Changes in Display Format plus 1/1 Ratings

[jon w.]

You appear to have changed the format in which images are displayed

and by which comments / ratings are accessed. I don't have a problem

with this of course - except that the order of all the photographs in

my folders has been reversed for some reason, which is a real pain if,

like me, you have planned the sequencing carefully. In every case, the

first image has now become the last. I don't really want to repost

everything, and thereby wipe out all discussions and comments acquired

so far. Could you possibly change the order back again? (I don't mind

about the other alterations in display format).

 

Also, someone left a 1/1 rating on one of my photos without leaving a

comment. I thought it was impossible to do this? What gives?

[jbs]

Johnathan~ no, I am afraid that what has become impossible is that you no longer get to know who left the 1/1....J

[mspanakis]

Then, how do we know if the 1/1 comes from a serious photographer with respectable A/O criteria (and, then, get depressed) or from someone we would not bother to ask in the first place (and get angry)?

[mottershead]

1/1 ratings are very rare -- fewer than 1% of ratings. Most of those come from trolls, and are deleted automatically within 24 hours. If it doesn't come from a troll, a 1/1 probably comes from a newcomer to the site who hasn't realized that "average" on this site is currently 5-6 and that a 1/1 is not only "Very Bad", as labelled, but is interpreted on photo.net to mean "One of the Worst Photos in the History of Humankind"; it takes people a while to realize this, and to stop using 1/1 ratings.

 

By the way, if someone visits the site only a couple of times and rates only a handful of photos, eventually all of their ratings will be deleted, along with the 1/1's, even if he/she didn't demonstrate any typical "troll" behaviour. But this takes a few months of not having heard any more from the rater.

 

This leaves a few 1/1 ratings from people who are not trolls, who presumably have learned something about how people rate on this site, and who can also be presumed to be somewhat serious. A 1/1 from one of those people is probably very rare and if you happen to receive one, it means that they thought the photo was very, very, weak. Probably there was an additional element of motivation, such as exasperation with the response of other raters, or the feeling that the photo was pretentious, or objectionable in some way -- more than merely technically bad. These are not supposed to play a part in rating the photos, but it is hard for people to disregard them.

 

Given all this, should it really matter whether the portfolio of the legitimate 1/1 rater is mediocre, good, or non-existent? In all those cases, a 1/1 means they they were so provoked by the badness of your photo that they went out of their way to record their evaluation in the form of a rating. That may be difficult to accept, I realize.

[jbs]

Brian, Pray tell~ What possible meaning is there for the photographer to see the numbers? ...J

[mottershead]

I think the averages are meaningful if there are enough ratings. That is why we use the averages to decide which photos to feature as "Top" photos. If they weren't meaningful, we might as well just display photos at random, and be done with it.

 

I can tell you from experiments that random displays are not as interesting as what we display -- although they do occasionally turn up interesting photographs that would otherwise go unnoticed because they haven't been rated much, or not highly.

 

I also think the distribution of the ratings can be interesting and meaningful -- again if you have enough ratings on a photo.

 

Because of the wide variation of tastes, and various sources of "error", I think individual ratings are not very meaningful, and I wish I could convince people not to pay attention to them. This is true even when you know who the rater is, although in isolated cases where someone has become very familiar with the tastes of a particular rater and values one person's judgement, there might be an exception. (I think this is somewhat uncommon, and while it has been lost by the recent changes, it is not a great loss, and is being somewhat overplayed by those protesting the change.)

 

The desire that people have to see the portfolios of their raters (and to require that raters have portfolios) so as to be able somehow to validate a particular rating is not something that I think is very rational. But it seems very difficult to get people to be rational about the ratings on their photos.

[root]

Am I correct in assuming that RFC images that get five ratings are then sorted to give priority to images >5/5? If so, then a 1/1 slows down the climb to ten thus reducing it's exposure on the 24-hour page, which is necessary to get another 5-10 votes to be visible on the 3-day. Rates do still seem to matter, albeit in a subtle way.

 

If a 1/1 is deleted and it was among the first ten rates, does the RFC sort recognize that it should be put back in place in line ahead of all the tens?

 

One solution is to run the troll check more often, say every six hours instead of twenty-four. Another less elegant one is to auto-delete the extreme rates that don't include comments and deviate significantly from the average. . . . probably too energy intensive.

[bernhard]

<I>random displays are not as interesting as what we display -- although they do occasionally turn up interesting photographs</I><br><br>

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a random photo display as an additional option in the gallery?

[jbs]

"I think individual ratings are not very meaningful, and I wish I could convince people not to pay attention to them."

 

Brian You can do this by removing them from the photographers view. And that is my point. Keep the average and show it to everyone but make the individual #'s dissappear.

 

Humbly, Jay

[mottershead]

Carl: the sort is by number of ratings in groups (0-4,5-8,10-14,15-19,16-20 etc). Within the groups they are sorted by average rating. In theory, an early 1/1 rating might affect the queue position of a photo, since it will be slower to work its way through the groups than photos not burdened by an illegitimate 1/1. But it turns out, as has been widely observed, that given the number of photos and the number of people generally rating, most photos get at least 10 ratings in the "Rate Recent" queue, and few get more than 10 in that venue. I don't think an early 1/1 matters that much. The number of ratings is the dominant factor and it does not really matter if one of them is a 1/1.

 

Anyway, 1/1 ratings by trolls are not really a big problem. We see maybe one troll every three or four days, and he will give out no more than about 30 1/1's, usually many fewer, before getting bored and going away. Considering that several hundred people rate photos on most days, this is a strikingly small number. This means that most people who participate all the time in the Gallery get to see these trolls at one time or another, and tend to remember when it happens. We are generally fairly quick about deleting these ratings. It certainly isn't worth designing all the systems of the site so that nobody ever sees a 1/1 rating from a troll, as aggravating as they may be when you get one. Retaliation, bogus accounts, mate-rating, etc by "established" photo.net members trying to get a leg up is more of a problem, I would say, than drive-by 1/1's by trolls.

[mottershead]

Jay, They are pretty aggregated right now. I think it is OK to show people the distribution. If people don't calm down about ratings, maybe I'll adopt your suggestion, and just show the averages. The next step after that would be to make them completely invisible and just show the rankings, but that is starting to be a bit too much of a black box to motivate either the photographers or the raters to participate.

[vincetylor]

Or, just go back to how the ratings were!

 

Keep the rest of the changes but make the names/numbers as before. Sense of community, appreciating each rating more... etc. You will likely get more complaints the way you have it now Brian, than before. When a troll/suicide rater goes on a mission, at least each photographer hit, had the opportunity to respond to this person directly. Now the only place to go is to management. Also a non-suicide honest rater that leaves a 3/3 or whatever (especially on a higher rated image) may not leave a comment. The old system allowed a less frustrating experience by allowing the photographer (if desired) to either see the work of the rater, or even contact him directly. And no, not always in retaliation either! The only alternative now would be to contact management...again. Or just get tired of playing the game. Low-ball raters (and there are a few) are basically being given cart-blanche with the new annonymous system.

 

The other point to keep in mind is that keeping ratings public, just made the Photo.net *experience* more enjoyable. This is not exaggeration just to get my/our way either. It's quite true and should carry a fair measure of value -one would hope- in deciding whether to go back to that part of the older system. One doctor told me, happy people live longer. Well, I reckon thats true. So then, you will not only help many of us to live longer...(heh) but at the very least then make the time spent here more interactive and enjoyable...which also translates into more interaction and involvement. I would think involvement is what everybody really wants here. I hope you put that aspect back into the Photo.net experience. Just my sincere opinion.

 

Anyway, I just remembered why I am staying away from the forums. Slight..relapse here! I actually like the gray background...adds a richness to the images not there before. Your hard work IS greatly appreciated.

[root]

I think the question of what motivates people to participate is itself

a black box. We know the reasons are many, but I still think that the

ability to give and get numbers and see images according to how the

computer orders the averages is less important than you might think.

The only people who care are the ones we're trying to discouarge. So

let's stop feeding their habit.

 

Even a RFC image that gets few rates in a three day period gets

thousands of views, which means that people are paging through the

TRPs looking for . . . what exactly? Friends? Nudes? images with

curb apppeal due to high saturation and contrast? Whatever it may be,

let's eliminate the "me too" comments and rates and encourage people

to start thinking for themselves.

 

1) Change critique queue to thumbnails only. no name, date or average

Remove them from the rotation when they reach ten.

 

2) TRP Default view: 24-hour - random display changing frequently.

images with ten or more rates. Again, no name, date or average. We

need to stop influencing rates.

 

3) 3-day view - random display (changing frequently) of thumbnails

with 15 or more rates.

 

Only one week (and later) would offer viewers the chance to s

[root]

. . . see rankings . . . . .

[mottershead]

Vincent, I'm afraid you are not getting it. I don't want people deputizing themselves as moderators and sending rude emails and writing rude commens on others' portfolios and photos because their ratings are too high, too low, too something.

 

I'm seeing commentary after commentary in the Gallery being disfigured by people rebuking each other for their ratings. One of the main reasons I made this change was to stop that.

[vincetylor]

The "Deputizing" as we can call it at the very least least did keep the lowballers somewhat honest and somewhat in check. I believe that was the reason for making the ratings public to begin with, making raters more accountable. What will prevent the same from happening again?

 

It is true what you say Brian. Charls Bronson made three Death Wish movies I believe, that were all quite popular with his own vigilante style. So yes it does happen around here. However in my opinion, the price you are having your members pay, to slow down the retaliation seems fairly steep. Especially while at the same time, you are opening up possibly greater opportunities for the lowballers to do their thing as well as limiting the *community* effect.

[vincetylor]

We've all agreed you will never have a perfect ratings system...ever. Why not simply delete those revenge comments on the folders of others rather than implement a system that opens the door for more lowballers as well as putting some measure of brakes on the community factor?

 

Either way, thanks for the direct reply. I'll go back to "sticking to taking pictures"......

[root]

Why do low ratings bother you?

[vincetylor]

Lower ratings are not an issue with me personally. You will always have some that feel differently about any image. Lowballing however, does bother many people moreso. I think you have many reasons why some like the older system as commented all over the pages. Mine or more along the *more connected* lines. It has been diminished somewhat. Will Photonet go on?? Of course it will. Just that Dad has basically disciplined all the kids by taking away our scooters so to speak. All because Junior rode into the neighbors flower bed. We can all live without our scooters you see.... Just life was more fun with-em!

[jon w.]

As the person who innocently started this thread off, I should stress that I don't worry too much about poor ratings - the photo in question is not egregiously bad. Indeed, it got a 5/6 off the squiggle formerly known as A/Z (not that I care very much about that either). I long since stopped giving out ratings myself (I try to comment frequently instead). But I did think it was a good idea to force 1/1 raters to leave a comment, and I would suggest reinstating this rule.

 

I was actually much more concerned about the other point - the reversal of the display order of images in all my portfolios, which has completely messed up all my presentations.

[davidmccracken]

Johnathan et al,

 

Personally speaking I don't think anyone should get to rate without leaving a comment irrespective if the rating is 7/7 or 1/1.

 

The people who rate lowly do it to antagonise and to that end they have won! Why are we all here moaning about them when they are really now worthy of discussion.

 

If anyone has a photo on p.n and they know it is not worth a low rating then that is fine. Why get upset about it? If you are unsure of the photo then why not email a photographer you respect and ask for an honest view.

 

Forcing people to leave comments particularly on low ratings is futile. Instead of getting a 1/1 rating and NO comment, you will get a 1/1 rating with the comment "CRAP!"

 

There is no perfect system. I much prefer comments to ratings anyway although I will admit that it is nice to receive a large number of ratings!

 

My experience so far on p.n is that there are NO (or at least very few) serious users of this site that rate lowly without comment. Therefore if you get a low rating without comment you can ignore it. Sure! It is more difficult now to know who has left a low rating but in the end, who cares.

 

Having said that you could put your rating in the comment so that the photographer knows who has rated what!

[melissa_w.___arizona_calif]

I have been contributing to photo.net for less than 6 months now, and have received my

fair share of low ratings (including 2 1/1's which are still there). I have to say that with

most of the low ratings I was given, I received no comment. When I did receive a comment

giving me constructive criticsm the person didn't even rate the photo. I have learned that,

for the most part, people that give low scores don't leave comments. Even when you leave

a comment on their portfolio asking for a reason. I haven't seen a photo on this site yet

that deserves such a low rating, and usually if I think a photo does deserve a low score, I

would rather leave a comment than even rate. I think it stinks that you can't see who rated

your photos. I have not only left comments asking why I got a low score, but wrote to say

thank you to others for taking the time to have a look at my picture. I had thought that it

would discourage people from rating low and not leaving a comment if you knew who they

were. Now we don't have that to protect us.