How's the changes panning out for you Brian?

[wernher]

Any feedback on what effect the changes you guys have made has had?

I'm betting the overall ratings average is way down.

 

I see there's 9 female nudes and 1 penis on the first page of of top

rated photos. Is that because nudes now have their own category,

stay in the new critique list longer and thus garner more ratings?

Will this unbalance the site or is this just a temporary aberration?

I haven't got a problem with rating nudes but too much of a good

thing...

 

Furthemore, I just love the increasing amount of 3/3 fly-by ratings

with no explanation. Really motivates me.

[gary_woodard]

Damn the nudes, give me rusty trucks by a barn.

[digitmstr]

>> I just love the increasing amount of 3/3 fly-by ratings with no explanation<<

 

I believe there's a post (to which I responded) in which someone (an administrator?) speaks of not wanting to "discourage people from posting a low rate" by requiring them to express their critique in writing.

[wernher]

Yes Giampiero, you are correct. I perhaps shouldn't have mixed different issues in the same post. I guess I just wanted to add my voice to the other people who have expressed dissatisfaction.

[digitmstr]

>>I just wanted to add my voice to the other people who have expressed dissatisfaction.<<

 

I wholly agree with you, btw.

[mike_morgan1]

<i>I'm betting the overall ratings average is way down.</i>

<p><p>Good. Photos (mine at least) are over rated on photo.net, in my view. This is probably in part because 'bots detect and delete 1/2 ratings from chronic low raters, but not 6/7 from chronic high raters.

<p><p><i>Furthemore, I just love the increasing amount of 3/3 fly-by ratings with no explanation. Really motivates me.</i>

<p><p>Don't form your self worth based on what others give your photos. I don't think I have rated any of your photos, but during a quick glance, the only one I noticed worthy of a decent rating was "Cat beard". The others seemed souless; technically fine, but laking a style.<p><p>If you want feedback on photos, by the way, the best way to get it is to start giving it.

[wernher]

>>The others seemed souless; technically fine, but laking a style.

<p>

I agree with what you say which you would have noticed had you bothered to read my biography (the second or third paragraph where I get serious). You are entitled to and welcome to your opinion.

<p>

>>Photos (mine at least) are over rated on photo.net, in my view.

<p>

Are you <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=22186">this Mike Morgan?</a> If so it seems strange that your photos can be too highly rated as you only have two snapshots of your son posted. Your wife are happy with them no doubt.

<p>

Now let's look at a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2516059">good photo.</a> This photo has garnered one 2/3 and one 3/3 to which I say b#llsh@t. Obviously these raters do not like alterations and now they can get away with punishing styles they don't like due to being anonymous. This is wrong and you won't be convincing me otherwise.

<p>

>>If you want feedback on photos, by the way, the best way to get it is to start giving it.

<p>

Do not presume to lecture me if you are not aware of my activities on the photo.net site. I have joined quite a while ago but have only become active recently. I have given PLENTY of comments to photos: compliments if warranted, criticism if I saw something wrong in my humble opinion.

[mottershead]

Wernher, on the tree photo, out of nearly 30 ratings, there are 2 below 4/4, and not that many below 5/5. So, most people like this photo. Of the few who don't, I wouldn't assume that it is because those people have a blanket dislike for digital alterations. When you look at this photo it is basically an easily-done halo effect around the silouette of a tree. The original was probably a quite nice tree silouette, but nothing special. Without the halo, it would be a pretty mediocre picture, which I might rate A=4, O=3 myself. So, the next question is: does the halo effect improve the picture? Most people seem to think so (or maybe they like tree silouettes to start with). I guess I would agree, but I'm less crazy about halo effects than most of these raters, I have to confess. I don't think it does any harm in this case, anyway, and I suppose it does lift a fairly conventional tree silouette a bit out of the run-of-the-mill. So, for me, the 4/3 becomes maybe a 5/4 with the halo. A very few people thought the halo spoiled the picture, apparently, or perhaps they find tree silouettes particularly banal, and the halo didn't help. They are perfectly entitled to that view. There isn't anything surprising about these low ratings at all, in my opinion. It is a bit more surprising that so many people liked the halo effect and that so few people didn't. I would have expected a few more low ratings on an image like this. Maybe there were other people who weren't as enthusiastic about the halo effect in this photo as the people who rated it, but they couldn't be bothered to rate it. I certainly couldn't regard the few low ratings on this image as the reductio ad absurdum of the rating system that you seem to think they represent.

[wernher]

I still think that people too often rate pictures lowly because it's a "French poodle" and they don't like French poodles. They should rather stay away from rating such pictures. For what it is I honestly cannot see how that photo could garner a 2 for A. Thanks for your view though.

 

I have seen your response on the number of nudes on another thread so that's cool.

[nikos]

Brian is quite right in his assumptions about why someone might have rated this image below average. I know, because I am one of the people who rated it below average. (3/3 or 3/4, can't remember exactly) My reasoning goes in a very similar manner to what Brian described.

 

1. As for originality: Tree silhouettes have been beaten to death and are hardly a novel subject. The perticular composition is typical, if not outright cliche. It is very hard to make a photo of this subject and approach it in a new, creative way that reveals some previously untold aspect of tree silhouettes. By definition, any tree silhouette photo that is not outstanding in some way is less than average originality, hence 3 sounds like perfectly reasonable score for it. Manipulation *could* potentially improve this subject in some way, but the specific halo effect, hardly did this, at least in my opinion.

 

2. As for aesthetics: Average or even below average. The manipulation spoils it in my opinion, the colours and the technical merits of the picture are nothing to write home about, and the aesthetic of the original wasn't particularly outstanding to begin with. Aesthetics is also very much a matter of taste, and without some particularly excellent photo, I think it'd be hard to argue why someone did not like this photo.

 

All in all, a photo of an overdone subject, from an overdone viewpoint, with an overdone composition, then manipulated by the application of a boring filter in photoshop gets below average rating by some people. I can't see why that consitutes a reason to complain about.

 

I have a photo of a tree in b/w in my portfolio. Hardly a radical photo. It has received quite a few 4's and 3's and I can see why. It doesn't bother me. I didn't choose to shoot a tree thinking that people would be thrown off their chairs by the shock. If 20+ people thought it was very original, it'd be THEIR honesty to worry me, and NOT that of the people who immediately identified it as a perfectly typical and average tree shot.

[wernher]

Nikos your points are perfectly reasonable. But see, there are some truely horrid photos that get posted to photo.net. The only photo I have ever rated 3/3 without leaving a comment was a photo of a road sign. Nothing else, just a non-descript road sign with dull light against a dull sky.

 

So if you are capable to articulate so eloquently why the above photo deserves a low score in your opinion what are we to do with photos of road signs? Ignore them? These aren't rhetorical questions by the way - I am trying to figure out how the appraisal norms have shifted, if at all.

[nikos]

First of all let me tell you that from my own view and opinion you are not going to be able to draw any conclusions regarding the 'appraisal norm'. This is because I try to rate according to photo.net's guidelines, and according to what the words above the numbers actually mean, something that most users have already abandoned in their rat race to the TRP.

 

You ask what we should do with the 'horrid' photos? (whichever they may be) Well, either ignore them as most people do, and only bother to rate photos above average, or if you decide you want to rate most of the stuff you see (as I do) try to rate them honestly and consistently.

 

Honestly means that the word describing the number can be ascribed to the photo. Taking originality as a basis of example, any photo that is decently composed but without any exceptional interest or novel representation of the subject should be rated as 4. If it is not just unexceptional, but in fact a typical, cliche or boring photo then it's below average, a 3. If it falls in the realm of stupidity, then a 2 is warranted. I rarely, if ever, use the 1 rating because I don't feel I can clearly distingish between 'stupidly boring' and 'very stupidly boring'. Now, if a photo is beyond just average, contains some element of novelty, smartness, interesting approach to the subject, then it should be a 5. If it goes beyond that, either being very clever, or very unique, or very meaningful, then I would consider a 6. The 7 should be reserved for true masterpieces. The photos you wish to come back to. The very rare photos that speak to your heart, enlighten you. Photos that you learnt something from.

[root]

More than once, I have challenged Brian, or anyone else who would listen, to show me one person - just one - who uses the full spectrum of the gallery as the site intends. That is, upload images for critique, rate a wide variety of images following the rating guidelines, and offer thoughtful comments. (Notice I use the present tense. I think it used to be a lot more common.)

 

Well, sir, I have found that person. You are the one, and are to be congratulated. I hope you will continue to set a good example. If I have overlooked some self serving behavior that puts you back in the pack with the rest of us, well, then I'll have to eat humble pie.

 

But your stats look better than anyone else's that I've seen.

[nikos]

Thanks Carl. I've never actually thought of myself as the 'model user' you present me to be, and god forbid I'd sure like to believe there are quite a few people with more voluminous and equally balanced contribution.

 

In any case, though, if you care to know what my experience has been after years of casual participation on all aspect of the site, I believe that with the current system, someone who has any motive whatsoever in getting some visibility, cannot afford to rate photos as I do. (yes, I do have a few photos with 50+ ratings but they've been around for years) I don't mean that I feel I deserved more or better ratings. I mean that, if instead of rating lots of stuff as I see fit I had concentrated my ratings and comments to people who reciprocate them, I could have seen my mediocre photographs decorating the TRP very often and gathering 6+ averages. (By the way, my highest-rated photo is a very boring shot of a tree, taken when I was trying to learn manual exposure)

 

The reason I can afford to have a balanced an honest contribution is because I am an average, amateur photographer, with no particular exposure ambitions and nothing special to gain from a place in the TRP. I don't think there are too many people here who are as indifferent to exposure as I am. (although they should be, because unless you are a very experienced professional, there's a lot to gain from looking at photos, perhaps more than there is from getting a few pats in the back)

 

I don't mean any of the above as a rant. But maybe it would be worth for Brian to investigate how feasible it is for someone to be an active 'gallery contributor' and an active 'critic' as well. Maybe though, his latest comments reveal that he has abandoned this vision (and I believe he has fact-supported reasons to do it) and he is gearing the site towards a split system, where users fall into two categories: photographers and viewer/critics. I wonder how that will affect the quality of the gallery and the educational value of the site.

[root]

Let's see what happens next. Allowing uploads without rates has been promised and could include the option to upload into critique circles, which was discussed not long ago. If that happens, people will be able to to decide whether their primary purpose is to upload an image for the whole world to see (assuming raters agree that the image justifies a large number of views) or for constructive criticism.

 

A question was asked recently about being able to see non-rated images in the TRP simply be viewing the 'comments' sort. I ran a test a couple days ago and can confirm that that won't be possible. An image has to have at least one rate in order to be viewed on the TRP - at least on that sort, and I suspect, all others.