week" Kind of a lottery really.</p>

<p>i am not a photographer or a critique for that matter but as a novice in this bussiness i think i have something to say too. a simple idea to help the critique forum would be to force a comment to be more than just a couple of words. ten to fifteen at least, with no repetition, because people would start typing the same word again and again. i think somehow it would force people to express a point of view in a different way.<br>

as for the ratings definetly you should get rid of the "anonymous" . and every rating of three or less should be alowed only with a comment. <br>

i almost forgot: i cant upload my photos here! anyone?</p>

<p>There is no incentive to encourage people to write eloquent critiques or to discourage them from leaving only a word or two of gratuitous praise. No risk, no reward, no incentive or motivation to do one over the other.</p>

<p>That's not necessarily a bad thing. It means that thoughtful, sincere, constructive critiques are generally altruistic in nature at best and, at worst, selfish only in the sense that the writer hopes to find and cultivate a group of like-minded people who will reciprocate with equally valuable criticism.</p>

<p>The only effective way to modify this behavior is to use a system that treats feedback as a commodity to be sold and purchased. As usual, the market will reach a certain equilibrium.</p>

<p>Participants would need to be able to "buy" the opportunity to read critiques left for them, by spending credits. Credits would be earned by writing critiques on the photographs of other participants.</p>

<p>Such a system could accommodate requests for refunds for dissatisfied consumers. If you spend credits to read a critique that turns out to be meaningless fluff that was written in an attempt to gain credits without earning them through meaningful feedback, you may request a refund and the person who wrote the fluff would not earn any credits. However, if you are content to receive gratuitous praise, then you have the right to spend your credits on candy if that's your preferred diet. And the person who proferred the candy would receive credits from a happy customer.</p>

<p>Participants would have the option (perhaps it should be an obligation or requirement) to rate each other's critiques as helpful, unhelpful, etc.</p>

<p>A lot of effort could be devoted to programming a system to monetize critiques. But would it really improve the quality of critiques here?</p>

<p>David and I have had some e-mail conversation about this issue. First I tend to critique only photographs that grab my attention for some reason. I try to make some observation on those things I like and that caused me to stop in the first place. If there are areas for improvement I will talk about those in a constructive way. I've thought about ways to eliminate the "Great!" comments but can't see how that could work. I know that at one time you had to comment to rate the maximum or minimum ratings but that seems to have gone away.</p>

<p>It is interesting reading all the comments here! I think Bob has come up with the answer albeit unintentionally. If we had the choice to submit for 'Critique' or 'Mindless Praise' there could be little arguement. Those offering 'Mindless Praise' could write whatever the wanted and those who wanted to offer a critique would be forced to write more than a couple of words. </p>

 

<p>You can't <strong>force</strong> someone to leave a thoughtful, useful critique on a website where people voluntarily offer their comments. You can require them to leave a longer critiques, but more words won't automatically make it more worthwhile. Discouraging short, mindless comments is not the same thing as encouraging longer, thoughtful comments.</p>

<p>Mike, If you discourage or somehow ban short, mindless comments then by default you are increasing the chances of getting a more thoughtful comment or critique. Rome wasn't built in a day!</p>

<p>No, you're not. Mindless comments don't prevent thoughtful comments.</p>

<p>If some of those photographers who are currently playing the mate-rate, quick pat-on-the-back comment game were called on their crap and temporarily banned from participating, my guess is that at least SOME of them probably actually do have some insights and might, once the cat's out of the bag, be moved to share them, especially if they realized their games were no longer going to be tolerated. There is some decent work within those circles, certainly promise. They are already participating regularly, though not productively. I think there may be some potential there to be tapped, since they are obviously motivated to participate. But Mike's naysaying may be more accurate. I suppose we'll really never know unless we try. I'm also aware of the difficulties of trying.</p>

<p>I hope everyone who is asking for all this banning and suspension realizes just what a thankless soul-crushing job it is to do that sort of thing over and over and over. This is the kind of response you get when you try to stop people from doing something they shouldn't on the site:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You sound like a lot of the other intolerant a--holes there. Here is<br /> hoping you die of syphlitic dementia after a long and difficult time<br /> of getting a-- raped by a bunch of ni--ers. Now I will leave my<br /> computer and not go back to photonet with jerks like you on it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the people who help with this sort of thing are volunteers. And who would want to spend their spare time getting abused like that? Everyone is all for banning/deletion/suspension when it suits them, but they go off the deep edge when it doesn't and I get email like the one above because their post was deleted.</p>

<p>So you can hardly blame me for not getting real excited about a system that would require a vast increase in that kind of work, with no real guarentee that it would be successful.</p>

OMG Josh ! That quote makes my usual lack of tact and manners seem by comparison tame. If that quote is indicative of the kind of email you receive, I now have a better understanding of your occasion frustration.

<p>What eloquence, but whoever wrote that is a little behind the times.... syphillis has been treatable for many years.</p>