vincetylor Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Since obviously MANY would like to see the ratings/names together on the same page, why not make that an option available only to subscribors then. THAT alone would be a huge incentive and would have the ability to bring non-subscribors over the fence in my opinion. It should also still maintain a curbing effect on the revenge rating as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I think the current system is the first step towards sanity. Now you can not revenge on anyone, nor thank anyone for a rating. That way, we shall have more objective ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 How many forum the same people will start on the very same subject? It is quite tiring, at least to follow. <p>Seems that we need a little moderation here too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernher Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Errm... I would very much like to subscribe. But because PayPal does not accept South African credit cards on their site I have no way of doing so. Should I and others like me now be given even more "incentive" while we can do nothing about our inability to transfer the money? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 3, 2004 Author Share Posted July 3, 2004 Jacques: This is an *idea* that differs somewhat from others. Even if it pertains to the same general subject (that of ratings) the idea is not the exact same. I find this interesting coming from you. You, who just pasted the exact same comment on several threads. Nuts. I can't comment on the Pay-pal thing, sorry. But I do believe that many would like the opportunity to see who rated their images. With or without that capability restored, the show will go on. It was just more entertaining/enjoyable with the names. Offering this as an option for subscribers (should always proof at least once for spelling...look above) just sounds like a possible win-win to me. Aloha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernher Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Yeah, I would also like the ability to see who rated me with what. If that option is given to subscribers then it would just increase my frustration at not being able to pay. This PayPal thing is a pet gripe of mine. I can buy stuff from Amazon.com but I can't pay Photo.net. South Africa and Russia cannot pay through PayPal, Jamaica and Ecuador can. Makes no sense to me. I'll shut up now because I realise that this issue affects probably only a small minority of members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I pasted 'almost' the same comments in the 5 or 7 threads about hiding/visibility of rating that were all posted within last couple of days... precisely to illustrate what I am saying above here... <p> and I dont see what 'nuts' is doing here in your comments... are you an amateur of those fruits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 3, 2004 Author Share Posted July 3, 2004 Jacques Henry , jul 03, 2004; 03:30 p.m."How many forum the same people will start on the very same subject? It is quite tiring, at least to follow. Seems that we need a little moderation here too!" then you admitted " I pasted 'almost' the same comments in the 5 or 7 threads" This thread is at the minimum, at least slightly different. Unlike your 7 comments. which if moderation does step in would delete because we are not supposed to do just that. Yes, perhaps I do like nuts. There are many all around here as well. Just having some fun. Have a good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 <i><blockquote> we are not supposed to do just that. </blockquote> </i><p> He said "almost" the same, and he apparently meant the comments he posted. Show me where the rules say that it's not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfimages Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I've got the same gripe as Wernher. I can't use Paypal from Taiwan, but I've no problem buying from Amazon. I've tried to subscribe, even contacted Brian about sending an international money order offering to pay the extra for any bank fees etc, but no go. I hope one day I can subscribe, as I'm usually on photo.net daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 4, 2004 Author Share Posted July 4, 2004 Perhaps I was thinking about cross-posting a question in more than one category. I believe they delete those. At least I remember reading about it before. My apology if I'm off on that. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_orsak Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 So far there has been virtually no discussion in this thread about the subject that it was actually posted for. I think that the ability to see names is extremely important. Of course this isn't the direction of the site admins who seem to want to foster a site of "mass rate" "no dicuss." I joined this site because I am an amature photographer and I really want to improve. There is no greater frustration than getting a 1/1 rating without a comment from the rater. I WANT TO IMPROVE! THAT is why I spent my little $25. There are a few people that seem to get the idea of dialogue on this site and consequently have been extremely helpfull in my learning process. It seems to me really sad that the attitude here is ratings are more important than comments. It is also more depressing to see that that is the attitude of the site admins as well who are fostering that environment even more. Ratings system where names are not shown may provide more objectivity but it also fosters and even greater use of the 1/1 rating without comment. Sorry site admins. Great site. Lousy ratings idea. Realllly lousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boldgraphy Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 I agree with Joe, bad idea. I mind less getting 1/1, if I can see who gave them. I can say I'm objective and know that many of 'us' are. So therefore when a respected photographer (for me at least) rates me, I know if I'm on the right track, my own feelings off course way more, but that way I 'had' a reference. As for the rating-process now, it seems only about the numbers and a little soul has gone from this site, maybe soul is a bit dramatic, you can also call it depth. Greatings Marco! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 Yes Marco, you are right and very well said. The "soul" of the pnet Community has been diminished by the move toward anonymity. Nameless numbers are good, creating associations is bad.. To address the original subject of this thread, I think Vincent has a good idea. I have no hard figures, just my own casual observations, but it seems to me that the subscribers were not the ones causing the problems. Happy Holidays everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 4, 2004 Author Share Posted July 4, 2004 I received my first rating under the new system. There was no comment. I have no idea who left it. It had no effect on the over-all score on that image. It is indeed meaningless... at least now anyway! The site has lost a fair measure of value if things continue just as they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 I dislike the idea of making rating visible only to subscribers -- it limits the ability of someone who isn't yet a subscriber to see the worth of the rating system (for good or ill) and determine if it's worth $25/yr to subscribe. However, a similar limitation, of allowing only the *image owner* to see the ratings on an image, would cut down on one aspect of "mate rating" in that I, in rating someone's photo, wouldn't be able to see if my friends or people I respect (or want to kiss up to) have rated it high or low -- in fact, a step further; allow only the image owner to even see the average. Then my rating won't be affected by what everyone else has thought. Of course, these methods still work better if, as image owner, I can see who rated with what numbers, for reasons I gave in another thread -- summary: because not all opinions are created equal. I'd give more weight to rating of a B&W landscape given by Ansel Adams than by Helmut Newton -- but a B&W erotic nude, I'd reverse that. Same thing applies to photo.net members -- I'd respect John Peri's opinions on candid-seeming nudes, Piotr Kowalik's on highly staged and photoshopped, dark art images, and Jay de Fehr's on large format candids (nude or otherwise) more highly than if you randomly mixed those names and working styles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 4, 2004 Author Share Posted July 4, 2004 I agree with that idea as well Donald. Whatever it takes to make the ratings available to the one receiving them. Try this one. Aloha http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008j4I 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