The Rating solution; a third option! The T, from taste...

[atelier voor fotografie]

Next to O and A a T could be an option. T = Taste. An L is possible

too, from like it or not. Many people can't hide their drive to

express their feelings. Sometimes people just don't like a

photograph, even if it's high quality and very aestethic. Also the

otherway around excists; very common and aestethic-wise it's crap,

but I like it! Pushing the key is less than an effort like writing a

commenting story. A fluctuating T rating from 1 up to 7 is

understandable, an O rating like that is pretty weird... Thanks,

floris.

[__piotr_e_recht]

Maybe that's a good idea. A rating system so complex that it would turn mates against each other and end these shenanigans.

[micheleberti]

Why not an S too? S = 1 = this photo suck just a bit and S = 7 = this photo really suck. LOL ;-)

[photos of hans koot]

Good idea, any ideas on the weight of this in the rating system? Seems difficult to me. Current system seems to perform better then previous.

[rod_melotte]

Might as well do away with the rating system anyway. At least do away with a total. You COULD toss out the top and bottom 10% of each group. Otherwise the final ratings are pretty much meaningless in my view.

[paul e. wog]

I like the idea of expanding the scale and have thought it out for quite some time and like to suggest modifying Floris's excellent idea a bit more.

 

A...Average (its relation to being average)

B...Boldness (contrast use, also applicable to nudes)

C...Colour (need sub catagory for b&w)

D...Density (generousity of pixel size posted)

E...Empathy (how sorry u feel for them)

F...Flavour (related to colour)

G...Greatness (ego rating)

F...Friends (do u like this person?)

H...Humour (subject relative)

I...Imagination (dunno)

J...Justification (was the image needed?)

K...Keen (intellectually acutness)

L...Lighting (can u see the thing)

M...Model (more $ cam rates higher)

N...No-Brainer (rate lower if thinking required)

O...Obscurity (replaces originality)

P...Premonition (natural or contrived?)

Q...Quietness (is pic noisy?)

R...Resonance (is it harmonicaly tuned to what is currently playing?)

S...Substance (was it even worth it?)

T...Totality (is as much as u want to see in the frame?)

U...Unisexual (does it appease m/f equally?)

V...Views (how many times u seen the same thing)

X...Xenophobicness (cultural correctness)

Y...Yardage (replaces current term DOF and its use of)

Z...Zonk (eye candy appeal)

 

The big modification would be to replace the numeric input with a screen wide slider bar coloured ultra blue to infared. Each hue the rater chose would be numericaly represented behind the scenes of course, but on a greatly expanded scale...millions.

 

A snapshot of each rating screen could be taken and the hue chosen on each catagory could be displayed as a pixel on a blank (black) rating result image. Duplicate areas would increase in luminosity to form galaxys of popularity. Over many rates a public opinion picture of the picture would emerge, saving anybody the embarresment of having a low rated number sitting there. You could just adjust your monitor more to the red end if your worked sucked....thanks, Paul.

[photos of hans koot]

I uploaded this last year as suggestion.

 

Hans Koot Photo.net Patron, jan 12, 2004; 04:17 p.m.

I was also thinking of another photo rating system. Not the only one I suppose

 

<More fields, i.e. Composition, light, color use Aesthetics multiplied with number of ratings, composition, light, color use (maybe more?) and then divided by ?

 

The lowest and highest ratings should be excluded (above 10 ratings or so)

 

This will give a number witch is you rating, and it?s composed from more elements of interest.

 

In this way you will learn more by reading your ratings, because people don?t always tell you, and if you have a 1 rater it will not bother too much. Also the people are challenged to look at the photo's in a different way and rate.

[atelier voor fotografie]

Thank you for reactions, but I think you misunderstand what I mean. I am not hungry for more options. I just want to give some people a tool to express negative feelings. Using A and O ratings for that is so (F..) silly.

[michaelseewald]

Paul, Thanks for the laugh (laughs)- 7/7.

[james_oneill]

Yes A and O for ratings are silly because most of the time people tie the two together.

 

I think in skating they call the two scores "Technical Merit" and "Artisitic impression", and those are good yardsticks.

 

I use aesthetics for "Does this Picture make me stop and look" - if you use it in the sense of "is it nice to look at" then taste / liking comes into it. But there are a number of people who use it for "Is this subject matter that I like to look at".

 

I use "Originality" for "Quality of thinking" that went into the picture - as very few things have never been done before. However this score seems to be used for rating the picture A+ / A / or A- by most people... there is a link, between the two because someone who produces a picture with(out) impact has(not) put good thought into it.

 

 

There's too much inertia to change the core parts of the rating system. I think if they were starting again there would be something different.

[gabrielma]

How about M for Morality? I see that trumping A and O all the time. Anyway, for every 10 that say "sure" there will be one that will say that ratings are useless. So why fret?? The grumpy old man says so.

[gabrielma]

I'm in the low point of faith on PN ratings. Eventually it'll come back. In the meantime, I'm sure my spirits will lift once .].Z stops using his bot.

[photos of hans koot]

Understand Floris, is a good idea.