neild Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 LOL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dith_b. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Hey Edith....Thanks for the low rating! Walter Tatulinski , jun 26, 2004; 10:24 p.m. What you did is abusive. Just because you don't agree with what I say here in this thread does not give you the right to trash my photographs. "Trash your photographs"? Are you serious? The 3 ratings I left on your photos are: 3/3, 4/4 and 5/6. If you call this 'trashing your photographs", I think we can now see why you started this thread: you are not prepared to accept ratings between 3/3 and 5/6. I rated the photos, not your posts in this thread. What makes you think otherwise? Do you perhaps consider that my ratings on your amazing photos are too low? Why post photos asking for other people's opinion if what you want are only opinions that you agree with? Over and out. People like you are not worth spending time to write comments on photonet. You have nothing to learn, so I suggest you go ahead and learn nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Hi Édith, I am intrigued: can you refer me to a photograph which you would rate highly? I am asking because your point of view (as expressed here on this thread) interests me, and also because I looked at your page and saw neither your own uploads nor a link to browse your highly rated photos of others (so I presume that you've never rated as high as 6/6 - Walter, take note: you've got the top score from Édith so far!!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 I suspect we've lost most of the audience we started with, but I continue to believe that these endless debates usually do provide some insights. Edith, I think your tone has been too strident if your goal was to present your ideas in a way that other people might listen to. You haven't been here long, so you may not yet realize that Walter actually should be commended for talking about his own high rated picture in less than glowing terms. Go back and read his earlier comments. What happens is that ALL of us absorb all this fawning to some degree. I was lucky in that I was able to discuss a lot of my images in a critique group on this site called the Atget group. Very little sweet talking there, . . . and there was real content in the comments. You wanted to be supportive, but you felt like your credibility was suspect if you couldn't offer some ideas for the maker to consider. We didn't always agree, of course, but we always had things to think about. On the current TRP, it is assumed by the vast majority of visitors and "winners" that all the images are flawless and so criticism is usually ridiculed. That's why most of the true critics don't participate anymore. This point will have to be made over and over again by many different people because those who are invested in the status quo keep trying to tell us that the number of people who could provide real criticism but have become disillusioned are statistically too small to warrant a change in the system. Vincent,"Well if I could have given Walter'image a 5.5 perhaps I would have given it that for aesthetics. After-all, the sky in my opinion was not too bad...just needding a bit more attention. "Not too bad" is very different from good/very good. "I actually suggested that decimals be allowed but that too was shot down. But since we cannot do that I have either a 5 or 6 to choose from." That's exactly the problem. We know that 4/4s, with or without comment, are often considered abusive on otherwise high rated images. A 3/4 rate started this whole thread, yet someone could reasonably determine that this image isn't very original and that the sky needs work and is therefore not quite OK. That is reasonably a 3/3, but we all know what happens to your portfolio and to your comments if you rate it that way. The fact that some 3/3s and 4/4s on less popular images do appear to be unfairly low based on comments made, photos uploaded, or personal favorites choices does not change that. Walter, I don't mean to pick on you. There are many whose frequent uploads, dubious quality, and high volume high rates create this environment. It's contagious. Straddling the fence doesn't work very well. You end up having to pick sides, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Gee, I feel just like Picasso now! It is the way you did it Edith. For example, the "Calumet Copper" photograph suffers from jpeg compression. But you attribute that to my bad editing. The sky is the typical Velvia blue sky (the film is mentioned in the Tech Detail). But you said I replaced the sky. What am I suppose to learn from someone who thinks in absolutes, can't recognize compression artifacts, and has never heard of Velvia film? You have no credentials, you have nothing posted to offer as an example. And you insult people. I won't respond to this thread again. As I have mentioned above, my original question had been answered soon after I posted it. Everyone else can have the last word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Carl, I know you are not picking on me. I don't have a problem with what you are saying. I don't agree with some of it, but it is good to have a discussion like this. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Edith, why not post some photos and get some of that painful experience of art you drivel on about in your hilarious biographical statement. I cant wait to wear out my 3 key. come on get in the cess pool with the rest of us art slugs, I imagine you can float just fine..... oh by the way, I was just kidding. as you have been in this troll/trawling exercise. love and kisses from Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Carl, I said the *SKY* was not that bad. The rest of the image was excellent in my opinion. If the ENTIRE image was just "not too bad" then yes perhaps a 4 or a 5 would suffice. (I hand out plenty of 5s by the way). The sky is just a smaller portion of the image. I wish you'd stop twisting/slanting what I say, or what my intentions/goals are. Yes people (myself included) are a little more generous than what the Photo.net guidelines would like. The *masses* have made it what it is, not just a few individuals here. You either play along with what the system has become or you don't. But mate-rating is another story. It is not something I have ever allowed myself to become a part of. To rate an image higher than you actually think it's worth simply to have the favor returned is wrong. But that's the greed factor that comes with having any open system like this. Again, want to bring an end to mate-rating?? Then you will have to abolish the ratings altogether. Fine with me. But I'd imagine some others would find the site rather boring. And you still have the problem of why the ratings exist at all... according to Brian, to select the images for the gallery?? Who's going to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Vincent, referring to a comment you made early in this thread, I just today realized that you may be a new member of the "club" and not even realize it. Let me be the first to congratulate you and say, "Welcome aboard"! (-; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Yep. I got clubbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 "Yes people (myself included) are a little more generous than what the Photo.net guidelines would like." . . . . . by almost two full points. "The *masses* have made it what it is, not just a few individuals here." Wrong. The number of people with a thousand rates averaging near 6/6 is probably only a small portion of the number who rate or upload daily. They do however determine TRP visibility after the "masses" do the grunt work of providing the first ten rates. "You either play along with what the system has become or you don't." So many people have decided not to because they feel they've been marginalized. Don't you get it? "But mate-rating is another story. It is not something I have ever allowed myself to become a part of." The numbers speak for themselves. Call it mates, fans, friendliness, generosity, encouragement, or whatever. Like I said earlier, you're part of the solution or part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Carl, tell us what would you like to do. You have only complained and been unhappy about the ratings system for ions so it seems. What solutions do you have in mind then?? I believe Brian has even sent a caution to you ragarding the complaining. Fine, the ratings system is somewhat skewed, many will agree. Just come up with a non-skewed solution then. Rather than telling me my intentions, lack of desire to expand etc etc. Why not lay down a solution for all of us as well as Brian on the table right now reagrding the ratings system. I'm being serious. Lets see if it sounds good. By the way, returning a friendly rating that is truthful according to the system that currently exists, is not the same as returning an inflated rating in hopes of getting one of those in return. I am not a mate-rater. I'm heading to Sears, my truck needs new tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Well Carl, still waiting. In conclusion here: It is easy to gripe about the ratings system currently in place. But coming up with solutions is another story. Is there any bonifide win-win solution that could make the ratings more meaningful, yet at the same time eliminate the obvious mate-rating?? Is there anything that can be done to increase the number of meaningful comments? If there is, I would certainly hope that implementation would be a no-brainer. But nobody has yet to put those ideas on the table. Complaints have been numerous, solutions scarce. When a few others and myself became involved in the Nude filters/categories issue, there were all kinds of suggestions put on the table. It ended with the hope for all images being categorized when the resources made that implementation feasible. (Still waiting by the way). But here, with this subject of the ratings/comments/mating... etc, you just do not see any better ideas being brought out than what currently exists. Which takes us back to the thought that maybe -all things considered- the current system aint so bad after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 The reason I nearly got my butt kicked off this forum is because I persisted in outlining a very specific proposal for TRP reforms and have done so many, many times over the past two years. Where've you been? Let me ask you to think about this one. If the site puts limits on the number of uploads, and number and value of rates permitted - both overall and to any person in a given time period - how many people do you think would respond to these new restrictions by setting up fake accounts to deliberately subvert them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 With all due respect, your own ratings averages are 5.36 for originality and 5.22 for aesthetics. My math may be a little rusty, but I do believe those numbers are a lot closer to six than to four. Seems to me you're being more than just a little bit hypocritical in criticizing other PNetters with high average ratings, or have I missed something here? I believe that quite a lot of thought and effort has been put into developing the current system, which seems to satisfy the majority of PN members. The bottom line is that no ratings system will satisfy everyone. PN has to generate advertising revenue to survive. To do this, it has to satisfy its customers so that they will keep coming back (more site hits = more advertising revenue). If the [silent] majority of customers are happy, then from a business perspective, there is no need to change the system. That said, the one change I would like to see reinstituted is that comments be mandatory for very low (1 and 2) and very high (6 and 7) ratings. This idea has already been proposed in this and countless previous threads. Arguments have been made against requiring comments for low and high ratings, which I can appreciate, even if I don't completely agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Thanks Steve. I never even checked. Thought he'd be in the 4s..... Carl, IF your proposed changes would bring an avalanche of bogus accounts, then perhaps it would not really be an improvement now would it? People do not want to be handcuffed, that much I am certain of. Limiting the number or 7s, or how many images one can upload is not the *better* solution here in my opinion. Next idea. I too liked the mandatory comment with the 1,2 and 7 ratings. Then again it shows that management went in the direction of LESS handcuffing rather than more. It seems to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabrantes Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I have received a couple of bad ratings on some of my best photos. My photos are far from the work of most of the people posting in this website, but I enjoy to be in your company and have a chance to post my work.Would it be helpfull if the system does not account the lowest and highest rating for your final average?If you receive a bad rating it will be shown with the picture, but it would not have the same effect on your final average, making it easier to ignore this individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartbies Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Maybe ski jump rate system ? highest and the lowest note cancel on (...30,40..) rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 We're getting nowhere. Someone else can chime in if they think it will help. (I should have recalled the nudes category debate.) For the record, the solution is a 'vote' system and/or an improved 'curator' feature. No grades. Steve, I rarely rate at all anymore . . . . . . an occassional 6 or 7 if I want to put something on my favorites page. Mostly just comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Carl, you just said: "For the record, the solution is a 'vote' system and/or an improved 'curator' feature. No grades." Well that (in my opinion) is why as you also said "We are getting nowhere". To ask some appointed committee of curators to select the best images for the gallery will certainly not make things around here any better. Just look at the POW complaints each week...and that is just ONE image chosen per week. Instead as it is, the public chooses the images that they like the most. Yes it is true the ratings can be skewed with the whole mate-rating thing bologna. But it's somewhat tolerable. There are basically a handful of people that give nothing but 7s to each other. And because there aren't THAT many of them, basically the Top Photographers page is what's skewed the most in my opinion. The three-day top rated pages always seem to have a few the same people up week after week (even if they have very average images) but then it varies quite significantly. That is why I believe things are somewhat acceptable. So what, let the few have their top spot/limelight. Eventually it will get old to them, there images will get old etc. If you'd like, you can even put me into that same list. I'm sure many believe the same about me as well. You just really cannot do or say much to change the way people think or feel. Find a better system, and I'm sure more than a few will find plenty wrong with that as well. My suggestion, just have a meaningful share in the system that exists right now. Get involved, worry less about the system because it's not ours to worry about. Offer helpful comments and try to be a positve influence. We'll be appreciated more, and most likely will enjoy whatever time we spend here as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pradeep1 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 i hope i am not too late for this discussion, well i would not say there is something wrong with the system, its just the people, and they are not to be blamed completely too. at the initial phases that we are members of this site we wait for others to recognize us, and onece someone does do that we want to reciprocate the same on their photo / portfolio. at those times we tend to be 'sugar coated' as they say. i for one realised this is not going to be useful, and give constructive criticism now when i rate photos. but i am polite. there are cons with this, people tend to like my comments (atleast a handful do), though i am no pro, i just started shooting last year. the con is that they feel obligated sometimes and decide to either comment on my portfolio or my uploads, so a few of my photos have been overrated, both in terms of O and A and number of ratings. but at the same time some photos of mine have not received the necessary ratings to give it visibility. i am pretty confused with the whole thing now, do i go and rate the photos and provide constructive criticism as a i used to or just stop doing it as i have now? i have not had a recent upload now because i am not sure if i am getting honest comments. lets just hope all of us are just honest here and help fellow members to improve their photography skills. cheers and happy shooting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfa Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 And then there are those that LAME (http://www.photo.net/photo/2473209) when they get low votes on simple crap (http://www.photo.net/photo/2454038) even though they display nice pictures in theri galleries. What is wrong with some people???? Sorry for the links but they where necessary. I do not like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schneekranich Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I found you because you wrote some interesting comments and was sad not seeing any photographys from you at your page. So I followed some threads and I agree fully with you, that ratings become too high, especially for some people. So here is my invitation to visit my photos as I'm curious about your opinion, comments, rating (and if my "average" is sinking afterwards I won't mind!). However, it would be interesting to see some of your work, too, do you have another place on the internet? Regards from Rottweil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schneekranich Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 this (above) was some sort of experiment...but the lady never showed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now