Yet another ratings rant, enjoy it while it lasts...

OK, so my frustration with this site is getting out of hand. I work

hard while taking my photographs, and editing them for

submission here. I stay within the posting guidlines, and post

comments more frequently than rating photographs.I appreciate

recent attempts to make members photographs more prominant

in the rate recent photos section, but the net result is a huge

increase in ratings by folks without a clue.

 

Since my aim is not to get ratings, but to learn and improve my

photography by giving and recieving constructive feedback, the

ratings game is not all that important to me, EXCEPT that it is the

primary way that folks become aware of ones photographs.

 

Recently, the top photo pages are dominated by photographs

that are not all that good. Certainly the mate-rate thing plays a

role, but the recent change in the ratings section limiting display

of a photograph to 10 ratings means that all three of my recent

submissions recieved 10 ratings in short order and then rating

stopped. No more visibility. Only a couple of comments. I am

willing to wait for folks I admire to find and comment on my

photos, but I am almost ready to opt out of the ratings system,

like a couple of other fine photographers I admire have recently

done.

 

None of this really matters, I know. But I find the tendency of new

members without a clue about photography to take advantage of

the ease of pushing a button and giving serious photographs

low ratings annoying in the extreme. Add this to my frustration

with the auto-recompress (should I say auto-trash) of properly

sized photographs, and I am losing interest in participating here

anymore. I like the forums, but displaying photographs seems

hardly worth the time, trouble, and inevitable annoyance with the

clueless.

 

To illustrate my frustration, I attach a recent comment made on

one of these new members photographs. I did not rate this guys

photograph, but I did comment. I hope some of you enjoy this

rant. No doubt this thread will be summarily terminated like

several other somewhat controversial threads I had the audacity

to post in, but here it is anyway:

 

Sam, I'll try to be nice, but will probably fail.

 

First, the only reason I am commenting on this photograph is

because of your recent rating of a photo of mine as a 2 for

aesthetics (2 means BAD). My photograph is not BAD, although I

can understand that you may not like it. Please do not run around

pushing ratings buttons on a whim. It does not help anyone. I

would much rather recieve constructive comments than ratings,

but low ratings by members without a clue about photography

are annoying, frustrating, and deserving of comment in

themselves.

 

My photograph is properly exposed, in focus front to back, was

taken with care and clear intent, has some artistic merit, and

was properly sized for submission to photonet.

 

Your submission above on the other hand shares NONE of

those attibutes. On purely technical grounds, your photograph

sucks. It is out of focus, poorly lighted, framed rather awkwardly,

and is ugly. And on top of all those faults, it is a rather blatant

violation of photonet uploading policy. Your submissions are

REQUIRED to be less than 600K Pixels. That means resizing

your digicam output down to something like 800 X 600 pixels

(540 K pixels). This makes it much easier to adhere to the

100KByte file storage size limit also. This saves bandwidth and

makes your photograph viewable to others on this site who use

standard size monitors. Few of us have the luxury of owning

displays that can accomodate a 2300 pixel long photograph.

Please read the posting guidlines and the guidlines for rating

photographs. As a new member, you would be wise to avoid

posting and rating until you understand the purpose of of this

site.

 

If you want to rate photographs as BAD, please feel free to do so.

I am certain that you will now start looking for more of my photos

to trash. But have the courtesy to explain why you feel they are

BAD. Otherwise, folks will begin to think you are just a BAD man.

Notice that I have not rated this photograph, it is not worth the

effort to push the 1 button for Very Bad. But your callous

disregard for forum policy and your poor rating of a photograph

that is hardly well below average for images on this site is worth

this rant. Now, I feel better. Hope you do as well.

 

Oh, welcome to Photonet Sam!

<i>"First, the only reason I am commenting on this photograph is because of your recent rating of a photo of mine as a 2 for aesthetics (2 means BAD). My photograph is not BAD..."</i>

OK, so you didn't leave a retaliatory rating. Do you think retaliatory comments are any better? In your comment and your reply you made it quite clear that you were only leaving your comment because he left his. BTW...if your posting was meant to make him look bad, it backfired. It only served to make you look like the bad guy.

<p>Do yourself a favor...soak up the few constructive comments knowledgeable people are willing to hand out and ignore the ratings and comments by those who are ranters, retaliators and just plain wreckless. BTW...everyone comments about newbies coming in and rating pics. I'm guilty of rating when I first came here, too. For me, it was my first act of "participation" on the site. Whether right or wrong, I felt it was my way of paying my dues before participating on the boards. Perhaps others feel that unforced obligation as well.

I am amused at the whole thing. I have recently joined the site I to have had fun (Yes FUN) rating photos. I had no idea some of these peolple took this site so seriously. I have been a pro studio owner for 15 years and have had my share of critiques from clients, but in all my days I never threw a tandrum if they did't appreciate my efforts and or my work. It seems know when I want to rate a photo I do not feel I can be as honest with my thought out of fear of hurting someones ego. This is not how ratings are made. Roll with the punches, we cant all be a 4

Melissa, no I did not intend to make Sam look bad. Notice there

is no link to his photo, although it is obvious how to find it if you

are motivated enough. My comments were more than retaliatory,

they also offered constructive advice about file size limits and

rating behavior. Folks running around pushing the 1-3 buttons

for photos they don't like for one reason or another is no more

fair than folks pushing the 6-7 buttons all the time for folks they

like.

 

And Kathy, no we can't all be a 4. But I think it natural to be

annoyed by a rating of 2 for a photo that is at least a 4. I do not

take this stuff too seriously, and as I pointed out, have not been

rating photos at all recently. but I can be annoyed at the abuses

of the ratings system.

 

I just rated a number of photos in the 'rate recent photos section'

and provided detailed comments on each one. I plan on doing

more of this later. It will be interesting to see the reaction of folks

to honest critiques and suggestions. There are far too many

button pushers around here and not enough commenters. It

pisses me off to recieve low ratings on photos that I worked hard

to make, that do not suffer from any major technical or

compositional flaws. If they bother to explain their rating then I

can understand and respect a low rating.

 

I am just tired of the BS around here. Posting this rant was

intended to be amusing and let off some steam for me. If you

think it makes me look bad, then so be it.

<i>"...the net result is a huge increase in ratings by folks without a clue..."</i><p>

 

Beautifully and accurately put. And the rest of your "rant" is an excellent piece on how screwed up the entire rating system is and why it seriously, SERIOUSLY hurts this site and it's foundation. In my mind, there is NO rating system that is good. It's entire premise is bad, is based in a complete lack of substance and integrity and is a poor reflection on the basis of why this site exists or was started, (or at least my understanding of that). <p>Unfortunately the ones who currently run this site, while doing a terrific job in keeping it running and maintaining it, have the misguided idea that the traffic that a rating system brings in is somehow a good thing. I personally see it as debasing the site for traffic and whatever $$ that traffic somehow can bring in ad rates or whatever. But IMO it so degrades the site and sends it in so much of the wrong direction that in time it will hurt more than it can ever help in the short term. <p>So do not be surprised by what you are finding the ratings bringing you in frustration and dissatisfaction. It's unfortunately inherent in the whole idea of anonymous or semi-anonymous system as it exists. The sooner it gets junked the sooner this site can move past a sorry era and become a site with substance again.<p><b>LOSE THE RATINGS ONCE AND FOR ALL! PLEASE!</b>

Brad, chill ! <p>If you think this is bad, then allow me give you an example. Recently, I submitted a photo which I thought was not ridiculously BAD. Guess what, within the first FIVE minutes, I received five (5) 1/1's !!! What did I do? I deleted the photo, waited for half an hour and resubmitted. Guess what, this time I was getting mostly 6/6's and moved on to be of my better submits. I still deleted the photo at the end because I know all that numbers for my picture were plain nonsense....<p>One thing I do notice is, most of these senselessly low 1/1 and 2/2 are from overseas users, mostly new and have no idea what the heck is going on. It is annoying as hell, I know, but what can we do? We can't educate them ALL!! So just chill! :-)))

Sandy, that is superior advice! Personally, I don't especially love the rating system we have here but, then again, I don't vehemently hate it. Indeed, I have certainly received my allotment of inexplicably low ratings. But I am learning in life one must be tolerant, to take the bad with the good. If comments are not associated with the low ratings, I try to ignore them (sometimes I ignore them even with the comment :o). I have faith in the work that I do and trust that others will see what I have constructed in the same light. So far this has proven to be true for me.

Richard, thanks for your reply. I am not sure I want the ratings

system scrapped so much as reworked somehow. Since the

rate recent photos section is now displaying photos with critique

requests only, it would seem logical to restrict rating to those

folks who have submitted at least one critique request AND to

require a comment for any rating.

 

I wish there was some way to provide more visibility for those

photographers who are serious about their work than having to

rely on the numbers of ratings recieved. The top photos pages

have become ridiculous recently, and many fine photographers

are receiving no attention, or have stopped posting photos

altogether.

 

Sandy, you sort of make my point for me. As it stands, ratings are

all nonsense. I am really not upset, nor am I angry at Sam in

particular. I did not use his last name or post a link because I

only wanted use his rating as an example of a trend in these

forums that has gotten a lot worse lately, not to single him out.

 

The number of quick rates from folks who do not understand

photography beyond just pointing and clicking is hurting the site

and makes a mockery of posting photos for the purpose of

gaining feedback from folks who do understand the art with all

its inherent difficulties and necessary compromises. Obviously

many of those folks are no longer rating, commenting, or posting

their own photos anymore.

 

What is rating for fun? What pleasure is to be gained from

mindlessly trashing or praising photographs? The problem is

that many average photos get many outstanding ratings, many

outstanding photos get a few average ratings, and most truly bad

photos are not rated at all.

 

The guidelines for ratings are fairly clear, and encourage

comments, but I suspect the vast majority of raters have never

read them or even care. Mindless low ratings are equally

mindless mate-rating is discouraging to folks trying to learn

something from participating here.

 

I think most folks requesting critiques are serious about getting

good feedback. Being subjected to rates without comments by

folks who really don't care about providing feedback is not

helping anyone. I just want this site to find a way to make

participation about learning, not about winning or losing. I am not

going to give up just yet and really do want to make a positive

impact.

 

So I am going to continue rating and commenting on every

photograph I can in the rate recent photos section. I will not be

looking at the photographers name, not mate rating, not rating in

a retaliatory fashion, and not mindlessly trashing photos. I will be

rating and explaining my ratings, and trying to provide

constructive feeback, especially when I think a photo is truly bad.

I wish more folks were doing this, but it is time consuming in

part because of the slow speed of this site. But if I want ratings

and constructive comments from others, I should be prepared to

take the time to give them as well. I don't see how this system

can work unless more than a few folks make the effort. So that is

what I intend to do, at least until I tire of the work.

Much has been discussed on this subject *always*. A search in the forums and a detailed read, would help you to understand how difficult is this. And informing yourself first, would help not to repeat for the 1000th time the same arguments.

 

There's NO solution to conform everybody. Period.

 

I decided long ago not to loose much time in such a useless discussion, trying to control the uncontrolable (after all... what right to it do I have!?), accepting and then enjoying the system, commenting and rating as much as I can.

 

I assure you that's the best you can do for the site. Join the club! :-)

<i>One thing I do notice is, most of these senselessly low 1/1 and 2/2 are from overseas users,[...]"</i>

<br> Hmm. Interesting thing you notice there, Sandy. Good eyes.

<br>Do you also see the skin colour maybe, from the senselessly low ratings? The spoken language? The religion too?

<p>

Even if it's true, is it relevant and wise to write something like this on a forum site?

Brad,

 

The key to your whole rant was when you said "a huge increase

in ratings by folks without a clue."

 

This group which you so aptly labeled "folks without a clue"

comprises over 90% of the P.net members. Ignore the ratings,

continue to learn and develop your skills, and enjoy life a little

instead of worrying about some anonymous poster to some

forum buried deep withing the World Wide Web thinking that your

photos suck.

Being that I am one of the "folks without a clue" I tend not to rate photos, I tend to comment on any that I like, or feel that I can contribute something too. I have trouble quantifing with a number how I feel about a photo. I did it once and feel that I did not rate the photo fairly. The photos I post I generally dont care about the ratings and look more for feed back from anybody. I get more out of comments from good photographers and bad. I enjoy hearing everyones OPINION and critique on my work.

Well, I'm a new subscriber and have generally submitted ratings and comments. In the end it comes done to opinion and not much else. I agree that using words like good and bad is meaningless. The quality of an image can't be quantified in such black and white terms. Funnily enough, if I actually don't like an image at all, I don't rate it as it would be difficult to be constructive in these circumstances.

 

For my own part, photography is just a hobby and I don't care too much if people don't like my pics. I like them and that's what counts.

 

If your images stand out on their own merits, then it doesn't matter what people write or the ratings they dish out. Each person is still free to make his/her mind up.

Brad - I agree with many of your points about the rating system, but it is open to all, so you have to accept that there will be ratings by people whom you so charitably describe as "without a clue". Opinions are just opinions, rating "serious" work low doesn't on its own make someone clueless. Where you disagree with a rating, and discover that the rater lacks the experience or knowledge to rate well (which certainly does happen), then just disregard the rating. Unless you have specific suggestions for improving the rating system or you believe a rating to have been made in an abusive way, there isn't too much to be done at the moment. At any rate, I would certainly be interested in having the system work better, but, well, there it is...

 

I will say, though, that the place to discuss the rating of your image is on your image, not on someone else's image. While many of your comments on the rater's image are perfectly valid, some of their harshness will be interpreted as purely a response to an unwanted low rating.

<input type>

ugh sorry about this accidental thingy, pls remove it if you can! I can't.

 

moderator gurus...something for you to forbid in a forum thread maybe?:)

 

grtz

As a new user of photo.net, I found the "rating" of photos by OTHER photographers an interesting idea, and availed myself of that opportunity. Much to my surprise, I have found a variance of as many FIVE categories on the same photo (7/7 AND a 2/2)-- on average about right! However, I have noticed that some of the "harsher critics" have NEVER posted a photo...

Humph. I've seen a couple of things from people who have rated my photos recently. I tend to go and see what people have posted, and what's on their highest rated pictures page. I've seen one person who's highest rated page had great pictures from many styles and subjects, whose comments were intelligent but whose pictures were poor; and someone else who looks to be king of the stupid comment, but whose picture taking ability borders on genius. If I needed to have it rammed home that these skills are not closely linked. <br>Requiring a comment just gets people to post "Wow" or "Yuk", since I comment more than I rate I know it is a pain to get less back than you put in... So I just look at who as been rating or commenting and see whether I care about what they think. <br>Even without comments if you get a few ratings from someone I can see which picture they prefer over others. <br> But I'm not sure I'm happy with the idea that some people should not be allowed to express an opinion. I was thinking of something my mother used to have on the wall which said something about "Even the stupid have something to say" and it sounds like good advice for p.n <p>

 

* As far as possible without surrendering, be on good terms with all persons. <br>

* Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. <br>

* Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are a vexation to the spirit. <br>

* If you compare yourself, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=215219"> This guy </a> is beside himself after receiving his first ever 7/7!

Oh; goody, goody: another chance to rant and rave about how unfair the ratings system is. I admit to being disappointed though - no new rude words :-)<div></div>

As many have mentioned, this is common frustration of those new to the site.

In a similar thread it was mentioned some go throught the rating system with graphics off as a game - i sincerely hope he was joking but one does wonder sometimes!!

 

Maybe we need a short lived "rant forum" in which we can all vent our artistic steam!! You do seem much calmer now you have got it off your chest and had a few sympathetic responses.

 

I would suggest methods of getting comments from those admire but suspect these have already occurred to you.

Be aware that comments from those outside your normal range may add a surprising insight you hadnt thought of.

 

Rating gives a very limited view of your work (that which pleases the general viewing public) and a possible 15 min to three days of fame.

Raters come in many shapes and sizes - the sheep rater will be swayed by the general opinion and continue, as sandy mentioned,

to rate in the same direction - the "angry young man" rater will rate in the opposite direction.

Retaliation raters are best ignored - their comments are made in the heat of their anger - an email to them might work but is more likely just to give you more grief.

 

Fortunately, most (and one could argue including the mate raters here) just rate according their own personal preferences.

We may not all be professionals but we do still have the "right to rate".

Checking rating histories is a good way to decide whether to consider or ignore a rater.

 

Anyhoo thats my ratings twopence worth for this month.

 

Glad to see you are planning to continue playing and not taking your ball away as so many unfortunately have.

 

ps -sorry Harvey - move along -nothing to see here ;).

 

pps -would like to see Sandy reconsider his comment regarding overseas users. ouch!.

I too am baffled/amused/confused etc. at how seriously some people get over the ratings.

The thing I think is interesting is why there are two categories with which to rate. Why not just one category? How often does one see a set of ratings that differed by more than one? In most ratings listings, you'd be hard pressed to find 1 in 20. Usually, the nubers are identical. So, I wonder, why not just offer up one category? I understand the intent of the forum developers for the two categories. But, let's face it. It's not working.

 

I could take a picture of a woman giving birth to a flaming porcupine on the floor of an igloo during a hemerhoid attack (using infrared film, a neutral density filter, and cross processed no less). Who wouldn't give that a 7 for originality, right? But, suppose the exposure was horrible. I would deserve a 1. So, of course, most scores would end up being 1/2, 2/1, 2/3, 2/2, and throw in a 6/7 for S's and G's.

 

OK, I'm done, LOL.

<P><I>My photograph is properly exposed, in focus front to back, was taken with care and clear intent, has some artistic merit, and was properly sized for submission...</I> Wow, Brad, you done gave yourself away. This is what photography's all about, right? I haven't looked at your pictures but it's just believable that somebody might not like them.</P>

Sorry, Brian, but I have to take you to task for that one. Why would

anyone want to rate an image solely because he didn't like it? If

you see flaws in the image which you know from experience

make the image less than it could have been, then down rate

because it suffers in comparison to other similar shots on this

site.

 

I'll assume you didn't check Brad's portfolio to figure out which

image prompted his thread. It's a 'good' photo, yet ten people

rated it an average of 4.0 for the first ten rates. To say that it is

below average or bad is not a matter of taste, it's a matter of

ignorance.

Thank-you Carl. I appreciate your reponse in this thread and the

comment you made on the photo in question. Your response

there explains my objections to some of the ratings it recieved

more than I was able to express. Not everyone will see the same

thing. But ratings are not supposed to be made merely on the

basis of liking or disliking a particular photograph. At least that is

the way I read the ratings guidlines.

 

Brian, of course that is not what photography is all about and I

really don't care if everyone likes my photos. That particular shot

is not among my best. It is not great, but not bad either. My rant

was not meant to complain about an individual or a particular

rating. I have recieved many other low ratings from folks that

have gone without comment. My rant was supposed to be about

one way the system is being abused recently.

 

To the rest of you, thank-you very much for your participation in

this thread. I do not expect everyone to agree with me, or like my

pictures. I wanted to start a good discussion and I think I

achieved that goal.

 

Harvey, My apologies. I'll try harder next time. My vocabulary is

somewhat limited, but I am always willing to learn new words. :)