A New Solution

[afterthoughts]

The - low ratings verses high ratings verses comments verses view -

debate has been going on since I joined the site last October.

Therefore, with good intentions, and being a life-long PN supporter,

I make the following recommendations for each category.

 

VIEWS: Needs more recognition from the site. Views measure the

amount of attention an image gets regardless of ratings and

comments. COMMENTS: I learned more in six months from the comments

that significantly improved my work than I did from reading, camera

clubs, etc.

 

RATINGS: Here is my suggestion that would require little programming

change. Ratings are really about EXECUTION. Ratings encompass

technical know-how, creativity, and presentation skills. 1=Needs

Improvement, 2=Executed Moderately Well, 3=Executed Exceptionally

Well. (System Conversion: 1, 2, 3 = Needs Improvement. 4, 5 =

Executed Moderately Well. 6, 7 = Executed Exceptionally Well.

 

Best Regards to all, Howard

[root]

Some boring images can be well executed. In the context of this forum, there's little to say about them.

 

Views as currently defined only feed on themselves. The following proposal attempts to even out the views of a greater number of deserving daily uploads.

 

 

(reposted from one of yesterday's threads).

 

Scrap the numbers and in the ratings queue, consider this instead:

 

"I think this image merits further views for the purpose of discussion in the photocritique forum."

 

"I do NOT think this image merits further views for the purpose of discussion in the photocritique forum."

 

Check one.

 

No names, no comments, can't skip.

 

Images of merit ('X' number per 'N' views) are promoted to a rotating series of thumbnail pages where only comments are permitted. Images may be marked for Favorites Pages, but no more than three by the same maker. All-time greatest are calculated by views, comments, original merit calculations, curators (serious commenters), Brian's personal choices, or any number of permutations.

[jhenry]

Howard I agree with you that the wording to define the scle of rating is not very well diplomatically choosen.. 'very bad'...<br> I agree too that there are other way to order the pic database... although there are already few options available... may be the 'page by default' (i.e. last 3 days posting by ranked by number ratings) is arguable..<p> hard to please everybody... not a satisfying answer I agree... just a pragmatic observation after 5 years observing the 'game' and 2 years 'playing it'... <p.> perhaps CATEGORY would be also a interesting tool to be further explored ... sure that Carl will not desagree with that :o))

[mottershead]

Bad and Very Bad are chosen deliberately to discourage people from choosing them. This is successful, since fewer than 1% of the ratings are 1's, and only 2 or 3% are 2's. 7's are also quite rare, actually.

 

The main problem with the way the ratings are used is that "6" is the most common rating, even more common than 5. 5 and 6 account for well over half of the ratings, and the ranking of a photo on photo.net is determined today mainly by the mix of 5's and 6's it receives, with the other ratings usually not being a very significant factor in the outcome.

 

I don't like your proposal. In effect it reduces the scale to three values, and changes the labels to use the term "execution". That is not a remarkably clear concept. I don't know why you think the ratings are about "execution". Actually, when it comes to selecting them for exhibition, I don't care about how well a photo is "executed", whatever that is supposed to mean. What I care about is whether it is "good" and whether people will want to look at it.

[afterthoughts]

Brian:

 

I am not challenging you. I was not trying to engage in an argument. I was trying to make a contribution and stimulate thought.

 

Disclosing the percentages is enlightening. What is most important to me personally is the number of views. Unless I misunderstand you, we are in agreement on that point. As far as the word good that is not a remarkably clear concept either. It is subjective and for the most part personal opinion.

 

Execution is the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing knowledge. Perhaps you are correct, the term does not work.

 

Please DELETE this thread. I do not think the content is positive and I do not think the disucssion will help in any way.

 

Thank you.

[root]

" . . . . the ranking of a photo on photo.net is determined today mainly by the mix of 5's and 6's it receives . . . . "

 

The rankings on the default page are determined by HOW MANY rates an image receives regardless of value (although I have always thought that some images get more rates because the visible average encourages "me too" rates on those with a higher average).

 

I'm still not clear about what you hope to accomplish with these changes. I would assume it would include encouraging members who became disenchanted to leave rates with their comments and otherwise increase their volume of participation. Maybe some would return if the actual rates seemd to better reflect an image's true value, but even if all the 6/6ers started rating 5/5, the TRP would hardly change at all and that's clearly part of the goal.

 

But deflation won't happen since there's no incentive to change, and, as you may have noticed, many are maintaining the status quo by including their rates in the comments.

 

. . . and most of them aren't reading these threads.

[jhenry]

Carl wrote:<br><i>"But deflation won't happen since there's no incentive to change,(...)

<br>

. . . and most of them aren't reading these threads."

 

</i><br> I agree... one solution could be to limit the number of both high(6/7) and low rates(1/2) to force overweighting people or mate to be more reasonable and more contrasted ...

[root]

Changing how visibility is determined has a greater chance of success than attempting to control the numbers people offer.

[vincetylor]

Well, I've made this point before, but the difference between a rating of 5 and one of 6 can be quite dramatic. Average a 6/6 (total score of 12) you are in the top 50 photographers page. A 6/5 (total score of 11) you are ranked around number 400. A 5/5 average (total score of 10) you are at the end of the list, number 2000 in the rankings. I have said this before, but the difference between 6 and 5 is far too dramatic. Therefore a 5.5 *option* would be a nice idea. As it is, Brian stated that most choose 6. Well perhaps if you allowed decimal ratings or offered a 4.5, 5.5 and perhaps a 6.5 those numbers might change.

 

As things are now, when I rate a pretty good image I have just the two choices, 5 or 6. Usually an image like that will fall somewhere in between. However, if it is in reality say a 5.5 (better than just good, but not quite very good) I will almost always go for the 6. Perhaps a 6/5 over-all, depending what it's of. Why rate it actually lower than you feel it deserves?? Plus, like it or not, it sure don't hurt relations either to round UP. Just another idea. Certainly not expecting any implementation.

[jerry_anacleto]

Top Ratings cop and town crybaby Carl Root has spoken. Brian please do whatever he wants, it has worked so far.

[root]

Personal attacks with no useful content are permitted? Similar remarks from this 'pseudonym' have been deleted before.

[pnital]

Another problem is abuse.I have an abuse in my folder for some weeks now. befor I have reported abuse( not with good help), the abuse continue now, and I have found many new 1/1 without explanations as well as 3images that has a certain number of ratings and one name less ( example- 16 scorings 15 names. 28 scorings 27 names, and so on). I would like to know what is done to eliminate abuses, as with the new way how can you identify an abuser?

[mottershead]

<em>What does it take to get the moderators to eliminate "abuse?"</em>

 

First, they have to agree that it is abuse. A 1/1 ratings would not be considered abuse, even if there were 100 other ratings on the photo, all 7 /7. Whether a rating is considered "abuse" is not determined by what the other ratings were on the photo. It is determined by the overall rating pattern on all the photos the person has rated. If the person has rated a disproportionately high number of photos low, for example, so that it looks like he is cruising around the site getting kicks from rating stuff low, then that is considered abuse. Or, if the person seems to frequently give people low ratings shortly after receiving low ratings from them.

 

On the whole, it is a complete waste of time to report a single rating as abuse just because you think it is low. All the rating codes are valid, and none of them are abusive in themselves. 1 and 2 aren't there as little traps to lure you into being abusive. You can use them if they reflect your honest opinion of the photo, and you don't have to worry that they might be considered abusive just because the photographer and other raters didn't agree with your opinion. We never consider a single rating as abusive, only patterns of ratings. If you receive a low rating from someone, unless that person is a troll, you have to live with it, just like the 7/7 ratings on the photo.

[root]

Your definition of abuse requiring a pattern of low numbers scattered indiscrimately overlooks a much more common source, and one that is much more damaging to the community spirit of the site. If someone decided to attack you in this forum, then rated one of your images, how low would that rate have to be, before you would consider it abuse?