Brian do you have the stats....

[stevemarcus]

"Then another thoughtless individual decides to humor the unfortunate remarks."

 

For the record, Faith, I assure you that much thought went into my comment and subsequent query. Therefore, by definition, I cannot be a thoughtless individual.

[kslonaker]

I like James' idea of the anonymous POSTING, instead of ratings. Of course, after a week or two, it would be prudent to then post the photographer's name, but think how unbiased that first week of ratings could be and it would give you a great comparison of how the ratings really do work (mate-rating or rating by image quality)! I think it would encourage people to branch out of their usual style and become more creative AND get more honest feedback. If someone with a calibre of photos usually rated 6/7's, posts something not quite as "good" (in the rater's opinion), I believe they are sometimes higher-rated just because of the photographer's name. If you had no idea of who that person was and the image just wasn't up to the usual standards of that photographer, you probably would rate more honestly, I believe. And it can go the other way, too. I've seen photographers whose work is generally low-rated post something I think is at a higher level, yet they still receive lower ratings than if a well-known PN photographer had posted it. Interesting thought anyway, and I don't know if it's possible to implement it.

[joe604]

Brian, you blew it.

 

I say that reluctantly and with appreciation and respect for the very difficult job that you have.

 

Since most people only read the beginning and skim the rest, I will start with the primary point that I want to make:

 

The recent change makes a serious, fundamental mistake that in the end will do more harm than the problems it was designed to fix: The new system enables members to anonymously insult other members via low ratings.

 

Now, I think I understand all the well founded reasons for implementing the change:

 

(1) encourage more ratings from those reluctant to "sign their name" to the rating,

(2) encourage truly honest ratings, and

(3) cut down on all the whining and tit-for-tat retaliation that comes from knowing who has insulted or stroked someone else.

 

The first two are legitimate reasons for anonymity -- after all, these are the two reasons that we hold anonymous general elections. But they should not apply to all types of voting (we sure don't want our congressmen to vote anonymously). In cases were voting/rating can serve an ulterior motive, then the need for open accountability outweighs the need for more votes and more honest votes. This is the case when we give raters anonymity to send a silly little insult out of spite, simple childish mischievousness, or ignorance.

 

Brian, the third reason listed above is want you said was the main rational for the new system. Again, I want to argue that it is not as big of a problem as what you have created with the anonymity (i.e., the baby-with-the-bath-water comments). In fact, I question whether it is a serious problem at all.

 

I wonder if from your perspective, Brian, having the responsibility to deal with all the whining and tit-for-tat retaliations in the old system, you sometimes felt that no one was happy anymore. But from my perspective as one of what I think is the vast majority of the members who enjoy the interaction of the rating system for its entertainment value without taking the occasional oddball rating to seriously, the system worked pretty well. I liked being able to follow up on a rating (good, bad, or ugly) by looking at the rater's portfolio, not to retaliate, but to get an insight on his point of view. That was actually fun, and it usually made it easier to dismiss the irrational ratings when you saw where it was coming from.

 

I want to present an alternative perspective on all the whining and tit-for-tat that we view as problematic. With such a large membership it is perfectly normal for the edges of the bell-curve of behavior to kick some sand in other member's faces. That's normal and expected, especially when you have so many new members coming everyday enthusiastically wanting to be instant art critics. And the right thing to have happen is the natural checks-and-balances of "Hey dude! Why did you give me a 1/1 without a comment?" It may not look pretty, and it didn't work all the time, but the natural checks-and-balances worked better than the alternative we are facing now. Perhaps the system worked in spite of all the warts.

 

And a final note; washing your hands of the problem with comments of "get a thick skin or go to the critique-only forum," as some have said, is unacceptable. Even though it is certainly good advice, it evades the fact that you made the system worse with the change, and something more can be done to recover.

 

So in summary, let me reiterate my primary objection: a system that allows members to anonymously insult other members is fundamentally flawed. The change may have squelched some of that irritating whining and retaliation that you had to deal with, but I wonder if this change will quietly ruin the ratings forum in the long run.

 

--Joe

[joe604]

P.S. To be honest, I must confess that the above comment was inspired by my first <a href=" http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=009Nm6&photo_id=2669087&photo_sel_index=0">1 rating </a>. By carefully examining the 5 people who rated the photo, I can guess who did it -- so much for anonymity! But I won't whine, I won't retaliate, I won't care. But it helps to know who did it, and also which 4 raters did not. --Joe

[mottershead]

The ratings are only semi-anonymous. If someone sits watching the ratings come in, he can figure out who gave a low rating. People who do that basically need professional help, but I don't doubt that there are some who do it.

[RobertChura]

Please admit that is frustrating to have an image that is rated low (1 or 2 ) when a majority rate it higher. To me it seems that the low rater had an opinion that I would like to know.

In the past I would inquire and many times not get a response. <p>

I have many images that look great on my home monitor, but look worse on my laptop. Of course this is out of my control, But the real reason I am at this site is get opinions of my images. If I can't correspond to the "judge" then I feel the feedback I need is diminished. <p> The usual response (especially from Photo.net Moderaters respectfully naming Lex Jenkins, Bob Atkins,Brian etc.) while valid is to ignore them. Good advice, but not the reason I am here.<p> I realize a perfect photo.net would not allow retaliation and I agree that if you receive tons of e-mails about retaliation it is counter-productive for you to deal with it, but I have the opinion that retaliation still occurs anonomously.<p><p> Again, my point is of frustration. I know some of my images aren't great and in fact I post some to see how people respond, but I don't think any of them have deserved a 1 without a explanation. I don't have an answer to suggest or am I trying to denounce the current method, I am just displeased with randomness of bizarre and IMHO unjust ratings. For what it's worth, I view someone that rates my images too high strange also.<p>

Thanks for letting me rant and I will return to my cave now.

[mottershead]

Robert, your frustration is understandable. However, it does not create an obligation on the part of the site or an individual rating your photographs at the site's request (and your request, for that matter) to alleviate that frustration.

[RobertChura]

Thanks for the response Brian, I understand there is no obligation by anyone. After more thought, frustration is not the word I would use now but disapoinment.<p>I do know that the site promotes rating for it's own use but it is implied that we use them too or they wouldn't be posted.<p> I would like to propose something that is probably unfeasable but might help. If we keep the current rating system but added another "information" rating made by <b>members</b> that have made at least 1000 ratings using the current system and post them separately as well as include in the main total. A "featured critics" or "Member" rating? I beleive that after someone has been at the site long enough to rate 1000 images they understand how to rate fairly. I would feel better being rated by a group that has experience rather than Joe Snapshot that has an ego. <p> I love it when AZ rates my images because I beleive he is overall the fairest rater of all. Now I can't tell how he rates. That I do miss most of all.<p> Anyway, I understand it is a wish to implement but I had to offer it.

<p>

This is the best site I have found for photography inspite of the rating problems and enjoy it almost every day.

[jhenry]

<i>"If someone sits watching the ratings come in, he can figure out who gave a low rating. People who do that basically need professional help, but I don't doubt that there are some who do it."</i> <p> Brian if u want your site become more profitable... hire analysts... I am sure that young 'stagiaires' will do and learn a lot more here than in schools ... ! <p> what?... in case of me? ... what a question ?! ... of course: I am Very normal! no I was just talking about the Others.... they are all just putting so crazy rating to me ... I am sure u understand me... <p>

<:o()))