arashdejkam Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I always suggest others not to take the ratings seriously at all and take photos instead this has worked for me in the past year but should admit that things are getting a little weird these days on photo.net maybe it's due to user inflation. seems the number of users who don't understand the meaning of ratings have increased too much and their ratings has enough weight so that they don't fade among other resonable ratings. look at this photo:<br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo? photo_id=2422738">http://www.photo.net/photo/2422738 </a><br> please honestly tell me should this get a 3.8 average?<br> even more interesting is that I posted this photo twice, the first time it got around 5.8 average (10 ratings) I deleted/reposted this time it got 3.8!<br> This doesn't have anything to do with my ego, I post what I think is good and ratings never change my mind but what is our goal in posting photos here? isn't it to show them to others? and you know what 3.8 average means: no visibility.<br> Brian! I know what you mean when you say this is a commercial site and we decide how it should work, I respect that and honestly think you have done a very good job so far, just want to tell you that things are not working as smooth as before. sincerely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgregor_anderson Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I'm afraid it's not my cup of tea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_woodard Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I wouldn't to much weight on peoples opinions, 51% of Americans think Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center, I dont think ratings are necessary, comments yes, ratings, what is this high school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Oh good grief. The photo has six ratings between 3 and 6, most of them 4's and 5's, which seems about right. With 6 ratings, the margin of "error" (whatever that means in this context) has got to be pretty high. Turn a 3 into 6, and a 4 into a 5, and you are close to your previous score. You can't draw any conclusions about the PHOTO, never mind about the rating system as a whole from just six ratings. The average rating on the site has held pretty steady around 5.5 for about a year. Before that there was a two year period of gradual inflation. There is no sign of the deflation that you are speculating about, but if the ratings started to go down again, it wouldn't be a disaster. However, I don't see any evidence for a deflation, and Arash you should know better than to draw such conclusions from six ratings on one photo, even if it is YOUR photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Hello friend, Yes I have noticed this as well. I believe this goes in cycles. Although I think Carl Root mentioned once before that it totally depends on the time of day and people online. Irregardless (love that word) I am getting a lot more drive-by's. ...;)...J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I have to agree with Brian on this one. As I am writing this there are now 7 ratings on Arash's photograph with the total now slightly above average. Personally, I think it is an innovative photograph and is underrated. But, Arash, you have to give it time. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arashdejkam Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 Brian, thanks for the prompt answer, Your reasoning was right if every photo was going to get 20-30 ratings, but after 10 ratings photos come out of the "critique request" cycle and if they have low rating they will have very little visibility and therfore little chance to get more ratings. in this example my previous posting ended the cycle with 5.8 average I had enough visibility to get many more ratings (and you know most of the ratings after the cycle are high ratings from those who like your photo in the top photos page) so it could be a photo with around 6 average on first three pages in top photos but now even if my other two ratings are 7 I get around 4.8 average and my photo will be forgotten in the dark sides of photo.net archive.<br><br> I think it is time to increase the 10 ratings limit of the photo critique cycle regarding the increase in total number of raters. or having a dynamic limit depending on the ratings standard deviation of each photo (don't take this seriously ;) ) Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin_____grasshopper__rice Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 My biggest problem is definetly that 10 rating limit that seems to be in effect- A lot of my pictures hit 10 and then die a sudden death, before I get any comments or even get to hit that "pictures with over 10 ratings thing" it's maddening. Need to get myself one of them rating cliques. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I'm curious. If your image got 5.8 the first time, why did you reload it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean_williams Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 When I looked at this pic it had a 4.20/4.50 rating, which is about the same as what you have given (avg) to others that you have rated. Everyone has their opinion, just like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I will not make comment anymore on the rating issue and system, by experience(s) a never-ending and getting nowhere discussion (at the best... fight at worse :o))!) concerning 'Art and Beauty' and other universal concepts which are totally subjective and on which most judgements are objectively unjustifiable...<p> That said, Dean's remark <br><i>"When I looked at this pic it had a 4.20/4.50 rating, which is about the same as what you have given (avg) to others that you have rated. Everyone has their opinion, just like you."</i><br> is very interesting and I observed on many occasions and many portfolios that the average of rating we give to others is very close to the average we get from the Community (look a bit closely and many will agree)... and I think this is a very strong biais ... and that is not much the responsibility PNet administration nor system in place but rather more the result of human basic behavior of each of us... <p> my 2 Yens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheleberti Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Probably it would be interesting by the staff taking into consideration to make anonymous the rating system. This would at least cancel out the baias Jacques is referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cálico Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Do you REALLY need the approval of others? Why are you overly concerned over what others may think? Firstly, you must realize that others are entitled to their ignorance/errors or however you wish to phrase it. Secondly, are you still not aware that there are a number of viewers who come onto p/n under a guise to give others a low ratings while they give themselves (under the name the images were posted) a higher rating? When are you and others going to stop with the pettiness of the ratings? This has finally gotten to the point of absurdity! I really suspect that the rating system has become a "weapon" for some (to give those who gave them a low rating, a lower rating!) and a means of settling imagined slights/vendettas. If you feel that you have received an unfair rating or an undeserved low rating, why don't you use that low rating as an incentive to work harder and get a higher rating? (Have you ever read Ayn Rand's book, "The Fountainhead"?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cálico Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 That all you have to do to end this spiteful rating system is to get in touch with "the powers that be" together with a number of p/n participants and have them change things around so that only those who post images can criticize and rate the images of others. It's only fair that those who post and "put it on the line" should be the ones to also rate the work of those who likewise "put it on the line". They will eventually find a way around this scheme but it's a start... You may have noticed that I do not post images and I do not rate anyone's photos (not even my friends' photos, to be fair to everyone else; I have only provided constructive criticism to some who were "slammed" by a few immature individuals who find their way into p/n. The rating system was intended to help give photographers a point of reference insofar as their photographic efforts but some have gone in the wrong direction and use it for their ego gratification purposes, as childish as it may seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pradeep1 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 IMHO opinion the ratings should not be a big thing for photographers here, we are i presume, all here because we all want to learn and improve our skills, and share ideas, thats what a forum does, so do make friends here and like Brian has replied in a few posts, try to learn their techniques, see if you like someones work and try to establist contact with them so that they could teach you something. the rating is just going to give you personal gratification which is just childish gratification, i compare myself from when i started shooting lats May and now, and i haev definitely become a better photogrpaher, thanks to this site and its wonderful members, cheers to Brian and his team who have been doing a swell job here. my 2 cents. cheers and happy shooting! dont sweat the small stuff :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Clico, you completely miss the point of the rating system. It is not to give photographers anything, a point of reference, feedback, anything. Some photographers feel that it gives them some of those things. They may be right, and it is fine with me if people find the ratings instructive and useful. But that isn't why we have them on the site. COMMENTS are the vehicle for photographers to get feedback, not RATINGS. Ratings are on the site to select the photos to display. They are precisely what they look like: a RANKING system, a system which selects a few dozen to be "Top Photos" out of the hundreds of photos per day that are submitted for Critique. These more or less represent the tastes of the large audience of people who visit photo.net and participate in the rating system. Those photos command a daily audience of about 100,000 people. If the photos that were being selected for Top Photos were not on the whole better than a random selection, and people weren't interested in the results, we would eliminate the rating system and just have comments. As for the supposed limit of 10 ratings, there is no such limit. It just works out that way. Photos drop down in the list when they get to 5, 10, 15, 20, etc ratings, and if raters continue down the list through the photos with 0-4, and 5-9 ratings, they can rate photos that have 10-14 ratings. If they persist even longer, they will get to the photos with 15-19 ratings, and so forth. If more people rated more photos through the Photocritique queue, or if there were fewer photos, then photos would get more than 10 ratings through the PC queue, without me having to change anything. Even now, some photos get more that 10 ratings that way, depending on when they are submitted for critique, how good the photo is, etc. There is no code anywhere that says that a photo is only allowed to get 10 ratings. The number of ratings given in the PC queue per day is a more or less constant number. Arranging things so that some photos get a bigger share of the ratings pie, means that other photos will get a smaller share. Since the aim of the rating system is to produce the Top Photos rankings, I don't care if the rating average is significant to 3 decimal places. So while 10 ratings don't produce an extremely significant number, it is better that more photos get 10 ratings each than that a few photos get 20 ratings and a more significant average. while other photos get no ratings at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arashdejkam Posted June 7, 2004 Author Share Posted June 7, 2004 "When I looked at this pic it had a 4.20/4.50 rating, which is about the same as what you have given (avg) to others that you have rated. Everyone has their opinion, just like you."<br><br> Please! how can I make this clear ?! this is not about why people give me 4s 3s and 2s which is definitely their right, it's about why the error is so high that I get 5.8 average and then 3.8.<br> and again it's not about how the ratings affects my feelings about my photos because it doesn't at all. Please read Brian's comment about what is the intention of the rating system.<br><br> Brian! I didn't know we are back to 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 system this is much better. and about my photo I think this is a rare example, this photo started with two 7s and 6s first time and in such cases where people are uncertain about how to rate the photo they become biased by other's ratings so it came up to 5.8 average, next time it started with two 3s and for the same reason now it has stoppen around 4.5. the system is working fine for most of the photos and that is how it should be.<br>It was nice if we could have a system where photos with higher standard deviation in their ratings could get more ratings automatically to get to a more realistic average, but I know this can't be on the list of things to do with all those more important things on the list I'm just thinking about an ideal system ;)<br> Sorry if this thread is becoming like common endless threads about rating system, this was not my intention. if this thread is becoming bothersome delete it, I've got my answer. sincerely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Arash, we've been on the 0-4 5-9 10-14, etc system for a very long time. I forget, but it might be a year already. Before that, it was 0-9, 10-19, but basically the same approach. In some of the posts where I described it as 0-9, 10-19, etc, it was already actually on 0-4 5-9...; I just forgot that I had changed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 This just points out how useless the rating system is if you use it to evaluate your photos. The same photo getting a slightly better than average 5.8 then going to the way below average 3.8. I've resubmitted a few photos due to some minor changes (crop,contrast,etc) and have also found some major rating changes although not as drastic as your example. People get too upset at ratings this just proves how useless they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jouni lehtonen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 ...on photos. If you only get about 10-15 ratings, only one very low/high rating will affect much on average. If you (and I =) ) could get about 50+ ratings to one photo, the average would tell some overall opinion of photo. Now it depends too much on couple peoples personal opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spohn Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 My motivation isn't ratings, it's getting as many comments as possible. However, the impression I have is that a major component of how many comments you get depends on the whim of the first 10 (or so) people that rate it. If you're image is relegated to the 49th page in the queue based on the initial feeback of the folks that happen to be online those first few moments, you can't expect any commentary. I.e., if a gaggle of washed-out-family-snapshot types happen to be manning the mice at the moment the eclectic-artsy-masterpiece comes through, that piece is SOL. Having said that, I'm still greatful for the forum and the work that goes into it, and to a large extent I think the diversity of users will balance things out in the long run. But watching your occassional baby wither on the vine is going to be a sad fact of life, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_fenner Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 So it's again (today) been deleted and reposted, now in its third incarnation. Does there come a point when continually deleting and reposting is also an abuse of the points system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arashdejkam Posted June 7, 2004 Author Share Posted June 7, 2004 Richard, I wanted to finish the whole thing so deleted the photo and uploaded again without requesting critique, I just want it to be there in my portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raywei Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I agree with some comments above. Things get weired especially when it comes down to "unusual" shots. Don't worry about it. I have one guy rated a photo of mine 1/1 while everybody else gave at least 6/6 at the time. But hey, I thought, my point is to have people see my photos, not just praise them. Since every rating may pull a few hundreds of viwers to the photo, depends on the time of the three day period, welcome ratings, at any rate. You have artistically creative visions, Arash. I won't worry too much about ratings. Cheers. Keep shooting. 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