people who consistently give out low ratings

[rascal64]

Perhaps I have not searched the archives enough, but I was wondering.

Does photonet isolate and address the people who consistently give out

low ratings? Particularly the ones who only rate and don't post images?

[marshall]

I believe there are some periodic sweeps of ratings to trap for people who consistently rate too low. If a person rates enough images, those traps may miss some abuse, which would then have to be reported to abuse@photo net.

 

There is no special attention paid to ratings by people who don't post pictures. The site is built on the assumption that anyone who registers can be a photographer, a critic, or both.

[gemccaw]

By the same token, should not the elves then go after those who consistently rate too high?

[stephen hazelton]

If someone goes around giving 1's to everyone, that's abuse and they will do something. Let them know.

 

If you mean that your perfectly good "6" picture got a "2", they'll assume that's just a differing opinion and that it doesn't require action.

[seven]

What is your definition of low?

[root]

For the purposes of getting significant views on the TRP, a '5' is low.

 

For getting through the RFC queue, a '4' is low since there is a cutoff at '5.0' below which the image is placed much further back on the list.

 

Anything below '4' has the effect of nullifying other higher rates, with even one '1' or '2' being able to lower half a dozen higher rates. Since abuse is not checked on a daily basis, this effectively kills an image unless they are neutralized by dozens of '6s' and '7s', which, of course, is why people mate rate and set of false accounts in the first place.

 

The rating system determines views for good images, so what the computer thinks is all that matters.

[mottershead]

There isn't any cutoff at 5 in the "rate recent" queue. Photos are presented in order by count groups, and within the same count group by descending average rating. The count groups are 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, etc.

That is, any photo with 0 to 4 ratings is in the first count group and is among those at the head of the list, with the highest-rated photos first. These are followed by the second count group, etc. In the first count group, photos with no ratings are treated as having a rating of zero. This makes them, in effect, a count group on their own, behind photos with 1-4 ratings, but ahead of photos with 5-9 ratings. The way this system works out in practice is that most photos will get either 10 or 15 ratings before being too far down the list to get any more through this venue, depending on how many photos are competing for how much attention from the raters.

 

People with "too many" low ratings (1-2) have all their 1-2 ratings deleted automatically. I am not going to say how many is too many, but somone who distributed his ratings completely equally (that is, equal numbers of each rating value) would still trigger the definition of too many low ratings.

 

The check for excessive low ratings is done daily except on weekends. The reason weekends are not included is that I often check the results manually, but I don't ever do this on weekends.

[rascal64]

Thanks Brian. All in all, I think the ratings system works pretty well. I have the usual complaints about non-members and non-posters offering a numerical opinion. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the system a bit. And the percentage of photonetters really do use this forum and it's tools to help and share.

I'm sure that this has been brought up, but has the idea of limiting the numerical rating system to 'members only' been considered? Shot down? Why?

Not that $25.00 makes somedody's opinion more valued, but it would seem to cut down on the folks who rate low, just for fun.

[marshall]

I don't want to speak for Brian, but in case he doesn't come back to this quickly... In previous posts, Brian has given data that show no real meaningful difference in the overall average ratings given by members and non-members. I can't find the post, but if I remember correctly, non-members on average rate slightly higher.

[rascal64]

thanks Marshall

[tijean]

Tiffany >

At first I thought that would be a really great idea. Yeah, $25 doesn't make your opinion more valuable, but you'd have to be pretty bent to set up multiple accounts if you were paying for them. Problem: photo.net doesn't accepts money from other countries, so as-is it would make the rating system American only.

 

... which reminds me: I need to get off my lazy American butt and write my check.

[aeiffel]

Jessica : fortunately a currency market exists, and any bank will be happy to charge you some fees to turn your money into USD... ;)

[theokeijzers]

I could not find another place to ask this, but how do you see who is behind a score? I posted a portrait, all ratings are from 4 to 7, except one person with 1/1. I would like to know why, but do not know who to ask.

Theo

[paul e. wog]

I agree with Tiffany and raise this point.

 

If PN can make a distintion between member and non for limiting photo critques, why can't non members rating privilige be limited or curtailed?

 

Someone not subscribed with no photos is essentially a non factor as far as this community goes. There are some that do comment and rate fairly but for the most part they are just looking at pics.... the entire idea of "freedom for the masses", goes out the window as soon as soon as money comes into play. What perks exactly does a member get that non doesn't?....email and more critques than 1 a day...that is presuming theres a worthwhile system to fire these critques into in the first place.

 

I'm angry grrrr. Tonite i put 3 pics up for critque. All 3 were rated immediatly by non members 2/2...they are 5/5 pics at least,and thats being very modest. Certain members rated them 6/6 6/7. Why should i as a member have to take time to write to abuse and hope they will act...or delete these and start all over<<< cause i will do exactly that rather than chase people around.

 

It may be "politicialy nice" to let some drunk owns an instamatic a free vote on a friday nite. But the damage this causes to the members only degrades the entire system..least tonite i have lost a lot of faith. Why are we even going to the trouble?? The whole idea is to get an unbiased opinion from another photographer...its not like theres a cash prize for being on page 1 of TRP.

 

If only members can rate pics the entire problem of abuse is going to dissapear....he could still post and BE rated and it would only encourage him/her to subscribe all the more.

 

Thanks

[matthew leong]

I have also gotten those very low ratings before, the feeling is hard to describe it's sort of disillusionment especially when it completely ruined the ratings of a shot you like and which other members rated highly as well. But I still feel that 99 percent of ppl here are "sane" that's why i keep coming back to this site !

[mottershead]

Paul, because we don't want to limit non-subscribers' rating ability. We consider rating to be a service to the site -- work people are doing for the site voluntarily without being paid. Apart from people who are not providing the service in good faith, why would ever turn away people who are helping us for free?

[paul e. wog]

Brian.... How can you possibly claim people are here rating "for the good of mankind"..or PN kind? lol. Thats all rationalization. When you bestow the "power to rate" on a person you are giving them power and people like that a lot. You have a skill in wording things on the bright side to serve your own ends. But the very statement is an oxymoron...If they were so concerned about "helping PN"...why don't they subscribe?

 

All this discussion seems in vain anyway....From another thread "You don't have to have photos uploaded to rate photos, and you don't have to explain YOUR ratings, either. These are premises of the site, and we aren't going to change them. "

 

Sounds pretty definite that nothings going to change here. Thats a real shame that policy is governed from "above" irreguardless if it makes sense or not. Another oxymoron.... If you yourself are so concerned about PN then why is nothing changable?

 

Abuse on this site is low, maybe 1%, but that enough to throw a big wrench into the machine. You could end it very simply but resist any efforts throughout countless posts. Its not just low ratings its also high ones. There are some who create fake accounts and rate themselves high. In fact i saw a guy release a new pic in the middle of the night and within 2 hours had 30 rates, 20 of them 7/7. I usually post for critque about that time and am lucky to get 8 actual rates, irreguardless of the numbers.

 

The "premise" of the site is genius, and have stated that before...but thats providing it WORKS. If it has flaws well considering its the #1 carrot its also going to damage the site in general.

 

All this bickering goes on about rating and it seems folks lose the big picture. You get on page 1 of TRP, and you win nothing at all. You get motivation and pride but thats about it isn't it? If you lie and decieve to get a garbage pic front and centre it doesn't make that garbage "art", all it does is show that person has serious self image issues.

 

Thanks

[peter_daalder]

Browsing through other photographers' <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=1093052&period=2000"> personal favourites </a> is usually my entrypoint to the Gallery. One particularly <i><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=890457">powerful</a></i> rater has accumulated (what seems to be) a very balanced set of numbers. However, when I go to check out this person's <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=890457&period=2000"> Gallery of favourites,</a> I see only one pic?! What's going on here, Brian?

[amélie]

Peter, thanks, the unbearable 'it' finally has a favorite! lol

A truly average shot at that. Amazng!

 

We therefore must submit more bear images, then maybe it'll like us, really like us.

[spaghetti_western]

"...I see only one pic?! What's going on here, Brian?..."

 

say peter did you look further to note the title of that one pic? consider she dont comment i found that title saucely ironic since she must pique lotsa curiosity by her ratings. as to the paradox of the rating symmetry seems that if you couple enough 5s and 4s with 7s and 6s you will accumulate some 6s and 7s but never together (except for the one noted) if you avoid doing so perhaps she dont play faves for others curiosity

[rascal64]

I'm not really upset by this...just mildly amused. I just got a 3 on a photo, which I was able to trace. I found it kind of funny, given the nature of the raters' posts. Also funny, were the high number of low ratings that were given. Funnier still, was that there was only one highest rated in this person's page....it was their OWN PHOTO!!!!

What gives?

Check it out http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1132764

[peter_daalder]

Hey Sergio, that particular angle on handing out numbers hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for the thought!

[nils_andriessen]

Hello, I've been here now for sometime, not so long, but enough to see how things work I think. My experience here is that low ratings are given mainly, if not only, by people with not such great pictures. Looking at a rating I can by now, almost before looking at the portfolio's, imagine how the pics will look like. Frustration might be a issue here, they only get very low ratings because of the bad pics. But .. should this be an excuse to rate good pictures low to? No idea how to handle this, it happens not only on this site. Frustration and jealousy are the main causes of a lot of trouble and misery, also in real life.

 

regards, Nils A.

[root]

Nils, you have grasped the basic psychology of low rates. People give what they get. What they're really saying is 'I don't like that image any more than I like mine, and mine get 4s so this gets a 4. It's that simple.

[nils_andriessen]

I have to add something which just entered my mind. We have a very young, but genius writer in Holland, 'Arnon Grunberg'. He wrote in a column: "When nobody is jealous at you, you are doing something really wrong", So .. consider low ratings as a compliment, actually, especially when there is no comment with the rating, those people would like to make pics the way you do, otherwise they would not take the energy to rate, would they?