Ratings Experiment - Join In

[vincetylor]

My opinion Carl, Marc G. and anybody else that is unhappy with the amount of comments, quality of comments, mate-rating that does exist:

 

Simply do your own part.

 

You will NEVER be able to change human behavior to the extent needed to rectify these issues. Backslapping mate-rating will always be a problem...just be sure to be no part of it. Rating honestly does not mean trying to lower the scores to even out the averages. Many people acknowledged quite honestly that the *Balance Brigade* movement was not about honest ratings either, but about evening the score. Just rate an image what you truly believe it deserves. It will then be respected and appreciated. It also helps not to pick on any one photographer. What Mark Lucas did was a very good idea...he picked on all of the Top-Rated images, not on just a few photographers.

 

You cannot make others share meaningful comments on anybody's work either, but you sure can offer your own meaningful comments on other peoples work. Try to find something good in an image if possible before offering constructive counsel. It's not mandatory or essential but just plain good manners and will help the photographer to take the suggestions a bit better.

 

Coming to terms with the fact that NO system will ever satisfy all of the people, and that this system works fairly well (considering how many use this system) will help us to just move ahead and do what really matters...take better photographs, and along the way help others to do the same. We all have the power to do that!

[ajpn]

I meant to address the curator page earlier Carl, but as I was about to submit what I wrote, I changed my mind. Now I'm back.

 

I don't agree with a lot of the politics on this site, but what can be said? I don�t agree with the politics of quite a few of the people running my country either. Obviously, a lot of people here are aggravated, but it doesn't seem to make much difference. Brian said it himself in so many words; they are basing what they do on driving more traffic. That means going with the mainstream and trying to adopt the American Idol model. For every one of the people here that are unhappy with the way things are, there are probably 900 people eating it up exactly how it is. Of these 900 probably 10% are subscribers, and the rest are fish they are dangling the hook before. The only way things will change is if new subscribers quit taking the bait. Not likely.

 

Like I mentioned before, you either learn to live with it, or you don�t. Personally, I�ll take the bad with the good. I have a good time for the most part, and I�m of the school of thought that I like to say, �It�s not the world, it�s what you make of it.� Hopefully, you�ll do the same. This place would lose a lot of saturation without people who actually care enough to let it be known.

[root]

"For every one of the people here that are unhappy with the way things are, there are probably 900 people eating it up exactly how it is." . . . The only way things will change is if new subscribers quit taking the bait. Not likely."

 

The turnover in gallery participation is significant according to Brian's own figures. I think very few people are 'eating it up' They took the bait - the promise of critique - and end up settling for a handful of rates. Then they realize that they really don't mean much and decide to either invest time in comments and / or high rates in hopes of getting the same back, or they give up.

 

"Like I mentioned before, you either learn to live with it, or you don?t."

 

You're implying that nothing will change, but there were changes that took place in the year prior to your arrival.

 

"Personally, I?ll take the bad with the good."

 

Too many other people don't and have left. As Brian says we're all speaking from personal experience rather than from the standpoint of overall site statistics, but I know you've read that quite a few of us have said the same thing. I won't go over Brian's list (see above) at the moment, but although they're plausible, he's just guessing. I'll go by what people have actually said.

 

"This place would lose a lot of saturation without people who actually care enough to let it be known."

 

This place is losing people that I consider assets. The computer hasn't been asked to measure that phenonmenon - specifically who is defined as an asset - so I guess it isn't really happening.

[root]

You've said quite a few things in your last few posts that misstate or misunderstand what I've said about what aspects of an image people are attracted to, but for now I'll address this one issue:

 

"You will NEVER be able to change human behavior to the extent needed to rectify these issues."

 

Using the rating system as an example, your average of well over 3,000 rates was 5.8 / 5.95 last time I looked. That's essentially a voting system that picks an image for further exposure. We could change it so you could only promote selectively with a 'yes' vote and you and I would both be happy, but it would prevent people from knowingly or unknowingly demote images. You could reduce the competitive behavior by not insisting on a precise ordering of images and by not posting the scores under thumbnails. You could encourage intereaction with images rather than people by not listing the names under the thumbnails. There are many other examples, but the idea is that you can easily require or prevent certain behaviors and you can encourage or discourage others. Who participates and how often will be deetermined by what features are offered.

[carl smith]

It used to be that your photos didn't have to be any more than average to get some ratings and comments on them. Over the past year or so this has declined sharply, to where if you post a photograph for critique your lucky if anyone even looks. And since if I remember correctly viewing the thumbnail counts in the # of views of a photo, it's gotten pretty abysmal.

 

If you ask me the system is oversaturated and has failed. This has definitely driven off a number of people who used to enjoy the system, and who used to contribute a lot. I'm not a photographer by trade myself, and I often never get a lot of my best/favorite photographs on the site but I used to enjoy some constructive criticism. Over the past year I now get what many others get, which is drive by ratings that are usually from one person and all the same. I'm sure my inability to color balance well due to my poor color vision doesn't help many of the ratings either, which is one reason I very much need comments rather than vague ratings, for example. Everyone posts here for some reason, whether it's to be seen, be active in a community or get praise (some of these people are vicious if you don't give their images high marks).

 

I'm not saying if that's right or wrong but when all the ratings show up within an hour and they're the same on every image in the portfolio it seems to prove the failure of the system even more. I can speak from personal and shared experiences.

[ajpn]

If they are losing people, then why do you think they persist in these methods that drive people away? Something must be working, either that or there is an endless turnover of people taking pictures who arrive, post a few pictures, get depressed, and leave, as you suggest. I'm not buying it. I don't think as many people are as bothered by this as you seem to be. I also don't believe that people just sell out and follow some pattern to get higher ratings.

 

I will admit this. My ratings average went from 4. 1 or 4.2 to 4.8 or 4.9, and I suspect it will go up to around 5/5, because I got tired of pissing everyone off, and facing retaliation. Is that the site's fault? No, that is the users, and the unability to accept that someone else thought their picture was less than stellar. So now if I see something that is less than 4/4 I just skip it entirely.

 

Like I tried to state, with anything there are going to be problems, things that are not ideal in my opinion. I've spent enough time stating mine here. Peace.

[carl smith]

Anthony, I don't think you've been here long enough. Not to say I'm the oldest here (in terms of length of usage or age), but I lurked for a while before I joined. There has been a loss of talent because they became fed up with what the system has become.

[mottershead]

The attrition in the Gallery is about the same as in the forums on photo.net. It is a fact of Internet life, most noticable to people who stay a long time. Despite the attrition, the number of Gallery participants, and every other measure, have been increasing exponentially over years -- until the last couple of months when we hit some snags because of new hardware and performance issues, and rolled back a few months of growth, one hopes temporarily.

 

To be honest, I've basically had all the criticism of the rating system and the site in this forum that I can tolerate. This is the Site Feedback forum, not the Site Redesign Forum. Suggestions, problem reports, and questions are one thing. Unrelenting criticism of the site is another, and this forum was never intended as a venue for that, nor do I see why we should expend resources and bandwidth to give people a platform for it, or expose new visitors to a constant stream of threads that suggest that Gallery and the rating system are stupid, dishonest, corrupt, etc.

 

Carl Root and Marc G are going to banned from this forum soon if they don't knock it off. People who don't appreciate the site are not compelled to visit. I don't find any of this criticism useful or helpful. On the contrary, I'm completely fed up with it, and I don't see how it benefits the site or anyone for there to be a forum on photo.net where we are obliged to keep answering unrelenting criticism, the same criticisms over and over. If we aren't providing a site that people get something from, then we won't have any visitors, and the site will collapse, solving the problem. Some other site that is doing more things right will take over. The people running photo.net will all go and do something else. Marc seems to think he has already found a site that is better than photo.net. I wish he would hang out there, and not keep turning up on this site like smelly socks.

 

I don't even see how all this benefits Marc and Carl: if they are so dissatisfied with photo.net that they feel the need daily to criticize it, they are wasting their time even visiting and should find something more constructive to do with their time.

[root]

My last post before I take a break as requested is to agree with Bailey Seals.

 

We have both requested a detailed FAQ that posters can refer to when others bring up these questions again. Maybe he and I could write it jointly.

 

I'm serious.

[jbs]

Carl, say it ain't so....;).....J

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> We have both requested a detailed FAQ that posters can refer to

when others bring up these questions again </blockquote> </i><p>

 

I suggested a FAQ that would at least handle the most basic questions that get

repeatedly asked. That does not seem to be what you are angling for, Carl. <p>

 

On a tangential note, I think that not only should there be a FAQ that people can easily

find, but that upon photo.net registration it (or a link to it) should be emailed to people.

In fact, periodic mass emailings that provide news, site updates, statistics and the like

can work to keep registered users in touch with the site... and help drive people back

who may have drifted off.

[root]

I think the basics should be covered, but it's pretty clear that many people don't understand the rationale for each aspect of the system. I am suggesting we go beyond 'what' to help explain 'why'. . . . and 'why not.'