Top Rated Photographs

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by nicholasprice, Apr 10, 2005.

  1. No-one should be allowed to have a photo on the TRP page unless it has been submitted
    for critique from the general community, and not until it has acrued at least 11 ratings!

    What does everyone think? - this is an attempt to reduce the amount of Mate-Rating that
    seems to be related to the TRP page being full of photos which have not been posted for
    critique, but have so many high ratings, presumably fron "friends".

    This is not sour grapes, as I have never had a photograph anywhere near the TRP page,
    and never expect to. But I agree with Edward Horn's point, that I would like to click on the
    TRP link, and see a cross-section of photographs rated on this site, and not just the ones
    which have gotten there with the help of their friends!

    Regards, Nick.
     
  2. I belive them same way, Must be submitted for critique to be in the TRP, I have no fans or friends to rate my photos. I have to go though the critque forum to get my photos seen. The TRP is full of the same type of photos and the same people. Just look at the 24 hr. TRP. I log on here less and less now and I am looking else where to post my photos. Will I pay another 25$ to this site? I doubt it very much.
     
  3. What has been suggested above must be one of the simplest and least invasive ways of preventing some of the mate rating to date. I can see no justification for not implementing it and have never seen a valid argument against it to date.
     
  4. Thats a shame Brian, this site needs more people like you. I agree with you, many of the
    photographs in the TRP are good, but they are the same old names, and the same old
    subjects. Not everyone has the same aesthetic tastes, not everyone rates flamingos 7/7,
    the problem is that TRP doesn't reflect this.

    Don't leave, stay and help change - Nick.
     
  5. If you go to Page-1 of the TRP and at the top change the sort from "By:Average" to "By:Rate Recent Average" nothing without a RFC will show up.
     
  6. What is an FRC?
     
  7. I mean RFC?
     
  8. Nick, it's an idea, but I'm not convinced its the best idea, or at least it's a bit harsh. I think there are loads of good photos from good photographers in the top rated photos. They can have just half a dozen ratings. Your theory that it would be very difficult to organise a dozen mate raters may be valid, but it would make life difficult for the others too. I just scroll down through the pages, sometimes it's rewarding. Best wishes. P
     
  9. Request for critique. If you change to this sort, only ratings from the Rate Recent Que count.
     
  10. I didn't know that Steve, and I suppose that others wont know it either! The TRP page as
    first seen is what seems to matter here.

    Peter, you are right, it usually takes me ages to get 11 ratings on any of my photographs,
    but if everyone suffers this delay, then the TRP page will still be valid, but will just show
    photographs posted several days or weeks or months earlier. - Is that too bad a thing?

    Regards, Nick.
     
  11. I think 11 is a bit high, 7-8 might be a better number, but after reading the threads here yesterday and today it is obvious to me anyway that everyone should go through RFC otherwise where is the level playing field?.
     
  12. Thanks Ian, those were my thoughts after reading those other threads, but please don't let
    those specific concerns spill over into this forum.

    Regards, Nick.
     
  13. Why bother? some folks have a mate-rating production facility running in the background that hands out 6 and 7 ratings to names regardless of image quality at a dizzying volume. They don't have to bother putting it up for critique, and even if they did they would already have the ratings anyway....Basically those of us who put up images without the manipulation are getting f****d over and there's little that can be done about it.
     
  14. Hence the Flamingo kit!

    Oh, it's a sad state of afairs!

    Maybe we shouldn't have ratings at all? - Nick.
     
  15. The mate rating is so obvious to anyone who isn't mentally blind. I assume the powers that be have at least the intelligence of an average person. The only conclusion is they like it the way it is and feel it works perfectly as is..
     
  16. This site is more sophisticated than I have given it credit for. I have found my Holy Grail! -
    you can search the TRP page, by the amount of ratings!

    Horay!
     
  17. And, by the amount of critiques!
     
  18. hehe it has changed!!! only request for critics are shown on the default view :)
     
  19. Fascinating - it HAS changed. I don't see ANY of the usual names up there...
     
  20. "This site is more sophisticated than I have given it credit for. I have found my Holy Grail! - you can search the TRP page, by the amount of ratings!"

    Let me smile about your happiness...!! In the "ratings" classification you're referencing, you'll find another bitter reality: that 90% of the rates goes to nudes.

    See a recent thread about this other downside of the TRO started by me some days ago:

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BlJe
     
  21. Thank you admin, if you have done this. You are restoring our faith in this fabulous site.
    Integrity has been preserved, and its great to be alive once more!
     
  22. I see my name which is even better<br>
    Thank you guys for your excellent work ;-)
     
  23. Did I speak too soon?

    The nude thing is a difficult one, which probably isn't related to Mate-Rating, but to
    people's personal preferences about what they like to look at. Sex is important to the
    human species, and it is hard wired within us (male and female) to be arroused by the
    nude form of our sexual preference in an errotic pose (its true, even the most pious and
    prudish individual has lusts - some people just lie about having them), so at least people
    are rating images that they like - i.e. a subjective opinion, all be it not to everyone's taste.

    All things being equal though, I haven't noticed a preponderance of nudes on the TRP
    pages?

    Regards, Nick.
     
  24. Before leaving on vacation about three weeks ago, I posted a thread on this topic every day for a week. The administration, which refuses to do anything about any of the mate rating problems, erased all the threads when I posted the final one. At least I got there attention!

    What I'm encouraged by is that there seems to be a lot more PN users voices their frustration over the mate rating problem. Perhaps Brian will eventually listen.
     
  25. Wow, Brian, you've finally done it. The TRP looks a lot different and the average to get on the top page has dropped tremendously. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
     
  26. attempts to fix humpty dumpty always seems to leave pieces. context shift: suggest create alternate universe that generates greater interest. example:

    Gunfight at the PN Corral.

    Format: weekly team competition to determine best photograph in a given catergory. catergories are the 10 (prefer 19 but that makes 5 month comp)chosen in advance by PN from the listed Critique by Catergory, weekly sequence follows posted listed order. points awarded weekly based on final average rating accumulated over two weeks. results published in third week. teams ranked by score in catergory and overall.


    Rules: teams consist of paid subscribers only, 4 to 8 members, each paid subscriber limited to one team. one team member per team submits team's one photograph for that week's category. overall, no one team member contibutes more than 3 photographs, each team member must submit at least once.
    members of teams can not rate any photographs. other paid and non paid subscribers can rate as is normal now. top and bottom number of ratings submitted (suggest 3-4, but same number)eliminated from average. (prefer critiques not allowed to force 'fresh' look at photo without influence of others).


    suggest thumbnails, open in own window when clicked. post teams under their team name, with members listed.


    just a thought...
     
  27. It seems only photos with less than 11 rates are listed and if some mate-raters vote for you it push your photos out of the TRP
    look at this link.
    Are the mate raters definitely KO? Is war against mate-raters won? To be continued ;-)
     
  28. Great idea Steven, but you would have to run the competition, as no-one else would
    understand the rules!

    I always thought that photo.net was a competition (only joking)!

    Regards, Nick.
     
  29. Many of the pictures on the front page have over 10 ratings. I'ts just what now seem to be the default sort only counts ratings that the picture attained from the "Rate Recent Que". No mate rates count, no hate rates count, and if you did not request a critique for your picture it won't show up at all.<p>I hope this stays the default view.
     
  30. And to prevent people from submitting it for critique AFTER their friends have rated it, it must have at least one 5/5 or higher from a genuine rate-recent.
     
  31. Ignore my last comment. I just looked at the TRP. Things are getting better.
     
  32. are you kidding? i just looked a the trp... and I hate to say it but, the birds were better photo's.
     
  33. Lisa, I'll agree with you that the quality of the work is now lower--but this is just the beginning. Currently, the top-rated page is filled mostly with photographs rather than PS creations. There is a diversity of styles and subjects. And more importantly, the images were rated: or at least as fairly as the average user of this site can rate. I think that's a vast improvement to the large club who rated each other's 7/7. Perhaps you prefer the other system?
     
  34. Robert, next time, do your homework first. :)

    We are used to seeing a fairly narrow range of styles on the TRP, many characterized by over saturation. To many of us, this is NOT aesthetically pleasing. Now we don't have to be inundated with them.

    In short, it's our turn.

    (it's also interesting to see how many people respond to one thread without realizing what's been reported on some of the others.)
     
  35. carl, following you around in these threads to get your reaction to the all-time leaders for "rate recent sum," which i checked for the first time a little while ago. check the top 100. they are all from one category of photo exclusively. is this where the trp is headed?
     
  36. Ben, the all time leaders really don't matter since the ratings have become so inflated (older photos have no chance).

    Carl, I did check. There are some pretty weak photos on the TRP, but as I stated earlier (perhaps you didn't read my post carefully?), it's an improvement to what we had before. Hopefully, as more serious members go back to rating photos (since it has some meaning now), the TRP will improve.
     
  37. Yes there are some weak photos, but there are also some strong ones THAT AREN'T FLAMINGOS! I find myself enjoying looking at the TRP again. There's probably some extra tweaking to do, but a lot of it is now up to us the audience since we can go back to making meaningfull ratings again.

    I almost forgot how much I used to enjoy visiting this site. What a difference this makes.
     
  38. Robert, I was referring to the photographic preferences of the poster before yours. She LOVES manipulated images . . . . oh, never mind.

    Ben, I don't understand how any image can get 300 rates only from the RFC ratings queue, so this new sort must get rates from another source as well. I suspect Brian will comment on this at some point.
     
  39. The problem is that the numerical rating system is intrinsically flawed. It is based on a c. 1950s kindergarden mentality. (All right children, your pictures must all be pretty pictures and they should be original pictures; otherwise Sen. McCarthy will put you on his list.) It encourages pedestrian tastes. This is why much of the supposedly top photography in Gallery falls under the catagory of bedroom art.

    Maybe having a photograph submitted for general critique and requiring at least 11 ratings might make things a little better. Yet it might not. Anyone with 11 mates will win every time.

    To make Gallery more fair and more intelligent, first trash the numerical rating system based on "aesthetics" and "originality" and then start afresh.
     
  40. As long as we are wishing, I want a system with private ratings and personal recommendations. Then people can rate with honesty and see more of what they like.
     
  41. If we're wishing can we have something like pnetters who liked this image also liked xx image or have rated xx image or something along those lines. I think amazon does something like that- or some place that sells books. Recommends titles and so forth. Example, pnetters who like dark dreary and depressing photos also liked blah blah...

    A girl can dream, right?
     
  42. Can you explain your views Emre? It sounds clever and interesting but I don't get it O:)
     
  43. Carl,

    Like you, "she" loves things that are pleasing to her eye. I'll not prejudice/limit myself by liking only what you like, as I'd happily expect you not to do with what I like. But, just because you don't like something doesn't mean no one does ...and just because I like it doesn't mean that I expect you to. But, I would expect you to give me the same respect I give you. "different strokes for different folks".

    I have a good friend who's a professional photographer who "hates" landscape photo's. He says they all look alike don't take too much talent. He also hates "abstract" photo's of things like reflections and macro shots of wall textures. He feels that "an ape could take those shots". But, he's a photojounalist and see's things differently. I disagree. I love what pleases my eye and hope we agree on this. What pleases our eyes is just different.

    Being an artist who also loves photography it's only natural (to me, again you don't have to agree) that I'd do things a bit differently. If I didn't have my inclination towards art my photo's may have stayed more to what you like to see. But, then again my father who's been a photographer for many, many years in the most purist of ways, says he wishes he had my "talent". Isn't photo.net big enough for all of us?

    Also, was your comment about things being reportrd about other members directed at me as well? wow. Are people complaining about me personally now, just manipulations, or in particular my manipulations?

    Please note that I've not been accused of mate rating or any other abuse that I'm aware of. I don't have the time nor the desire to be a part of those things. I just create through film or film and digital media and post images to my portfolio. If they are rated great, if not... so what. I used to care but, now I see the folly (to my peace of mind) in that and just enjoy the show.

    One last thing. If the members have a say in the direction photo.net takes then why should your ideas or opinions carry more weight and or have more validity than mine? If the members are making the rules now then, wouldn't it be a shame if the friend of mine I spoke of above's opinion was deemed "the right one"?

    Yes, ratings were quite inflated, mate rating is running rampant, and many people were abusing the system. It's a shame and I'm all too glad to see something finally done about it. But, to nullify one genre to give preference or inflate the validity of your own is also a shame and just as manipulative and self-fufilling as some other things that have gone on recently.

    I do apologize if this got a little off topic but, he did bring it up... ;o)

    Though I know you've read this, I think you may have forgotten that your opinion isn't held by all:

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BiFM&unified_p=1

    I've seen before that you've a tendency to take bits and pieces of what people write, selectively repost the bits using quotation marks to try to tear their reasoning down. Please keep my words intact, in their original order as a whole of what I said, and really think about them instead of simply reacting. My mother used to tell us to be proactive, not reactive.

    Always Kind Regards,
    Lisa
     
  44. Lisa, I make one reference to your love of manipulations, and you go off the deep end!? Me thinks you protest too much.
     
  45. lol. I was a little worried that people had begun to complain about me. Yikes. But, I do hope you know I admire your photo's and apologize if I went off the deep end. And you're right, I do like some manipulations but I also like some photography. Hope you ahve a good night Carl.

    Smiles,
    Lisa
     
  46. Lisa's image manipulations are absolutely extraordinary. I would
    hate for her quality of work to be frowned upon by this site.
    <p>
    I like the diversity of the new TRP and I like the fact that it has
    some bad shots on it (means I might get there too some day). I
    think, in time, this system will be refined so that the good images
    that used to be there can still come through. However, if they
    don't put them up for critique, I'm glad they are not there.
     
  47. I agree with Mark's comment above regarding Lisa's work.

    However, to some extent the members here do, or should make the rules! They do this by
    rating photographs in the Critique Forum, and from here the TRP page should be
    produced. If you want a photograph on the TRP page, what is a more honest way of
    getting it there, than by having it "voted" there by a load of strangers, rather than by a
    load of mates?

    Please don't make any personal attacks or accusations here, my original question was
    ment to be a general and serious proposal, and not an attack on any individual or style of
    photograph.

    Regards, Nick.
     

Share This Page

1111