3-or Below..

[broads]

Hi, I think this should be a must.

 

I have found that pictures I have uploaded have generally been

recieved well by the comunity. However there seems to be some that

rate completely against the grain..

 

I don't mind this.... However. What I do mind is ratings of 3 or

below not having any comments or suggestions of how to improve. Yes

somethings may not suit every one, but as you say if the photo is

good but you dont like the subject matter then dont post at all.

 

What I would like to see introduced is a system where by if your

posting 3 or below then a prompt should ask for a comment otherwise

the post should not be actioned.

 

Sorry just my gripe of an otherwise excelent site. I am learning

lots here by watching others, and as a result I feel I am getting

better photos. Will be signing up soon. Once I get some spare

change..

 

Regards

 

 

Mark Elford.

[joe_orsak]

Recently posted by Brian (Site Admin) in another link:

 

If people use this forum to report technical problems, bugs, etc, then we pay close attention. They don't necessarily get fixed immediately: we may not know how to fix it, or there may be other things that are higher priority. But such reports are always useful and appreciated. Even if I tell you to use another browser, or switch off your anti-virus program, or whatever, I keep it in the back of my mind that people are having trouble with this or that aspect of the site, and if I understand the problem and can fix it without excessive effort and without breaking something else, I will do so, although it might take a while.

Using the forum to make suggestions is worthwhile most of the time, We pay attention to suggestions. Even when we can't implement a suggestion, it is helpful to know what people would like.

 

There is one exception. I guess at this point, I would say that it is a waste of time to make suggestions about the rating system. Most of these have been made before, and discussed at length; they usually are based on a philosophy about the site and its systems that we don't agree with and aren't going to adopt. Start your own photo gallery site if you want one that conforms to your philosophy, assuming this one doesn't. A lot of the time, these suggestions are just someone venting about receiving a low rating or a rude comment, and even if you aren't venting, your comment may not be distinguishable from someone who is. Normally, my reaction to rating system suggestions is to type in, yet again, some variation of the standard answers that I could type in my sleep by now. It would save everyone a lot of time and frustration if people just refrained from rating system suggestions. (Wishful thinking.)

 

After I have made a change in the design of the site, I find bug reports, browser problems, and other technical issues, etc, very helpful. I find "this sucks", "go back now" comments to be exasperating and demotivating. I don't pay much attention to those, and they make me regret creating the Site Feedback forum. Griping because I chose black and you like white is pointless. If it is a matter of taste, I prefer my own taste over your taste, thank you very much, sir. So, unless there is some reason to believe that your tastes are more representative of the 100,000 people who visit the site daily than mine, complaining because I chose gray and you like white is basically a waste of time. If the site is going to crash and burn because I made a wrong decision, I'd sooner it be because I went with my gut feeling than with your gut feeling. So, if I have done something a certain way, I'm not generally going to undo it based on counting "this sucks" comments in the Site Feedback forum. I prefer not to base decisions on gut feelings at all; I prefer to pay attention to hard facts, such as the traffic, the behaviour of people on the site, etc, and base my decisions on that, not on how vehement and rude people are in the SF forum.

[nikos]

Click the link below:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-2.tcl?topic_id=1562&type=new&category=Photo%20Critique%20and%20Rating">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-2.tcl?topic_id=1562&type=new&category=Photo%20Critique%20and%20Rating</a>

<p>

You will find more than 360 long threads of discussions on issues pertaining to ratings. If, after spending a few hours perusing the beating to death of countless complaints, ideas, suggestions and the like, you still believe you have something novel to say about ratings, come back an tell us about it.

<p>

I'd be really excited to read a really fresh opinion or idea - although I tend to believe that anything that could ever be said about the ratings system, has already been said countless times.

[micheleberti]

<i>"I'd be really excited to read a really fresh opinion or idea - although I tend to believe that anything that could ever be said about the ratings system, has already been said countless times"</i><p><blockquote>... but this doesn't mean that we should stop talking about... even if something has already been said many and many times if lots of people agree</blockquote></p>

[jennifer_spiller]

There are a couple of reasons why this may not work.

 

1)Forcing a person to write a comment if they rate a photo low may discourage that person from rating low at all, and therefore influence their rating. We would like for our members to try to achieve an average rating of 4/4 when rating other members' photos, but if they are required to leave a comment every time they leave a low rating, they may feel discouraged from doing this.

 

2)This would go against the new anonymous rating system we have implemented. After all, if someone is required to write a comment after they rate a photo low, the photographer would know who the low rater was.

[broads]

I am sorry if I offended anyone, seems Joe you have taken my comment to heart a little (or was that the other poster)?. I guess if you have heard this question X times before it would get to you.

 

Anyway it was just a thought and if it has been said many times before then please just forget it.

 

 

I think this site is excelant and I value the opinions of anyone with a level head. Like many here I am learning and the more constructive criticism the better.

 

Thanks again and keep up the excelent site.

[mark_jordan3]

Mark,<br>

For a period of time comments were required for extreme rates (high or low) and the result were comments such as "This sucks" or "Wow"...still not very helpful. My best mental defense has been to just focus on the majority sentiment on my images and graciously accept what comments I do receive.<br>

BTW, you have a decent portfolio, hope this doesn't disuade you from participating further.

[mattvardy]

Hi Mark,<br>

 

Unfortunately low ratings and low raters become frustrating to those of us who think our photos are worth more than a 1,2 or 3. There have been numerous suggestions regarding ratings and comments and how there should be a relationship between the two. But usually we realise that there is no effective way to "make" someone add a useful or constructive comment to a lower rating. Like a few posters have already explained, your suggestion [making comments mandatory for low ratings] if implemented:<p>

 

Might (A) deter some raters/commenters<br>

And (B) would provoke useless comments such as "not for me", or "this sucks 1/7"<p>

 

My advice is to simply ignore the low ratings, and enjoy the higher ratings - if they are deserved, or to ignore ratings all together. Understand that maybe some people just have poor photographic tastes, that some people lack the knowledge to accurately analyse a photograph, and that some people might just be out to cause trouble.<p> If you're finding that comments are hard to come by - and you wouldn't be alone - the general understanding is this: comment on others' work, and they might comment on yours. Notice that I don't think there is ever a garantee that people will return the favour, but this is the best strategy for getting comments and hopefully useful feedback - along with a high or low rating.

[mottershead]

Being discouraged by a few low ratings is, to be blunt, stupid. On any photo, there is going to be a distribution of ratings around some average. That means some of the ratings are going to be lower than the average, and some higher. This is just basic statistics. Perhaps it is vain to think that "creative artist types" can grasp this. To repeat: most of the ratings will be around the average, with some at either extreme. Its normal and unavoidable.

 

Get upset if the *average* is low -- if you want to get upset by something. Be happy if the average is high. But getting all upset, and making proposals on how to "deal with" low ratings, because a rating or two on some of your photos are much lower than the average: that is irrational. It is like complaining that it gets dark at night. For that matter, so is getting all puffed up because of a couple of ratings much higher than the average. There is no telling why someone's rating ends up at an extreme. He might have had something that disagreed with him at lunch. The photo might make him remember some painful experience or trigger some phobia. Maybe he thought "1" was the high end of the scale. Who the hell knows?

 

And imagining what your score would have been if there hadn't been any low ratings, and playing "If Only", is silly and self-destructive. All the other photos that are competing with yours for a high ranking also have a distribution of ratings around an average, and those photographers also have stray ratings higher and lower than the averages. If you were to get to delete or disqualify your low ratings, other photographers would too, and the overall ranking would be the same.

 

It's the averages, stupid. Anybody who can't understand this really should not be submitting photos to be rated on photo.net. How blunt do I have to be for people to get this?

[broads]

Calm down, calm down... ;)

 

Like I said, my comment was merely a thought which I thought maybe a usefull edition to this site. To help those to understand the dislikes and to help provide usefull critique. It wasnt meant as Oh i'm really upset that someone doesnt like my photo. Thats there opinion, however if they really dislike it then what is the problem, too much light, Too much satuation, would be better if..

 

I thought that only forcing comment on the really low marks might make for interesting insights, I didnt say 4. As the majority of raters will be 4 up... Just look at the quality of shots on offer on this site, there is seldom a really bad one. I have limited knowlege of photography. But if I can think of anything that would improve a picture I will say.

 

Peace Out..

[jbs]

Here is my viewpoint: I post an image because I like an image and want feedback from others. If I like an image it will be, by my own definition, at least average or better. If someone rates it a 3 or below then they (at the very least) don't know how to read the image. Most of the time when someone like that then leaves a comment it often goes like this:

 

(

Her face is all Bleached out. Not sure what happened here, so not sure on how to give appropiate feedback. Looks like just too much light on subjects face.)

 

or

 

( it needs to be sharper, whether using a tripod or focusing. there are nice forms in the image, but the lack of sharpness kills it for me. )

 

So, for me, a person leaving a 1 rating on an image I know to be at least a 4 is probably not going to say anything that even makes sense.

 

FWIW...;)....J

[dhawks]

Brian, the common context of the word "stupid" is in describing intelligence, as in slow, dim-witted, dull or brainless. I think a more accurate and polite, albeit less blunt, denouncement would be foolish, ill-advised, imprudent or, even, daft.

[matthew_s._schwartz]

Doug: "It's the averages, stupid" is an allusion to early 90's politics. To focus Clinton's first presidential campaign, advisor James Carville told him to keep coming back to one thing. Every time he could, Carville wrote on a whiteboard for Clinton see: "It's the economy, stupid."

 

So, no one's calling anyone stupid. :-)

 

Mark: Low ratings upset everybody, but Brian's right about the averages. It's like workshopping a piece of creative writing: If one person says he hates it, or doesn't get it, you can safely ignore his comments. If EVERYBODY says they don't get it, then you should start paying attention. ;-)

[dhawks]

Matthew: You need to read Brian's intro. I'm as aware of political jargon as the next guy, that not what I was referring to.

[r_e]

Could possibly be a beginning:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008q3n

[joe_orsak]

Mark, yes I was trying to point you to the site admins take on things. I've been exactly where you were not that very long ago. As I get "older" on this site, I realize that there's just not much you can do about ratings. You live with it. I'm not all that happy about ratings not being tied to names any more since I can no longer personally ask people what there take was if I get a low rating from them. It has so many times in the past proven helpful. Surprisingly, many who rate 3 or below, if asked POLITELY by e-mail, would give a nice explination of their rating. many times I disagreed, but there were a few times I did agree. That was quite helpful and now that benefit is gone. Having said that, I do see the benefits of the new system and am trying to be as objective as possible in giving it a shot.

 

On a whole, these guys do a great, thankless, job with the site. Enjoy it as much as you can. :-)

 

(Insert shameless plug inviting you to rate and comment on my photos here.)

[john falkenstine]

I don't see a real problem at all.

After a brief "housebreaking" session (That crappy string of my outbreaks is still posted (blush)), I accept the ratings as folks post them. If an image gets a substantial number of negative ratings, or perhaps none, I dump the image, thus solving the problem immediately. If I give a low rating, there's a good chance a critique is attached, giving my perspective. I have gotten some hate mail, but it is easily stopped. If a party rates low with no explanation, that is fine with me as well. I have received my share of 3's, fine with me. My experience so far is that the very negative raters are only flashes in the pan that go away very, very quickly. My only objection are with the sycophants, and they're beyond my control anyway.

[digitmstr]

<i>>>1)Forcing a person to write a comment if they rate a photo low may discourage that person from rating low at all, and therefore influence their rating.</i><<

<br>

<br>

Ratings <b>should</b>be "influenced". As in: *think* and express yourself before you rate. Ratings <i>are</i> influenced by what people see and feel thus, those thoughts should be put in writing. If they don't want to take the time to write a paragraph or two they don't have to rate. Why do you <i>want</i> people to rate?

<br>

<br>

<i>>>We would like for our members to try to achieve an average rating of 4/4 when rating other members' photos, but if they are required to leave a comment every time they leave a low rating, they may feel discouraged from doing this.<<</i>

<br>

<br>

I thought the goal here is to have a forum, not to please/encourage *low* raters? A critique is equally necessary for low and high ratings. What's the point of being *afraid* of "discouraging" some anonymous (hence inclusive of web trollers, spammers, etc...) low raters?

<br>

<br>

Having people rate is only meaningful if the system is free from contamination. At this point, it is painfully obvious that it is not.

<br>

<br>

<i>>>2)After all, if someone is required to write a comment after they rate a photo low, the photographer would know who the low rater was.<<</i>

<br>

<br>

...and? What would that cause? Don't you think that a low (or high) rating with a "contructive critique" is more important, more constructive, more in spirit and less prone to spam than a meaningless, anonymous number?

[digitmstr]

>>an allusion to early 90's politics<<

 

you mean like ethics, integrity, morality and accountability are an illusion of 2000 politics? How does Clinton figure into a Photo site?

 

That's it Mark, it's Clinton's fault ;)

[june_ranson]

that's the point I was trying to get across when I suggested a new rating system... described it in detail... found it's all been said before... Newcomer up on the soap-box...

 

 

 

What is the point of ratings, without explanation? How can the photographer improve if they don't know WHAT to improve??? And if the rater can't be bothered to explain, then who needs their rating, it's just a hit-and-run. If they don't want to be identified, they don't have to rate/comment at all, no one is forcing them to. Isn't the whole point of this site to improve by discussing the qualities of submitted photos?? To heck with ratings, give me discussion!

[jacobmiles]

I think what people really want when they get a low rating - I do anyway - is a thoughtful

critique from a trusted mentor, explaining why the image is probably scoring so low. I

realize that's unfeasible in a site this large; it would amount to turning it into a

conservatory, and it's just too big for that. But that's my guess as to what people really

want when they score low, not a quick comment from every guy who doesn't like their

stuff. In the long run, my target audience is not the average, it's educated and thoughtful

people that relate to me through my work. Otherwise I'd shoot porn.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> no one is forcing them to. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Correct. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> Isn't the whole point of this site to improve by discussing the

qualities of submitted photos?? </blockquote> </i><p>

 

One of the points. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> To heck with ratings, give me discussion! </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Ignore ratings you dislike or disagree with. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> What is the point of ratings, without explanation? How can the

photographer improve if they don't know WHAT to improve??? </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Funny, I don't hear anyone complaining about 'hit and run' <b><u>high</u></b>

ratings that don't explain why someone thought an image was good.

[jacobmiles]

Another thought (if anyone reads these thoughts): it would be interesting to weight

people's ratings of my portfolio by the average rating of their portfolio, or to provide a

filtered view of ratings weighted this way. I'm more interested in what the better

photographers think of my work overall than what the average photographer does.

There's no easy way to derive this evaluation at the moment.

[june_ranson]

Jacob: Exactly!!!

[june_ranson]

A rating is meaningless to me without expanation, be it high, low, or average. Altho I might be briefly flattered by a high rating, (or disappointed at a low one), I'd soon dismiss it as unimportant because it says nothing, really. Agreed, discussion is ONE of the site's purposes. And a wonderful site it is, despite this one burr under the saddle....