What happened to photo.net?

I am a member of photonet from february. I enjoyed most of the time

spent here. I posted photos, received some feedback on them, rated

and critiqued other's photos. At a certain point I restricted my

activity. This was happening after seeing several times the most

recent photos page (the random one) having 6-7 seven photos of the

same photographer out of nine. I see now some restrictions in the

submission limit. I don't know how effective they are. I posted since

then from time to time some photos. Each time, for two or three days

seemed that anybody at least looked at my photo. Then, invariable, 6

ratings were received. No comment, no communication, no feedback. I

can assume that my photos are so bad that seems to enter in a sort of

neglected photos list and then I receive a standard quantity of

attention. Still, I note a big difference between the time I joined

the site and the situation now. Can anybody explain me what happened,

or at least what I miss here? Thanks.

Since at least 1997 people have complained that photo.net has been going downhill. They decry the unwashed masses that now participate in photo.net and the new policies.

 

This recurrent phenomenon could result from at least two possible scenarios. 1) They are right that photo.net has continued to go downhill since at least 1997. That would mean that it was initially fantastic and now complete and utter crap. While photo.net has had to evolve in order to meet the financial, social, and intellectual challenges of increasing numbers of visitors, I don't think it is now the terrible place some describe. 2) People ignore or don't understand the law of diminishing returns, the power law and asymptotic curves. Folks expect that the rate of learning they experienced when first participated in photo.net will continue forever. This cannot be true. At some point in our growth as photographers, we develop faster by consciously developing our own style/vision/craft/art/business than by participating in photo.net. This is not a demonstration of photo.net's weakness. It is a demonstration of its strength.

Chris, I think he was talking about the photo critique forum not the discussion

forums. My feeling from the outset has been that the addition of the critique

forums has beena bad idea. As songwriter / musician Richard Thompson

once joked about his legion of fans and discusiion panels: "They are worse

than professor critics, they're amateur critics!". yes It would probably cut into

the number of people who come to photo.net, but it would return photo.net to

something closer to what Photo.net Philip Greenspun originally set out to do.<

P>

Dan, I'm not aware of any upload restrictions, although I've gone on

record as being in favor. What I suspect has happened to this site is

the advent of high speed internet connections. If you don't have one,

going through the request for critique list is much too slow. You'll

note that a lot of those first six ratings are by new members who

treat this process as a computer game, spewing out hundreds of ratings

in a matter of a couple days. Some have no images uploaded. Many of

those that do have had no training in visual design or how to use

light. The problem is too many uploads and not enough qualified

people who have the time to offer a meaningful critique. . .

Dan, you should read the FAQ where the operation of the Gallery is explained, and explore the site more.

 

When you submit a photo, it is displayed on the Gallery page as a "Recent Photo". How long it is counted as a recent photo will depend on how many other photos are being submitted when you submit yours. The most recent photos bump the slightly less recent ones.

 

After 48 hours, more or less, your photo will go into the "Rate Selected Photos" list. The initial order of the photos in this list is determined by their average rating before it went onto the list. The list is ordered into three groups: (1) those with less than 6 ratings; (2) those with less than 20 ratings; and (3) those with more than 20 ratings. Within these groups they are sorted by rating. Thus, a good photo will tend to get 6 ratings unless a lot of photos were submitted and it is very far down the list. It will only get more than 6 if the first 6 ratings were high and people are actively rating that day, so that the 6-20 rating photos come back to the top of the list.

 

While it is possible to make comments in the "Rate selected photos" interface. this interface encourages rating rather than comments.

 

Once a photo has 6 ratings, if they were high, the photo will appear in the "Top Photos" display for the week, where it will get more ratings. A photo will also receive ratings if you request a critique on the Gallery page.

Re Carl's comment, there are upload restrictions, but they are restrictions only on the total number of photos a member can have in their portfolio. See the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo-posting-guidelines">photo posting guidelines</a> . What is lacking, is any sort of restriction on the number of photos that can be uploaded <i>per unit of time</i>. Such a limit -- say, something like 1 per day, or 1 per week -- would increase the likelihood that any particular photo would get ratings and/or comments.

One way to get more feedback is to use the Presentation feature in 'your

portfolio.' Make it public - but also address it to a number of specific members

with whom you believe you might share a style or interest. Your presentation

arrives in their portfolio much like an email.

 

Some pointers :

1. Don't beg for rates or critiques, merely ask for an honest opinion.

 

2. Once a person has added a comment, or, should they not respond within -

say - 3 weeks, delete their address from the presentation. Otherwise it stays

- forever! as I am experiencing with a particular member. It's a courtesy.

 

3. Use the presentation text option, it enhances the overall effect.

 

If you like, do one with your 5 favourite uploads and address it to me : but

please check my portfolio first, just to ensure we are on a similar wavelength.

Make all pay at least $5/year to post to a thread and $25/year for full access. That will get rid of people like Mark Crame. *hehe*

Dave, reducing the number of images uploaded per unit of time would

help with the competitive aspect of this site, given that many of the

most popular photographers flood the market (as I did this week, but

for only the second time ever :-), but would have only a marginal

impact on the number of critiques offered on 'average' images. The new

rating system, as modified by Jim Schwaiger's proposal will give

incentives to photographers who are willing to rate images that they

would not otherwise be attracted to. A highly visible on-site visual

design course along with a tutorial on how to deal with various

lighting challenges would do more for novice photographers than a few

ratings or even a handful of critiques. The critique circles provide

this function as well, but for only a handful of members who are in a

currently active group. Seven's explanation of how to use

presentations is intriguing, but this seems to be a well kept secret.

.

More uploads in a day makes no difference as for the number of critiques and ratings that will be distributed - if we assume that there is a given number of people online, and that each member will spend a certain time here. So, statistically, Brian already posted figures that show clearly no decrease in the participation OVERALL. But invidually, things are not that way.

<p>

As stated here, if 5 "popular" photogragraphers are online that day uploading 3 to 5 pictures each, this will certainly get attention and members who will rate them will be likely not to look at many other pictures after these. That's why many pictures are imo getting less attention now, and also because people seem to have lost the community spirit - imo due to a kind of general disinterest (disgust sometimes) about ratings in general.

<p>

That's why I see the new rating system as a potential boost for people's moral and activity. I am myself really looking towards this new system and a few other improvements. As it is now, I have just completely lost any faith in explaining in 5 or 10 lines why I like or dislike an average shot. Why ? Simply because of various kind of abuses and sad attitudes I observe daily on the site. The whole thing is starting, sorry, to really piss me off. And trust me, I know for sure that I'm not the only one.

<p>

Now, this being said, there are 3 things that can surely be done to facilitate the critiquing process. Nothing new here. These ideas have already been proposed.

<p>

1) Allow comments and rating ON THE SAME PAGE.

<p>

2) Create categories, so that people may see what they like without going through 100s of shots of what they don't like.

<p>

3) Create a section where one can see all the uploads of the day, in a raw, as thumbnails, on a few pages.

<p>

I truly dislike Photosig for many reasons, but one thing for sure is that over there, when I used to visit that site, it was really a piece of cake to see in 15 minutes all uploads of the day - thumbnails. Here, I never know whether I've seen all uploads of the day, and when I click on "recent uploads", I see sometimes the same picture a few times. Then "critique selected pictures" shows pictures one by one and it takes ages to see anything, and often I see something I'm glad to comment on only after half an hour...

<p>

I find that so bad, to tell you the truth, that I stick nowadays to photo-critique forum and to the top-rated pages.

<p>

Everything should be accessible easily, or else we are bound t have threads like this and people dis-satisfied with the response who will drop out. That was it. Regards.

Thank you all for the helpful comments. This turned into a interesting thread. Brian Mottershead described exactly what happens technically, that's an important answer to my question. I received tips in how to 'trick' the system in order to get attention. Well, I know how to do it since I spent a lot of time observing things at the begining of my presence here. Still I don't want to do it. This is not a natural system to live with or leave it. There's another possibility here: It is managed by people, therefore it could be changed.<BR><BR> I think we have to define first what's the purpose of this site. Is it a convenient exhibition place for top photographers, is it a learning place, is it a club of friendly people that share ideas and communicate, is it a file sharing site? I think now it's all of the above. From my point of view, it fails short on every aspect. I've learned that I'm far from being a top photographer, I'm not an absolute beginner, I don't always feel that this is a community, I have other places where to share my files (I didn't even give to my friends my address here), and I don't have a high speed connection :)<BR><BR> For me, the rating system by itself is useless. It allows batch one-second-glance critiques. This cannot help anybody. At least tying a rating with a comment would be a good enhancement, even is this is already done with 'wow' comments of top photos. I'm sure this has been said before. And also a lot of other suggestions. I don't have the time to make a real analysis of the problem. I think this is already done by the administrators by analysing the database requests for understanding the users' behavior and by taking into consideration each piece of users' feedback (like this one). I just feel a bit of frustration that was solved by simply retiring (that could only help an already crowded place)<BR><BR> I guess I want too much of this site. Still, on the objective side, I think it needs improvements.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Dan.

Imo a "club of friendly people that share ideas and communicate" AND WHO ARE GEARED TO HONEST AND SERIOUS AND POLITE CRITIQUING is what the site should ultimately be.

<p>

What I see at the moment is:

<p>

1) that if I give a low rating with an in-depth critique I get a low rating and no critique in return, in at least 50% of the cases.

<p>

2) that if I give a high rating, I get one in return

<p>

3) that all sorts of people are abusing the system daily in various ways - mate-rating, verbal abuses, rating abuses, fake IDs, etc.

<p>

4) that the POW forum has gone sick.

<p>

All this leads me to the conclusion that this is ego-dot-net, and no longer photo.net. For as long as this situation will remain, I will step out of this community.

<p>

Photography has been my life for the past 15 years. I'm not willing to give up my respect for photography, just for a bunch of ego-maniac punks, sorry. This site has been losing all its good contributors from the day I came to it till today, one by one. Brian seems to have good ideas as for how to solve all these problems, but well, I'll now be waiting to see solutions actually changing things.

<p>

Too bad it didn't work out, as they say in the movies. All the best till this place becomes a paradise. Meanwhile I'll be as quiet as an angel...:-)

It was not my intention to provoke this kind of reaction. Normally, turning the back helps nobody but the shooter :)<BR>I restrained my activity here not because I thought my gesture would change anything, but just because of some dissapointment. My ego advise me to say: who the heck am I anyway? :) <BR>

About ego driven communities. I guess that's human nature always trying to compete. And with a proper numerical system, ego boost only come naturally. What I mean is, the system could influence behaviors (not to be read as manipulate behaviors). What's pitty maybe is that artists are human also. Or I'm going to far considering that in each photographer lies an artist?<BR>

I noticed a strange thing (sorry that I speak out of the subject maybe). By being here too much, my creativity suffered. I was dissapointed sometimes by the poor answer that I received. This led to lack of confidence in my own way of expressing things. Or, worse, I thought that the only valid photography is the one that is the most successful in terms of top photos page presence. So, I guess taking a distance can only help in this regard also.<BR>

And, Marc. I remembered now that I received a long time ago (!) two or three meaningful critiques (one of the few on my photos) from you. Not necessarily I agreed with your point, but helpful by no means. This kind of being able to watch and spend time with a photo :) is maybe what's missing here. So, I think you are needed.

Marc is impatient and it is tiring to have him around -- even though he has contributed a lot to the site. While on the whole I will regret his departure, I won't miss his relentless demands for improvement of the site mechanisms at a pace that is beyond our capacity and to a level of perfection that we can never achieve.

 

The site's main goals for the Gallery are to provide a venue where photographers can exhibit their work to a very large audience and to receive feedback and commentary from that audience. We don't intend it as a file-sharing site, but we are strapped enough for cash that if people want to use it for that and are prepared to pay us, we accept the payment.

 

The audience and the participants on the Gallery are the public. And it isn't even the public of a museum -- where people pay for admission and there are lots of guards standing around to keep people on good behaviour. It is more like a subway station. People are posting their photos on the walls of a busy subway station for whatever commentary and appraisal the public passing through cares to give. On the average day, an average of 150,000 and sometimes over 200,000 of the photos in our database are seen, with usually around 1.5 to 2 million separate photo views. Daily, thousands of ratings are given and comments written.

 

It may seem ridiculous to put a Gallery in a subway station and let the people hurrying through decide which photos are best. But, in fact, it mostly works. photo.net is not an orderly museum, where photos automatically gain respect by having been chosen for the walls, but people get feedback, visibility, and recognition. The public doesn't pick the same photos for recognition as a museum curator would, but they pick good photos. Some of the public's decisions about what should go onto the most visible spots on the subway walls are the result of manipulation and politics -- but isn't recognition from a museum or the gallery more plagued by capricious gatekeepers and politics?

 

Even though photo.net is not a stately museum with carefully controlled access of both exhibitors and viewers, we have a constant stream of people who don't seem to understand that they are posting their photos in a subway station and insist that the management hire guards and control the access so that no stupid, dishonest, or sarcastic rating or comment is ever lodged against the photos -- that we make the subway photo exhibition a museum. Marc has been one of the most insistent and articulate of this group, but their complaints are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Gallery is and how perfected its systems can be.

 

The amazing thing is that the subway crowd is almost as decorous as the museum crowd, just bigger. Unlike the museum crowd, the photo.net audience is given a chance to record its comments, and probably the museum crowd wouldn't be significantly more decorous in writing.

 

It is only a small percentage of people who don't behave well. In normal life, everybody who is not a hermit learns to ignore the misbehaviour of this small percentage. Why is it different on photo.net? While we continue to develop systems to control the behaviour of this small percentage, it takes time and experimentation to do this, and the Gallery is not the only part of photo.net to which we have to give attention. Nor will these measures ever be perfect. I don't even want photo.net to be a hushed museum, where everyone gazes respectfully, or at least quietly, at the works selected by the curators.

The best advice I can give anyone regarding ratings is to ignore them. No

need to check who gives what - just value the verbal feedback. The

photographer in question might simply have disabled the images from public

view, not deleted them....he'll probably be back in any event.

 

PN is cyclical, we have peaks and troughs as to number of "snipers" and

which clan runs the front page, who is deemed "best" and so on. With a little

patience it all levels out. I've noticed this in nearly 18 months of membership -

a positive lifetime in cyberspace.

 

And the number of troublemakers is, I agree, a miniscule percentage of the

whole.

Having been a member of photo.net for years... 1998 I think... I want to state that Brian deserves much applause for the improvements to the site. The question of "what has happened to Photo.net" is not a new one. Slowly but sure -- improvements are made constantly...That is what has happened to Photo.net. In my opinion it gets better every day! Today I went to critique a photo and lo and behold....the photo was above the comment box... YAY - way to go Brian. <p>I love your analogy to a subway. Sure it is frustrating to see "unworthy" images claiming high ratings through nothing more than politics. Sure it is frustrating to come upon a really great collection of photos that are not getting attention. Sure it is frustrating that sometimes I upload pictures and some never get comments and just a few rates. Clearly wedding images are not popular on photo.net. :-)How can I get more rates/comments? Complaining won't get me anywhere... So - I just go looking for other people that do wedding images and request an interchange and/or rate/comment on their work. If someone truly abuses my pages...I can complain and it is taken care of. I find Photo.net to be responsive and receptive to change. As to the rest of it? I have to remember that my opinion of what is the best or worst is just that.....<em>my opinion.</em> I can wish that people were more respectful of other members and behave "the right way". But this is the real world and those people will always exist. You just can't please everyone and I think this site does a pretty good job of trying to be inclusive rather than exculsive and elitist. <p>Thanks Brian for all your hard work.

This question/problem might have been asked and answered before, so please excuse.

 

Mary , all the more reason that we have initial categories to upload our photos to.

If this can be done with �critique request� then why not with the first upload of the photo.

Why should landscape photo be shown with Wedding photos? Crazy and unfair. Since

the system is in place why not refine it.

Verna -- read this thread and I think you will get your answer in one of Brian's comments. Changes are coming but with one person working on them - it takes time. Anyway - the whole thread is very interesting and Brian and Patrick explain and make positions on a lot of your questions. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003yY0

I'm somewhere between Marc and Brian and I respect both. Marc for his prolific comments, ratings and forum contributions as well for his professional expertise. And I respect Brian because HIS efforts have taken photo.net a big step in the right direction. I agree with Mary that the site is improving constantly, but Marc is also right: If the most enthusiastic and active contributors are leaving, there is something wrong and it would benefit all of us and photo.net if there would be further improvements.

The photographers who are discouraged, gone inactive, or have

left are your potential Curators - those who both rate and

comment honestly on a wide variety of strong and weak images.

If you think Marc has been impatient, try uploading some good

images and see what happens to them over a period of time

while you do what Curators are supposed to do.

 

Don't be surprised if you find people who willfully or out of

ignorance or pedestrian tastes tear your images off the subway

walls before anyone else gets to see them.

Carl,

 

You apparently don't realize that before I became Editor of photo.net, I was very active in the Gallery. My photographs are on this site and I have experienced the full range of practices of which people complain. Along with Jeremy Stein, I am now involved in handling the complaints that come into abuse@photo.net. So, I am not unaware of what goes on in the rating system. While I realize that "ratings abuse" is infuriating to the people who feel victimized by it, abuse is not a very important problem on the site, in my opinion. And the only reason it is a problem at all is because people get so worked up about it.

 

The site's only requirement for the rating system is that it results in the better photos being more visible than the less good photos. That is all. That doesn't mean that photo #20 has to be better than photo #21. It only means that the photos in the "Top" list should be on the whole better than the ones that aren't. For us to be able to achieve this goal, it isn't necessary to stamp out every last stupid or abusive rating. Probably the system would achieve the site's goals, if we did hardly anything about abuse. As long as the erroneous ratings are more or less evenly distributed, the rating system is fine as far as the site's goals go, even with a fairly high rate of abuse.

 

But the system also has to seem fair to the participants, and that, honestly, is the only reason we work on abuse. But my point about the subway and the museum is that there is only so far we can go, and we can only get there so fast, and that when we arrive at a system that is as perfect as it is going to be, there will still be elements of unfairness and abuse.

 

And it won't matter. It doesn't matter that much now. Even when a Tony Dummett or Marc Gouggenheim regularly received what they were convinced were retaliatory ratings, that didn't stop their photos from being among the most visible on the site. Could they have been any more visible?

 

There is a large amount of noise in the rating system: this comes from the fact that people's tastes vary and they have different purposes in rating and different interpretations of the ratings scale. It is inevitable that even the best photographs will have a range of ratings centered around an average. Certain genres of photos will have more ratings variation than others. That means some of the ratings will he lower and some higher than the average. The ratings lower than the average are usually no more abusive than the ones that are higher. What matters is the overall tendency of the ratings.

 

There is enough error in the system that it is absurd to get all puffed up with pride because your photo is #1 instead of #20, or dejected because it is the other way round. The top photographers on this site all receive a number of stupid and unreasonably low ratings. And they all benefit from stupid and unreasonably high ratings. The question is: on the whole does the good work become visible and does the poor work sink into oblivion? There are exceptions, but on the whole I think the answer is yes, especially if you focus only on the last six months or so where ratings inflation is not a factor. If you are a Top Photographer on this site, your work is being seen by tens of thousands of people every day, and that is true whether you are #1 or #40.

 

People are constantly complaining because this or that low rating causes their photo to drop a few slots, or mate-ratings cause their rivals' photo to go a few slots ahead of their photos. None of this matters. In short, the random low, stupid, etc ratings on your own photos and the random high, stupid ratings on other people's photos are for the most part just not worth getting worked up over.

 

If there is somebody whose work is exceptional who is buried in obscurity because of systematic abusive low ratings, I would like to know about it. If there is somebody whose work is obviously terrible who is near the top because of systematic abusive high ratings, I would like to know about that too. I don't see it.

 

I know that people do get worked up over "abusive" ratings anyway, that they get disgusted with the low ratings, abusive or not, and that some of them leave because the site won't "deal with" abuse. That is the main reason why I would like systematically to reduce abuse -- not to make the system more "accurate" in some way. I wouldn't need to do so much work, though, if I could just get people to shrug off the abuse as a nuisance. But I don't hold much hope of that.

An interesting post, Brian... Thanks for this time sharing your thoughts on this abuse issue. First of all, let me say that I know very well that I have added pressure with my criticism of the rating system, abuse issues and other related topics. I personally feel a bit sad to read that you found me "tiring". I thought criticism was rather a constructive thing. Was I wrong ? Was it better to just leave 2 months ago ? I think you should look at it from the bright side, Brian. Yes I am an impatient person - not only so in photo.net, but worse in real life - believe it or not ! :-) But in the end, I think you know that I only meant well, don't you ? I haven't deleted an of my images at this point. I have just decided to pull out as a way to show that I disapproved certain things, to the point where I actually lost interest in being part of this community as it is now. It doesn't mean that I give up on the site as a whole and for ever. It means that I will just be waiting to see what happens. I liked many ideas and proposal you made so far, and there is hope, but as you said, the reforms will not be completed in a day. Fair enough. I'll wait. Meanwhile, a few points about what you wrote here...

<p>

"While I realize that "ratings abuse" is infuriating to the people who feel victimized by it, abuse is not a very important problem on the site, in my opinion. And the only reason it is a problem at all is because people get so worked up about it." B.M

<p>

I somehow agree with this, Brian. But I also call that a fact: people do get worked up about it, and I said so and many others didn't, or said it less, but felt the same way. Now if you ask me (I know, you don't...:-) whether it is right or wrong to abuse a system, I'd say it's wrong. And if you ask me whether it's more right or more wrong to get worked up about it, I'd say it is less wrong that committing these abuses. I'm pretty sure you agree at this stage, but you may feel that there's no point in making this very statement... Let's see...

<p>

"The site's only requirement for the rating system is that it results in the better photos being more visible than the less good photos." B.M

<p>

Agreed.

<p>

"As long as the erroneous ratings are more or less evenly distributed, the rating system is fine as far as the site's goals go, even with a fairly high rate of abuse." B.M

<p>

Mathematically correct, Brian, but you aren't dealing with robots here, and as you wrote yourself, people do get worked up about abuses. And please note that rating abuses are only 1 of the few types of abuses I listed in my previous post. What's the worst kind of abuse in your opinion ? Imo, it's an insult, not an unfair rating. Are you aware that Emil Schildt has received ratings like 1/1 ? Are you aware that he has been insulted ? Are you aware that he has almost never critiqued a picture on this site, whereas he has critiqued hundreds of pictures on another site ? Ever wonder what could be the relation between these facts ? Ever looked at the ratings on Tony's page ?That was my reason for fighting this battle all the while. Not just for me. I actually received fairly little ratings below 4, and do not consider myself a major victim of rating abuses. I did not fight this battle for Emil, or for Tony, or for anyone specifically, but rather because I believe Photo.net needs a pool of people who can actually give a more valuable opinion on other people's work. If the really great photographers on this site, like Emil or Tony, are discouraged from participating, where are other members going to to get a truly expert opinion ? Don't you think that matters a little ? Tony has already clearly stated that he stopped critiquing and rating images because the whole rating thing didn't make any sense. Then, any idea what happened to Janko Furlan ? To this "Evan" I sent you a note about the other day ? To Jo Voetz ? I have a list of good photographers - who surely would belong in top 50 photogs - who have actually dropped out more or less simply due to the fact that they didn't even get half of the respect they deserved on this site... Well, that matters a lot to me. For your information, I have sent a presentation to Vuk the other day. One can like or not the way Vuk expresses his opinions, but his opinions are solid, strong, and informed. We have lost his voice. And Ian MacEachern ? And Bill Hocker ? And Chris Battey ? And Bradley Hanson ? Tony Goke ? ETC. Why are they so quiet nowadays. Long ago, I enjoyed reading each and every post they wrote... I had a fantastic exchange of ideas with Doug Burgess and Balaji more recently... Do you know why they haven't logged on these days ? Well, I do. All this isn't just a small matter, Brian. These people are the locomotiv that puts the train on tracks. They should get some respect, and their pages should be cleaned up a bit. You said that top pictures still make it to the top. I'm sorry, but that's just no right. Some do. Ian's pictures, Emil's pictures made it to the top, yes. Not Tony's. Not Chris Battey's. You can barely see them in the top-rated, and I am fairly convinced that they are substantially better than 70% of the work seen daily in the top pages. Doesn't that count for something ?

<p>

"The system also has to seem fair to the participants, and that, honestly, is the only reason we work on abuse. But my point about the subway and the museum is that there is only so far we can go, and we can only get there so fast, and that when we arrive at a system that is as perfect as it is going to be, there will still be elements of unfairness and abuse."

<p>

Yes, this is all agreed as well. But then, why not set as a priority to bring back all these people who could have helped photo.net tremendously ? Why not get some help from volonteering curators to help cleaning up ratings they find abusive on the site ? Why should the entire abuse thing rely only on 1 or 2 people ? On one hand I do realize that you are short-handed, but on the other, I wonder why you do not accept any help in that case ! You spoke about 100 curators quite a while ago. I think they should be able to start work pretty soon, and they could greatly contribute to getting rid of abusive ratings of the past. Yes / no ?

<p>

"And it won't matter. It doesn't matter that much now. Even when a Tony Dummett or Marc Gouggenheim regularly received what they were convinced were retaliatory ratings, that didn't stop their photos from being among the most visible on the site. Could they have been any more visible?"

<p>

I have never complained about a lack of visibility of my images, in general, Brian. I am rather fairly lucky in fact, despite the few people who had for a while an obviously agenda-motivated way to rate my work at some point. Overall, I am actually surprised myself that it went so fine for me. I have had 2 or 3 of my shots that were "killed" by very obviously mean-spirited people, but that's about it. As for Tony, that is a VERY different story, and I'm surprised you bagged him in here with me. Tony isn't even in the top 100 photographers on this site, whereas he should imo be at least in the top 10 or top 5. Why was his fate so much worse ? Simply because he spoke his mind all the way at a time, and the retaliatory ratings are all over his folders. Simple: If ANYONE rates ANY picture by Emil, or by Tony, uploaded so far a 1/1 or 2/2, I call it an abuse. I don't even need to read the reasons they give - I AM JUST PLAIN SURE. I may be wrong, but 1s and 2s are for the WORST shots on the site, and if one just dislikes their stuff, the technical merits of their images alone warrants at least a 3 - COMPARED TO OTHER PICTURES ON THE SITE. So, very simple, anything below on their work (all the 1s and 2s) should fly to the trash right now. Why hasn't that been done yet ? That takes half an hour, no ? Isn't it fair and worth it ?

<p>

I have received no 1s at all since I came back to PN - what a wonderful change ! I have had a few 2s, but very little. When I did get a 2, I went to check the rater's page and I always saw the same thing: no pictures at all or absolutely ugly pictures not even half ok technically, and often a few comments on other pages which were trashing mine or me as a person. I didn't care. I never wrote to you about those ratings, did I ? But I did care about a few people who had obviously started retaliatory actions. Their ratings weren't very low, but they weren't sincere either, and often came with insults - not only on my pages but on other pages of this site. This, yes, is something I care about. I expect people to be polite, not to bad-mouth other photographers on other pages of this site. PN already deleted many insulting posts about me by 3 specific members of this site. One of them apparently left me now in peace. The 2 others are still doing the same thing, and if I write to PN, I'm "tiring", so I rather retire till the site regains control of this situation. I wouldn't want to be exhausting, and I wouldn't want people to insult me for my opinions. I express myself as well as I can in English, and I always explain clearly WHY I dislike an image. That's the best I can do, I suppose. I'm not saying I'm right all the time. Sometimes I'm sure about what I write, and sometimes, I'm not. I'm human, and all I have is an opinion. Why would my opinions then become a reason for verbal insults ? That's another kind of abuse, you haven't spoken about, here. And that's the worst kind, because it discourages criticism. I saw that such abuses are deleted nowadays in the POW - GREAT !! But as I said, one person alone can't possibly control abuses all over the site, so LET'S COLLABORATE to solve this problem. I do not agree that abuses are unimportant - they happen to cause good photographers to leave this site, whereas we need them...

<p>

"People are constantly complaining because this or that low rating causes their photo to drop a few slots, or mate-ratings cause their rivals' photo to go a few slots ahead of their photos." B.M

<p>

This is almost insulting, Brian. Do you realize that ? You are talking about Tony Dummett out of the top 100 on this site and a few people - and you know well who they are ! - getting rating averages over 5.50 on about every image. If you think that every person complaining to you is whining because he's comparing HIS results to another member's results, you are just palin wrong and worse, you are assuming that the people writing to the abuse department are all ego-maniac idiots. Do you think I need to look at the score of my image to know its true value ? I've shown my work a thousand times to professionals of all sorts, and I roughly know where I stand after 15 years as a pro. Does that make sense to you ? If I get a 3/3, I know what it means, and the importance of this opinion has high chances to be 0 to me. That's not the point at all. The point is to maintain an ETHIC on this site. Some things are proper, some are not. Some critiques help photographers to become better, some are just plain discouraging for certain advanced amateurs. Why would an un-ethical behaviour, that discourages top artists from critiquing, and advanced photographers from posting and critiquing, be tollerated ? Just because it's mathematically ok ? You should pay more attention to what people feel, Brian. You understand the problem, so take it seriously. MORE seriously AS SERIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. And admit you would need help on abuses, and get the help you need ! That's my opinion.

<p>

Photonetters aren't robots. They do have a heart. They do not like hostile reactions, rude posts, direct and personal attacks. So abuses ARE important, despite all the mathematical truths...

<p>

If there is somebody whose work is exceptional who is buried in obscurity because of systematic abusive low ratings, I would like to know about it.

there is somebody whose work is obviously terrible who is near the top because of systematic abusive high ratings, I would like to know about that too. I don't see it.

<p>

Wow ! You don't see it ? Well... I do. Have you seen Janko Furlan's work, by the way ? Have a look.

<p>

And if you don't see what some people mean by top-rated crap, I suggest you try re-reading the Clifford thread between the lines, and then visit the top pages. Maybe you could rate a few shots ? :-)

<p>

Anyway, all this is what I had to say about these issues. You need, I think, to take it very seriously, and to get rid of the really obviously abusive ratings and comments on the site - high and low. And for that you need help. Curators may help. I just wish you to stop considering that 80% of the complaints you received are whiners. I wrote to this Evan to try to bring him back to PN after his first upload, which received the first obvious abuse. PN didn't even send a warning to the abuser. Other abuses occured after that, and before that, and no warning were sent as far as I know, and the abusers continued theit little thing. That's not right. Sorry. There are even 2 fellows

you have actually banned temporarily, but their ratings remain on the site. That's not right. And it's not right to say that what's not right doesn't matter if in the end the mathematics bring back 70% or 80% of the good shots to the top-pages. This thought might lead to the loss of 20 to 30% of the top photographers on this site, and that matters a lot - eventhough maybe only 2 or 3 % out of these 20 or 30% might be actually leaving. The site in that sense simply lacks respect to good photographers and therefore to good photography. The photographer I worked for in 95 in Germany could post here, if he wanted to, by far the best still life pictures you have ever seen on this site. But I suspect people like him never will post here, because great work is not respected the way it should be. Let's be clear: I have never done any GREAT work, so I'm not talking about myself here at all. I'm talking about pictures like Tony's best shots and such. Art of this calibre deserves respect, and sometimes, you may want to build a little museum in a subway for it...

<p>

Great art doesn't end up in subways. It ends up in museums. The good news is that if you put a cute little red sofa in a corner of a subway, great artists have enough imagination to see this sofa as if it would be a true museum...:-)

Brian,

 

I am well aware of your participation in the gallery and have

mentioned in other posts seeing your top rated images. The system

worked for you. It obviously does not work for everyone or we would

see more participation from the many members who are on record as

being totally turned off to both the functioning and the results. The

number of photographers who turn up on a search of photographer�s

highest is only a small fraction of the total membership. Other

things being equal, I would think everyone would want to share their

images with others . . . . but an awful lot of them don�t.

 

I�m not inclined to stick my neck out and name names of either

underrated or overrated members, but I think that if this thread was

more visible, you would get more feedback than you might imagine.

 

I have never nit picked about the difference between being rated

number #20 vs #40, but rather getting on the top pages at all vs being

tossed back into oblivion. Look at my portfolio and tell me if you

think the ones that got 30 ratings are clearly better than the ones

that got 6. I�m sure I�m only one of many members who have noticed

this rather arbitrary selection in their own portfolios.

 

I think if and when the photographers� personal favorites gallery gets

up and running, you will see a lot of good images that got little

attention because a couple raters thought they were merely OK/4. Is

that abuse? Sometimes it is, depending on the pattern of the behavior

and the motivation, when that can be determined. Examples of low

ratings by agents from a few �top� photographers have been pointed out

to you in the past and have been ignored. Your assertion that there

is a more or less equal distribution of inflated / deflated and

abusive / nonabusive ratings all across the images in the top pages is

simply untrue because the behavior patterns of all the top

photographers themselves varies dramatically in terms of their own

uploads, ratings and comments. People react according to those

patterns.

 

You didn�t address my point about potential Curators anticipating more

abuse if they rate and comment objectively on a broad range of images.

I�m honestly wondering if it will be an honor that could bring more

grief than joy, as with the POW selections.

 

I�d like to think that the many ideas that I�ve shared with you over

the past few months have been motivated by a vision for a smoother

functioning harmonious site. The anticipated reduction in the number

of complaints that flood your office would be the icing on the cake.

I don�t see this level of frustration as being permanent. I realize

that you may not be as confident. . .

Marc and Carl,

 

Neither of you see all the whining mail that is sent to abuse@photo.net. I was not referring to anybody in particular. We receive tons of complaints from people about abuse who just cannot believe that a 3/3 rating is not abuse. How can it not be abuse when almost everybody is rating their photo 5/5? They want the management to lop off the low part of the distribution as abusive and only keep the high ratings, which of course were completely honest. Then they will be all happy that they have a top photo.

 

Yes there is true abuse in the system, but even that is not so easy to distinguish from honest ratings. Many people send us mail with their hunches and feelings that this or that is an abusive rating. We can't delete a person's ratings because somebody else suspects that their account is bogus, or that their ratings are retaliatory or politically-motivated. We have to wait for a pattern to emerge. If you recall, I tried to remove all old ratings of people who had never rated more than 50 photos, where there weren't enough ratings to discern any patterns. The complaints went through the roof.

 

We are working to make the rating system more fair, but I am afraid that no matter how fair it is, people are participating in a system that requires a basic understanding of statistics and a somewhat thick skin. If they don't have either, they probably should put their photos up on a file-sharing site where their friends will look and say nice things, and nobody else will be able to find the photos.