Comments on postings - alternative angle I think

[tony_p4]

I don't think this has been mentioned before but I'm probably wrong

so please forgive me.

 

Many of us rightly rant about people leaving low ratings without

comments.

 

One thing that has occurred to me though, has anyone considered how

many times you leave a comment whatever the rating you give and

there's nothing to show that the photographer has even bothered to

return to the critique request. ie. not even a "thank you everyone

for your comments but I disagree".

 

Just a thought.

 

Kind regards Tony

[root]

It's a two way street.

 

Many newbies drop comments without ever intending to participate in a discussion. You may have also noted that there's a lot of " I like it" - "I'm glad you like it" going on.

 

The comments that include analysis and suggestions for improvement are the ones that deserve a response.

 

Upgrading the ratings tutorial to encourage discussion wouldn't hurt.

[tony_p4]

I admit I do the "thank you for your..." when I get a comment on any of my work, but that's because I am greatful and I want the person making the comment to know that I've read what when said.

 

Updating the tutorial may help but I wonder how many read it. It's a bit like how often do we read the manual or instructions before using a new piece of kit.

 

Tony

[philmorris]

Tony, the tendency to rant about low ratings and to demand explanations for low ratings (but not high ones though) has been around here since, it seems, the beginning of time. Worse, I notice a rising tendancy to post whinging comments in the raters portfolio. I think that's a sad reflection of the importance the moaners attach to ratings. So I don't approve of rantings about ratings. I see them as mildy amusing (in a shocking way) and inevitably pointless. It follows then that I doubt the validity of your statement that the recipient of a commentless low rate has a justifiable "right" to rant. I'd like to see the ranting stop. Rates are free gratis. It's allowed. You take 'em as you find 'em.

 

The same goes for rants about feedback on comments. Sure it would be great if a comment yielded some feedback, even a mere "ta". But if contrary to your expectations, your comment failed to generate anything from the photographer, it's probably time to ask yourself why. It's obvious you've reached that moment because you say you've had this thought. What are your conclusions?

[macgregor_anderson]

I find that many people thank me for comments. If they don't, I still assume they appreciate the effort even if they don't agree or find the comment useful. If I don't hear back, I figure they are busy and hope they are using their time to add comments to other photos, helping someone else out.

 

Phil, I strongly object to your condescending characterisation of people who address low raters. A single low rating can easily drop a photo out of circulation in the critique request cycle. That matters. It's not the end of the world, but if you care about the process, you care about people who interfere with it unfairly.

 

A thoughtful low rating with a comment can be extremely helpful (I get those all the time), but there is undeniably an element within Photo.Net that we could all do without. They almost always have some sort of agenda that runs contrary to the ratings/comments process. They are on a mission to rid the world of boring old fashioned landscapes, heavily manipulated abstracts, images of naked people, etc. Most of us have our biases here but try to avoid expressing them through low ratings of a genre. That's because the tutorial on ratings suggest that if you don't like pictures of whatever, maybe it's best not to rate them.

 

There are certainly a lot more high raters than low raters out there. I can see how this frustrates a lot of Photo.Net users. But it is fundamentally different. While it also detracts some from the validity of the process, it is fundamentally NICE. The individual act makes someone feel a bit better and gets them more exposure. As a trend, it diminishes the integrity of the process. I'd like to see a distribution of ratings more in line with the guidelines. It would be ideal.

 

Since many of the raters out there that have the "courage" to run counter to trend don't post portfolios and since it really doesn't make sense to leave comments in their portfolios when they do have them, perhaps a rater dialog/feedback page could be created. That way, we could thank the raters in an appropraite place. It would also allow photo.net members who feel that they have been subject to some degree of abuse to address those people publicly, without bothering the overworked staff on the abuse team.

 

There is nothing whingy about wanting to address a wrong, however slight. There is something mildly sinister about attacking the victim. Strong words for such a relatively unimportant situation. But I have zero tollerance for the "quit complaining" police that seem to thrill to these debates. Bitter and unloved, they are.

 

Cheers,

 

Mac

[mottershead]

A low rating doesn't have any negative effect on a photo's standings in the Number of Ratings view of Top Photos. In that view every rating no matter how low helps. And that view is the default.

 

In the other views based on average rating, a low rating "hurts", but a high rating "helps". That is the nature of rating, and if you weren't prepared for the low ratings as well as the high, then you should not have submitted the photo for critique and rating. Are people so subjective and self-regarding that a low-rating is always interpreted as unfairly hurting a photo's chances, while the high ratings are only what the photo is due? This is like those losing politicians who gripe, "well I would have won except for all the (blacks, Hispanics, poor people, suburbanites, fundamentalists, fill-in-the-blank) who voted for my opponent. True, but SO WHAT? The underlying idea is that votes for me are somehow more valid and legitimate and should count for more than the votes my opponent received, even though he received more. But in a democracy, all the votes are legitimate and valid, even the ones against you, whether you like it or not.

 

So I keep saying it, but nobody is listening: the full range of values is valid, and nobody is compelled to comment before leaving a rating no matter what it is. The low ratings are not less legitimate than the high ones, requiring an explanation or justification. The average is supposed to be 4, despite the fact that anybody with an average of 4 on the site is almost universally considered a "low rater" and becomes the recipient of abuse himself. If people want to congratulate each other on how good their photos are, I can't really stop them, but they should stop giving grief to the people who don't want to play along. Fortunately, enough people vary their ratings enough so that the rating system still works, more or less. At one point, I thought we were headed for an average rating of seven on the site, which would have rendered the ratings completely useless. Fortunately, this didn't happen, and the "low" raters are among those to be thanked for this.

 

As far as I am concerned (and I'm calling the shots, folks), a low rating is only abuse if it is part of a pattern which suggests an ulterior motive or that the ratings are not connected to the person's honest response to the photo. The same is true of high ratings, although I don't expect so many of those to be reported.

 

What *is* abuse is complaining about someone's ratings in comments on that person's portfolio. If that happens to you, you should report it. As for constant whining about low ratings (or low ratings with no comments), it isn't abuse, but it sure is tedious to those of us who have to read the Site Feedback forum for year after year.

[ken_thalheimer]

I believe in leaving comments and appreciate when someone leaves theirs. I really rarely check back for the thank you and back slapping stuff. Some of the photos' comments sections appear to become mini chat rooms

I agree with Brian on the abuse. I've checked someone's portfolio only to see a tirade going on from someone who has gotten a low rating. It's really uneccessary

[philmorris]

Mac, I'm sure you're a real nice guy, and I'll soon crawl back under my stone and happily resume my anonimity as a bitter and unloved wreck (Golly, I wish I'd never popped my head out). But a place where all those that "care about the process" can publicly have it out with the lousy raters and slurp up some of those really yummy generous ones? That's one seriously bad idea.

 

The fact is that Brian is exactly right. Those content to whinge are, in Brian's words "... so subjective and self-regarding..." I wonder whether those same people would join with you declaring that others who try to quieten it down are the "quit complaining police", for whom I notice you express "zero tolerance". Hmmm, such fighting talk.

 

I mean, please, we are talking the ever so ever so slight here. So is there really "nothing whingy about wanting to address a wrong, however slight". Isn't it all relative to how old you are. Or how much you had to borrow to pay for it?

[tony_p4]

Some interesting replies and thoughts here and just to put the record straight I am not ranting about comments.

 

The idea occurred to me because so many are ranting about comments not being left and as has been said it's a 2-way street. Possibly some of those who rate without leaving comments are doing so because they never expect them to be read in the first place.

 

I also see saying thanks as showing that you have read them and showing some gratitude that someone has taken the time and the trouble to leave them.

 

Kind regards Tony.

[ken_thalheimer]

Tony, I agree on the "Thank you" for taking the time. I usually do it by reciprocating by giving their work a look and commenting in return

[tony_p4]

Ken, Yes I know and I'm glad you do as you are one of those who have helped me to develop whilst I've been here.

 

Kind regards Tony

[root]

This thread was supposed to focus on response to comments.

 

If we use the contents of comments on this site as an indicator of how well people understand 'aesthetics' and 'originality' in photography as described in the ratings system tutorial, what does that tell you about the statistical validity of the ratings system? Look at the TRP and the POWs. Read the commments . . and the responses to them. Then tell me that the rates - high, low, or whatever - have any meaning. The fact that different people leave a range of numbers on any given image or that some individuals leave a range of numbers on hundreds or even thousands of images still tells you nothing at all about their understanding of the photocritique process regardless of their average.

 

. . . . unless you read their comments.

 

If someone has nothing to say, I take them at their word.

[bernhard]

<I>Brian Mottershead:<br>

So I keep saying it, but nobody is listening: the full range of values is valid, and nobody is compelled to comment before leaving a rating no matter what it is. <br>...<br>

What *is* abuse is complaining about someone's ratings in comments on that person's portfolio. If that happens to you, you should report it.

</I>

<br><br>

I hear you and thanks a lot for being so articulate and clear about it. I recently had a "conversation" in my portfolio page going on for exactly that reason: I think 4 is average, don't think I have to explain *every* 2 or 3 I give and my portfolio got blasted with 'nice' comments and ratings, so that I even put a paragraph about my rating and comment behaviour in my biography section. I really don't care about the ratings, but I hate being called names. I have never reported any of this to the abuse department, but now that you speficially ask us to do so, I will.

<br><br>

By the way, did I tell you how much I appreciate your effort and the way you run this site? You know, you're one of the best things that ever happend to photo.net.

[tony_p4]

I do find comments much more useful and have learned a great deal because of advice on such things as contrast, cropping and even defining focal points to a certain extent.

 

I read somewhere recently here that ratings are for the site, but comments are for the photographer. A sentiment that I do tend to agree with because I don't mind people liking or not liking my work, as long as I have an idea why. If it's valid then I can change the way I work, if not then at least I have considered other alternatives.

 

Comments here are more useful than those I get for work published which I wouldn't even bother posting here because in reality they are cr*p, but that's what the papers like. There the story is important and my pictures only support the text. Here this is work for me and my pleasure, so improving my technique and picture quality is more important. I can only do that with practice and comments.

 

BTW Brian many thanks from me as well for the way the site is run and your input.

 

Kind regards Tony

[mottershead]

Tony, after your kind comment, I feel a little surly disagreeing with you concerning "thanks" comments from the photographer. I don't think it is necessary or even a good thing.

 

The comments threads on photo.net are not meant to be chat rooms. They are supposed to be interesting and informative to read, and "thanks" isn't very interesting for anyone. Send the thanks to the person by private email, if the thankee has provided a valid address. If he hasn't, then skip the thanks. Don't make my servers send out 300 alert messages for the thanks comment you just wrote. Don't make me pay for bandwidth and servers for "thanks" comments on 900000 photos. The same goes for "congratulations", "Nice photo", and all the other friendly social-bonding noises that people feel compelled to make, and which nobody wants to read.. I repeat: the comments sections on photos in the Critique forum are for critique and commentary; they are not the photographer's private little chat room. Keep it interesting.

 

If you have something substantive to add to the discussion of your photo, such as responses to questions, etc, and you want to throw in a thanks here and there like a damn movie actor winning an Oscar -- okay. But, otherwise, I hate to sound like a grizzled old Internet wowser, but please save the bandwidth.

[tony_p4]

Brian,

 

Please don't "feel a little surly" in any way. You have made several very good points about the bandwidth and from my little corner of PN I must admit I hadn't considered that aspect. I do feel guilty quite often that I cannot be a subscribed member of PN for various reasons I posted on another thread a while ago, so eating up bandwidth at your expense is something I very much apologise for. I'll take on board what you have said and keep the socialising to where it really should be.

 

Kind regards Tony

[vincetylor]

"If you have something substantive to add to the discussion of your photo, such as responses to questions, etc, and you want to throw in a thanks here and there like a damn movie actor winning an Oscar -- okay."

 

Manners are always nice...regardless of bandwith, regardless if we sound like Jack Nicholson. (Whose Lakers got spanked by the way)....sorry off-topic bandwith....

 

"As far as I am concerned (and I'm calling the shots, folks)"

 

Long live the KING!...