olivier_basirico Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hello I would like to know why you permit people that haven't posted any images to rate others who have. I find it strange That usually people who give you bad ratings don't explain why? If we do not know what they dislike, how are we suppose to improve our skills and better ourselve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 There are lots of reasons. You forgot to mention that most people who offer any rate - high or low - don't comment. Browse, offer thoughtful critiques, ask for criques by email from people you like. Be patient. That's about all you can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Why should we require someone to have posted a photo before they rate photos? People who haven't posted photos have eyes. As for why don't they comment, it is because we don't require it and they don't feel like it. They aren't obliged to explain their rating and so they don't. If we compelled them to explain the rating, they might skip it, and then we wouldn't know what they thought of the photo, would we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankb Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I agree that maybe you should not force people to comment, although I think consideration might be given to requiring an explanation for ratings of 2 or less. It seems to me that if you rate a picture as Bad or Very Bad that it would be common courtesy to explain to the person why you have done so. After all, the person who posted the picture liked it and felt it was worth posting and, I for one, would like to know what it was about a picture I posted that cause person to feel it was bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper8168 Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 We seem to be forgetting that this is largely art. Should we require an explanation from everyone who leaves a museum or exibit unmoved? It's not black and white; sometimes a photo does something for you and sometimes it doesn't. It can't, rather, shouldn't have to be explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janet_eckhardt Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 i dunno. it is frustrating. if you get a bad rating from someone, you'd like to know where they are coming from. maybe they have a completely different taste for art, and therefore this would be shown by their own work. i have given bad ratings without comments. and i totally regret it, because it's been done to me--and it comes across as complete snobbery. ah well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venicia_l Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I don't think the site should ever require a commentary from the rater. Sites that do so are offensive at best.<p> But I do feel that anyone who rates an image 1-2 or 7 should get a message before the system accepts the rating saying something like,<p> "The purpose of this process is to help photographers improve by understanding the responses of viewers."<p> "You have given this image an unusally low rating. Please be courteous and give the photographer the reasons for your rating."<p> or<p> "The purpose of this process is to help photographers improve by understanding the responses of viewers."<p> "You have given this image an unusally high rating. Please be courteous and give the photographer the reasons for your rating."<p> Then the rater could be given the choice to comment or not. Those who never had any intention of giving their reasons will never comply, but the invitation may increase the chance that many others will.<p> VL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankb Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 If I leave an exhibit unmoved no explanation is necessary. However, if I tell an artist his or her work is Bad or Very Bad I would explain myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 "I would like to know why you permit people that haven't posted any images to rate others who have" Anyone is entitled to a view on whether a photograph made available for critique works or not for them. Do theatre critics have to demonstrate acting or play-writing abilities before people listen to them? Or film critics? Should you have to be a chef before you have a worthwhile opinion on whether a restaurant's cooking is good? Do you have be an author before you can say whether you enjoy a book? Nobody can tell you through a rating whether a photograph is good or bad. They can only tell you whether they liked it, and they're as entitled to say that about posted images as they are about the film they saw last night. I could argue that it is those without photographs posted here who might give the most honest and useful ratings ( if there are any ratings useful to the photographer that is) because they aren't trying to get better ratings for their own portfolio. Maybe you ought to start taking special notice of those who rate your photographs without seeking anything in return! I 'm afraid I always feel suspicious of the motives in play when this issue comes up- which it does very often. It always looks like someone is frustrated because they've just found out they can't strike back. I know that's probably unfair but it does always pass through my mind every time I see this issue. Venicia's idea is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 <b>Venecia</b>, I love your idea. As you said, those that never intended to rate wouldn't heed the note; but I also believe it would cause many to reconsider, and add something in addition to their rate. If a statement of this nature is ever included, I think your sentence should be used verbatim. :)<br><br> <b>David</b>, you're my hero. :) :) I don't say anything when people complain about those with no photos rating pictures. I just think to myself, "<i>I bet they can't sing a lick, but they have a favorite band/singer/group...and reasons they could list without hesitation...</i>" Well, now... You expressed my exact feelings far better than I would have. So, I don't have to say anything more. Thank you!<b>:D</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier_basirico Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 Thank you to all that have answered me! You have given me an other way to see things... Maybe I am just too new to Photo.net. I for my part tend to leave comments especially when I do rated a photo on the downside 4 and less. I do so because I put myself in the position of the receiver and think that in leaving a comment, positive or negative will bring a least a justification to my point of view, thus probably helping in a sort a way the person who will read it. I did not right this to actually complain... And all your different views have broaden my perspective. I still do ask myself when I receive a negative mark...But I live with it. I'm not here to compete, But i'm here for comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Just for fun, can anyone point me to a critique of an image that explained their 1/1 or 2/2 rate in a way that would convince a reasonably objective person? I honestly don't think I've ever seen one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 There is no reason to go into somebody's portfolio and give a negative rating other than as retaliation, or simply to be a jerk. If an image is simply bad, or you don't find it interesting, why bother with it at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier_basirico Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 Answering to Carol. I understand what you are saying but still I would always prefer a comment even if it wasn't very positive. I have posted a couple of shots that I taught very good and that others have not liked and one time only the person explained why and I understood his point of view. We can only grow if we get critisized sometimes. I'm not out for revenge, when I myself leave a somewhat negative comment I explain why (Technique? focus? lighting? Choice of subject? Cropping? Or If I don't get it all what the photographer is trying to show us, make us feel??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier_basirico Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 Answering to Scott. You are totally right. I do tend to skip the photos that don't spur any emotion in me. An I do not retaliate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 It's okay, Olivier. I think everyone understands your frustration. I've read many responses from photographers about receving a poor rating with no explanation, or helpful critique. No one said, "Oh, JOY!" when it happened. LOL! You've got plenty of company. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cálico Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 As I've indicated in other threads, there are those immature individuals that have several accounts (why not? Account are free) and they will post under one name, and come back under another account with a different, ficticious name to give themselves high ratings and give others very low ratings. What is so difficult to understand about this practice? What I do find difficult to understand is the mentality that thinks he/she is doing him/herself any justice by rating themselves higher. Rating oneself higher than others is not helping that individual learn a single, blessed thing! They are fooling themselves or they are merely out to cause mischief; either way, it is only an immature person who would do this (or a very stupid one). They seem to have missed the objective of rating. It is not a competition; it's merely a measuring device to help those rated to improve their skills. But, as noted above, we have immature individuals here. Anyone bringing this problem of multiple accounts out to light is under suspicion or receives hostile notes and responses. Me? I really don't care. I neither rate nor post images, and no one pays my rent but me, myself and I. I don't mean to be offensive or hostile but when is someone going to do something pro-acitve about those with multiple accounts for the purpose of hiding behind a ficticious name to give others poor ratings? I've proposed something drastic. Here it is: have only those paying members be the only ones to be allowed to rate. After all, those with multiple accounts won't have multiple paying accounts to satisfy their pretentious egos. I don't post because I only use film cameras, and I don't have a scanner. I don't rate anyone's work, and never have. I don't approve of "soft" porn, images with suggestive sexual content or frontal nudity (crotch shot); I don't take the time to rate them poorly simply because I don't approve and I don't think it belongs in a site where there are sure to be minors and some who are offended. I have, in the past, taken the time to write very politely and suggest that they curfew or modify their images posted on p/n; I have not had any success and I've reported these individuals to p/n administrators and nothing has ever been done (are they alive? does anyone ever really read the messages sent to them?). If I don't like something, I can say what I have to say politely; I don't have to rate anyone's work, whether or not I approve. In the past, I've written encouraging words to some p/n members who've received disparaging remarks by a one or two individuals; I've never given ill-criticism to anyone simply because it is not in my nature to do so. Here's an alternative to my earlier suggestion for rating: instead of giving the ability to rate to paying members only, how about making it mandatory to EXPLAIN why an image receives a low rating? If the explanation does not justify the rating, then the rating is dropped. How's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandeha Lynch Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 <br> Make it 3 to 7 ... Below Average to Excellent ... <p> If an image is considered below average it doesn't really matter too much how far below ... (people can always explain if they have a constructive opinion to offer) and the next one up is Average/Fair anyway. <p> For ordinary 'revenge' ratings, people could still use Below Average...!? <p> What aspect of the system stats would this hurt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Multiple accounts are a problem. But how would you deal with them? There basically is no way for us to stop this. There isn't any way to identify people reliably on the Internet. Email addresses can be created by anyone at will either because they control a server or through dozens of free email services.. IP addresses aren't tied to individuals and are sometimes shared/rotated amongst thousands of people. We could require that everyone pay to become a member and give us a credit card number, but that would be a major change in the philosophy of the site. There are other things that we might do but they would all be regarded as intrusive and most likely wouldn't be accepted, since other sites don't do them. This is basically a problem all web sites have to live with until Internet standards evolve. Because of efforts to eliminate spam, I think eventually people will be identifiable through their email address, but this is going to take several more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 If you made 1 and 2 on a 7 point scale impossible to give, then 3 and 4 would become the new "low" ratings that everyone would consider an insult. (Many people already do.) Pretty soon, you'd have someone suggesting "lets just have a 5-7 scale, and not let anyone use 3 and 4". This process ends with a 7 point scale where the only valid rating is 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandeha Lynch Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Tongue somewhere in cheek, Brian, though it's not without precedent to have 'unusable' grades within a scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kslonaker Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 There is a simple solution to this - don't look at your ratings. It's a lot easier with this new system. Just read the comments and go from there. In the overall scheme of life, one or two very low (or very high) ratings will not matter when you have enough ratings overall - they only matter when you have a few ratings and it dramatically drops or raises them. So just don't look and you won't be upset. Read the comments that thoughtful critics have left and learn from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 I system that does not allow any negative rates can still serve the intended purpose. Rather than offering only an 'excellent' option, you explain that a click means "I select this image for the purpose of . . . . " What exactly? As an example of what you like? . . . what you think PN should display to the WWW as an example of . . . again what? a popular image? . . an interesting one? . something that will expand your photographic horizons? (presumably what many viewers are looking for.) Or are we asking them to click on an image for internal consumption. "This image, although not necessarily perfect, has some interesting features that could promote discussion" (rather than 'best of . . '). . . . much like the current selection criteria for the POW. Yesterday's discussion of the influence that web viewers have was a real eye opener for me. It's taken me two years of reading the site feedback posts on a daily basis to understand the role of viewers who are not logged in and how our assumptions of their viewing tastes drive the photo critique forum. Surely I'm not the only one who has missed this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 In view of the dissatisfaction caused by activities of non-posters, I'm inclined to agree with a policy change (to require picture posts in order to rate or comment) even though I don't particularly feel victimized. <br><br>The analogy of a film/theatre critic is not applicable - everyone knows they aren't film makers, performers, nor are they required any knowledge beyond rudimentary writing skills or the gift of gab. PN is not a professional site, and members (mostly people from the general public) seek comment, feedback and interaction from (hopefully) competent and helpful individuals willing to engage by the rules of polite society. Failure to recognize this will ultimately result in fewer paying members and an adversarial site culture. <br><br>Finally, I can't see how the requirement to post photos should offend anyone, and it might even have the benefit of causing one to think twice before acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper8168 Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Perhaps you require credit-card authorization (for identity verification only - no fee charged to the card) for those who want to rate photos. It could be a mid-level membership sandwiched somewhere between patrons and, whatever you call them - non- paying users. This way, those who don't wish to pay or be identified can still get information from the site, but in order to be an active member, some kind of identity verification is performed. I think most of the ideas here, particularly Venicia's, are great. 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