airwinger Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Dear Admin, I cannot understand your reason for splitting the raters from the ratings list to another page. If a photo is rated by many people and the list is rather long, it becomes increasingly more differcult to associate one to the other. Please could you place them back on the same page as the ratings. Thankyou for reading this. I am sure many other users aggree with me. yours Steve Kay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geri Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I don't know if you read this thread or not, but take a deep breath, and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008iD1">click here</a>. You can see several of Brian's responses along with members' comments here. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I only scanned that other thread, so I might have misssed something, but I see it this way: since hardly anyone leaves comments on my photos, and I'm posting them for critique because I want to learn to make better images, the ability to look at what raters like and shoot and use that information to add or subtract weight from their ratings is an important tool (because, for instance, a landscape shooter who only rates landscapes high is less significant with a low rating on a picture of my cat than someone who shoots pets and rates pet pictures high). The ability to weight ratings received by "relevance" -- for lack of a better term -- is absolutely lost when the raters' name list is sorted by ASCII order of the "last name" field, while ratings are in order given, newest at top. Yes, it should greatly reduce revenge rating -- but it also greatly reduces the utility of the rating process for those who are trying to actually use it for its (presumably) intended purpose: as a learning tool. Suggestion for an alternative: allow the photo's owner to mark ratings received in some fashion, and display both an overall aggregate rating, and a rating based on weighted averages derived from the owner's marks -- so, for instance, if I post a B&W picture of a reflection in a puddle, and get a 1/1 from someone who only shoots mood-lit color nudes, I can marke that rating as "less significant" while I mark as "more significant" ratings from photographers who actually shoot B&W reflection images -- and leave others with "average significance." I don't know if there would be anything gained by adding more gradations than that, but the math is trivial, and even database software should be able to handle the formula to perform a weighted mean, rather than straight mean. Snag is, this would be completely useless without the ability to identify raters and look at their other ratings and portfolios. So the question is: is rating a learning tool (which can be enhanced by knowing the identity of raters and seeing their work, if you have a menas to use that information) or a vanity tool (in which case you might as well turn off ratings entirely)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinstott Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 donald you are 100% correct . the inabilitity to identify and check out low raters makes it imposible to recognise wether the rating you have just recieved is from a mupet or a profesional whose rating actualy matters . i have never indulged in revenge rating as it is a non productive passtime , although there are obviously some members who rate 1/1 2/2 etc and have no photos published .people like that need to be pitied not vilified well thats my rant over , PLEASE PUT THE RATINGS BACK AS THEY WERE... pretty please.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Short of losing the ratings altogether what Brian has now done is the <u><b>best</b></u> thing to happen to this site in a long, long time. Stop focusing on a person's lazy number given to your images. It's meaningless and tells you nothing anyway. Participate in the fourms, discuss images articulately and with meaningful comment. Others will do the same for your images. It'll create a community of depth and substance again---something severely lacking with so many people for some reason focusing on number ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I agree with Donald and disagree with Richard who's opinions are starting to sound like indesputable facts. Well, they're not! (Not every rating given is a lazy one Richard). And as you can read with your own eyes in several different threads, the ability to see WHO rated what is of importance to MANY. And if you think this change is going to miraculously bring about meaningful comments and bring the site to as you say "It'll create a community of depth and substance again" ....I'd suggest waking up from dreamland! Brian, what about this: Allow the ratings to be viewed by *subscribors* only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I agree with Vincent. Blimey. This must be serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Vincent, Richard is right. Reciprocating comments with comments WILL happen, as it should. Everyone's whining about seeing the rates so they can find out if the high raters are worth reciprocating, thus encouraging a return trip, and if you don't believe that, then you're more naive than I thought. Revenge rating, your main focus, causes some noise, but it's only a small part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Sure, a few comments more. More like the "Nice shot" variety That sure helps! I believe the reason they abolished the required commenting on 1,2 and 7 was this very reason. Wake up Gents, you're dreaming! Why don't you take your *forever blinders* off Carl, and actually read what people are writing. Many like to see who rated what. Relationships are developed and it helps the photographer to put into -perspective- the rating given with the one that rated. Hello! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Real relationships are created with REAL comments, not numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 If the rating is not a lazy game then people will be inclined to leave a comment in such circumstances. I am quite ok with 'almost' anonymous rating as it is set now. <p>Secondly, IMO, the fact that a rater have posted pictures or not on Pnet, doesnt make his judgement more valid.<p> Thirdly, due to the too high levels (and the concentration both in high marks and on few people) of rating on Pnet, rating is no more a learning tool but a pleasing tool for gallery '(M)affi(cion)ados'..<br>:o))<p> So Brian, either keep it this way, which is fine to me and will somehow 'force' less lazy rater to input a comment. Either make it fully transparent and let's have a public access to the full list of a ratings given by a single rater (and not only his 300 latest highest) which was not the case before... <p> I consider Brian's latest move as a first step to split the site into critic people and points only galleries which is an excellent move I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Sometimes I will give a thorough comment on somebodys image. The next time, my rating will be the only thing I offer. Putting the two together can have meaning. They are connected in a way. It allows the photographer to reach out and touch the work of many others. Hiding the identity changes that significantly...in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 ... hiding the link between the identity and the rate level, while keeping visible the name of the person who visited, has the immmense advantage to attract you to the portfolio of the rater, at least a person who spend time (short or not), without any anger or too favourable opinion that could affect seriously and quite naturally your judgment and eventually your back rating...<p> so Brian, you set is definitely a great tool to both limit the revenge but also the mate story and back-scratching however you name it which seriously pollute the visibility and drag down the whole quality of the site... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I would venture to say that 90+% of people who want to have the raters visible is so they can see who gave them low scores. <p>Yes, Vincent, I think practically every numerical rating given is a lazy one. If you think people give ratings by number in some kind if meaningful, thoughtful way....well, that's your dreamland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geri Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 "Secondly, IMO, the fact that a rater have posted pictures or not on Pnet, doesnt make his judgement more valid."<br><b>Thank you.</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spohn Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I don't see anything wrong with wanting to see who gave you a low score. There are a million valid reasons for wanting to do so other than for "revenge." I just got a 1/1 tonight (see <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=008jXZ&photo_id=2495132&photo_sel_index=0">here </a> if you're interested) and would love to see if a person's work would help explain such an extreme reaction in the absence of a comment. I'm not going to ruminate on it, or trash some of their work, or leave a nasty comment - I'm just looking for feedback wherever I can get it, even if it's non verbal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinstott Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 could i have some of the DRUGS that Richard Sintchak is on ,if he thinks that this is the best thing to happen. all that will happen is the number of 1/1 ratings wil now expand exponentialy as people - no not people , sad Muppets realise that they can trash photographers work with no comeback either from the photographers who use this site for honest appraisel of there work or by the site administrators. GROW UP RICHARD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Richard you said: "Yes, Vincent, I think practically every numerical rating given is a lazy one. If you think people give ratings by number in some kind if meaningful, thoughtful way....well, that's your dreamland." Are you dieting this weekend or something? Not all people are lazy bum raters, looking to revenge and mate-rate. No not 90 percent, not 50 and probably not even 10 percent Richard. Your opinions (which are made to sound like facts) are once again quite skewed. Thanks for being so bold as to share them...however far in left field they may be. Aloha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandeha Lynch Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Martin ... all those exponential 1/1s you mention will automatically be eaten up by a web spider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandeha Lynch Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I spend half my week grading assignment papers on a 100% scale, and giving feedback in the region of 300 words. People sweat about their numbers, but sweat is all you get. It's the words that makes them think ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Geez, guys lighten up. I'm entitled to my opinion and how strongly I care to state it. I did not call anyone names, or tell them to grow up, or accuse them of being on drugs. Why so defensive? And I said "I think practically every numerical rating given is a lazy one" I did not outwardly or rudely say anyone is a "lazy bum". Are your egos that easily bruised when someone happens to disagree with you? You insult them? I've been around here on this site a lot longer then most of you and I've seen this site with and without ratings. I happen to have deeply preferred it before the ratings came along. But if we're to have ratings (and Brian has made it clear why we do---for the site, not for the photographers) then I happen to think it's best that we go with Brian's recent change. I've yet to see anyone present any cogent argument as to why they want the ratings not anonymous (I simply do not buy the "community building" aspect of ratings) other than to think people either want to know who's low balling them or if the person who gave them some kind of high rating is a decent photog. And you know, whether they are a good photog or whether they even have any images uploaded tells you squat about whether they are a good critic by only giving a numerical rating (each number of which seems to mean different things to different people). Unless that person was willing to leave a comment and articulate what they liked or disliked your image then they barely gave it 5 seconds glance (if that) before they hit the drop down numbers and moved on. Now really...what is that telling you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airwinger Posted July 4, 2004 Author Share Posted July 4, 2004 I Don't know whether Brian reads all this or if he has the time but although I requested the return to the original ratings page layout I would like to appoligise for disturbing the hornets nest. I thought perhaps people were to bizzeeee looking for their ranters(sorry spelling error....raters). Cheers anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 My rating is my opinion. I stand by it and would like my name next to it. I am not afraid of revenge raters. If you split em then at least remove the numbers altogether...and you may as well remove names from comments so that people can speak freely and without worry from the revenge ratings generated from their stupid comments!!!!.....;)...J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billangel Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 If one of your images receives a rating by a particular individual, you may be able to determine what rating that individual gave your image by utilizing the "Browse Photos Rated by ..." feature for that individual. So if the name if "John Doe" appears in the list of "Members Who Rated this Photograph", just click on the name in the list, then click on the link identified as "You can browse some of the highest rated photos by this member.". I believe that the numerical score cutoff point that determines which of the images rated by this member will actually be shown in the list is 6 for originality and 6 for aesthetics. Therefore, if the member gave your image a lower score than that, it won't be listed in the results. 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