Is there anyway to find out who rated you?

[matthew_lin]

<p> Sorry if this has been asked many times before. I am brand new

here and searched through the old posts but didn't see any answer. I

received a very low rating in one <a HREF

= "http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=2670206">

photo </a> without explanations (while the other 14 people gave 5 to

7). I would like to e-mail the person who gave me low rating to see

if there was any particular reason why he thought the photo was so

bad. Pershaps, he has a valid reason. Or, maybe I unintentionally

upset somebody by giving bad critique? Who knows... </p>

[aardvarko]

Nope, sorry.

[gabrielma]

You can find out who rated you. If the question is meant to say "is there a way to find out who gave you a specific rating" then the answer is "not anymore".

[konrad_beck1]

I would be more concerned on the 7/7 rating.

[wilsontsoi]

Short of monitoring/refreshing the rating & rater page as soon as you post an image, it's no longer possible to match a specific rating to rater. Good and bad.

 

"Good" is that, if the system and participants are all legitimate, then most likely there won't be a reason to know that fact, and the raters can rate freely and not feeling that because it's this so and so photograher, I'll rate higher or lower.

 

"Bad" is exactly like how you described. Furthermore, if there is just one illegitimate "member," (robot in particular,) one can't really track back and pick that imposter out, unless that robot keeps on coming back, acts in a consistant pattern, and you're able to monitor (as described above) and pick it out.

 

Good luck, I feel for you. On the other hand, the comments by fellow members are really what improve us all, I think. ^_^

[james_oneill]

A 2/3 is not a very low rating. It's a bit of a puzzle that half the people who viewed it gave it 6 or 7 for originality. I've got a city skyline / harbour where also half the viewers also gave it 6 for originality.

 

When people could tell who had low rated them (in their view) most of those who reacted couldn't manage a civil e-mail to ask for an explanation and instead sent abusive mails, or went and revenge rated the persons portfolio. In the end the powers that be got fed up with the complaints that came from this and introduced the present system. I liked being able to track who gave what scores, and lament its passing, but if I'd been making the decision I would have done the same.

[matthew_lin]

<p>First of all, thanks for all the answers. I really really appreciated it!</p>

 

<p>"A 2/3 is not a very low rating"</P>

<p>In a 1-7 scale. 1 being the lowest possible score a photo can get. 2 would mean it is "almost" as bad. If this is not a low rating, I honestly don't know what is considered low. However, it is really not a problem to get a low rating. I just feel that if he/she felt so strongly about my photo that he/she had to rate it as "bad", I would really want to know what went wrong with this photo. It is a very natural reaction and I don't think it is too much to expect.</P>

 

<p>"It's a bit of a puzzle that half the people who viewed it gave it 6 or 7 for originality. I've got a city skyline / harbour where also half the viewers also gave it 6 for originality"</P>

<p>IMHO, I think the rating system is badly designed here. If you have to rate a photo's originality honestly, I think 90% of the photos (at least for the landscape photos) have to be rated as 2,3 or even 1. Can you show me a photo that has never been done before? I think bonus points (say extra 1 to 3 points) should be given to a photo for being truly original. However, a common photo should not be rated down. I find it meaningless to decide which one is less original between, for example, a common seaside sunset or a straight flower close-up. I think there is nothing wrong to be common (non-orginal?). By defintition, most of the photos are common. You may however give extra points to those really creative and original photos.</P>

 

<p>Hi, Tim & Wilson, Thanks for your help and advice. I think I will just forget about it. Life is too short. I'd rather spend time taking more photos.</P>

[affen_kot]

hi, matt. this would be in a similar ballpark as following someone to their home because they cut me off on the autobahn, just to ask why. to quote sean connery, 'indiana, let it go.'

[erikadams]

I think it is better to not know who low rated you, as this led to abuses in the past. The numerical ratings, I think, are much like figure skating numerical ratings. Those who have posted good work in the past tend to get high ratings. Mostly deserved, but not always. I agree with Wilson - comments are much more useful. Unfortunately, they're in short supply, in my experience. It's easier to just drop a couple of numbers on a photo and be on your way, which is why, I guess, it's easy to give a low rating. Looking at your photo, it didn't deserve such a low rating, IMO, but I doubt the person who rated it gave it much thought. You can request critique without numeric ratings, but in my experience, this doesn't result in any more comments than if you just upload the photo without requesting critique.