gib Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 What seems humourous is the request that we ignore the ratings system and its shortcomings....but Brian can't seem to ignore the complaints about the ratings system. Chnages to the system without notice or consensus, will mean some people will not renew their subscriptions. But new people will come. Awhile back I mentioned to someone that photo.net was doomed to failure because it has a single point of failure. So sooner or later that point will fail. The single point of failure risk is Brian Mottershead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pradeep1 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I agree with you Brian, i just wanted to know if we can still mail and report these characters when they rise to abuse@PN, i hope that feature to report abuse has not been stopped :) thanks Brian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 <b>Brian</b> your long posting above makes a lot of sense. I'm glad you see the counter argument to this change (your point 3). For me the gains of this system (cutting revenge rating, and getting rid of the "I saw I got a bad score from someone with no pictures, please change the system" which you habe done), DON'T outweigh the loss of information. I can understand the point of view of those who think it does. <p> It will be interesting to see if people feel more free to give low scores with fear of revenge rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 Okay, trying to synthesize the ratings--comments continuum, Brian, how about trying the number of ratings to the number of comments -- require, say, 1 comment for every 5 ratings, or the person can make no further ratings. This would encourage more comments (admittedly, not the substance, but it still would yield more) and keep ratings in place. I don't think requiring comments in order to rate would deter ratings substantially. Be interested in seeing what you and others think of this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark lucas Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Mr Gibson, Some time ago you were rude about several of my pictures and I accepted that, but I think this time you've overstepped a boundary by personally insulting Mr Mottershead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy1 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Sometimes a rating means a lot more when you see who it's from.<p> like a rating on a macro shot given by Mark Plonsky counts more in my book then from someone who has doesn't know much about macro. or a rating on a portrait from Stefan Rohner... you get the idea.<p> i also agree about being able to browse through site more easily, and get to check out more portfolios (which you might otherwise miss)...<p> every minute without this feature is a shame...I vote for reinstating it A.S.A.P! :) thanks brian!<br> --Roy <a href="http://www.nyvisual.com"> www.NYvisual.com</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Some of you seem to be grasping at anything that will validate your images. For some raters, a 6/6 means they're not all that impressed, for others a 5/5 means it's one of your best shots. Neither has anything at all to do with improving your images or helping you find interesting portfolios. Ya want REAL feedback? Ya wanna tawk? Go write a paragraph on someone's image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony bell Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 After a long period of not commenting on photos, I now try to write a comment on nearly every photo that I rate. It's almost to the point that if I have nothing to say I just don't rate it and move on (which, I'm sure, is exactly what you believe should be happening -- I have no problem with that). But now that the raters identities are hidden I am fearful of writing anything negative about an image for fear of reprisal. The person can't see who gave him all the 3's and 4's and so since my name is attached to my comment I become the target, and if the person does retailiate, how do I know? There are no names attached to the ratings. So for two days I've been trying not to step on toes and have been very self-conscious about anything I've said instead of being completely honest about how I feel about the work. The point I'm trying so clumsily to make is this: I'm not too sure that removing the raters names will not have a negative effect on comments. In many cases honesty may fly right out the window in favor of silence. It is all very unsettling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidweaverphoto Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I'm not going to cross post the entire other message I left in a more recent (duplicate-lie) forum except for the first sentence: "Hate it." ALl my posted images will be of this format going forward.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 <p>Here's a HUGE vote for leaving the ratings anonymous. I am simply in awe over how much stock people put in a meaningless number given mostly from people you do not even know. Even if you could know who it is how does a number somehow tell you what those people truly felt about your image? Jack-squat. How does it help you improve your photography? It does not. It either strokes your ego, or hurts your pride. What's the point in that? IGNORE THEM. Focus on comments that are <i>meaningful and given with true intellect and purpose</i>. Participate in the forums more. Go out and shoot pictures. <p>Maybe now this site can move away from such shallow, meaningless rating numbers and people will focus more on what photo.net used to be about: sharing, commmenting on and discussing images, technique, style and equipment. <p>This site has a serious neurosis and I think this might finally be the cure. This change could not have come any sooner.<p>Lay down the law Brian. No waffling. If people complain about low ratings tell them to get over it. It's anonymous anyway so what does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 Having tried to take Brian's issues about ratings into account but puzzled for a couple of days how to nudge people into making more comments than meaningless ratings, I say tie ratings to comments, as in you must make a comment for every five ratings or so. Since this is already a long thread and no one responded when i raised this above, i started another thread on this today in the feedback forum. Like to know people's thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidweaverphoto Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Richard,<BR>One of many of my favorite Photographers on this site is Hugh Hill from London. He has left ratings and comments on my work...probably how I discovered him. Not every photo that he see's of mine will he leave a comment. I feel that between the two of us we respect and listen to the others comments and ratings. If he only leaves a rating then I have a fair idea of how he feels about it without him having to leave a comment every time. Creating anonymous ratings takes away from the 'community' that PN offers. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 The problem Ben is that it's adding even more rules! Really, nobody wants to be told how much anything he or she can do. Less restrictions and people will be happier. Richard: When you or myself or even Brian makes a relatively significant decision, if we happen to realize that decision may not have been the wisest decision, then changing up on this decision would be the course of reasonableness, not waffling! Personally I have come to the conclusion that the ratings actually have more meaning now, when I know who gave them. I hope you put the identities back. Now, it's time to get back to work..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidweaverphoto Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Did anyone notice how many paying members (patrons) vs. non-patrons there are on this discussion?<BR><BR>P r a d e e p R a g h u n a t h a n, you should be a patron.<BR><BR>Brian, Get rid of the change and I'll sponsor P r a d e e p R a g h u n a t h a n for a year. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 <p>David, that's great but I imagine so rare as to not offset IMO the ludicrous mate-rating, revenge rating, frustrations, arguments, complaints, hurt feelings, confusions, games, etc. that the ratings system creates.<p>Vincent, at first their were no ratings, then the ratings were created and they were anonymous, then they weren't, then they were, at first the scale was 1-10, then it was 1-7, then it was 3-7, then it was......yadda-yadda-yadda.....now it's anonymous again. <p>That's waffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidweaverphoto Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Richard,<BR> Why not have it both ways? Lets have an anonymous ratings forum and have the non-anonymous ratings forum. That really shouldn't be that difficult to code this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 you can call it a rule, but maybe its just a limitation that can be overcome with a . . . comment! now there's a novel idea! there are lots of limitations, like number of photos you can post a day, etc. its not necessarily a rule to limit ratings without comments because it does not require you to do anything. but if you do something more, ya have to make a comment contribution . . . gotta ante up to play some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 That was pretty convincing Richard. Okay, put the identities back, and THEN no more waffling! Look Ben, we just want to be able to interact as we like and when we like. Having limits on the total number of photos is nothing like having certain limitations on how many comments/ratings one can make. There is a huge difference. You are suggesting another handcuff be added to the process. Perhaps the reason why nobody else has commented (with three opportunities and two threads) is because the idea -even with good intentions- is just not an easy one to warm up to. No offense intended here. I believe its an accurate statement to say that at the very least here, this experiment will help most of us appreciate the value of having the identities of the raters revealed. The site just loses something as a whole without that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I would bet that the people that complained the most about the previous ratings system will not see any uptick in their images with this new system (except maybe a temporary surge from some of their new found "fellow travellers"). I also have a hunch that many of those that complain the most about mate rating are actually some of the worst offenders. I can not prove this, just suspect that it may be true. The only sure fire way to get ratings and comments that mean something is to take some interesting photos and upload them. I am missing the feature that allows me to check out who gave me a rating. Without knowing the sophistication of the viewer, the ratings are totally worthless in my opinion. I also think that comments are over-rated. I only rate images that I like. If I like them I think they must be good so what I am going to say that will help the photographer? Most of my favorites here know a lot more about technique, composition etc. than I do so what I am going to comment on? My numerical rating is my defacto comment. I view those that don't rate but die for others to rate their images as hippocrites. If you ever want to check out somebody to see if they have a clue about photography, check out their portfolio and check out the images that they have rated the highest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 well, i agree the raters' identities should be disclosed (i actually started this thread because of my concern about that). and i would do away with ratings altogether in a perfect world. but in previous threads, brian has said the site needs them. i've come to find ways to make use of them, much like you probably, by tracking back to the rater's work, starting a dialogue, etc. (commmented on more above). so now i'm struggling with the expressions throughout this thread that comments are more useful, which i agree with, and brian's expressed need for ratings, and trying to use the ratings to encourage comments. no offense taken if no one finds the idea particularly interesting, but there's got to be a way to take the focus more off ratings and more on comments that meshes site's needs with photographer desire for meaningful feedback. somebody, ANYBODY, is victor right? should I just go back to work? (written with a smile, victor, thanks for dialoguing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Who's Victor?? Do I need a red tie too. Just a joke. It was my pleasure. Now the computer is getting turned off. Work to do. Many mahalos. Ps- I agree with everything you just said Tim. Aloha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 sorry vincent, moving too fast between work and here. thanks. aloha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadow-island Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 After sleeping on this and going back and reading these comments again, I think I am better understanding why there are circles. Big Format circles, SLR circles, digital circles, italian, texas, aisan, spanish, high raters, low raters...there all here. Experts of everything and knower's of nothing. I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps to watch a bunch make decisions about no decisions at all. I could care less about low ratings and further more dont know why we even have them. If the image is not good enough to rate, why rate it at all. If its not appealing to your style or expertise (what ever that might be) why even bother. Images that are not good need constructive comments, not ratings. I have posted photo's that I hoped would get constructive comments that would allow improvement. Instead, I get ratings all over the board with one comment. Most of those posting comments in this forum have never left comments on my postings, while a few have. I am thankful but very discouraged at what some think is right or best....God cant even get it right these days...how can you! Either do away with the 1-3 ratings and require a comment or make them mandatory with 1-3. I dont mind these ratings with constructive comments. What I dislike most...is the way "a few" choose to leave comments in text that is unprofessional with NOTHING done. It didnt take me long to learn, just view and rate those images that are appealing to me. My ratings are widespread over a large group of photographers. Many are repeats because I like there style, or maybe there professionalism. Some of you listing here have no more room to talk or critize than I. And it appears by some ratings, like being saddist. Brian, do what you need to do. But just do it. I like it the way it was, but I will learn to like it again. Maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Brian knows more, much more than anyone else how this place runs. No one knows as much as he does about the system. When he wins the lottery or leaves for a better job, the man does have a family to support and grow and photo.net is not a religious calling for life, photo.net will be poorer for his loss. People burn out and move on. That was my point. Changes to the rating system happen every once in awhile and the feedback forum rings with complaints. I am sure most people would have moved on, who dont have Brian's patience. A single point failure risk is simply that only one person knows it all, the system is at risk. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_chilson2 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I have to agree with the numerous people who believe this will lead to more abuse ratings by people who will now be secure in the knowledge that giving you a 1-1 to lower an otherwise high average rating will be anonymous. It happened to one of my images almost as soon as the names were taken off. Now i'm not arrogant - It's entirely possible that someone thought an image 18 other people rated highly deserved a 1, however I have no way of asking them, and if it was done to lower the average by someone who wanted to screw with my average anonymously - then mission accomplished. I think it's a mistake 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