ruslan safin Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 I want some stupid raters (with pics I would be ashamed of) to stay away from my pics. How can I do it - block them or whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_m1 Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 You can't.<P> It's the price you pay to have your pictures in public view on a photo website. <P>If you feel the ratings you get are a form of abuse, e-mail: abuse@photo.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby_todd Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 I looked at your portfolio and you have wonderful pics. From the 20 pics I looked at you have been rated 367 times with an average of 18.35 ratings per pic. Your average for the 20 pics Aesthetics: 5.27 and Originality: 5.12 is not bad at all. 15 of your pics you were rated above a 5 in Aesthetics and 2 of them above a 6. 14 of your pics you were rated above a 5 in Originality. You have to keep in mind that it is opinions that you are asking for and opinion are what yoou are getting. If you polled 367 people of all ages and from different parts of the world you are going to get 367 different opinions. Use your ratings as a tool. I am currently working my butt off on trying to take better pics. I haven't figured out how to take that awesome pic just yet, but I still have opinions on what type of photos I like and capture my eye. As you can tell I have a little time on my hands but I like your pictures very much and thought I'd let you know how well I think you are doing. Arby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby_todd Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 I wanted to add one more thing. Recently I experienced a problem with my video card in my computer. I was able to view pics but they were darker on my computer than on any other computer I looked at. Therefor I did not rate any pics during this time. This made me think of how many people out there have crappy monitors or messed up video cards that are rating photos and not seeing the real pic. Arby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian deichert Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Arby -- your second comment is the reason I almost always include a gamma calibration graphic in my critique requests. While a couple of my submisions have actually been a bit dark, others have received a "too dark" comment despite the fact that they looked fine. Find a good gamma correction bar, save it to your personal web space, and code your critique requests in HTML so you can insert the image of the gamma bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshall Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Anthony's right, you can't block people here. I don't really see a pattern of low rates on your images, but perhaps you've reported some to "abuse" and they've been removed. I do notice that you don't like receiving 4's in some cases. All that means is someone rated the picture 'average', and in context of several higher ratings, it's not that meaningful. All of our work sometime fails to connect with a viewer, no matter how creative or technically sound. In other words, you do some good work and are generally respected for it, so don't worry about it too much. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 The ratings exist not for the photographer per se, but for driving the gallery selection. Photo.net is sufficiently democratic that the stupid raters get a say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livvie Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 from a quick glance at your portfolio, you seem to have persued those who have given you a 5/4 and a 4/4 and thanked them for their "average" on your pics. i noticed a none too pleasant comment one of your "low raters" photos too! ... sounds like someone has a problem here ...and it may not be your raters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin.e Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Don't worry about the ratings Rusla, there are some competent raters some incompetent raters and some devious raters. I have just been given my first 1 on my most recent upload, a 3-1 in fact. The pic ain't nothing great maybe a 4-5. Of course I clicked on the raters name to see what I could learn from this paragon of photography. Oh he/she is at such a high level they deign to submit images for critique. Well how about the best of their 273 ratings on photonet. Interesting, this person is a tit and bum fetishistplenty of 7+7 for nice pics of naked and near naked women, some nice images of other things too. There is a very strong case that this person is also a self rater/mate rater with 20 of the top 80 images 7+7 for a competetent nude specialist who figures often in the top photos pages. Oh who is this member? Moil 190 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan safin Posted May 1, 2004 Author Share Posted May 1, 2004 Hello pepole! Thank you for response. I might have paid too much attention to those rates that I actually did not consider before. I will actually not any more - useless. But it seems like I am trying to create something, I use my knowledge of that and that, technique or composition - then some snap-poppy-shooter or Photoshop abuser comes and by his silly rate says "so-so, go home and remake your home work!" WITHOUT explaining what s/he really thinks bad is in the pic. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan safin Posted May 1, 2004 Author Share Posted May 1, 2004 LIV EDGEWORTH this is for you. I was not the one to keep him from rating:http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=563034...... If you want him to be on your list of favourite critics - you got the link.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan safin Posted May 1, 2004 Author Share Posted May 1, 2004 or may be this mystique person? http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=839406 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxhaynes Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Your work is very good Rusla, you have to expect the Joe Shander and �]�Z crowd are always going to give low ratings, it's how they operate but it's not a reflection on your work, they rate everyone that way. You just have to expect that and go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Max, don't delegate yourself as head cheerleader while publicly denigrating others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livvie Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 my comment refers to your recent comments to rob and especially allison, who seems to have drawn your wrath on a number of her photographs for a 4/4 on one of yours.<p> http://www.photo.net/photo/1662441<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/2324888<p> it appears rather harsh of you rusla, on further investigating i notice she too has been low rated by those you mention on top of receiving your less than helpful comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan safin Posted May 2, 2004 Author Share Posted May 2, 2004 LIV, may be so. BUT YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION: would you want those persons to be on your list of critics???? ANSWER FIRST THEN POST SUPPOSITIONS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livvie Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 in answer to your question: i dont worry who my critiquers are rusla - but then i dont pay much attention to the rates anyway, i prefer the comments which is why i noticed your comments rather than the rates. your original question was -how should you deal with "stupid raters"? i suggested you should not deal with it by leaving unpleasantness on the work of others (such as allison). by doing that you become as bad as those of whom you complain. i originally picked up on this as i find the whole argument of who should/shouldnt be allowed to rate whom arrogant at best and useless at worst. and ...to avoid another all caps post - am ending my input on this one here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan safin Posted May 3, 2004 Author Share Posted May 3, 2004 Liv, concerning Allison - I wrote what I thought, I don't care about polite correctness and if I think that Photoshop is ugly in that case - I put it straight. Well, thank you anyway. To be honest I am not that evil as I might have seemed to you. Good luck!:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 <I>then some snap-poppy-shooter or Photoshop abuser comes and by his silly rate says "so-so, go home and remake your home work!" </i><P>I've got a better one. My sole image that was POW on photo.net I had to delete with over 160 comments and repost becuase of constant annoying comments in no relation to the image. Could care less if somebody doesn't like an image, but at least tell me why in a constructive way what the problem is.<P>Otherwise Rusla, you have a superb folder and great images. Most of the nastiness is simply flat out jealousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 Personaly I don't see why people get so upset about the ratings unless they are interested in being in the top rated photos which is not what PN is supposed to be about it is supposed to be about learning. When you upload photos here you get the opinions of people from all over the world good or bad. Not everyone understands what goes into each photo or what the photog is trying to say the most important thing is to photograph to please oneself (or ones customers) not to try to win a popularity contest. There are people on here the give low ratings for fun or some other reasons but it is easy to decide if you want to take their rating seriously or if you choose to ignore it. I personaly don't mind what people say or how they rate my pictures everyone has their own opinion. I know who's comments and ratings I take seriously and who's I choose to ignore. There are many on PN who give only high rating in the hope of recieving high ratings their ratings are just as bad as the people who rate low for fun or some other reason so they are best ignored too. In all honesty don't take the ratings to seriously and as for Tony T, he has a rather unique collection of photos in a fun sort of way. I also took the time to read through some of the comments left on his portfolio and look at some of the ratings left on his pictures. Is all that really in the spirit of PN. Would it not be better to ignore him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 There is another position that is rarely encountered in this very regular type of posting. Have you considered that some (not all, certainly) of those who don't appreciate efforts that most of us would consider "very good" if not "excellent", really think they're not good because they genuinely like the kind of "pics" they take? Using Tony as an example (and, of course, I don't know what he thinks) but maybe the snaps he takes of his friends having a good time are his idea of what really good photography is all about. We all see snapshots (at best) that folks take of daily events or travel that they are very excited about and we think "Yeesh! How boring! How banal! and then you hear others likewise asking you about have you seen the pics so-and-so took of her trip to Switzerland and they are just wonderful. Then they look at your work and don't see the technical excellence or composition that is really good. They then say that your work is good but they really like the "life" in so-and-so's pics. And those are the photos of the good friends drinking beer and smiling. Those who take those photos do think they're just the best because they illustrate what they value, not what you value and the inherent quality of the photo itself doesn't mean anything if the subject means a lot. People approach photography from many different perspectives and when they rate, they rate from the standpoint of what they value, not what you or I might value. So what you see may really be what they believe about your work. This is in no way to deny that there are a lot of nasty, tiny-minded raters out there. But I do think that sometimes those of us who take photography very seriously forget that the parts of photography that make a difference for us aren't what make a difference for others who pursue photography for reasons that seem very different and unacceptable from ours. When we ask the world what they think of our work, the world tells us. Do you really like and agree with everyone you meet? Of course not but they do have a right to their perspective on all aspects of life they come into contact with and if you put your photos up, and they view them, you'll get their opinions. In person, we can avoid those people, who after we are exposed to them have very different and unaccptable (to us) viewpoints about life and how to live it. On the Web, we can't avoid them except to stay off. In an ideal photo.net gallery there would be no outright nasty raters but given how the Web works, they are a given. And before you pounce, I don't post my photos because I really don't care what a bunch of people I don't know think about them. I really do shoot for myself (and sometimes my friends). I have the good fortune to be surrounded by a fair-sized group of people, including three well-paid professionals, whose opinions and skills are as good as, or better, than mine who will tell me the truth (and ouch!, it sometimes stings!)and with whom I can discuss in person with the photo in front of us what needs to be done to improve. That beats all to heck an anonymous evaluation. Now if you don't have resources like this, that leaves you taking chances here or somewhere like here. But when you resort to an anonymous forum it always leaves you open to these kinds of problems. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan safin Posted May 5, 2004 Author Share Posted May 5, 2004 To Conni: "...On the Web, we can't avoid them except to stay off." May be ~to stay THEM off~? You described a simple mechanism of showing the world a pic, everyone knows it - as many people as many thoughts. But like in a real world I prefer to choose the ones I want to deal with, even those who would crush on my work with devastating critique. I have always tried to avoid fools and mindless people in my life. And I want to avoid them here by keeping them from me. That is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Rusla: But the Web is not set up that way. When you own the Web, you can make the rules. Until then you either have to stay off or put up with those you don't like or don't agree with. It's as simple as that. Perhaps you can find a site that does let you block those you don't want to rate your photos. This might give you quite a bit of peace of mind. Stay away from vexatious people if they won't stay away from you. It makes your life a whole lot more peaceful. Your miserable raters aren't losing any sleep or having their hearts thump with anger. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan safin Posted May 5, 2004 Author Share Posted May 5, 2004 Conni, OK! I'm easy like Sunday morning!:) 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