Two suggestion for P.N.

My first: Make it impossible to rate 3's and under without leaving a comment

as to why. NO NAME would be left with the comment so everyone is happy!

 

My second: Why not add a daily or weekly challenge to the front page? Seems

like a great way to have some fun and learn at the same time.

Do not try to police free spirit of reviewers, or you will not get any. Make better pictures instead.

Don't get me wrong Frank. I have no problem with being rated a 3. I have a big problem with the people out there just throwing out 3's because it's fun to piss people off or seeking revenge on a rating that they didn't agree with. Why would you find it discouraging to leave an annonymous comment with a low rating?

Anthony, I have made the same suggestion as your first before, quite obviously without effect.

To Frank: leaving a low rating without a comment is not a review of the image. Strange as it may seem, even good images receive low ratings, in case you haven't noticed. Agree with Anthony on the response.

As I understand things, photo.net is going to be authentic, using verified real names. The

idea of leaving comments without a name does not seem to fit in that scheme. There

would be a name and city attached to a comment. Good community members also have a

proper biography and a solid history on photo.net. These things should enable a member

to determine how much value to add to certain opinions.

 

Also, "blegh!" is a perfectly valid comment as far as a computer is concerned. It is difficult

to automatically detect if a comment is useful.

 

Your second suggestion sounds like it could be fun. Have you tried the No Words forum?

Alternatively, the Wedding and Social Event forum occasionally has a Photoshop challenge.

Patrick, you make an excellent point. The problem with the 3/3 rates is not that it's a low rate. It's the fact that you really don't know who is rating it; a sincere member, a troll, or a bot. In several cases, I've seen really great photos, rated really high except for maybe that lone anonymous 3/3. That's when you start to question the authenticity of the rater. I would just like to see some accountability behind rates, and from what you have stated above, it looks like the site is going in that direction. Bravo.

Patrick,

 

I hear what you're saying about the VALID COMMENT concern but I still think it would be a better system than the way things are now. I also think that it would be a great way to take the fear out of being abused for rating a 3 and leaving a comment with it. No doubt we miss out on comments and suggestions that would help us grow faster because of that. One can always just leave a comment or suggestion with no rating, I usually do, but I would also like to show the photographer what level I feel the photo is at.

 

Yes! I don't use the No Words Forum often enough but I think it's great! In fact, it's part of what made me think of the idea. The other part is that, on occasion, I go back and forth with another PNer shooting the same object to see what we come up with. It's been a great way to open the imagination and creativity, not to mention fun! Thanks for the info on the Wedding and Social Event forum, I'll have to keep an eye out for the challenges.

how about you must have a certain number of photos in your portfolio, submitted for critique, before you can rate? And if you consitently rate a 3, then you must submit photos of your own that rate above a 3. If you dont, then you can not rate new photos, nor add new ones (without deleting old ones). This would apply to subscribers and nonsubscribers alike. In other words, you have to prove that you know what you're talking about...

<i>"In other words, you have to prove that you know what you're talking about..."</i><P>

If only that were true, but you don't need to be able to take good photographs to be able to recognize a good (or poor) photograph. If you ask a buddy what he thought of the latest Steven Spielberg film, do you first ask to see the movies that he has made before you judge the value of his opinion. I'm not a very good portrait photographer. Most of mine, if I posted them, would get, and deserve, 3/3 ratings. But I can certainly recognize a great portrait photo when I see one. I can also recognize one that stinks.<P>

Come on people. They are meaningless numbers, regardless of who gives them. Yes some are given maliciously. Yes some low ratings are "undeserved". It's just a game with a lot of people. If it wasn't, the "mate-rating" cliques wouldn't still exist, even though those rates no longer count for the default view of the TRP.

<P>If you submit your photos for rating, you are asking to play the game. Not everyone plays fair. Not everyone plays nice. The sooner everyone recognizes that basic fact of human behavior, and the fact that little or nothing can be done to alter it, the happier everyone will be. Have some fun with it, and ignore the "playground bullies"!

<i>"NO NAME would be left with the comment <b>so everyone is happy</b>!"</i><P>

I know you mean well Anthony, and your suggestion is sincere and welcome, but if you believe that then I think you are giving everyone else here wayyyy too much credit. ;-) <P>Past behavior has shown that the exact opposite will occur. Not only will some be insulted by what they perceive to be an undeserved low rating, even though it is probably perfectly valid, now they will be further pissed because some anonymous a**hole (in their opinion) has further put down their precious photo by telling them why it sucks.<P>

There are some here who can't accept anything but praise without hurt feelings, whether they deserve that praise or not. Sad, but unfortunately a basic human flaw.<P>

I like your second suggestion. But only if no winner is declared! :-)<P> Please continue to share your photos, enjoy the community here, and don't sweat the small stuff.

<i>"In several cases, I've seen really great photos, rated really high except for maybe that lone anonymous 3/3. That's when you start to question the authenticity of the rater."</i><P>

Will - in the majority of those cases you, and I, and anyone else with half a brain will recognize that rating for exactly what it is. Either a bullshit drive-by shit disturber "rating", or a genuine anomaly. There is really no need to validate the authenticity of such a rating if the remaining <b>anonymous</b> average is significantly higher. In either case it can, and should be ignored. It really doesn't matter who gave the rating. Having that knowledge really doesn't change anything.

<i> "Having that knowledge really doesn't change anything" </i>

<br>

Sure it does Michael. When I submit my photos for rates and critiques, I want to know that a real person left an honest rate and not some made up account or troll.

<br>

I just had a case where I left a critical comment on a guy's photo and the very next day, another account left most of my photos with low rates. It was that guy who did it. How do I know? Because I looked up the account who rated my photos and she didn't have any photos of her own, never left any comments, and her highest ratest photos were from that guy. Pretty sad and stupid if you ask me, but that's the BS that goes on here. I think the site should do somehting to validate.

Not only will some be insulted by what they perceive to be an undeserved low rating, even though it is probably perfectly valid, now they will be further pissed because some anonymous a**hole (in their opinion) has further put down their precious photo by telling them why it sucks. (if this dont show up in italics, could someone please tell me how to do so?...)

 

I much prefer the 'a-hole' to tell me why they dont like my picture, than to completely pass up it as crap and not worth their time to comment. I personally, under most circumstances, enjoy a thorough critique that rips a photo apart like a mad english teacher to an essay. It gives you a chance to learn something, and perhaps, explains why a photo is rating low. Admittingly, i have posted photos, that i thought were good, not great, and gotten back below average ratings. Sure, it wasnt an amazing photograph, but it wasnt surpremely below average either. I hate it when my photo's rate the same as a reflection on a CD back with a teddy bear sitting in the background. Either that or a bunch of kids holding a P&S at arms length taking a picture of themselves... My photo's, usually, are better than that, so i like comments to tell me why they are not. You dont learn anything from a low rating other than someone (hopefully, not a bot) does not like your photo. If you have a preconceived notion to what it is, it will stengthen that notion. If a person leaves an honest criqiue, you learn a lot. Just my personal point of view.

Michael-

LOL! O.K., "Everyone" is a bit to wide of brush! Change that to "I think more people would be happy." You'll never please everyone, but you can attempt to please the majority. I agree with Will when he says that he'd rather know that a real person has given thier honest rate. Also with Dan that he'd prefer the 'a-holes' to at least state what they feel is wrong with the photo. Seems to me that you'll never stop the 'a-holes' but you can at least make thier lives harder as they do to us!

 

Agreed on the "No Winners". The best part of the idea is that "Everyone" who participates wins. :)

I got hit by one of those "malicious" raters and she didn't even care that she left her name and when I, and another PN member asked her nicely to not throw around those rates like confetti without commenting, she just deleted our comments. She threw out 65 1's, 2's, and 3's, all in one day and several more the next day. Even when I asked her to come back to my photo to explain her 3's on it, she refused. It was just malicious.PN doesn't need people like this and it is a shame they regulate how many 7's we can give out but they don't regulate the number of 3's. That is not logical to me. It is a good system but it needs tweeking.

how about disapearing ratings? i recently noticed 2 photos that have had ratings dissapear. Ie: a photo went from 13-11, and from 3 to 1... Both went down with the missing rates...

Disappearing ratings are most likely the work of moderators - I have noticed that they try to remove some "bot" ratings and some obviously malicious ones.

 

In some other thread I proposed that maybe the owner of the image should be given the right to "Disapprove" the rating - which would remove one LOWEST and one HIGHEST rating from the list. Maybe this would work - it would give people some degree of control. For most people the most infuriating thing is not the very fact of abuse (or perceived abuse), but the fact that there is nothing they can do about it...

Ok, i understand what you're saying with the bots, that makes sense.

 

 

However, i disagree on what bothers me about low ratings. If a person doesnt like a photo, but its still worth their time to tell someone they dont like it, why isnt worth their time to tell them why they dont like the photo? Usually a simple response of: very soft, OOF, bad composition, boring subject for this style, etc would be valid enough compared to a 3/3.

The fact that a low rating is given with no comment as to why is what bothers me as well. I don't really care if someone writes "I can't put my finger on it, but it just doesn't appeal to me." At least it would show that they actually to a second to view it as opposed to just shooting out 3's because they can. In addition to that, it doesn't bother me so much that I can't do anything about it, it's more that PN DOESN'T do anything about it! How many photographers have to complain or give suggestions before they at least try to correct the problem?

There is no good solution. I've been here for over 5 years, seen various ratings systems and all have loopholes... And let's face it. Most of us, any of us, that have anyone on our "Most Interesting" list gets a very friendly buddy rating...higher than most should receive. I look at the drive-by 3/3's as a way of balancing out the average. Drive-by = a 3/3 rating on a obviously above average photo. I give out sub-fours w/o comments all the time if the photo is pure junk or crap. Some postings have no business being posted. Photos so out of focus nothing can be made of it, qualify for this junk. Those don't deserve comments. But a decent photograph deserves a reason for a sub-four rating. (ERTYU$%^&*( does not qualify as a reason. Software is available to parse that crap out)...Digital cameras are to a point that any Caveman can produce a 4/4 photograph. Sorry...couldn't resist ;o)

<i>But a decent photograph deserves a reason for a sub-four rating.</i><P>

Who decides whether it's a decent photograph that's deserving of a comment? I remember one rant where the guy was going on about the idiots who gave ratings he didn't agree with. I checked his list of favorites. While there were quite a few good shots there, there were also a lot of trite, overdone cliches (that he'd rated 7/7) that I would regard as utter crap. It's quite possible that the person giving the low rating without comment has more experience and better taste than the people handing out high ratings.<P>

<i>In addition to that, it doesn't bother me so much that I can't do anything about it, it's more that PN DOESN'T do anything about it!</i><P>

Some people simply can't accept that other people have different ideas about what constitutes a good photo, and they're going to be unhappy if someone give a 3 to a photo they like. (In fact, before the ratings became anonymous, people would get angry and make retaliatory ratings and comments against people who had dared to give a 5 when they thought a photo deserved a 7.) Photo.net has worked on solving the problem, but it's tough to change human nature.

Why not just do away with anonymous ratings, period?

 

Also, other photography forums/sites make it a requirement that if someone critiques a photo, they must have work of their own to show what they are capable of.

 

Why doesn't photo.net do this? Or is this just too simple a solution?

Anonymous ratings were introduced to reduce or eliminate a number of problems, such as mate rating, retaliation, and other abuse.

 

Creating a portfolio of work would take less than an hour for anyone with web access and knowledge of the "Save as . . ." function of their browser. They wouldn't need any photography experience, though.

DENNIS & MIKE: I've only been here for about a year so it's good to know that they have tried some different approaches to solve the problem.

 

It makes sense to me that people would rate photo's of those on their MOST INTERESTING lists highly. Yes, there is no doubt that some ratings may be higher than deserved, but the reason the photographers are on the list is because the person likes their style of photography.

 

Perhaps Jim's solution would be the best one. Mate rating still occurs either way. I think that if you explain your reason for a low rating and sign your comment with something like "With Respect" it tends to calm the situation and let's them know that you're giving your honest critique. Actually, I don't usually rate but I leave plenty of comments, both positive and negative. Either way I try to stay honest and helpful.

 

DENNIS: As to the last part of your comment..."That is NOT cool!" :) Just love those commercials!

Over at Nature Photographers Network (lots of real pros here) there are no numerical ratings. Just excellent, professional to-the-point discussion and criticism. But most of the members earn their living producing quality images. So if you want to compete with the Big Guys and you shoot nature shots, join NPN. Reading the comments is like attending a low-key grad school of photography, not to mention the excellent articles that are posted, discussion forums, etc. It certainly has forced me to up my quality in order to feel part of the crowd.