paul e. wog Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I am currently rating pics on page #2 TRP...fine...see a great image, give good comment...try to give a 7/7 and sorry your overdrawn...ok. Settle for a 6/6 i suppose...but wait...although i love your image if i give you a 6/6 its actually dropping the pic backwards. Every image on page #2 is rated A and O over 6. So how can you effectivly rate with a good review but not insult that image by your rating?.... seems like gridlock. Essentialy any pic on 1-2 and into 3 now is only subject to voting a 7/7 if you like that image...any vote less you are hurting it. Many may not see this fact. So the only constant, stabalized images on page 1-2 are constantly the ones bombed with 7/7...is this causing the "illusion" of mate rating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted January 29, 2005 Author Share Posted January 29, 2005 Sorry wrong...this "effect" actually goes back to page 7...image #130... so someone starting page 1 is doing nothing more than an exercise in downrating till they hit page 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 BINGO! There are obvious solutions, but who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennington Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Give them 5's or 4's like most of them should have anyway. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennington Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 If you look at the 24hr TRP right now 526 of 553 photo's posted are averaging 4/4 and above. A whopping 95.12% are average or better. This has turned into a complete joke. 4/4 is supposed to be the average photo on this site. Seems everybody has decided granny's pic's from her disc camera are average and hey were all way above that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee park Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Thought about your response - something struck me as wrong. Surely there are many, many more than 550 pics posted to PN within a 24 hour time frame??? When I put up a new pic for critique, it seems like the original thumbnail board rotates thru pretty quickly. So, maybe right below the 4/4 average is where the cutoff is to make the 24-hr TRP? All of that aside, Paul's original observation seems valid - that it gets to where you actually bring a pic's average down if you can't give it the higher rate....but isn't that kinda the point? Too many 7/7's and 6/6's are handed out? The average was artificially inflated from the get-go? And isn't this precisely why we have been limited in the number of high rates we can give out in a day? Because we can't/won't learn/observe the ratings guidelines? Just my two cents. I think starting from the middle of the TRP's and moving up or down is the best way to go....Just punch back a few pages ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennington Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I think 3 ratings and it listed in the 24hr TRP. It doesn't cut off below 4/4 that is all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee park Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 That's incredible....that's what, about 23 per hour, one every 3 minutes or so? It seems much faster than that, but maybe I'm only watching at peak hours.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee park Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 you only need 3 rates just to BE on the TRP? So if they are so awful, no one even rates them, or gives them 4/4 or 4/3 out of "kindness"? Blech.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 The average picture on this site maybe should have a rating of 4/4 but human nature is such that we tend to look for the good that is out there. I rarely rate pictures below 4/4 simply because I would rather use my time, moving on and finding something I like to look at and comment on. However, when I do come across a picture that merits a rating of less than 4/4 and it is clear the photographer is genuine in his request for a critique, I will rate it accordingly. Maybe you want to spend your time rating poor images so that you can keep your average around 4/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennington Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Lee You have made me think about it harder and I agree it does seem faster than that. Maybe someone who really knows can set me straight. David You said "Maybe you want to spend your time rating poor images so that you can keep your average around 4/4", no I really don't and neither does anyone else. That seems to me to be a big part of the problem. This is suppose to be a learning site, but the people who obviously need it most seem to get it the least. I've got no answer for it. Don't know that anyone does. I hung around the forums here for quite a while before ever posting anything in the gallery, then when I did I pretty much only rated what I liked (my average is higher than 4/4, it's actually higher than yours), and all that seems to get you is a mirror image of what you gave. Thats why every picture in my portfolio is way overrated in my opinion. I honestly find it embarassing, I have nearly quit rating anything and don't post much anymore. There are still some truly honest raters and commenters here, but they are few and far between and getting fewer and farther as the average rating just keeps going up and up. Before long we will see something with 100 ratings and an average of 7/7. Since I no longer have a clue where I'm going with all of this I'll just shut up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 You feel bad about bring the average down with a 6 rating, and you don't want to do that, even though the photo merits below a 6. There are a lot of photos like this, you say. So, your inability to rate photos according to their merit is part of the problem, isn't it? You want the site to "do something" about all those people who rate a photo higher than you think it deserves, so that you can give your rating without being in a "dilemma" about bringing down its average. How about just rating the photos according to your appraisal of their merit, without regard to what other people have rated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted January 30, 2005 Author Share Posted January 30, 2005 Brian that wasn't the case. Was out of 7's and didn't know that. Did a critque on a very fine pic, that was on page 2, now 1. Said congrats 7/6...oh no. no 7's..ok came back and stated...really deserves a 7 but have none so 6/6. Then checked and the average was already like A 6.31 O 6.22. So now i give a 6/6 its actually bringing it down. I'm not then gonna explain all this and end up saying...well i plain can't rate you cause it will do more damage than good. So erased it all and forgot it. That was the main point and holds true for the top 100+. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 inevitable verbal abuse and numerical retaliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 My previous comment was in response to Brian. Although the point he made does not address the conflict between evaluation and promotion, that is the intended point of the thread, as clarified by Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 I don't think retaliation is inevitable. If you have good reason to think a rating you receive is retaliation, then report it. If you don't have sufficient evidence to convince the moderators that it is retaliation, then you don't have sufficient evidence to think that yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 it appears that the answer to the "dilemma" is that only those who have no qualms about rating honestly are the most qualified to give ratings. but rating is not limited to the most qualified, nor is virtuousness a requirement. of course, another choice is simply not to rate, and that may be the sensible way to resolve the "dilemma". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Brian, remember the "balance brigade"? Would you consider discussing your perception of the rates to and from those individuals? They all stopped rating virtually anyone shortly thereafter. Don't you wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Howard, that has resolved the dilemma for quite few long time members, but contributes to making the remaining numbers that much more suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee park Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 as pointed out above, it wouldn't take obviously low rates to significantly affect a pic's averages. "Abuse" might find it pretty amusing if people started considering a bunch of 4/4's or even 5/5's abusive - and yet that is precisely what it can be. The problem is not solved by a "few" people rating properly, cuz they get discouraged (or fed up or enraged) and just stop rating, as Howard and Carl have noted. No, the problem lies in the rating system itself - as has been pointed out - ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And here we go again, hmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 no doubt... those numbers are entirely pointless. and anyone in the throes of "dilemma" is instantly liberated upon realizing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted January 30, 2005 Author Share Posted January 30, 2005 Few more points to add if i may. You seem to imply that rates are overly generous and some (other post) say nail a 4/4 5/5 to it put it in place. So if the total is 1500 pics on the trp, the true centre point should be 750. Whats that 40 pages back? But the simple fact is everybody starts the trp on page 1..where all very best are (in theory). Sometimes not always page delays make it a long process to get back to the actual 4/4 stuff...way back. Pageload stalls out for 30 secs at times and i'm dsl ...add the factor that its impossible to just click your way back without getting sidetracked by some unique pic that grabs ya.......wouldn't a simple "jump to"...10 20 30 do a lot?....i actually enjoy going back there and finding the gems and commenting in order to get some focus for the "independant" who has some real good work....some very unique pics back there too that are destined to stay there but have a value all on their own.... Peoples heads aren't so fat either and well intended suggestions aren't met with hostility and paranoia. Theres more "non" members that will recieve help from memebers and probably jump onboard when they get the "wanted" feeling....its just a real long drive back. The "average" pics could get more needed rates, with more 4-5 range dished out easier and discovery and promotion of the "gems" would cause a "quality pressure" on the frontrunners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted January 30, 2005 Author Share Posted January 30, 2005 Are u referring to 2 weeks ago when i critqued that pic and explained exactly why the "generous" 4/5...and they knocked out my teeth and had to get stitches?...well your right. And abuse? Was reported and they failed to answer... the retrobution rates still sit on my pics as a testomonial to "why be a moron and even bother". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 well, I should imagine that there exists an earnest "space cadet" phase to all this... one modest tip of the mouse: a right click holds your place and selects what you fancy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_nally Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Some new photo.net members have no dilemma at all with handing out numbers. Just have a look at the <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=1473089&period=2000"> photos rated highest by this member.</a> 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