How block idiots and other kind of botherers ?

[sacha_de_carlo]

I am a recent subscriber to this wonderful site. I am not a pro and I

am still learning how to improve my amateur photography.

 

I've been reading a lot of comments and checked out lots of excellent

portfolios.

 

There is one common bug on this site that seem to bother not only me

but lots of users : IDIOTS !

 

It seems thaa there are some users that join the site, have no

pictures, or just one, and seem to have a great pleasure to give 1/1

or 2/2 ratings without any comment. just to bother !

 

(edited)

 

IS THERE A WAY TO BLOCK these users ? Can some bad ratings, typically

the 1/1 among the 5,6 or 7 be removed ?

 

If you feel that something must be done to block these useless users,

join me in this. I wrote already a "report" at the ABUSE address.

The more we are, the louder the protest !

 

Thanks

[everitt]

I just ignore any ratings, since putting a numerical value to any piece of

artwork is pretty stupid IMO. I would put more value into comments on photos

(though not all!).

[Jerry_]

Put your 'best' images in a album at home and enjoy them.

 

 

 

 

Putting your images on Photo Net combines the good, the bad, and the ugly: it is only a electronic image => there is no need to lose sleep over the ratings.

[maxz]

<P>Sacha,</P><P>Unfortunately this is not a phenomenon unique to Photo.Net but to the whole Internet. In any public forum there will be people trying to mess with it. The "anonymity" given by sitting at a keyboard half a continent away seems to exaggerate this problem.</P><P>Regarding blocking, how would you propose that this would be done? If someone could elect that no-one could give their photos 1/1, shouldn't you be able to block 2/2's and so on? Why not just make sure that people could only give 7/7's? No, instead, pay no attention to these ratings yourself.</P><P>I think you have gotten the rating grade a bit wrong when you say "Is that a sufficient reason to give a 1/1 <I>or just a 4/4</I>?" (<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/2374516">http://www.photo.net/photo/2374516</A>). A 4/4 is in the <STRONG>middle</STRONG> of the range. Why don't you ask the people giving your the same photo 6/6 why they think it deserved such a high grade?</P><P>As for the two users you gave as examples, the first one definitely seems to be qualified as an abuser, given the average ratings and the comments given. But the second one is extremely close to the average value of 4/4 and has rated several pictures high. He might just not like your work... Everyones tastes are different.</P><P>Sorry if I sound mean, but I just want to put things into perspective. I read this forum every day and there are SO many users complaining about people giving low grades but no-one complain about giving high grades without comments or explanations. To me this seems that those are just visiting PN for an ego boost. This is no competition so we don't have judges, you are given ratings from your peers, ratings that have a very marginal meaning.</P><P>Personally, I have not submitted any of my photos for critique request since I find the rating system ridiculous in the way people are using it currently. The feedback would be worthless. I have gotten more constructive critique from the few people that stumbled across my photos and either commented or emailed me. Feel free to check my folders out and give them any comment or rating you wish, high or low, I just ask you to be able to stand for your rating and be able to explain why you gave the rating you gave. If you gave a low rating I would like to know what in the photo that didn't appeal to you. If you gave a high rating I would very much like to know what made you like it. That way I can learn something. Best of all, give no ratings, just comment...</P>

[sacha_de_carlo]

Thank you Max, your answer make perfect sense to me. I agree with you. I understand your point of view. I was so upset at that moment, I wrote that comment. No problem with the 4/4 ratings overall, I don't mind.

 

Nevertheless you qualify the first one as an "abuser". It is exactly these guys that my complain is about. I am trying to keep cool and behave according to all the answers here above...

 

I received some technical advice for my "bad" ones. That's what this site is for. I appreciate constructive criticism, but some users seem really too stupid to post a helpful comment.

 

Anyway, let's move on...

[mottershead]

You should just ignore them. 1 and 2 ratings, where these ratings represent more than 15% each of the persons total number ratings, are deleted automatically. Not every day, but periodically.

[dan flanders]

Some wiseheimer once said� �The first step in the acquisition of wisdom is recognizing one�s own ignorance.� It�s a pity we can�t all live in �Lake Wobegone where all the children are above average!� Wouldn�t it be nice if only our PEERs were allowed to evaluate our efforts!? When you walk along the seashore, you are no better than anyone else from the viewpoint of the gulls and you are just as likely to receive their largesse as the next party. The same applies when you put your efforts up for public judgement: you get the ratings from the experts as well as from anyone else who is watching. It comes with the territory � there is always someone who will put down anything just to satisfy himself he has done it. Just ignore them!

[bens]

I agree with the comments about public judgment. Also, you have to ignore ratings in favor of comments to keep your sanity. Try to find other posters whose judgment you trust and check in with them about each other's photos. But I have periodically, but consistently, had an odd experience for the past six months or so that I'd like others to comment on. Every so often I've received below average ratings, and never comments, from viewers with strange names (meaning long, almost nonsensical names) who are recent registrants with no photos posted. I've wondered if this these are abusers hiding behind new registrations. Any thoughts?

[click_here_jose_caicoya]

Hi Sacha,

 

I can imagine a way of blocking botherers, at least when sending photos for critique.

 

When you request a critique on a picture (please correct me if I'm wrong), Photo.net not only posts your picture for public review, but also sends your request to ten random potential critiquers, I suggest that photo.net set a standard procedure whereby requests should only be sent to, say, subscribers, or people with one or more posted photos, or those who's average active rating is higher than 3.00 (please note that average 3 means allowing a high percentage of 1 and 2 ratings)... We would spare ourselves some sour surprises.

 

I would like to hear people's comments on my suggestion.

 

I, myself, like to rate only those pictures that seem somehow appealing, when I think my rating would be lower than 4 or 5 I'd only critique and post no rating. Cheers.

[nomade]

<i>where these ratings represent more than 15% each of the persons total number ratings, are deleted automatically. Not every day, but periodically.</i><p>

 

And so the same procedure for the 7/7's and 6/6's...? Just curious...

[vines marketing agency]

MY ANSWER IS ANYONE WITH NO PHOTO'S. SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RATE!

[maxz]

James,

 

Does your statement imply that people with neither digital cameras nor access to scanners are not competent enough and qualified to rate? For the first five or six years of visiting Photo.Net I had no means of uploading photos since I could not produce digital image media. Does this make me an abuser? A lesser rater?

 

I firmly believe that this is a ridiculous way of stopping bad ratings. It would have little or no effect on the abusers and prevent honest people from helping our community. These people, the abusers, would just flood Photo.Net with nonsense images, if you enforced such a rule, just to meet the criterion "no photos, no rating". Even worse, they might take anyone elses work, posting it as their own just to rate. They are already creating phoney email accounts to be able to open "anonymous" accounts on Photo.Net to give you bad ratings and provoke you, why believe they wouldn't upload photos? They don't care about the fake account, if they steal other peoples pictures or if they overload PN-servers with junk images, they just want youor attention and will work around any obstacle you put up.

 

You can either ignore them and hope that they go away (repeat the mantra: "trolls, begone!" and think happy thoughts) or require that every new member at PN go visit Brian and show their driver's licence or passport before getting permission to rate or even log on... I think I have a pretty good idea what solution the management would suggest.

 

I feel sad that Sacha, a fellow PN-member, has been subjected to abuse (since I see that at least one of these guys follow the pattern of an abuser) when he came to get our honest opinon. But let us not get this out of proportion. If you can point out an abuser, report him by all means. And as Brian said, patterns of low ratings are already recognized and dealt with periodically, so things are done to fix the problems created by abusers. Otherwise it might just be a matter of personal opinions and tastes, we can't all think alike, heaven forbid. Let it stay at that and go on. Don't let the trolls win.

[sacha_de_carlo]

Yes I agree totally. This would not work. As an example, the first guy I was referring to had a fake "trash" icon in his portfolio. The "no picture, no rate" rule must be avoided.

[maxz]

<P>In any forum there is a chance of trolls appearing. In internet forums with the "anonymity" easily gained, this chance increases almost exponentially to the amount of attention they can get. Unfortunately there is little to be done about trolls. You can have more rigorous checks on people before allowing them to enter the forum, making it less "open". You could reveal as much information as possibly about the persons (showing the logged IP-addresses for example) making it more obvious from where the person came and allowing interested parties to analyze from where the troll came. But the bottom line is that you cannot get rid of them completely. I have been in real life situations where people have come just to pick a "fight" and have a blast when wrecking havok to what would otherwise have been a nice and tidy meeting. So even if you meet people face to face it is no guarantee that they (trolls) wont be there.</P>

<P>If you want a good laugh and can read Swedish you can look at these two threads found at a Swedish photo site:</P>

<A HREF="http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?threadid=22078">http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?threadid=22078</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?threadid=22517">http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?threadid=22517</A>

<P>As a quick summary I can tell that the first one is from a "young girl" asking whether or not it is allowed to photograph people in public places. "She" is disturbed by all boys and "old men" (30+) that takes pictures of her with digital cameras when walking around town. Later in the thread "she" reveals that "her" friend often "confiscates" (=steals) the memory media of the photographers by showing a security guard badge. A long discussion follows...</P>

<P>In the second thread she asks what the different cards are good for (ie what camera they fit) and if they are worth anything. Imagine the rest.</P>

<P>My point is, adapt the rating system and they will adjust. Remove the rating system altogether and they will come into the forums instead. Remove the forums and they will post bad images. Remove the possibility to upload images and... well not much of Photo.Net left. You can't win by playing their game. You can only win by not letting them play, their game is your attention. Ignore them.</P>

<P>Well, these are my thoughts on the subject. I'm probably a bit to tired to make sense at this hour. If I had a fool-proof solution to the troll problem I would probably be rich enough to do something else than sitting by my keyboard in the middle of the night.</P>

[berniek]

Brian wrote and Nestor responded:

"[brian] where these ratings represent more than 15% each of the persons total number ratings, are deleted automatically. Not every day, but periodically.

 

[Nestor]And so the same procedure for the 7/7's and 6/6's...? Just curious..."

 

Less than 15% might be appropriate for any flyers (1,2,6,7) but not just he low end of the range.

 

Wondering how this goes -- is PN the Lake Wobegon of photographers (where everybody is above average)?

[tholte]

It looks like Gork the dork is gone. He went on a 1/1 spree with "bad" as a comment. It looks like the administration dispatched him in a timely fashion.

[vines marketing agency]

James,

 

Does your statement imply that people with neither digital cameras nor access to scanners are not competent enough and qualified to rate? For the first five or six years of visiting Photo.Net I had no means of uploading photos since I could not produce digital image media. Does this make me an abuser? A lesser rater?

 

My Statement is one of frustration. I am on the verge of becoming a subscriber. However, I have used pn.com for awhile and see it has a great ability to teach, but like all things a few flaws. I feel that anyone can signal a rating with a click. Advanced, Novice. However, I think in order to facilitate actual comments/Learning. People without photo's have no recourse directly. In meaning a. they have no vested feelings to promote or dissuade regarding having a portfolio b. where one can reply. Also, they can't be fully aware of the intimate experience this site creates for the artist. Everyone knows there are people who just like to rebel/destroy. I feel that the biggest hinderance of this site is not allowing more people to see or sign up for critique's.

[._._z]

What is pn.com?

[michael_dimarzio]

The Z guy flames more photos, ruffles more feathers and pisses off more people on PN then anyone, I would bet. And he has no photos posted. Should he be allowed to post critique/rate photos? HELL YES. If you follow his links, laugh at the responses he illicits, I think you'll find he give more free advice and actually honest feedback then anyone, maybe even more the Rex the Perp.

 

I still lament the loss of not seeing who gave which rating. I felt relieved when I got 2s on a landcsape from a guy with a portfolio full of pictures of cats, and it really opened a few and email/friendships discussions. That cure was worse then the disease.

[jayme]

Blocking others may be mis-construed as censorship. Next we'll be burning the books we don't like. I definately oppose this. But admittedly, these self proclaimed critics can be annoying. Most have ficticious emails and ficticious names. The general concensus on the grapevine is that the real pains like ... are actually PN staffers. How sad. I hope this is not true. I tend to discount this because you staffers have enough problems keeping the site up. I doubt you have time for this type of child's play.

 

I think the complaint here is not the ratings but the lack of commented feedback these individuals leave with their poor ratings. At least .[. Z does leave comments. I still find him hard to take without his own images posted, but he still does posts comments. That's saying something.

 

It's kind of like Jimmy Buffett's song " Where you born an Asshole". It doesn't matter, real life is full of them. So, buck up, pay attention to the wonderful feed back that is given.

 

On the flip side is the mate rating system. Amazing the junk that makes it to the front pages because 25 mates/friends have rated a simply lousy image highly. So, I guess it all works out in the end. Is PN so important in the photoworld, I think not, if used as a learning forum, it works nicely, if used as a personal gauge for your photography ability, it's pretty inept. Sorry Brian, but while PN is entertaining, it is not real important in the scheme of the photo world. Maybe someday, but not today.

 

So embrace the "Idiots" and "Botherers", even idiots have a place in our society, they make the rest of use look amazingly smart!