The new rating system.

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by acm, Nov 6, 2008.

  1. acm

    acm

    It has been about 2 months or more since the new rating system has been introduced. My take is the ratings and
    exposure to the pictures have <i>slightly<i> improved. What is your take on this folk!
     
  2. Apurva,

    I have a question for you. By the "ratings have improved" do you mean that more people are rating pictures or that the
    scores are higher. If the scores are higher do you think this is because the quality of the pictures is better or that people do
    not want to give their true feelings because they are afraid they will be criticized by the photographer within our forum?

    Mark
     
  3. There really hasn't been a change to the "system" just a change to the presentation in the critique forum.
     
  4. acm

    acm

    Mark,

    What I mean to say is more number of people are rating the pictures.

    Josh,

    Yes, I meant the presentation system. Thanks.
     
  5. more number of people are rating the pictures
    I would suggest that it depends more on the photo. My most recent crummy picture only got 3 ratings, one of which was a 3/3, and another of which was a 7/7. Useless data.
     
  6. acm

    acm

    Mike,

    Why post crummy pictures at all? :)
     
  7. =) touche, Apurva.
     
  8. I m practically new to this site, could any one tell me could anyone back track a rating to the rater. Coz, i ve seen remarkable photos getting 3-4 and some not so appealing or seems average receive, 6-7.

    Thus a system could be devised where any rating given needs to be justified, at least in the superficial level, which would help the photographer to rectify / understand his mistakes or boost his morale for better shots!
     
  9. acm

    acm

    Annonymous ratings cant't be backtracked!
     
  10. Mriganka, the system is designed to help protect you from harassment.

    You can visit the public profile page for any photo.net member and view the photos they have rated highest. This list will reveal only photos they have rated 6 or higher. I can see the photos you have rated 6 or higher. I cannot see the photos you have rated lower.

    Only administrators have access to the full data for photos rated and critiqued. That is why I cannot see which photos you have rated 2, 3, 4 or 5 via the "anonymous" Rate Photos queue, which you appear to use. This allows you to rate honestly as you see fit without fear of reprisal and harassment from those who are unwilling to accept your opinions.

    Since it appears that you have rated 219 photos as of this writing and commented on 4 individual photos and made 17 comments on portfolios, you have enjoyed the benefit of not being required to justify the ratings you have assigned to the work of other photographers. Nor have you been forced to help another photographer rectify or understand his/her mistakes or boost his/her morale.

    See how it works?
     
  11. Lex,
    Exactly, this was my point. See how I rated 219 photos without commenting on any. I feel it is unjustified and unjustified on my part too. I agree. But, if it was mandatory, I (anyone) would have definitely commented or supported his rates.

    However, this is just a suggestion, the decision is yours.......

    Thanx
     
  12. Mriganka, although this was before my time, i understand that what you suggests existed before and annonymous ratings had to be introduced to stop "revenge ratings" (if you rated someone's photo 3/3 he/she may come back and rate your photos 3/3 in retaliation) and nasty attacks on photographers who rated some photos low. I understand and i agree that ratings alone are pretty meaningless and cannot help you learn and grow as a photographer unless you know what motivated the rating. In that sense comments are much more useful, but you cannot force people to comment if they dont want to. It seems to help if you ask specifically for comments on one aspect or another of your photo. For instance i noticed that questions such as "i'm not sure the lighting is right on this portrait, should I have used a secondary flash" tend to bring in more comments than "any comment appreciated". Good luck
     
  13. Thanks Michael, I get your point and am satisfied. Will follow your advice henceforth.

    However, Michael "Sweet Revenge" is not here stay, if we treat ourselves as ONE FAMILY, constantly striving to grow and prosper collectively as a photo.net tribe.

    Love u all
    Regards
     
  14. Not sure if this has been suggested before but if you create a situation where you can both rate and comment anonymously, then the 3/3'ers might be tempted to let us know why they "hate" our images.
     
  15. William you seem to think that the 3/3'ers have some kind of photographic knowledge. Although some may well have, looking at the photos that have received anonymous 3/3s, in many cases it seems to be just an act of maliciousness. I think the best thing to do with anonymous 3/3s is to ignore them, as the more we express our frustrations and irritation at them the more we are accomplishing their goal. Just my two cents
     
  16. acm

    acm

    Why is that people call the 3/3'ers the bad raters who don't know photography? Equally bad are many 6/6'ers who give 6/6 only to pay back in kind or get the same in return!
     
  17. Apurva, here is an example of what i mean:

    http://www.photo.net/photo/4957028

    This photo received 291 ratings averaging 6.78/6.68 including 199 7/7 and 1 anonymous 3/3. While this is a pretty extreme case, it is by no mean and isolated one where it is pretty obvious that the 3/3 rating was either give by someone who had no photographic knowledge or was given maliciously. Even if one does not like the subject matter or the way it was presented, anyone can recognize the quality of the image.
     

Share This Page

1111