paul e. wog Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Last commented wasn't aimed at u Carl..was the one liners up there. Must be some severe shortage of cyber space or something that would entice members to protest PAYING members, right to discuss in a forum post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Paul, you really don't see the correlation between the input of high rates and the output of high rates, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Um Carl, I believe Paul was laying on the sarcasm in that post. A little too thick perhaps. Paul, I think carl actually knew that, but you fell for the bait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee park Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Didn't you make your way thru ALL of Paul's epistle? No offense intended, but I'm afraid YOU are the one who doesn't get it....Probably time for this thread to be capped, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I think this thread should go back up to the top. Some very interesting evolutions in this post and still much alive. Or "part 2"?.... well we just go on forever anyway don't we...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zafar Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Thanks Vicent for reminding me about the picture again.....I was sure that I rated the picture and commented but I think I may have missed it while enjoying the much awaited dialogue between you and the "ever favourite Faith Cohen"... Updated it anyway. I think this thread is back to life again, the post was about the quality of the pictures. Iwill just my two cents that if we think that the ratings are proportional to quality of work then I think we are heading wrong here considering the present system of ratings. I have seen people here vote for the person rather than the image. Unless this rating system is not changed the system will stay the same. The site with no rates are better in a sense that you are free to comment as there is no rate system nobody can "quantify" how much you liked or disliked the image. You can point out faults in the image without giving it a 2/2 rate and appreciate it without giving it a 7/7. But one thing you can not eliminate is the fact what is good. Some people pour 7s on nudes, some do it on the landscapes some on the portraits. This is where bias comes in. How can you make somebody like or dislike something. It is complete personal. Can somebody force someone to change his or her opinion???? I don't think so. If a lanscapes looks like a place where someone spent the most beautiful time... it is 7/7 for him regardless of its technical flaws, someone's portrait looks like somebody you respect or know.. he is 7/7 again. I will give you an example, A beautiful sunset scene with good detailed foreground and nice colors. Good sky....... Does this call for a 7 in originality, has this never been done before like this.???? Same goes for mountains lakes rivers .... is this not being presented before....? Original? A nicely composed portrait nice expressions.... does it call for a 7 for originality.... does a nude whose pose evokes "some feelings" in you deserves 7s for originality. Just my thought but we all see images treated this way. I will give another example.... just take another example now there will be people who will rate it below what they would normally do just considering the picture is over rated. "Their one low rate will nullify many high rates." The end result may not 100% of the actual but certainly puts some sanity in the over all picture of rating. No matter what you do untill this rating system is there, the situation will not improve. One more thing I forgot to add, in this system "RATES ARE COUNTED AND NOT WEIGHED" a rate coming from an authority on lanscapes with 50 years experience in photography and X number of years in photoshop and the same for portraits or nudes is weighed the same as somebody who knows nothing about them. He rates them as he sees them. How can you weigh these two. Mathematicall both the rates count as one. So both will have the same impact on the ratings and hence on the quality of the images on TRP. But now consider this too..... who will evaluate the authority I was talking about above.then ... lol. So I think that evaluating picture's quality will end in a disaster if we go by ratings alone without considering the rateres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zafar Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Forgot one thing. Vincent I will love to have "that" detail privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I agree with much of what you say above Zafar. Yes it would be nice if greater weight was attached to the ratings of those more experienced, and perhaps a little less to beginners. That however will never happen here since the ratings are designed to select a *reasonably good* selection on the Top rated pages. They are not interested in splitting hairs here so to speak, and I can understand why. No money is involved, no careers to make or break, no loss of life etc. Would be fine with me if it did, but will not happen. I also agree with the obvious point that everything is subjective. How can you or I or anybody else tell rater "A" how to rate image "B"?? Of course this principle has some limits. We can all recognize something too bright, blurry, dark or whatever else often goes bad with an image. The point that many are making has to do with more than just these obvious issues. If an individual chooses to rate many images in a short time, handing out an enormous number of 7s, couldn't he be doing this simply because he would like the same in return?? We all know that can and does happen. But this in itself is not necessarily reason enough to imply insincere motives to that individual. One might WONDER, especially when looking at what type of images are receiving such high marks. But it would most likely stop there as just a suspicion. If this same individual now, is also passing out an enormous number of comments (not the critical/helpful variety, but mostly the quick praise "great shot" variety) then another red flag pops up from my experience. What really is this persons motive?? It starts to seem even more obvious. Then in addition, if this same individual also sends out mass e-mails asking for more comments and visits to his images (even though he already has a ton of both) you begin to lose any doubts about this individuals true intentions now. When they also delete and re-load an image that has lower ratings, this again only adds more weight to the obvious conclusion this person is playing the mate-rating game at full speed. I do believe (for what little it's worth) that you are a very kind, caring and intelligent person. The tone in many of your comments certainly shows graciousness and kindness. However if we are being honest here, the fact that you have rated 2500 images in a short time, with a very high proportion being 7/7, the fact that you also have 2300 comments in just a few months (twice as many as myself in two and a half years here), the fact that you did e-mail others to come to your latest image, and at the same time deleted that image only to resubmit immediately thereafter after it had unusually low ratings, all makes it very obvious to many of us what is going on. What this suggests quite conclusively is that you (or anybody else involved in all of these practices) is indeed playing the system in order to get more and higher ratings, as well as to get to the top of some imaginary hill. You are the second highest rated photographer Zafar, soon to be number one. Is it because your images are really that good?? Perhaps they are and perhaps then we are all just bathing in a case of sour grapes. But I doubt that is the case. Proving intentions is very difficult to do in any situation. However, if an individuals intentions really are selfishly motivated, or insincere, usually we as fellow human beings can figure it out, and usually those intentions will manifest themselves in just a matter of time. Photo.net allows this type of unfair behavior to go on. You and anyone else that wishes does have the freedom to play the game if that is the intent. I guess, it's just a matter of principle here. Would be nice to see some of those gaming the system, just take a look at the damage being done. It's a great site, just has a little more room to improve. For what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark lucas Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 B B - interesting example you choose. Hasn't she recently been deleted from the community for some abuse or other (along with a "friend" or two of hers)? Wonder why they were deleted? Hmmmm......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Mr. Greenwoods my membership is in waiting. I have mailed my money fees to mr. Mottershead and am looking to see when the gift will be with my name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Zafar why didn't you simply say "art is relative to the observer". All Vince and all ask for is truth and fairness in this system. A lot of us see reason to point fingers at souls "crying out for attention" so badly,,, that they would actually CHEAT their brothers here at PN in order to get more than their deserved or justified share. You speak of rates not being important, well they are very. They quantify the art into a competition that spawns motivation and an object to "better". This causes the flow of creativity to increase and and as an offshoot in this process we produce some mighty pretty pics. But its not the actual pic...the perfect one hasn't been shot yet...its the process of extracting the beauty of nature through a camera that awakens all the aspects of your life to expotential benifits of just "tuning in" to this source. Read your Gita...its called Brahman. The ocean of creativity. By cheating people are only blocking that journey and defaming themselves as lesser beings. They are killing their own path to enlightenment. Its imperative that we look at page 1 and see the very best, justified, most deserving pic there. Understand we are in utopia here, an imaginary world built through mutual interaction, the best case senerio designed by ourselves..... the collection of our minds at a point in cyberspace, and its up to us what we make of that. Doing that together like one giant supercompter..... thats all we are doing here....in the end out pops 1 pic, or some result. Just think Zafar...your the 2nd best photographer on PN...way to go. How did you arrive there being a self admitted bad photographer?... who really knows. I know if it was me that ended up there by mistake i would flush every pic i had so as not to face that embarressment. And you just made a speech on the insigificants of rates so lets see u reload your port if the entire equation is meaningless. Walk the talk dude. Why would a person cheat another here? I could only summize he is first of all, removing himself from much learning advantage and knows that. Beyond reproach. Yet the motivation is strong enough to sacrafice that. He needs attention and praise so badly is the only other alternative excuse. Fact is he is stealing that praise from someone should have been in his spot...the greater actual artist. With no money to win here anybody who mate rates and steals...as a human, must have a very low self esteem. Zafar i have no respect for your tsnami media blitz. You claim you are "asking for prayer", shed a tear. Its not about MY pic so just throw a 7/7 on it and go with the flow...no man..its all about your PIC in my view. Who are YOU to advise anybody what to pray for? Pray to who,?.... God? Krishna? Vishnu?... and about what exactly? We supposed to pray to bring them back maybe? After all didn't God look down and decide to create this quake to begin with? Please God undo it? Its all for Zafar and his pic and his need for attention from my view. You could have more effectivly come on this very forum and posted some post and rattled on for a month about your sincere conscern etc. But you associated the entire deal with your pic and i think thats actually using this tragety in a very sick manner for self promotion.... I equate that message as...anybody downrates this pic and it shows your lack of respect for these victims...the unseen message is there, u attached it to a rate able pic. Why didnt u run through crituqe so no rates apply??... Who are you that we have to answer to you and afford your work special passage because it has some message attached? In this day and age with tv's goin in the background, do we honestly need a Zafar to direct us when to pray and about what? And whats gonna be your next shed a tear campain? How much money did u raise through this pic effort to actually help these victims? Why are you equating a pic of some guy praying, and God knows about what, to this tragety? The biggest question of all. Are u willing to delete this pic after the 3 days to wipe the rates? How bout if i post a pic of a coke bottle with the same media surrounding it? Hay they drink coke in areas affected, pray to this symbol !!! Would you give me 7's for crying out and showing i was some sensitive type of guy? Of course not right? But they will to your pic now... won't they. Lastly your comments... since my "return" i see nothing but ambiguously worded messages from you. So much sugar i gagg. Any critisim aimed at you gets this "have a nice day and bless you and your family" type of responce. You refuse to address the issues. Well i suppose u now are beyond reproach...except from #1 himself. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Sarcasm rarely serves us as a communicating tool. Neither does half a page when a paragraph will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_b21 Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Mr Lukas I think what you wrote is beside the point. On http://www.photo.net/photo/2575134 It is writen Mark Lucas Photo.net Patron, August 02, 2004; 04:26 A.M. Nice attempt at a composite Pedro, if a little obvious. Also, the boat sits uncomfortably low in the frame - it needs just a little more space at the bottom. Hi Mark: Pedro G. Casas Photo.net Patron, August 02, 2004; 05:10 A.M. A lot of days without knowing nothing of you. Thanks for the advice, you know your comments are always welcome. On an account which is also deleted. With this two examples it is obvious that the wording you used generated different responses. I think that having a technical ability which exceeds the majority on this site, doesn't give you the right to call anybody sycophant or member of a mafia. You Mr Lukas, have a choice now, learn from an honest critique or discard it as an insult. The choice is yours I hope you make the right decision. Sincerely B. B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark lucas Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 B B , I can only assume you're with us on the subject of mate rating as the examples you've given so far have both been deleted for bad behaviour. I ALWAYS give honest critiques and ratings - and yes, unfortunately, there are too many sycophants on the site. p.s. I don't know how they did it but congratulations to the management for weeding out a lot of the made up accounts - I had a list with a lot of them that were so obvious and 90% of them have disappeared recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zafar Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 "Zafar i have no respect for your tsnami media blitz. You claim you are "asking for prayer", shed a tear." "Who are YOU to advise anybody what to pray for? Pray to who,?.... God? Krishna? Vishnu?... and about what exactly? We supposed to pray to bring them back maybe? After all didn't God look down and decide to create this quake to begin with? Please God undo it?" Well Paul this is what I was reffering to in my above comments which attract people.....the heated discussions and your comments on my pictures but I am afraid here you will not be able to edit them like you do on the pictures.. I am amazed at your idea of my using this picture for rates and self promotion where you yourself mention that all my pictures are locked at the first page. To my amusement in your dictionary an amatuer is considered as a bad photographer as you have concluded above. Is this sarcasms is going to lead us to anything. If you think so please carry on with all your heart.... Kind regards... because I believe this is the civilised manner to communicate with somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_b21 Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Some definitions: Mate rating : If you rate me with 7/7 I'll rate you likewise. Which by no means is truthfull I'm wholy against for the simply reason that you are simply buying your ratings. On the isue "I know you, I like your photographs I'm not perfect I rate you accordingly (overrate)" I know it is a mistake but then again is something completely different from the definition above and people tend to do this. As people have a tendency to explore and socialize, this usually desappear. Now for the postings above, read them carefully and see for yourself the differences in both. Put aside the fact that the two persons are no longer on this community and give some though to them. Anyway I think you already made your choice. Greetings B. B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 "Sarcasm rarely serves us as a communicating tool. Neither does half a page when a paragraph will do" I believe u have no capacity as a moderator here and i have read your positive reponces to a famous poster who's length of posts makes mine look like a mini bus compared to a frieghtrain...There is no "sarcasim" written into that intentionaly but if you "percieve" so then label it your "rare" event. Your reponce really serves no purpose to this discussion. What i wrote is not subject to your approval and not aimed at you in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I'm not trying to moderate you, Paul, just offering the observation that you aren't as clear as you think you are. . . . and the length of your posts are second to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Thanks Carl, i strive to be #1 . As for being "clear" Carl, everything written, just as everything rated on PN, is only "opinion" and relative to the observer. That is unless there is some final word somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Mr. Roots I wouls like to nominate the exellent photograpehrs John Crosby and Tony Dumante as having more longer posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zafar Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Sorry Vincent to address you again.. </p> I will just like to clarify somethings yet again............... </p> I already pasted the "ONLY" e-mail. I have nothing to hide. Its upthere for all of us to read .... "And you all have pointed out that I was already the high rated PN member even before this picture." </p> You have mentioned my good comments only but have not mentioned my comments with not only constructive crtiques but also posting the members pictures on their page after editting them to the best of my experience and knowledge. If you browse through my comments you will find many of these comments. </p> That I don't rate every picture that I comment and not comment on every picture that I rate. All of us do this too as number of comments are not equal to the number of pictures you rate. This morning when I was checking my ratings given to look for your picture and found your other picture that I rated earlier but commented now. </p> I had reuploaded the picture only after 10 minutes because of critique request change (already told the reason) and not for low rates as it got low rates again too when I posted it again and Vincent you yourself are witness of seeing it on the lower TRP page and I remeber it went to fifth page too after the repost. So it was not for the low rates. </p> Lastly I am guilty of bias in my rates as I admitted above ..... may be a hard thing to accept for some and you may not find many people admitting this although many many are guity of this as you yourself mentioned and offered that you can send me the detail privately. I very respectfully ask you... How many people from that list do you think will come on a forum like this and would like to be questioned and sarcastically addressed by others...!!! </p> One last thing...... You say my ratings given average is high but I can quote hundreds of user whose average ratings given are way above 6.30 both in originality and aesthetics... may be most of the people you offered to share with me privately will fall into this category. </p> Mine is way below the detail provided above. </p>Now coming to another issue as you have mentioned it let me paste a detail of your and mine ratings received and given.... please read this carefully and give it your kind consideration..... </p> <i>Vincent </p> This member has rated 8381 photos on this site, with average ratings of 5.93 for Aesthetics and 5.77 for Originality. The ratings went to 3336 distinct photographers. (Photos per member 2.51) ..... This member has received 6068 ratings, on 87 distinct photos, averaging 6.43 for Aesthetics, and 6.04 for Originality. The ratings were from 1581 other members (Photos per member 3.83) </p> Zafar </p> This member has rated 2529 photos on this site, with average ratings of 6.04 for Aesthetics and 5.99 for Originality. The ratings went to 1169 distinct photographers. (Photos per member 2.16) ..... This member has received 1768 ratings, on 20 distinct photos, averaging 6.48 for Aesthetics, and 6.36 for Originality. The ratings were from 561 other members. (Photos per member 3.15) </p></i> Both of us not only are rating selected member's work but also receiving in the same manner too. You have rated more pictures per member and also received more ratings per member. Is this not mate rating? Giving and receiving 6s and 7s from same members!!! Well for me it is. No matter what explanation you give to it I think this too is mate rating but may be in a Better or Good Sense. Even the overall average of both of us, in ratings given, is not much different. Well the quality .... leave it to the people to evaluate. I browse different people's work and your selected members are different And we both select pictures which we consider are best.. It is quite natural as it is impossible to see all the work being submitted. </p> The things which I did not get an answer for I will humbly ask again </p> <i>A beautiful sunset scene with good detailed foreground and nice colors. Good sky....... Does this call for a 7 in originality, has this never been done before like this.???? Same goes for mountains lakes rivers .... is this not being presented before....? Original? A nicely composed portrait nice expressions.... does it call for a 7 for originality.... does a nude whose pose evokes "some feelings" in you deserves 7s for originality.</i> </p>..... is it fair? You have lots of 7/7s (including mine too). My pictures are also the same. Do we really deserve them, I don't see anybody complaining about why they are being given 7s 6s on their pictures. Anyway if you allow me to ask... what are the criteria for giving a 6 or a 7? ISN?T IT PERSONAL DECISION AFTER SELECTING FROM THE PICTURES "YOU" BROWSE. To my knowledge there is no criteria given here on PN, all it says is <b>"7 RATINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE PHOTOS THAT **YOU** CONSIDER THE *BEST* ON PHOTO.NET </b>, AND OUT OF THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED ON ANY PARTICULAR DATE, YOU CAN ONLY GIVE AT MOST 8 OF THEM A 7 RATING." I again respectfully submit here that there is no mention here HOW WILL YOU SELECT THE BEST . If you have the time you may browse the whole PN for new submissions. I doubt if ANY ONE member has viewed even **some** of the pictures of "ALL THE PN MEMBERS" </p> Regarding the quatification of how much do you like it....I will humbly suggest that Why not post question on what is the criteria of giving a 7 on originality and aesthetics and see what others think about it..... </p> In conclusion I would say unless this present rating system stays as such things won't be any different from what they are now.</p> Best wishes </p> Sincere regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Sorry if I upset you Zafar, I was trying to be nice. However I guess I can see how the truth does sting. Let me set a few points right however. I have rated over 8,600 images in two and a half years with a total of 63 being 7/7. You have rated just over 2500 images, with who knows how many actually 7/7s (since all of your three hundred images rated highest are just those) but I would guess it's just over 500 total, in just four months! Is it also a mere coincidence that your averages are now lower than they have ever been? You must have done some nice low rating today to get that average below six, cause last night it sure was above. Another point I'd like to share with you. It is not mate-rating in the negative sense (that many freely participate in) to simply return a rating to a member that has give one to you. In fact that is the reason the names are still visible. What you have finally admitted above to doing and that which constitutes mate rating in the damaging negative sense, is when a person rates an image dishonestly (a dishonest HIGH rating of course) simply because of wanting the same in return. Very quickly you will realize who will return the favor, and then your list will start to grow. I have received plenty of 7/7s from many of the others in that circle, and at times have rated their work in return. The difference is that I just cannot give the 7/7 to an image I feel does not deserve it. Just won't do it. So when you say above "You have rated more pictures per member and also received more ratings per member. Is this not mate rating?" You here have shown again that you do not understand fully what the problem actually is. There is some progress though for we can all appreciate your other comment above. Let me please post it here for you again: "Lastly I am guilty of bias in my rates as I admitted above ..... may be a hard thing to accept for some and you may not find many people admitting this..." Well it is a start Zafar. We are happy that you recognize now you have been handing out dishonest "biased" rates. My next question to you then would be WHY were those rates biased??? Could it be because you wanted the same in return? High ratings, more exposure, higher on both TRP lists. Could the comments also be more of the same, to attract more comments on yours and more ratings as well? And certainly the e-mail (yes we know only one, but your LATEST IMAGE was that one) was also designed to get more comments and ratings. Lastly deleting the image and resubmitting only took your plan another level even further. And for the record no I did not watch you repost that same image. In fact until you mentioned it above here, I was not even certain it was the same image, because I went to bed right after seeing the deletion. In simple terms you have been bitten with the bug that has plagued many other people at this place, it really is nothing new here. Some even go further than you have Zafar. And certainly very few if any I can remember are willing to confess to doing this. That is unusual and nice to see. For example, two recently deleted members even went as far to create phony, bogus accounts. Not only did they rate their own images high (almost all 7777s) but even had the guts to rate anybody that threatened them with lowball ratings designed to keep them down below. How's that for underhanded tactics?? Eventually they were all deleted away, only to lay in their own guilt and misery. The desire for prominence in life is still a universal issue Zafar. We all think about it from time to time, and I am no exception. If you believe in the bible, the night before Jesus was turned over and executed, his disciples actually argued over which one was the greatest. So, obviously this is something all of us need to keep on guard about. Jesus in that same account of course showed them (and those that wish to learn from that example) the right attitude we should all want to have by actually washing their feet. Humilty is a rare thing nowadays but certainly something to strive for. On this site with so many images posted, and so many photographers involved in more or less the same thing, hoping to improve, wanting a few comments, perhaps some more exposure, the fact is, very quickly if we're not careful, it can all get out of control. We can want too much. Egos tend to grow. Has happened too many times to count. And until the system is fixed, will happen again! Just sit back and watch... can be pretty entertaining actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 One mis-statement. I said about those creating bogus lowballing accounts: "Eventually they were alldeleted away." That would be a stretch and certainly wishful thinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zafar Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Thanks Vincent for the feedback. Sorry for mis-statement. I hope no harm done. Just one more clarification my highest ever ratings given is 6.11 for Aesthtics and 6.04 for originality ("Last month" as for almost two months I did not rate recent) which I think you must have missed out because from last two days it did not change much. This fluctuates between 5.95 to 6.05 roughly. I think it is still near 6 and 6.05 even now.... Well that is not a big issue here. I will not ask you again about the same question that I asked on 7s for originality of yours, mine and other's pictures as you did not answer it even this time. I think it would have had answered many questions here. As if you know what is the rating 6 and seven and to what it should be awarded to and there is a set rule for it .... things would have eased out. Lastly it was a pleasure getting intouch with you. Although a little difficult to start with but you handled it quite decently unlike many others that I came across. I value you ideas and advice as it comes from a long attachment to this site and experience. You have **NOT** upset me in anyway and I hope I have not done it to you either. It was a nice experience for to share my ideas with you and have your input in return too. Kind regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I too appreciate the oportunity to converse with you Zafar. I didn't purposely ignore that question by the way. I had no energy left after typing on all the other issues and felt it was not not even relevant at all to the issues on the table here. A couple of very quick points before signing out: If I rate one of Richard Van H. seascapes a 7/7, it is not because I believe seascapes in general are that totally original or unique. It is instead because I believe THAT particular seascape perhaps itself, is in itself, so good, that in a world full of seascapes its greatness makes it original and stand out from that of the others. Same applies to Stephen Rohner's portraits. There certainly are millions of those as we all see daily. However, it is when a truly great one comes along that makes his (or whomever's) image unique enough to give it the 7/7 based on its uniqueness when COMPARED to all the other gazillion portraits. That is how I personally look at it and I hope that answers your question. I also want to add that every now and then many of us on this site probably do some of the things listed above. I have deleted an image before, after the 1/1 bots started happening, or even because of not liking the ratings it received without the bots. But you try to fight the urge for prominence, to not allow yourself to get caught up in the system altogether. Since I mentioned Igor above, it's only fair that I also add that while his own comments and ratings are even more obvious than yours have been, (for the purpose of receiving the same in return) he has not e-mailed for ratings (that I have ever heard of anyway) nor does he seem to delete much of his work. He could also be rated at the the number one Top Photographers page anytime he wanted just by deleting a few lower rated ones. But he hasn't gone that far. Nor created any obvious false accounts as some other bad apples. For that matter I could probably do the same if really wanted to delete a few, and so could many others. Perhaps in your case, it was just a matter of timing watching YOU climb so quickly, *appearing* to be using all of the tricks at once, and finally getting it brought out publicly. But until the SYSTEM IS CHANGED it will be an enticement for quite a few. It can be difficult to resist at times. I hope you do not feel too picked on here Zafar. Many thanks for your correspondence as well. Let's get out of this thread now and back to working on what really counts out here, just how many 7/7s we can accumulate in a day! ...Just kidding. On really improving our craft and maybe helping a few others along the way. Have a good one. Aloha. 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