pnital Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I have noticed today that 7 of my uploads lost each one rating from the number that was written there yesterday. can somebody explain what is the reason for that? Thanks Pnina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 <p>Brian (the head admin guy) wrote this in a recent thread:<p> "Ratings are deleted automatically if they are excessively concentrated on one photographer. This is done specifically to eliminate ratings from people's wives, etc, who are only involved in the site to rate one photographer. These ratings may be sincere, and while you could argue that all ratings are subjective, these ratings seem particularly so. It makes the ratings depend even more than they already do on how many friends and relatives a photographer can recruit in the real world to come on-line and rate the photos.... The other cases where we delete ratings automatically are (1) when someone has a very high percentage of low ratings; and (2) all the ratings of people who, 30 days after they start rating, have only rated a few photos. These tend, again, to be friends and people idly passing through, and we don't really want these ratings in the system."<p> Perhaps one of those reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Do you keep track? Go through each photo hour by hour? Why do you care? Mate-raters are plain nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 Thank you Richard for your answer. I don't have family that is coming to rate me...some of the uploads are realy "old" ones.Well I don't understand the reasoning of it, to say the least. I think that only people that are subscribed can rate members? is it? and if they rate only a few photographers and stop for what ever reasone after a short while so their vote does not count? Pnina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 Ak, I was lately subject to very unpleasant abuse on some of my works with ugly comments, on my old uploads as well (that was taken care of,by Abuse,) thats why I have checked my images. Pnina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_orsak Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Pnina, recently my wife had over 400 ratings deleted. I only had about 100-125 loaded images at the time. She was very upset to say the least. This is an issue I'm currently talking with Brian about. I understand the concept but they need to improve their methods BIG TIME. She wasn't VERY active on this site but she did rate photos of other people. Now she's started rating again. I think it's kinda lame actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 If the rates are to mean nothing then we shouldn't see them... and we shouldn't give them words like bad and good...Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 <i><blockquote> If the rates are to mean nothing then we shouldn't see them </blockquote> </i><p> Who said that ratings "mean nothing?" Certainly not Brian, who has repeatedly outlined the reasons for and value of ratings to the system, as well as numerous comments by users who do find utility to the ratings. Is it too hard to expect adults to maturely ignore ratings they dislike or disagree with? Apparently so for some... but thankfully not for most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I speak of course of the individual ratings and not of the average. Brian HAS said over and over to ignore the ratings because it is only for the site. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Brian Mottershead , jul 09, 2004; 10:26 p.m. Jay, They are pretty aggregated right now. I think it is OK to show people the distribution. If people don't calm down about ratings, maybe I'll adopt your suggestion, and just show the averages. The next step after that would be to make them completely invisible and just show the rankings, but that is starting to be a bit too much of a black box to motivate either the photographers or the raters to participate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june_ranson Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 a suggestion... allow only 'qualified' persons to give ratings. That would eliminate casual viewers, relatives, etc. To qualify they'd have to be skilled (pro or amateur) photographers, technically as well as artistically, so they have a clear knowledge of what is going on, and rational. No snide remarks or abuse, but constructive comments (for or against) that are aimed at helping the photographer improve. Give praise if deserved, otherwise, don't. And these raters would also have to commit to rating at least a certain minimum of photos per week. No ratings accepted from non-qualified persons, so no deleted ratings. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 <i><blockquote> here you are Z </blockquote> </i><p> If you think that was Brian saying that 'ratings mean nothing' then your reading comprehension needs a CLA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Excellent thoughts June. Now....how do you suppose that can be implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geri Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 <i>"...To qualify they'd have to be skilled (pro or amateur) photographers...</i>"<br><br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008oEO">Gave my thoughts on that.</a> Specifically in my last 2 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Summarize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geri Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 <i>"Summarize?"</i> Fair enough, .[. Z... LOL! But, I gave the link to show yet another area where the idea of exlucing non-photographers has been beaten to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june_ranson Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I suggest as of a certain pre-arranged and publicized date, all ratings will be 're-started'. Any photos already done in the present system could be re-submitted if it's that important to the user. Before that date, a group of qualified photographers is collected. Anyone can ask to join, but there should be some sort of peer review by known, trustworthy, fair members to get it going. Anyone who gets on the panel is subject to review by everyone else, and if they turn out to be a problem (for example, giving nasty reviews to be spiteful or something, or really don't know what they are talking about), then they can be 'voted out' by a majority of the others. This should all be open to public scrutiny, to keep a small group from gaining control. There should be some sort of quota of pictures to be reviewed, and if this isn't done, the person is removed from the list until they 'return from vacation'. The list should be available at all times. So in this way any ratings given would mean more, being from a group of diverse but knowledgable reviewers, not just anyone who wanted to throw in a comment. Does that sound workable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june_ranson Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 "....your reading comprehension needs a CLA" ... what's CLA? A qualified photographer in my opinion would be one who grasps the basics of the technical aspect of photography, so knows what's going on regarding lighting, DOF, saturation, filters, photo-editing software, etc, etc, and who has shown by photos submitted and/or comments on photos that they have a reasonable judgement of what looks good or not, and why. This person could be an amateur who takes some pix for fun, or a highly respected pro. So you'd respect their opinion more than some user who was just passing through and decided to leave a comment. OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhawks Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 CLA means "Clean, Lubricate and Adjust", which if you happen to own a Leica can cost a king's ransom. I think someone was just insulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 There are merits to your idea, but I can see two drawbacks. 1) The site policy is that everyone is welcome to participate fully. As Brian says, if you have eyes, you can have an opinion. 2) One of the best ways to learn how to look critically at your own work is to try to write something about other images, then see what others have to say. Today's Ratings Modification Proposal: a) Require comments on all rates. Ten words minimum. (you want to know how 'honest' the ratings are? That's how we'll find out.) b) Require rates with comments. . . . . 4/4 default which you can change, but not delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june_ranson Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 To Carl Root, especially... I like your idea. (And your album!!!) And I see that everyone is entitled to an opinion. How about two rating systems- one from "experts" and another from "the public"? Requiring comments on ratings, and ratings with comments is good. I see no constructive use to unexplained ratings-- what the viewer liked/disliked about the picture is as important, or more so, than the degree of that feeling. FYI- I am an amateur, got a digital camera 2 years ago, and my 35mm is gathering dust. (Figuratively!) I use MGI Photosuite 4 to edit my pictures, which are mostly scenery, flowers, scale models, and family snapshots. I love to see the beautiful and creative pictures on Photo.Net, and find the commentary interesting as well as informative, especially as they are 'added to'. I like knowing the 'why' behind things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamer123 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Hi June, I think I would have a problem with a so-called expert and public breakdown, for one, many "experts" are film biased and always will be. I would also venture to say one person's expert is not the same as another's. I view photo's as raw material while others believe only the original photo itself has any value. I think I would rather consider everyone equal in opinion. To rely on experts who a majority of may hold to certain rules could discourage innovation and breaking the mold as has been done by well regarded photographers such as Pete Turner whose "use of strong colors at the time (a self developed film/filter process in the 70's) was considered heresy". I also like Turner's opinion of photography today in that "he finds more than ever that making photography is about trusting your instincts and your own taste". Regards, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june_ranson Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I've just read through the postings at the link supplied above by Geri Na.... regarding comments/ratings by non-posters etc. Very informative, I'm starting to see just how complex a picture (sorry) this is. I still think a two-category (expert/public) system might work, and maybe make 5-point ratings (very good-good-neutral-bad-very bad), but definitely require a comment as to why the viewer liked the photo or not. They would not need to have posted any pictures of their own. What about asking for a comment from anyone who downloads a picture? Some kind of ID check might be a good idea to weed out 'multiple personalities'. As I see it, one of the site's purposes is to help photographers get a feel for what "works", and for that you could even drop the ratings. Just comment honestly. Those who get rude, get kicked out. If my friend has a fat ugly husband, I can be tactful enough not to hurt her feelings, but truthful enough to get the point across. Maybe not all I would have said, but no need to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june_ranson Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Hi Steve, yes! I agree. But my definition of 'expert' would be very broad, so there'd be a cross-section of opinions. Maybe the method of getting the end result could be withheld until it is examined 'as presented'? Or the photos could be classified as 'pristine' or 'manipulated' right off the bat? And where would you draw the line as to what's manipulated? How could you catch someone trying to fake it? Even film-purists use filters, or crop..... If I crop a picture and it still includes something that detracts from it, I edit it out. My pictures have improved dramatically since being able to do this on the computer! But does that make my edited picture less worthy, if it is well-liked by those who see it, than if it was untouched? On the other hand, there is plenty of well-deserved praise for a picture the photographer had to work hard to get, or those rare 'lucky shots'. Sometimes the story behind the picture is as interesting as the picture itself. I think there are more wonderful pictures than ever before, because technology has made it possible for people to just go out there and take lots of pictures, download them, and go take some more. Creativity has been set free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june_ranson Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Sorry I got long-winded; I thought I had a useful idea. It seems like this subject has already been chewed to bits, so I will get off the soap-box and retire back to the shadows. Thanks for the responses, I have learned much from you, but have much to learn still. 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