Low rating without comments

[jongaus]

Provided we take the raters seriously, there is another side of low rating: When a viewer dislikes a photo so much that he/she bother to rate it with a 1 or 2, the photo obviously moved that person in a way. I think it is better that people are bothered some way or another, than just bored. A bored viewer would normally not give ratings. If you get the full range of points for your photos, you know your photos are interesting and engaging. And as long as the hight ratings come from photographers you respect, everything is perfect! I myself recently received the whole series of scores from 1 through 6 for one of my shots. A 7 now, and the success is complete! Much better that a uniform series of fives.

[lieb]

I think one thing incorrect about the assumptions jon mentioned is that with the 'rate recent' or gallery, it is possible to rate 1/1 in less than two seconds and be done with it - it requires almost zero thought, in fact you would never actually need to lay eyes on the photo.

 

I personally try not to read too much into ratings, but of course when you have a shot going real well and one person throws a 2/2 in there it can be discouraging. I have thought of one way though in which this problem could be dealt with - people so far have just mentioned removing a high and a low score - i think the best way to take care of this would be statistically - remove [or treat this in a separate category] ratings that are more than two [or three?] standard deviations away from the mean - in -either- direction. A vote three standard devs away should happen less than 3 times in 1000 votes, which is less than one vote than almost any photo on photo.net receives [ie very few errors with this method]. Thus if someone posts a photo that has a large range of ratings, any rating will go. If you're getting all 6's and 7's and someone posts a 2 it doesn't get counted, unless other people start doing the same. And if everyone thinks you have a 2/2 photo except two friends that give you 7/7, those will be removed all the same. I don't see many problems with this, as it could be used adaptively. Anyway, just a thought. It's also very easy to implement in terms of the math/database/etc...

[chriss1]

I think that critique forum formula should be changed - when publishing photograph there, 10 first ratings decide about how many others will see it in the Top photos summary so they can't be anonymous. For example, many of my submissions were rated extremely low excatly in "rate recent", and then some people rating directly gave higher marks. I understand that criticism on this site will never be totally objective but we can improve system by eradicate "anonymous" and counting all ratings in all Top photos summaries. Why few anonymous raters should decide whether a photo is good or bad?

[jimadams]

I'm probably taking too direct of an approach here, but perhaps a simple two-step process by the owner/admin of this site would go a long way towards alleviating this situation. And surely I'm not the first person who has thought of this.

 

Step One: No more anonymous ratings. Period. If someone doesn't have the balls to put their name next to their numerical rating, they don't get to rate.

 

Step Two: No more ratings by free members. Period. What's the yearly rate now...something like $23 a year? Like, maybe, about six or seven cents a day? If someone can't get up off a few bucks a year to support the site and get in the game, then they shouldn't get to play.

 

But as I said, maybe that's TOO simple.

[screeny]

eh I'm just a paying memeber so I'm with Jim Adams :0

Seriously...

[jimadams]

You know, this just keep going on and on, doesn't it? I'm beginning to get the idea that this site feeds on controversy and this petty circular argument over ratings as much as it does on photographs and the support of paying members.

 

But there's another solution, of course, to the two I mentioned earlier. If you're a photographer and you post an image for critique, simply disable the ratings function. That's pretty much what I've decided to do from now on. Numbers are just numbers. Unless you just have some sort of ego thing going on and numbers really MEAN something to you.

 

Say you get a string of consistently high ratings, okay? So what? What happens next? Ummm...nothing, actually. Oh, your image may get chosen for Photo of the Week or whatever (woo!). But are you going to win a prize...maybe a new lens, or a new camera, or maybe some free film? Maybe even some cash? Nope. Not in this lifetime.

 

If you get a string of consistently low ratings, so what? You going to stop shooting? Give up photography? Reassess your style and/or techniques...maybe change them completely? Jeez, I hope not. If so, you've got a problem that doesn't have a thing to do with numbers.

 

Numbers will never teach you a thing. Serious and well thought out critiques can. Which is more important to you?

 

In my opinion (which probably isn't worth much to anyone, anyway), people who give low numerical ratings with no comments or rationale to back them up probably don't know an f-stop from a doorstop...or an ISO from a UFO, and probably can't even count any higher than three. Or perhaps they can't put words together to form a coherent sentence. In other words, they're probably ignorant all the way around...not just concerning photography.

 

And guess what? Ignorance is just boring as all hell.

[alejandrokeller]

<b>Jim:</b> You are probably on the "interesting people list" of many users (in mine you are at the very top) so you can be sure that people will visit your PF even if you never again submit a photo for ratings. But in my case, as for probably most of the PN users, the most effective way to get other users to see your pictures, hoping that they will give you some feedback, is to make a rate request.</p>

<p>I think it is no secret that the majority of the PN users check mainly the "rate recent" forum and about never go the "critique request" page. Only once I have submitted a picture for critiques only and got just one comment (which, of course, I appreciate). And I myself realized that this page existed only after trying to figure out were my picture was posted... on the other hand, I have to admit that some of my rated pictures get zero comments :-(. But at least I know they are been watched by somebody.</p>

<p>What I am trying to say is that, as long as this separation between the "rate" and "critique only" requests exists, the "critique only" option is not a very good choice for most of the users... maybe PN could add a filter that rejects uncommented ratings bellow 4?

[jimadams]

Alejandro, my friend! I am genuinely curious. You know I look at your photographs on an almost daily basis, right? Your talent is obvious to anyone who knows what they are looking at, okay? So my question to you is this: Who are you shooting for? Who do you wish to please? Yourself? Or someone you'll most likely never meet or indulge in any sort of serious conversation with?

<p>

It is, of course, nice to read favorable comments about one's photographs. I'm no exception to that. Sure, more ratings equal more looks at images. And if you ask for numbers, you'll get them. But again I say...numbers with no comments will teach you nothing, yes? They may make you sit around and wonder, "Hmmm...should I have stopped down a half-stop?" Or, "Should I have increased my developing time?" The list goes on and on.

<p>

Frankly, you are a better photographer than I am. You can do things with film that I never could accomplish. So...am I looking at this whole issue the wrong way? Is there something I am not seeing...some point I am missing? If so, please tell me.

[alejandrokeller]

Jim, my friend. It is an honor to receive such compliments from somebody whose work I admire so much. You do have a good point. I have certainly learned more in few days from the comments of few people, you included, that visit my portfolio regularly than from the thousands of views and hundreds of anonymous ratings.</p>

<p>I do agree that the numbers in the ratings do not mean anything. It is farely easy to predict what kind of ratings an image will get, and that has never stopped me from posting images that I know will get average to low ratings... so you are also right there. I basically photograph for myself and post images for the feedback. As you say, numbers with no comment will not teach you anything (Even worst if they are anonymous).</p>

<p>Now, I will answer your question: It is, as I said before, only to get more viewers. I want to say it clear: <b>the critiques only forum is very well hidden</b>. I will take a wild guess and say that 99% of the PN members have never been there because they simply do not know that it exists. You can access the rate recent pages from any page of PN, and those pictures are easily viewd by category. In contrast, if you want to see the critique only pictures the choice are 1) the thumbnails of the 10 newest or b) a list (without thumbnail) not separated by category. See what I mean?</p>

<p>Furthermore, It is also more difficult to find the old "critique only" pictures than rated pictures. For instance, if I find another PN user whose interests are similar to mine, I can always click on "photos rated highest by this member" and I'll get a thumbnail collection of the 300 highest ratings of that user. Again in contrast, if I click on "Comments on Gallery Photos" I'll only get a list and no thumbnail. Which one is friendlier?</p>

<p>I would say there is a lot of room for improvement in the PN DB design when it comes to the "critique only" forum. Maybe discussions like this one will make them rethink this part of their design...</p>

<p>Just one last thing: Your comments, here or on my pictures, always make me think. Even after everything I just wrote, I could post my next pictures for critiques only... after all, a smaller audience that likes to discuss pictures may be much better than a wide audience and just numbers. And, since there are not so many people posting there, I'll have less competition and my pictures may get more attention ;-)

[asr]

Well, I think I might as well join the chorus about the low ratings issue. I am learning new photography techniques, and one of the ways for me to learn more is to post my photograph and see whether I made errors somewhere - where the opinion of others would come into picture.

 

However I don't seem to be getting many comments. Some comments are very good and encouraging, but most of the photographs go unnoticed. However they do get rated - and almost immediately after posting my photograph for a rating, I get these mysterious 3/3 and 4/4 type ratings without any comments, and from somebody I have no idea who or what.

 

This is very disturbing to me, and to some, it might even be quite demoralising. I personally don't think I am a great photographer at all. I am just learning new things from you guys on this website, and attempting to do better. However I don't really think my photographs would fall into a 3/3 rating. They surely aren't that bad.

 

I am baffled about these rating incidents. Is there indeed some bot that goes around randomly rating photographs with low ratings? Or is it some disgruntled visitor/subscriber? I do not know for sure.

 

But one issue for me remains is as to how do I get good critiques and ratings? Hopefully, these incidents would be noticed and solutions to it found. I would only wish these anonymous raters be more forthcoming with their comments and gripes when they do their ratings.

 

Regards,

Ashutosh

[snakecharmer]

Someone with nothing better to do than write programming that gives everyone bad or mediocre ratings is worthy of our pity rather than further discussion.

[fernando monreal]

At first i must to say that i don?t understand the concept of originality beacause all the shots must to have a 7, there are not two shots equals so all are original, why not to rate composition better than originality, second i don?t understand why count more a anonimous viewer rating than a register and indentified rater, third, to be allowed for rating it will be good to force the coment.

f.