What has happened to the identification/links of raters on the ratings grid?

Suddenly I cannot identify/link to the individuals who rate

photographs that I have posted. Has this been permanently disabled?

Its a great way of building relationships, since people who rate your

photos are often interested in the same genre as you. What's

happened?

The same here. I think (hope) it?s temporarly.

I turned it off as an experiment.

 

Ratings used to be anonymous and there were many fewer problems with mate-rating, revenge rating, etc. The reason they were made public was so that people could report low-rating trolls and people who seemed to have multiple accounts. That seems to have turned many of the active participants into vigilantes so I think we'll try to deal with that ourselves for a while and see how an anonymous system works two years on.

 

It might be gone forever. On the other hand, maybe I'll turn it back on every few days, just for fun. As for building friendships etc, that isn't really a good application of the rating system. Maybe you could write some comments.

I hope its NOT permanent. The great value of this site (and it has been a great value) is the ability to move so easily through it to view other works and connect with other photographers. Any inhibition of that takes away from the the site's core, affirmative value. If the site managers are trying to defend people against tit-for-tat bad ratings and the like, it is a serious mistake to value that over the connections that are built by giving free access to each other. It is a defensive action against the negative, rather than an affirmation and facilitation of the positive. Let freedom reign . . .

another dumb move

Ben, perhaps you missed the part where he said he might turn it on again just for fun. . . . meaning to reveal the identities of people who started to rate honestly, or dishonestly, or . . . . (this is going to get interesting.)

...and stick in "1's" & "2's"!!  I hope everyone knows I'm joking. It's funny, recently I've been engaging in my own experiment. Which is simply to comment more, and only occasionally rate. I read the threads 'round here, seems many photographers rather hear feedback than see a number, anyway. Besides, I'm not a photographer, so if I'm "unsure" of a photo, I think it's best all around if I write vs. rate. After all, I can't tell anyone what to do to "fix" something, I can only say what I see, feel, and would "like to see".

Brian its good and bad, more good i think. lets wait and see what happens now. I agree with Carl this is going to get interesting to watch now. cheers!

The only regret I have is that I'm now unable to view portfolios of those who've rated me, who I haven't had a chance to view/comment on their work. Since I've not yet been a victim of revenge rating or poor comments left in retaliation, this is disappointing. But it may be for the best, as it seems this is a constant topic in the forums. I do think it may encourage people to check in with the site more frequently. Also, I like the new descriptions as to what's expected of critiquers vs. photos on display just for viewing. Turning it on and off every now and then might be fun, too!

Brian, I'm really glad you turned off the rating names--perhaps this will encourage some honest ratings. Over the past year, there's certainly been some very cliquish rating going on, along with the rampant rating inflation.

 

I think it would be nice to take away the photographer's name for the first 3 days, too! The top-rated pages would look quite a bit different!

Brian, I write TONS of comments, and I've been an advocate of comments only critiques as you may remember. But I get about twenty ratings for every comment on my photos. So what do I do? Sometimes I go to a rater's photos and write a comment and no rating, and attempt to guide them in that direction. Sometimes, I look at their work and like it and make them an "interesting person." Sometimes I look at their work and discount their rating one way or the other because I don't care for their work. Sometimes I realize the rater has trouble with the English language, so don't mind a rating without a comment. In each instance, though, something good happens, I think. So its a VERY useful feature for learning and connecting. Taking it out does NOT encourage comments and I seriously doubt that it will reduce abusive ratings. As for vigilantism, you have to live with that the same way we all live with indiscriminate or harsh raters. Its just a part of the mix and a thick skin helps. But it makes no sense to increase isolation, reduce learning and connection via one of the most used vehicles of the site, if not the most used --ratings. SERIOUS mistake in my view. I encourage others to speak up on this one, one way or another.

Yeah, let's have fun and turn on and off the ratings and turn even more people against each other.

 

Ben, you can always follow people who left comments on your pages -- those who leave ratings only are either a software Brian so cleverly designed in support of his 4/4 average rating system or, these are actuall people who have nothing to say about photography, so why bother to get to know them.

 

Why not abolish the rating system altogether, Brian? Oh, sorry after three years of saying this I must sound like an old record ...

M. V. you do sound like an old record, but at least you're a fine photographer!

And besides, Brian, you have always said ratings are for the site and comments for the photographers. So why take an action regarding ratings that deters being able to follow people interested in your work and comment on them? Whether the ratings are "honest" or not, you've preached that we de-emphasize them. Your action cuts against this approach. As for inflated ratings for "friends", what about having a "friend" rate your work, which reminds you to check their portfolio because you haven't for awhile? Isn't the site's primary mission regarding photographers to develop connections and encourage learning, to develop community? No insult intended, but to paraphrase James Carville, for me "it's about access, stupid." Whatever your encouragement about comments, the fact remains that MOST people rate. And if you can't see them, you cannot connect, learn from them. So this change really disturbs me.

Robert and Ben both seem to be right. What Robert suggests is a very good idea and sounds interesting. Carl Root, maybe the solution you never came up with is here after all :) But at the same time what Ben says makes a lot of sense too, so Brian you have a task in hand now, wonder what you will land up doing now - to show or not to show, that is the question :) cheers!

I think it is a very good idea to have it turned off. I also believe the photographer's identity should be hidden. These 2 pieces of information could be hidden for 3 days. THEN I think we will see more meaningful ratings.<p>

 

The "cliques" will figure out a way around this also, but it might return PN, for a while, to the quality site it was some time ago. The "rating" game has dragged PN into the same kind of "personal" popularity contest that has affected so many lesser sites.<p>

 

I don't think there is any way to really change the behavior of those who misuse the sysytem, and I don't attach any significance to the rating system at all. Its misuse is simply annoying.<p>

 

VL

It's another good move, with its down side:

 

- I will miss the chance to visit anybody's portfolio starting from the rate that person left on any of my shots. Sometimes I discovered interesting people behind. Anyway, that's not lost at all, the TRPs are another good starting point.

 

- The other is the possibility of giving abusers another weapon to hurts everybody's average ratings. That's easy to work out: delete constant low rates (or even raters). I mean: that would imply that the "vigilantes" (is that spanish?) should be p.net's staff. That's not so bad after all.

I think it is a mistake to abolish the identification of the raters.

For me it is important to know that the "7/7" i got ( if i ever get one) comes from a good photographer or from somebody who does not distinguish the front end of his camera from the back. The same it's true with low ratings as well.I believe other photographers feel the same.

It all depends on whether or not you think most rates are valid, and whether or not you think making them anonymous will improve the number and/or quality.

 

The only obvious benefit is that retaliatory comments on portfolios will stop.

 

It won't stop fan clubs who will continue to use comments to alert their friends, and it won't encourage serious photographers to rate more or offer critiques since there's no new incentive that I can see.

What Andreas said.

Yes they are hidden. This could works pretty fine and could discourage mate-ratings and revenge ratings... BUT... the other side of the coin is, in my opinion, that in such a way - an anonymous one - self rating accounts will be boosted because it is a free lunch.

I've prosed the three day anonymous upload idea before. Although it can be subverted by using emails, it gives a clearer message that we want you to rate images rather than people.

 

To the rest of you: If someone wants you to visit their portfolio, they can darn well leave you a comment. I don't care how bad their English is.

carl,

about the validity of ratings -- if i get a high rating from a photographer who just signed on to photo.net and posts dark shrubs, i discount the rating. but if it comes from someone with (imho) talent, then i learn something -- that maybe i am on the right track. (i have learned, for example, to increase the contrast in my photos from studying the portfolios of people who rate me, whose work i respect.) the point is, since there are ratings, i can gain something from knowing who leaves them. i can't determine the validity of a rating per se without knowing its source. so now, ratings will only be more irritating and incomprehensible. but my big point: photo.net is about access, access, access. this cuts directly against it and is a terrible move because of that. if someone is going to leave a rating and not a comment, at least let me be able to view the work of, connect with, learn from that person. yea, its nice to have honest ratings, but for crissakes, the greatest value of this site is not if I have a rating of 5 or 6 -- who cares in the end? -- but that i am connecting, learning, sharing with others who share my passions and interests in photography.

Nestor, we do automatically delete all the low ratings of anybody who has too high a percentage of them. In fact, we just did it yesterday. We also delete ALL the ratings of anyone who gives too high a percentage of his/her total ratings to only one person. We also did that yesterday. About 50,000 ratings deleted in all. We do it every month or so. Probably I'll start doing it more frequently.

I did not have the problem with the rating system that some people seem to have. I've already said this before. The ratings/comments that my photographs receive seem, at least to me, to depend on the quality of the posted photograph. I've had a few that skyrocketed in ratings and comments. I expected them to do so because I knew that they were good. I've had some that sank out of site. I expected that reaction as well. And many got a comfortable 20 or so ratings with some helpful comments.

 

Concerning changing the system to anonymous ratings: this is a bad idea. If I get a rating of, say, 6/6 from someone such as Hakon Askerhaug, I don't need to see a comment from him. I know the kind of work that he does and the philosophy of his methodology because I've visited his works and commented. A good (or bad) rating from him speaks many, many words. If a comment is given it's icing on the cake. This can be said similarly for ratings from photographers such as Morey Kitzman, Rich van Hoesel, Jim McNitt, Marc Gougenheim, and many other PhotoNetters who have been kind enough to visit my work. To reduce the ratings to an anonymous number is ludicrous!

 

And consider this. PhotoNet enjoys a world wide audience. Not all of the members understand English and will not leave a comment; at least not one that I can understand. If I can visit their folders and see their work I can understand what they meant by their rating of my photograph. Anonymity disenfranchises me by taking away that ability.

 

Since I am not a member of any of the above mentioned "clubs", this experiment is going to ruin my PhotoNet experience. Brian, it is a bad idea. Regards.