Too many qualifying TRP images

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by root, Oct 24, 2004.

  1. Is it really in the site's best interests to have seven images (out of
    21) on the front page of the default TRP by the same photographer?
     
  2. I would say it depends on how long the images occupy the first page. Usually, only from what I've noticed, images on the first page of the TRP change from day to day; or don't they?
     
  3. i thought there was a limit for critique request too... how come a photo which didnt request for critique appears on TRP?
     
  4. Simple. If enough "friends" are emailed as to when you upload photos they will pile on the 7/7 ratings in a very short time.
     
  5. Matt, more observations and fewer posts, please.

    Since only three rates are required, you can get there immediately and often stay there for the three day period. When ten rates were required, or when visibility was determined by number of rates, it took longer.

    Faith, email notification has been around a long time, as you know. And no I don't understand why non-RFC images qualify, Jacques.
     
  6. Yes, the crybaby convention has continued after taking a very short break. Ladies and gentlemem, welcome your hosts, the king and queen of cry and complain, Carl and Faith. Lets give them a round of applause.
     
  7. Jerry:
    When you have been on this site as long as Carl and Faith and posted as many good images (or more than 7 mediocre images) and have paid to be a subscriber, then you can make the kind of absurd criticism you have made.
     
  8. Strange...front page looks like the Russian mafia...more strange is none of this gang has even requested critque.
     
  9. mg

    mg

    No, Carl: I don't think it's in the site's best interest at all. But that's just my opinion... and since this sort of things has been happening for about 2 years regularly on photo.net, we may assume that probably the site doesn't care much about this sort of things OR likes this sort of things... Perhaps the game attracts more gamers and therefore brings cash in...

    Perhaps you could have added as well, that no matter which average-based TRP you visit, you keep on finding the same authors all over the place. In the case of the photographer I think you are refering to, I'd at least say that he has quite a number of really great photos, but unfortunately, it is fairly clear that around 50% of all TRPs now belong to a few high-raters who mostly exhibit poorly done flashy and over-manipulated images.

    Well, that's photo.net nowadays, it seems...

    And Jacques's question - "how come a photo which didnt request for critique appears on TRP?" - is pretty interesting as well... It seems to me that no matter what gets some folks on page 1 of the TRP, they will "just do it". And we'll have to live with the results...:)
     
  10. Carl, Jacques and Marc

    I agree with you totally.
     
  11. Carl, more patience, less attitude, please. What's with your response?! Jeeze, lighten up.
     
  12. Strange how he isn't a photo.net patron, and he has 500+ photos uploaded? I thought the limit was 100?
     
  13. Used to you could pay extra if you wanted a larger portfolio. Part of the policy now is to delete portfolios of nonmembers after a period of time . . . unless they're high rated! Isn't it great!?

    You're right, Matt. Things change. We're up to eight at the moment.
     
  14. Carl is correct. I self-deleted my portfolio after an appropriate time (and probably to Jerry's frustration).

    OT note to "Jerry": So where's your sister account "Hanna"? And why haven't you "two" opened accounts for "Tom" and "Barbera", since your posts are nothing more than cartoonish cat-and-mouse affairs with Carl and moi?
     
  15. Carl,

    If all 7 pics by the same guy are stunning and belong there, NO. But maybe you are implying another meaning and just wording it nice.

    Its very curious to see a mediocure image go up and within a couple of hours see 15- 7/7's reaped upon it....Then to check a few names and look at their highest rated given. Why we seem to find a definite pattern here.

    Its odd Marc should mention money when one of the parties is not even a subscriber here...yet he has 600 images up and owns an F5 and D100. He must be between checks.... Well all that could be swallowed by the ever generous PN, but add stacking the deck to that seems a bit outrageous.

    One has to really wonder about the motivations here. After all, getting to page 1 only signifies you have an excellent photo, you gain nothing from being at the top of the heap other than self pride... well maybe more.

    Stacking the deck, or "mate rating" to this extreme, to get to top TRP on a week in week out basis could only have two possible motivations.... Either you are lacking self esteem to an insane degree or a business oriented reason.. Only speculation BUT...

    Consider, if you had 10,000 7's to your credit and countless people telling you "you are the God of photography"...would you still need more?... And when you look at theses people's comments do you see them actively involved in the learning/teacher process of others here?...no, .you see 4000 comments aimed solely at inciting more mate rating and reinforcing the circle...hardly a peep about critquing photography.

    If you had a little print reproduction business going...what better venue could you ask for than to refer potential customers to your sparkling PN folder? Maybe add to this...its is one of the worlds biggest,best site yadi yadi...and let these people see all the praise in comments and your high ranking pics......wow what a selling point, they would be just tearing that moolay outta their pockets to buy your prints. And best of all no overhead for yourself.

    Is this far fetched, and i'm on a tangent?..Well maybe you haven't noticed that these same people live realitivly in the same geography? And they are shooting pretty well the same subject? Or their stuff comes in waves?... Take the name tags off those images and you would be hard pressed to identify the photographers at times..

    No Carl..Marc...Its not in the sites best interest and the site is capable of fixing it but not doing so for whatever their reasoning. But you can....just as people can mate rate you can go against your own objectivity principles and lay a 4/4 on mate raters no matter how good their picture is. It may be a fine photo but taken in the context of artificial ratings cheapens it a lot in my view. Its really no different than what takes place when someone posts a morally questionable image. Lots respond with low ratings although the image itself may be high quality and collectivly nobody gets out of joint about that fact.

    Rather than endlessly appealing to the management to solve the problem why not just fix it ourselves? Mate rating has no purpose at all if it doesn't accomplish its goal.
     
  16. mg

    mg

    Paul, you wrote: "Its not in the sites best interest and the site is capable of fixing it but not doing so for whatever their reasoning. But you can....just as people can mate rate you can go against your own objectivity principles and lay a 4/4 on mate raters no matter how good their picture is."

    5 reasons for not doing so:

    1. It would be fighting abusive behaviors with abusive behavior, and I'm certainly not prepared to do that.

    2. If the site isn't bothered by all this, why should I waste my time rating crappy images ? I wouldn't even support the site in doing so, since the site itself lets it happen.

    3. Rating battles are silly: there is nothing to win anyway. Been there, done that. I've expressed my opinions all over the site for ages, and have critiqued all sorts of crappy top-rated images. So did Carl, so did Doug Burgess, so did Bob Hixon, Scott Bulger and a couple of others - on a fairly regular basis. At the end of the day, we were called "the balance brigade", and what did we achieve ? Nothing, except for accumulating retaliations on our uploads, and insulting replies to our comments. And nowadays, how often do you still hear from Doug, Bob, Scott or I...? Ever wondered why...? Mate-raters are now too large a group and they'll be on top of the TRP no matter what you do to try to stop them. So, why bother with all this nonsense ?

    4. There are web sites where all the mate-rating habits you see here exist as well, but where you can opt out of the rating system, or where ratings are kept reasonable. Even on photo.net, there's now a "critiques-only" gallery. So why bother repeating the obvious in PN's feedback forum, when there are already better areas here, and better sites elsewhere, to upload our photos ? On another site, I have at this point 270 images posted, received in average about 5 to 10 interesting critiques per shot posted and have already suscribed twice. On photo.net, I have 7 pictures left and can't get more than 1 or 2 interesting comments on newly uploaded photos, before I get kicked out of the TRP manu militari with 1/1s and such.

    5. Life's too short. :)
     
  17. Hey David, You too qualify for a free box of tissue paper to wipe your tears. Why don't you have a problem with Faith not being a paying member.You said Faith has been around longer. Well let's see I have been around longer than Faith, my images are mediocre, I post them, she does not. You really don't know what you talking about. Carl has good photos but he talks down to other members so someone has to remind him. Your photos are mediocre plus, so bravo you must be proud.
     
  18. Oh the issue Carl, if Yuri's photos are good and they are. They belong right where they are at. Faith instead of spending your jealous existence hanging around and slamming people post some photos under your identity.
     
  19. While finding the preponderance of a single person on TRP rather insultingly obvious -- I mean, I do think Yuri has some nice photos (far better than anything I'm *ever* likely to produce), but eight of the top 20-odd? Come on.
    However, I'd like to respond to everyone complaining about photo.net's "lack of interest" in resolving the problem of mate rating. You have to look at the history of photo.net -- the underlying system has been in use for well over seven years (as far as I can tell) and uses a hodge-podge of rather unusual systems (AOL Server, TCL) because that's what the original site was written in (TCL also has some good image manipulation routines -- that's what saves you from having to upload your own thumbnails for your full-sized photos).
    All of this is maintained by, again this is as far as I can tell, three or four people working on a volunteer basis (because not enough people subscribe).
    Add to this the fact that photo.net is relied upon by literally thousands of users who access the site on a daily basis and you have a very good recipe for 'leaving things as they are' until you have a very, very good reason for changing them. What would be your response to photo.net going down for, say, three or four days because of unforeseen problem in upgrading the photo ratings tables to control for mate rating? I thought so.
    I've tried downloading the source code for the components of photo.net so that I can do my bit, and I'm having trouble even getting it to compile, let alone run smoothly. Oh, and I seem to need at least 10-20GB of free space to deploy the components of the test system without even having a lot of images in it. If someone would like to donate an external hard drive I'd be happy to get moving.
    So, speaking from experience as a developer, I can tell you that all issues with a web site basically fall in to four categories:
    1. Things that are high-priority and easy to fix
    2. Things that are high-priority and hard to fix
    3. Things that are low-priority and easy to fix
    4. Things that are low-priority and hard to fix
    • Depending on how much time you have, the order in which things will get done is 1 to 4. Mate rating is highly irritating, but it's a '4' from the standpoint of keeping the site going because it's not so widespread as to render the site unusable and fixing it will be really, really hard -- what algorithm do you use to automatically identify a pool of mate raters and distinguish them from a new user who simply happens to find a photographer's work fascinating and gives them all 7/7 out of enthusiasm?
      I'm not out to say that PN is perfect, nor am I saying that your concerns are invalid, what I am saying is that the work of managing this site is extremely hard and that the level of effort put in by the volunteers shouldn't be discounted as "PN administrators don't care".
     
  20. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, critic."

    Jon, that's your "biography" on this site. Much too simplistic, and it tells me you've never been recognized and/or paid as a teacher. The site philosophy is that everyone is a critic and that everyone is here to welcome criticism of their images. It's an ideal worth striving for, but such policies as the TRP sort completely undermine that goal.

    There is a very easy, if not perfect, fix - change the sort criteria - so there's something else going on.
     
  21. Jerry, you say that Yuri's photos are good, as if there was no disputing your claim. What you really mean is that you like them, but I doubt that you could write a paragraph explaining what makes them work, in your opinion, in such a way that others could learn something.
     
  22. Well, I'm in agreement with this post, and have echoed the sentiment before: I started on this site two years ago, and learned a hell of a lot before the rating change. Comments were always welcome and appreciated, and while I still suck, I don't suck as much as a result of a lot of good advice. These days, though, there's not a lot said on my posts. No one answers my questions about crop, color, etc. when I post a pic for review. And just for the record Mr. S. Bulger and Ms./Mr. F. Cohen have on many occaisions come through and rated my pics very low with no critique whatsoever. Two years ago, those low rates would come with pretty solid advice on how to do better. Stinks that I've lost the ability here to get such feedback.
     
  23. Just want to throw a curve into the discussion. In the photo's we are talking about look very nice on the screen. But these photos and a lot of others on the TRP seem to be designed for computer viewing only. The brilliant over saturated colors to the degree often seen here usually don't look real when printed in person. Unless they are adjusted for printing and viewing in person the photos tend to have a fake unreal unpleasant look to them. I know this from seeing the translation from screen to in person on my and other peoples prints.
     
  24. WJT

    WJT Moderator

    Paul Greenwood: ..." and lay a 4/4 on mate raters NO MATTER HOW GOOD their picture is..." (emphasis added). What you advocate, Paul, is straight-out-and-out abuse! Is it your philosophy that two wrongs make a right? It is exactly this kind of retributive attitude that is deteriorating this site. Regards.
     
  25. There's also the issue of ratingOthers/receivingRating ratio or the
    <br>
    scratchYourBack/scratchMyBack ratio. :)
    <br><br>
    For those who are not receiving enough comments/ratings, may be you should spend more time commenting/rating other's works.
    <br><br>
    Just take a look at the Yuri's ratio and compare it to yours.
    <br><br>
    Truthfully, for a site like this one, I really do not consider ratings/comments from the general population as something I take too seriously (except for a few) because it is clearly a popularity contest, not skills. When PN started, the visitors/members were more serious about critiques but things got worse when there was cross-pollination with members from other photo web sites --- the "genetic pollutants", so to speak. :)
    <br><br>
    On the whole, PN is not as bad as some other sites I know of in this aspect. It hasn't reach a level where I consider it "disgusting" ... yet.
     
  26. Do you guys think that the TRP might just be a popularity contest? Is that the reality of it [the TRP]?<p>

    I think that many of the photographers listed on the pages, are there not only because their images are good, but more influentially, they have a ton of "interested" and "friend"ly viewers of their work - receiving 1000 views and 50+ ratings is sometimes easy, not to mention fast. In *some* cases, I think the ratings are a little over-inflated because of mate-rating. <p>

    Take, for example, the scene (I think by Wellmann, one of the most "interesting" people on PN with 1091 "friends") of the fall-coloured trees and water. Don't get me wrong, its a great and beautiful shot (by a fantastic photographer, far better than myself); but, is it really all that original? I'm not sure, hard to say...<p>

    Similar beautiful fall images found elsewhere, by less-popular photographers with fewer "friends", get less visibility, fewer ratings, and [conceivably] a lower average - and don't make it to the TRP (which makes sense because TRP's are top-rated-photos).<p>

    To wrap it up... <br>
    I think the TRP is not just the top-rated images, but those by the most popular photographers with the most friends on PN. So the TRP fills up with numerous shots by the same photographer because those photographers are popular. Not sure I think that should be in the site's best interests; but in terms of the forum, like its title implies, it is designed for the top-rated images (regardless of who took them).<p>

    If this somehow diminishes the site, or is not in the site's best interest; then the TRP [imo] has to be re-designed, and of course re-named.<p>

    Just my full $0.02.
     
  27. Walter...i am advocating nothing. Only equating the fact that bias does take place on questionable subject matter irregaurdless of the picture quality, for most, not all. It all comes down to a personal choice and dictating anybodys is not my thing....unlike the photographer in question and one of his fall images, if you check the comments.
     
  28. Professor Carl, it sounds like your have an acute identity crisis and this is the only place in your life where you have an audience, an audience of fellow town criers. You know if you talked to people like this in public you would have serious problems to deal with. You are condescending and arrogant enough to think no one should call you on this. Well, you are wrong. Looking forward to your next hissy fit.

    Jerry
     
  29. You're sad, Jerry.
     
  30. Gofarka...Sorry if this offends you. Perhaps your english understanding doesn't account for the inferrence "Russian mafia". That doesn't pertain to Russians or any other race but a "style" of organized crime, rather brutal and unabashed. Now i hope you don't read this wrong too. BTW what is a pom?
     
  31. How considerate of you to specify the Russian mafia. It would be a shame to insult the Sicilian mafia, the Japanese mafia, the Jewish mafia, and all those other ethnic varieties of organized crime "families" which are so well known for their fairness, restraint, and gentleness. [rolling my eyes]
    Paul, I'm completely fluent in English, and even to me, your comment sounded exactly like an ethnic slur. I'm not upset about it, though I am disappointed that you think people are actually stupid enough to buy your BS explanation about it not really being an ethnic slur.
     
  32. Although there are clearly some ethnic connections that influence rates, that's not a major source of the problem. High on the list is the lack of ability and/or willingness to give and accept constructive criticism. There are hundreds of people who truly believe that many of the TRP images are flawless and worthy of a 7/7. They aren't, but since virtually all those who know that have stopped posting the reasons why, the 7/7s win.
     
  33. Matt, if you believe that stuff you just stated, I got a bridge to sell you. The whole TRP is a popularity contest, pure and simple. The ostensible utility of it (which I think Carl Root has described accurately and well) has been subsumed by a big ego-massaging exercise that utterly skews the representation of work on this site. If you think that making the TRP is a true imprimatur of quality photography, you got a lot to learn. Much of the great photography on this site, sadly, must be seen after a lot of searching, often in a random manner. And after seeing the choice of this week's Photo of the Week, I now begin to wonder whether any of the movers and shakers on this site have the vaguest idea what compelling photography really is.

    Just my $0.02 as well.
     
  34. Hi Mikee...its good to finaly hear you stopped ranting about the history of photography. Figured you, being as articulate as you are would have got the humour in that mafia statement. We are after all talking about a subjective view of a photograph with a shelf life of 3 days aren't we?.......well you did, we know that.. you just like being a "naughty boy" and twisting things.

    Its real odd the post starts out with something we should all agree 100% on and before long the wolves start feeding.on each other. Is every post in the PN forum like this? No wonder nothing changes much, the entertainment value is too high.

    Carl thats very true and who wins anyway? These mate rating "mob" boys do nothing but cheapen the system for all of us. Most agreee (that bother with these posts) these contrasted out "made for web viewing" images aren't the best being offered here. Go in and give a negative comment and they go howling to abuse and then they have their enforcers deal with you. Its really nothing more than a hillarious joke. Bunch of amatures band together to try to make a bad piece of art look good through mutal confirmation...then they all sit back and feel stupid for giving some junk a 7/7...or hopefully they do.
     
  35. "...since virtually all those who know that have stopped posting the reasons why, the 7/7s win"...

    theres no rule to say you must comment on them all cuz no one has the time to do that. just pick one everynow and then, say why that type of crap dont work, then ditto to rate whatever else is pretty much same

    "...after seeing the choice of this week's Photo of the Week, I now begin to wonder whether any of the movers and shakers on this site have the vaguest idea what compelling photography really is"...

    what you gonna do, for some, if it aint badassed street it just aint compelling
     
  36. spaghetti, comments will be ignored unless there is sufficient volume to give them credibility. Even then, there would be retaliation, rather than thanks. You can't compensate or normalize any of this, only limit it at the input level.
     
  37. true that, carl. anyway, seems this guy is poster boy for why a handful of subscribers wouldnt be missed if they didnt re-up were brian to vary the TRP view not to favor them. i agree more variety there would be best for users and even benefit the site. gotta think many see what goes on and get turned off before they get feet wet here so never to subscribe. too bad
     
  38. Even if you give them a critique telling them what their work is really worth, or they will ignore you since you are not part of the group, or they will retaliate even harder on your stuff (rating, never comments on how to improve), or, and it happen to me twice on 1 single photo, they will get moderator to remove your comment and rating. On one photo, I was sure I had rating and commented, I came back to the photo to see nothing from me. So I really took note of the photo by bookmarking it and came back later to see my comment disapeared again. All that because I gave an average rating on a shot that mate-raters elevated to a 6.5 or more. There is just nothing to do about it since they seems to be getting bigger and stronger on this site. I won't go away because of that since the site still have value for me but their is definitely features that I don't use anymore, as the TRP which are completely useless in all aspects. It should be replaced by a querying engine where one can search for different specifications and save their own queries. You could then want to see all photos except those from x, y, and z photographers, which you know are mate-raters.
     
  39. Peter,
    "everyone who rates is a mate rater"

    Not true. Don't you ever rate and comment on images by photographers you've never seen before? It's only mate rating if you have some indication that a high rate will be reciprocated.

    "as for teh TRP pages - these are a constant source of amusement and an occassional source of wonder."

    A 'constant source'? It got old long ago. I would gladly trade in 'a source of wonder' for a source of inspiration and discussion.
     
  40. You guys DO know there's a whole wide world out there beyond the TRP don't you?
     
  41. mg

    mg

    "It should be replaced by a querying engine where one can search for different specifications and save their own queries. You could then want to see all photos except those from x, y, and z photographers, which you know are mate-raters."

    Oh Man ! How much I like this idea ! Especially if we could still see the same total number of TRP images after getting rid of those who now OWN the TRP !
     
  42. mg

    mg

    By the way, since Carl started this thread, somebody I hardly heard of before has jumped in the defaut page of the TRP with 3 images - including this one, which hits the top with 108 ratings as I write, 73 of which are 7/7s !!!!!!!!!!

    Here goes:

    http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=2815057

    I do not mean to jump to any sort of conclusion regarding the photographer (as I said, I hardly knew his name), but can we honestly continue to believe that ratings have any meaning at all when such a picture gets 73 times 7/7 out of 108 votes...?

    It is not an ugly shot, I suppose, but come on: is the subject really so original? Is the sky really outstanding or would it be best to have it brighter, with nicer colors etc? And isn't the composition a bit of a boring alignment ? Please also bear in mind that this image is manipulated, and that it is so non-descriptive, that it could be a composite and still be achieved in 10 different ways in PS.

    To me, this image is a 5/5 at best. Anyway, "just an opinion" - of course ! :)
     
  43. Marc...look at his port and you see he's had a lot of pics that have done very well. I didn't particularly like that image u quoted either but from a suspected imageart standpoint so never rated it. The second pic i gave a 7/7 and absolutly in love with it. He doesnt blast the contrast like so many digital shots and they actually have mood to them....both those pics climbed very slowly from the back of trp then i guess it became "anything but a flamingo" for a lot of people.
     
  44. Carl

    We don't know what the site best interests are. Maybe, we are not supposed to know. Big money is needed for the site to be maintained and developed. The natural way to collect this money is to promote digital cameras and technologies connected with them. Everything is going digital, no matter if we like it or not. So, the newcomer with a new digital camera in hand is entering PN and sees a lot of fantastic digital images "made with cameras" similar to his own. And many of the newcomers are just not realizing what they see are not real photos but their replacements - greatly simplified software images of reality, to put it in this way. What to ask more - bright images, pure and (over)saturated colors, sharp lines ? This shocking beauty is enough for many beginners to open the bag with 7s and to start pouring them forth. Later some of them are subject also to "corruption" by some of the recipients of their generosity. "Jesus, my first 7/7 !", and so on. We call it "mate-rating". It comes naturally (imo) and not as a result of some perfidious plot. But mate-rating is stimulated also by the low raters. Afraid of low ratings mate-raters are pushing their rates higher what in turn makes low raters go lower. Both practices are abusing the existing system because they have nothing to do with photography. These are some simple calculations and computer gaming. Mate raters and low raters - both sides of the same coin - successfully ruining the efforts of the vast majority of the gallery members. It was already proposed: zero all the ratings and limit the recourses (number of high and low ratings) permitted monthly per user. Not a perfect solution but at least some regulation.
     
  45. His rating average for 1700 images is 6.4/6.2. On this site, you get what you give and it doesn't take long to figure that out and either opt in or opt out. Too many decent photographers who are otherwise reasonable and intelligent people have traded in objective feedback for increased visibility.

    The solution involves making the submission of images for high visibility contingent on the ability and willingness to give and receive constructive criticism. . . . . and keeping the two viewing venues separate.
     
  46. Blagoy, I agree with your analysis to a point, except that I do think that a few people really try to rate the TRP honestly, but they look like abuse by comparison. Statistically, they are insignificant and will always be so.

    I asked the question about the site's best interest because the information we've received doesn't quite add up. We're told that the TRP clicks don't generate a very high return rate, but maybe you're right that the manipulated style that has grown in popularity is being reinforced here to attract the kind of viewer who might click on the ads that do generate revenue. If this is true, then this is another argument for segregating a relatively more tradional approach to image presentation for the benefit of both the site and those users. Don't traditional photographers spend at least as much money as digicam buyers? I'm on the verge of buying my first digital camera, but I want to see what people can do with the camera, not the software.

    I'll bet I'm not alone.
     
  47. You're not...
     
  48. mg

    mg

    An amusing news flash... Brian Mottershead (whose judgement about photos I certainly respect) has apparently rated the image I posted a link to in my previous post... And now I'm here regretting that ratings are anonymous again...:)
     
  49. Marc... 6/6... the ratings really aren't anonymous...
     
  50. I was just testing some new code.
     
  51. . . . not when Brian's only rated two images.

    The other one is even more telling.
     
  52. I'm confused. Do you consider those two images to be 'very good' or not?
     
  53. Where do you see what ratings he's given? I only see "ratings received"?
     
  54. He just deleted them. That section only appears if you've rated images, even if it's only one and it isn't high enough to appear on your favorites page.
     
  55. Ah ok. Strange that he hasn't commented on anything that has been said in this thread. Would be interesting to know Brian's view.
     
  56. People please.......just post your images to the "Critique Only Forum" and campaign for better visibility for the Forum.
     
  57. Spaghetti Western, your little snipe at me was classicly stupid PN herd-blabber: when you can't have something intelligent to say, you go ad hominem. Classic MO of a gutless idiot who won't post his own photos. Your inference is totally misplaced. I have a lot of respect for a number of photographic disciplines beyond street. Just because I'm not a particular fan of an over-PS'd photo that looks like a bad Christmas paperweight doesn't mean I don't like it because its not street. I just don't like it because, in my opinion, it looks cartoonish. Sorry.
     
  58. The message I get from this site recently is this: Don't contribute money. Upload 3,4,500 images if I please. Give out high ratings galore. Get visability. Will it be valuable feedback? Probably not. But it sure as hell beats getting no feedback what so ever. It's funny though, another photo site on the internet that use to have that philosophy just went 'pay only' because of the non-paying bandwidth drainers.

    Make the TRP members only and see how quick you get donators!!!
     
  59. Keith posted 3 images comment only this AM as of this minute - zero - comments. Could be they just suck of course or not anyones cup of tea... :)
     
  60. Keith, The critique-only section isn't working very well. People are more interested in uploading four at a time than building up good faith credit by actually writing thoughtful critiques. That was the benefit of the old critique circles. You were expected to discuss ALL the uploads in the group and one upload per person per week turned out to be about right.
     
  61. Dave, Carl.

    It's not working because there is no visibility. Or could it be that all those people who have said in the past that ratings mean nothing to them were fibbing ;-)
     
  62. Carl, I concur with Keith. It needs visiblity. Whether I upload one image or 4 who cares? Pick one out and comment on it. Not much of that happening though. It will be a failure until the rest of the people see value in it. All they see now is images going up and no comments being made... Doesn't that just make ya want to dive in with both feet???
     
  63. I will say that it is nice to be able to comment on most images that come in the critique only queue though... lol.
     
  64. "...It's not working because there is no visibility..."

    there are posters there who do or should comment and consistently repost there so you can add them to your interested persons list and help build it as a community. what you really dont need are the self-serving and ego-massaging "nice job" fly by comments which is the run of the mill in the visibility forums. you should really want quality visibility and not settle for that from thumbnail views. ahhhh, but what does a gutless herd-blabbing idiot like me know since i dont post pics. perhaps my ad hominem friend has something more intelligent to say about the subject
     
  65. "Or could it be that all those people who have said in the past that ratings mean nothing to them were fibbing ;-)"
    I've just reread my comment and have realised that it could be misconstrued. I would like to make it quite clear that I wasn't having a dig at Carl or Dave here. Truth be told I'm absolutely amazed by Carl's determination and resilience. Where he finds the energy and determination to continue trying to make this a better place for us all to use is beyond me, especially when so many of his images seem to me to be under-appreciated or even the target of abusive ratings.
    Basically I've given up, but really appreciate the efforts of others with more energy and patience are continuing the battle.
     
  66. Keith, I appreciate your support. (Being a stubborn cuss comes naturally. :)) At least you're still uploading images that inspire many of us.

    Lack of visibility is part of it - many long time members don't know it's even there - but the real problem, as I see it, is that there's a culture of getting more than giving which is all too pervasive, especially among newer members who are initially attracted by site promotions promising critiques.
     
  67. I noticed a number of "regulars" here complaining about the lack of activity in the Critique Only Forum. I gave this forum a try a few days ago by posting a B&W street scene (I hope it qualifies for that category), which is a departure from my typical nature uploads. Several of my "friends" commented on my upload and one other individual whom I had not interacted with previously. That's it. While I certainly appreciate the feedback from my "friends", the lack of feedback from others, particularly from photographers with more experience than I in the genre, provides me with little incentive to post to that forum in the future.
     
  68. i was an advocate of the critique-only forum, but so far have only posted to it once in awhile. i don't care much about ratings, but my experience is that feedback is veeeerrrryyy slow in coming in that forum so far. poor feedback (e.g., by way of numbers) is better than (almost) none.

    regardless of where you post, my view is that those who care should commit themselves to writing as many thoughtful comments as they can and make connection with photographers they are interested in, whether or not the site shows an interest in supporting that approach, and trust that what goes around comes around.

    debates about trps and "fixing" ratings are ultimately going to be frustrating. the site is readily accessible and, therefore, subject to abuse by whoever spends a little time trying to manipulate it. i don't think the site managers should spend as much time trying to stop bad behavior as they should promoting the paths they want the committed viewers/membership to pursue. time is a precious commodity. so is the spirit of a "community;" it needs to be encouraged, nourished, guided to stay strong. too much of trying to "stop the negative" can be discouraging, and lead to actions that affect all of us (like making ratings anonymous).
     
  69. Steve, you're asking for a lot, expecting us to comment on images in the no-rate section when comments on many of your friends' images in the TRP section are not welcome. Look at the mates' comments on some of the images in this section that try to offer rates!

    I expect this section to be hijacked fairly soon, just like the TRP.
     
  70. Perhaps the site could put a symbol by subscribers names for those that take a pledge to be thick skinned and not retaliate for critiques that may be negative (but not abusive). If the subscriber retaliates then the symbol would be removed by the moderators. This would allow those of us that attempt to give helpful critique a little more assurance that we won't be "ranted" at for expressing an opinion. Not sure whether or not this would be successful, but it might not be difficult to implement. The symbol could be next to the subscriber symbol so it would be easy to view in the critique forum.
     
  71. Peter ... do not advertize too much about Leica forum or they 'd become polluted as well. I'm a frequent watcher of those, not a poster (I don't won a Leica) and I do appreciate them..<p>
    John R, I'd be happy to join your club whenever<p>Carl, althought we desagree sometime, I am with u on this<p> Paul G, politically correct concept is still alive, and you can't call a cat a cat witjout being called a dog.... should we live with that absurdity? NO!! of course!!
     
  72. Peter u 'd correct my typo 'won' is 'own' (although I'd like to WIN a Leica thou)...<p>;^)
     
  73. Paul G, politically correct concept is still alive, and you can't call a cat a cat witjout being called a dog.... should we live with that absurdity? NO!! of course!!
    I didn't call Paul G. a "dog" because he called "a cat a cat." I just noted he was a sort of cat for trying to pretend he didn't really say what he obviously said.
     
  74. Dave> Keith posted 3 images comment only this AM as of this minute - zero - comments. Could be they just suck of course or not anyones cup of tea... :)

    Dave, Keith Laban has given out 2 ratings and 33 comments (incl those on his own photo pages) in the last 4 years. Nothing wrong with that, but lack of reciprocality by the users of the critique-only forum will only lead to it dying fast (or as someone above said, being taken over by the mates). This is OT, but I feel that the point has to be made...
     
  75. Mike happy you're alive and reactive... cat have said to have 7 lives and 2 tongues (at least) ... don't take it personal but I feel too many people take too many things at first degree... so if say I dont like this singer.. and this singer happen to have a jewish name ... people start to say I hate jewish...! I thing start to get wrong (I happen to happen to have some jewish blood too!!)... so you see the limit of the exercise... i hope. So what's wrong with 'Russian mafia' expression; everybody know what's mean, as well as Corsican mafia, so let's stop the stupid ethnic bashing' (by the way some of my ancestors are polish and russian too)...! <p> And ByzeWay I like your bio portrait... reminds me some monkeys of Nikko Temple (Japan): no see, no hear, no talk... sorry just teasin'... and byze way too the discussion on your POW was the most enjoyable discussion ... ever.
     
  76. Sorry for many typo ...in my previous message.. I could nt correct backward. I ve some problem with my browser...
     
  77. Niranjn
    I believe Dave was saying that he had posted 3 images.
    The Critique Only Forum has only been in existence for a while and Keith Laban is still waiting to see an image that grab him by the b*lls :)
     
  78. Niranjn, Keith is correct I was talking about my images.

    Keith, hopefully one of us can create an image that will be worthy of grabbing your balls. You could always tell us what it would take to grab your balls of course.

    I think Niranjn's point is a valid one. To get the comment only forum to work it will take and effort and reciprocity will be part of that effort.
     
  79. Jacques stated that he would join my "club". I don't want to mislead anyone, I am not thinking about a club, more a subscriber level that pledges to give and receive honest opinions and agrees to civilly discuss differences of opinion. Rants would get the symbol removed from beside your name. I don't know about the rest of you, but I really don't care about the number of comments or rates, just that it is someone's honest opinion and if I can give an honest opinion without having to deal with being attacked for my opinion I will comment more freely. Does this idea have any merit? Would you be more willing to give an honest opinion if you knew the photographer would be receptive to your ideas? (He/She might disagree, but wothout trashing you) How about feedback from a moderator, is this something that would be possible?
     
  80. It's a good concept, probably best realized in a critique circle format. But someone has to set it up and enforce it, and that requires some sort of access to the members list. The current climate does not seem to produce members who inspire that kind of confidence.

    Have we added any 'heros' to the site in the last two years? There are probably quite a few who would help if asked.

    Catch 22. . . . .
     
  81. Ah, I misread what you said, Dave. Sorry Keith.
     
  82. I suppose there's always the risk that people might start to take the mickey out of a critique forum !?! Some people, anyway.
     
  83. "I think Niranjn's point is a valid one. To get the comment only forum to work it will take effort and reciprocity will be part of that effort"
    Dave, not sure I agree, in fact I'd go as far as to say that the problem with much of the critique on photo.net is one of reciprocity. We've all seen it on the old critique forum, comment for comment, rate for rate, traded favours, platitudes galore. Surely this isn't valuable criticism? I'm also not a great fan of the Critique Circles approach which tends to end up being merely a critique swap.
    I rather hoped that the Critique Only Forum would be different, not just a ratings free version of the existing one, but a place where people critique with passion rather than a feeling of obligation. Dave, have you in all honesty felt much in the way of passion for the images posted so far to the forum, my own included? This is what I meant when I said I was waiting for an image to grab me by the balls. Actually I believe the best criticism on photo.net was on the "Photograph of the Week Forum" before it was censored and sanitised.
    I'd be the first to admit that my own record of criticism here on photo.net is piss poor, particularly in terms of quantity and I certainly can't promise it's going to improve much.
    The "Critique Only Forum" could be a platform for passionate debate, if only it had greater visibility, more passion, better (or worse) images and if sods like me got off their backsides and started practising what they preach.
     
  84. Keith, great points. But I think for that forum to get the visibility we both agree it needs the reciprocity will need to happen. Since so few of us are using it we all need to 'help it' for a while. Eventually (hopefully) it will turn into the venue you foresee. Just posting images and expecting return won't help the forum IMO.

    A lot of other posters are still putting up images through the normal RFQ and ignoring the ratings and getting comments that way. I think we need to show them that the 'comment only' option is valid and will supply you with real, honest criticism.

    Lets put it this way Keith. If you were to start commenting in the CO section I think it would entice some people who really love your work to put an image or two in there to see what you thought. If they find it helpful and are really looking to be helped they will return.

    So for the time being I think a sence of "having to" might be what is needed to get that forum off it's feet.

    You asked if the images knock me out in the CO section now. I would say the ratio of "knocked out" is about the same when using the volume difference as a ratio. I can say that I find them infinitely more interesting than most of what is brought to the forefront of this site lately. I also find it real refreshing to say "nah, don't really like it and heres why..." and not get my head bit off or someone taking the time to tell me how wrong my opinion is because it doesn't agree with theirs.

    I have written a bunch of comments now and have gotten very positive feedback as a result. It is actually pretty fun.

    I dont' see honest reciprocity as a bad thing Keith. I see it as a necessity at the moment or that forum will really die. If it just ends up that 10-20 honest people are exchanging ideas and thoughts so be it. God, imagine how lucky we would be if that happened!!!!
     
  85. Keith, I think the biggest problem is volume. When people upload four at a time, that distributes the available critiques rather than concentrating them, as is the obvious case with the POW. (I disagree with your assessment of the 'new sanitized' version. I think Mary only cuts comments that digress from the image itself.)

    In my experience, there's alot to be learned from offering a critque, even if it's not one you think is particularly strong. Maybe the critic is missing something that other will mention later in the discussion. The process also helps critics dissect an image to figure out what makes it weak as well as what makes it work, but it only works if you have a fairly large number of bonafide critiques.

    Where are the images that grab you? Are they buried in a folder or are the makers reluctant to upload them because of all the ignorance and abuse they see every day.

    They won't upload them to the new no-rate section because the mates have in fact found it, so your balls picture will only be seen by critics who check that section on a daily basis. Just a couple weeks ago, an image would still be up after a couple days.

    Not enough incentive now, I suspect.
     
  86. Mike.... (ugg) I did not "pretend" to say "Russian mafia"...yes i really did say that. I did i did. Its been explained to you Mike how you have taken that term out of context. I erred in thinking that everybody in the community would understand that context. Living in such a "politicialy correct" area such as Tennesse must make you a bit sensitive on such issues. Again i'm sorry. I'm sorry, i'm sorry. ok now?

    Had the head been screwed on properly i woulda termed them "wild and crazy guys"...from saturday night live..the Steve Martin classic. Isn't that guy he portrays actually named Yuri?
     
  87. Dave, Carl.

    I think we are all agreed that the Critique Only Forum needs greater visibility and more incentive to participate. No doubt this can be achieved by more people getting actively involved (myself for instance ;-)) but I also feel that having created the new forum the administrators should ensure that it has better accessibility and visibility. Perhaps more links to it would help. Any other suggestions?

    BTW, apologies to Mary for my "sanitised" comment. Moderating the POW can't be an easy job and perhaps my passion got the better of me yesterday ;-)
     
  88. mg

    mg

    "more links to it would help", said Keith.

    Yes indeed. And perhaps a forum announcement somewhere. Had I not read the feedback forum a couple of days ago, I wouldn't even know there was a thumbnail page of critiques-only critique requests. Not everyone enters the gallery via the critique request page...
     
  89. Fine tuning - posting a notice, for example - is better than nothing, but changes like the one made yesterday which limit the number of 7s you can offer to eight per day are an attempt to placate the complainers, not achieve a desired result. Brian made it clear that he saw no benefit to the no-rate section and actually lamented people (he mentioned you specifically, Keith, as I recall) using it because that would take some good images out of circulation.
     
  90. I see now that it isn't even eight per day. It's eight of the images uploaded in a single day. . . . but we're getting off topic. I still wonder why everyone is allowed to upload so many images in such a short period of time that qualify for TRP views.
     
  91. Why is everyone so worried about TRP and how many comments people are leaving and so forth? We're all looking to improve, and any input to that effect is great. I'm not going to lose sleep over how many comments I'm getting and who is on the TRP page and who is "rate mating". If I like a picture I rate it highly, if not I rate it lower or skip it. I would hope that others rate my pictures the same way. Any comments I get that are helpful are appreciated, but if people don't feel the need to comment, so be it. And as for the TRP, I can't say that I spend much time there. Once in a while I scan through some of the pictures, but I'm certainly not ready to raise these people up to demigod status. If I can learn something by looking at their pictures and comments, great. If not, great. There probably are people who are out there with alterior motives, but I'm not going to let them bother me.
     
  92. Michael, I agree with you in that the TRP is no more useful to me than the sorted categories on the Newest Critique Requests page. But being a distinct sort, the TRP was presumably intended to be more than just useful; enlightening, perhaps - and this is something it doesn't achieve.
     
  93. A repost of an idea to bypass ratings and which neither expects/nor requires ANYONE to
    change (hoping people will change or trying to get them to change is madness in this size
    of site).

    The greatest feature added at photonet in the last 2 years was the facility to
    view in a Gallery the top rated images of an individual photographer.

    What about a facility that allowed you to view in one gallery (like TRP) the images which
    ALL
    your favourite photographers had commented/rated in the last month.

    The whole site becomes one big critique circle and YOU decide who is in it. Everyone can
    have their own individual circle !

    The big point is that it is one extra option to look at a gallery of NOT JUST ONE favourite
    photographer but a composite gallery of ALL the new images commented or rated by ALL
    of MY FAVOURITE PHOTOGRAPHERS in that recent period in ONE gallery. This would NOT
    be just the ones they rated highly but also lower ratings or just ones they had commented
    on but not rated (a lot of people now comment only).

    This would put comments on an
    equal footing to rates. People who comment simply WOW etc aren't in my own list of
    interesting members. A mate rating circle could give 7/7 s and WOWs to their hearts
    content but the images they give them to would never appear in this gallery selection I
    propose unless one of my favourite members had rated/commented on one of the mate
    rater images.

    It would raise visibility for images selected by photographers whose work and critiquing
    you respect.

    The filter would be totally under your control i.e. only those people YOU had selected as
    interesting/favourite would be used in this gallery i.e. you would possibly avoid all those
    Mate Rated images.

    It totally bypasses the rating race.

    It would help increase the visibility of Critique Only Posters as the gallery would be
    selecting images on the basis of whether ?your favourite photographers? thought it worth
    commenting/rating.

    It is totally inclusive. No one is excluded. Images do not need to be reclassified. Nothing
    needs to be removed or altered in the existing system.

    THE BEAUTY OF THIS IS THAT IT WORKS USING THE SITE AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.

    It tailors the site to an individuals taste.

    This might be a lot of programming but so far as I can see it is sorting and selecting on
    information which is already all recorded in the system. The gallery viewing code is all
    available, or am I being too simplistic.

    It could be a subscriber only option.
    Louis
     
  94. It was probably intended to be more useful than it is, but human nature being what it is, I'm not at all surprised at what it has turned into. Take it for what it's worth. That's life. My point is that worrying about how to fix TRP is a waste of energy. Use the energy to go take some new pictures to share.
     
  95. Louis,

    " . . . . a composite gallery of ALL the new images commented or rated by ALL of MY FAVOURITE PHOTOGRAPHERS."

    Another sort might include images your friends have uploaded, including those with no comments at all.

    Limits on uploads and rates still need to be addressed, though. The images on public view still greatly effect the culture of the site, including the content of comments. Have any of your friends been 'recruited' and are now no longer interested in serious discussion?
     
  96. part of this discussion also points out another suggestion that a reasonable limit of one (or two?) photo request(s) in 24-hours for critique-only by subscribers (still allow four total) be done to prevent dilution in that forum view by too many 'sames'
     
  97. CARL
    Why would the limits need addressed. If Brian is happy with the current situation vis a vis
    the site loading why bother with them they have no effect on what I suggest.

    My suggestion is a new way of filtering thru the recent uploads in a given period.

    "Have any of your friends been 'recruited' and are now no longer interested in serious
    discussion?
    "
    I don' t grasp the point you are making. People in YOUR interesting people LIST are not
    recruited YOU choose them with no reference needed to them. You are in my list, you
    didn't know that and you had no control on whether I chose you or not.

    The people I find interesting but who no longer comment or rate will have no effect on the
    Gallery option proposed.

    You can see the images your interesting people recently upload by clicking on their name
    from your workspace etc. Your suggestion is an additional option but not the same as
    mine.

    My suggested gallery would ONLY have the interesting person's images IF ANOTHER
    interesting person (of my choice) had commented or rated on the former's image. OK. This
    is a gallery to make visible images chosen by the people YOU regard as interesting/have
    sound views etc. I hope that is clearish!

    Louis
     
  98. what the heck is a TRP-image?
    some one tell me plz.

    thx in advance!
     
  99. TRP = top rated photos/pages (in the gallery)
     
  100. okay thank you very much.
    actually i think it doesnt matter
    if there are 21 pictures made by one photographer.
    if they are great...why not?
    i just cannot understand your problem here.
    thats just nonsense.
    see you
     
  101. "...actually i think it doesnt matter if there are 21 pictures made by one photographer..."

    actually it does, especially if viewers value any semblance of variety. actually it would be a simple algorithm to group the 21 top scores of 21 different photogs onto the top page. oh i see theres a 'photographers highest' page too but they usually include a bunch of single rated 7/7s by whoever happens to upload at the moment and get their 'friend' to rate them

    "...if they are great...why not? i just cannot understand your problem here. thats just nonsense..."

    actually they are not great, just pumped up to look that way with scores. to be great they be discussed and critically concluded to be, and not by 'popular' vote
     
  102. sounds so frustrated to me.
    i simply dont care.

    much fun to you.
    see you
    bye bye
     
  103. How many times has it been said? Okay, one more time: It matters because persons coming to the site turn to the TRPs to see the best on the site. The present system (or human nature as manifested in some pablum being posted and idolized) does not allow them to see that, or even to see a good representative sample. That said, I have no idea what the solution is. Carl and Brian (and others, including Marc G.) have thought about this problem a great deal. Methinks that a bit of respect for these sincere efforts would be in order. I don't worry too much about it for two reasons: (1) I can't change it, and (2) it doesn't affect the viewing of my own photos, which appeal to few viewers.

    That said, it is still a problem, and for that reason I hope that Carl, Brian, et al. can work out a solution. Above all, however, let us admit that there is a problem. Otherwise, we will never fix it.
     
  104. hmmm i would do that this way..

    there is this

    what fotographer most people are interested..
    then maybe make some...hmm i am sorry ..my english suxx.
    asking all memebers for there favorite fotographer..
    excel-sheet---> and then make links on the site..meun-point or something


    or just show the list most people are interested in and add a few..
    chosen by ...by ....dont know
    .


    just an idea...
     
  105. Norbert, several versions of an interesting person's list already exist.

    But you're still missing the point. Why would you want to know who is popular? With very few exceptions, it will only tell you who rates high and often.
     
  106. As discussed earlier in this post, i suppose the 2 parties pretty well named here seem unaffected by changes to the 7 rule.

    Their images sit on page 1...4 of them. I'm not writing this out of jealousy, don't even go there, it just seems these 4 "bit mundane" images are now surrounded by actual really great images by virtue of some rating algorythm.

    They were not requested for critque and just magically "appeared" on page 1 out of the blue. They didn't work their way up like we all have to do. Once up there its very much harder to bring them down to their proper level. People feel intimidated to give a pic a 4/4 in the face of 15 7/7's that are present. They feel their judgement on that image should questioned.

    Most of us post an image for critque and no matter how good it is, it starts off with less than 10 ratings from that critque usually and rarely, very rarely it gets overwhellmended with 7's. But these are consistanly a different story...not saying, or asking for a solution, just pointing it out and want to voice that it really sucks for the rest of us who go through the process fairly....Faith said it all in post 2 of this thread...all the rest seems babble.
     
  107. paul, the problem is worse than you think. most people actually believe those kind of images are worth not only high ratings but also high praise. here's an example from a relative unknown on pn (actually a site feedback thread whose subject is a photo i dont wish to provide a direct link since that might be wrong, er sort of): http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009x7T
     
  108. Mr. Spahettit...uggg...can't get another name easier to spell? Mr. S :)
    Given the current state of thangs not much can be done except what you already have...and i have now. Direct confrontation and questioning, brutal critquing...the dam truth. Who could even begin to expect PN to create some fix for something like this? Hard to imagine the solution.

    It all comes down to apathy in the system. Everybody scared to speak out and confront for fear of reprisal on their own pics. But like Mr. Dylan wrote...when u ain't got nuttin u got nuttin to lose.
     
  109. Given the current state of thangs not much can be done except what you already have...and i have now. Direct confrontation and questioning, brutal critquing...the dam truth
    A few fundamentals problems with this. First, whose "dam truth?" People get to make their own choices about how much they like an image. There's not an objective standard to be applied. Second, it's a simple matter for the person who doesn't like the "brutal critquing" or low ratings to delete the image and repost it later (cleansed of the "truth" about it). And maybe post a message in the forums whining about how some evil people ruined their ratings . . .
     
  110. to me it is okay if someone rates low--she or he should leave an comment..WHY she hethinks that a certain picture sucks.actually this is whatwill make me learn something..nobody writes anything...not much constructive critism..just a few do so..actually i know that very well..because i am a newbie..so no1 tells me what i can improve at my images..i cannot tell any1 anything, i wish i could..buti just know very little about taking photos.

    to mention something here..i didint read the complete thread...so i might say something that maybe has been allready discussed or i might ask something that is very clear to you...anyway.

    i really have to say that it kind of makes me sick how muchpeople care about htis image-rating-thing...but this comes out of how i see photography..to me it is just an hobby..i dont want to represnt my stuff here..cause actually i havent got much...i just want to learn something..seeing other pictures ..because i really like looking at them...now you guys pop up with such problems..thats wiered because you said some pictures are rated unfairly high by getting 7/7s without an end..and you want to chnage the rating systemsomehow...to provoid unfair ratings.

    and now i ask you

    who is the guy to judge?


    its not you

    to my opinon no1 should judge if it is right that there are 7 out of 21 pictures made by one and the same guy..who actually is getting harmed?no1
    if you are so serioes about your work get a damn homepage.

    pff
    just nonsense here...
     
  111. Norbert, yes, it is clear you haven't read all of this thread . . . or many others like it. You don't seem to accept the idea that many members would like the TRP pages to serve a different function than the one you want, but what you want seems to be contradictory. If you want the results of a poularity contest determined as much by the rates you offer others as the quality of your images, then leave it alone. But if you want to learn something about photography on this part of the site, then you should lobby for a selection process that encourages both more advanced images and a serious discussion about them. Changing the sorts could make a difference.

    Which one do you want?
     
  112. good awnser.
    yes your are right.okay...but getting to this point you talk about will cause a lot of work to the adminstrator.so i think you should think of an solution and then mail it..best luck to you!
    i just have no idea..but if something is up..some poll where you can choose what system should be done i think ill help out for the best ..

    know what i mean..maybe some questioning with statistcs would help to show what most people want..define the question and then make some changes..got me right?

    anyway, see you!

    regards
     
  113. 1 1 1

    3 4 1

    4 4 3

    4 5 2

    4 6 1

    5 5 9

    5 6 1

    6 5 2

    6 6 9

    6 7 4

    7 6 2

    7 7 1



    http://www.photo.net/photo/1938508


    not that good...but why 1/1..no1 said anything..thats mostly my problem..why dont make a system where you can only rate when you write a comment..?
    but actually i think this wouldnt help much..

    but something i really think is neccesary to change is that members without uploaded pictures should not be allowed to rate.
    because when there is no picture i cannot write a comment on their portfolio that they should leave a comment..haha

    just fooling a round..anyway...
    see you
     
  114. As usuall you take everything i say out of context. The "dam truth" as YOU see it, without the apathy or fear of loss to your own ratings from reprisal. Of course nobody has the final word and its all subjective, but theres images mate rated with the mates glorious comments of praise plastered all over it...lots of people don't want to rock the boat....the truth by definition could never be "evil", just mistakenly wrong, Mike.
     
  115. you got no friends?....oh, poor mike...can i be your friend?
     
  116. Norbert, before you make that offer you should know that I don't give out models' phone numbers, but I do sometimes call at 4 a.m. looking for someone to come bail me out of jail again.

    I have decided to put some photos up on in my portfolio so people can give them low ratings in retaliation for the things I say. I do appreciate particularly clever insults, so those are welcome. And just so Paul can play, nonsensical ranting is also welcome, though I reserve the right to ridicule the incoherence of the person doing it.
     
  117. Mike thanks. I would love to rate your pics and am sure they don't reflect the photographer in any way. Hope you have good blokens. And Mike while your here can you take a look at this before we have to redeploy the troops? Thanks.

    http://www.photo.net/photo/2833276
     
  118. i am not looking for models phonenumbers..
    4am...if you were in jail and you would call at this time..
    i would telle you that it is okay with me if you stay there for some
    hours more..they will let you go..i am sure.jk
    regards
     
  119. what's TRP?
     
  120. TRP stands for "Top Rated Pictures"
    or something like that.
     
  121. I checked out the link you left. It's a pretty good photo. There is a huge variation when I looked at the ratings breakdown. I noticed a large number of very high ratings. I also noticed a smaller, yet still significant number of very low ratings. My 14 year old daughter (who rates much more conservatively than I) is sitting here with me and when the photo you mentioned came up on my screen she said; "That's beautiful". Then we looked throught the ratings breakdown. She asked me why so many people rated it so well and then quite a few "just ripped it apart" leaving no comments as to how to improve it. I explained the many resons for this and my daughter was appauld that adults would be so childish. One of the things I explained is that if this photo got nothing but "high" ratings it might knock one of the TRP "locals" out of their position. So, I've seen a trend of ensuring that this doesn't happen. Yes, there is too much strategic over rating. But, there is also too much strategic underrating as well.
    I guess it comes down to this. Everyone is on this site for a reason. There are many different reasons. Depending on your MO or reson for using photo.net you'll use it's services differently to fit your needs. Seems everyone is doing it and there are many different needs (sadly, some even feel it boosts their self esteem, so they may "cheat" and complain).

    Smiles,
    Lisa
     
  122. First: Nobert- you are AWESOME! Second: Paul- why are you so rude to Mike? Third: Mike- Why are you so sardonic to Paul? and why would you be jail? Fourth: I really didn't read much so I don't know why you guys are arguing, it is kinda amuzing to read, actually. I just hate seeing two great photographers duke it out on a web-site that many people (like myself) have no clue what they're doing anyways. Lastly: Yes, I am nosey, so I'm pain in the butt, so what? Just wanted to add my 2 sense. OKAY, you got me, I'm just trying to be funny! I know I'm the stand up comedian who gets tomatoes hurled at them. Hehe. We should all just get along, ok?
    00AP97-20855684.JPG
     
  123. Third: Mike- Why are you so sardonic to Paul? and why would you be jail?
    I tried rational arguments, but that didn't seem to have much effect on him. Being sardonic is much less effort and even more fun.
    I was in jail for chasing someone with a chainsaw (some girl who just wouldn't stop asking questions). Anything else you wanna know? Hhuh?!?
     
  124. Funny!
     

Share This Page