Why not increase privacy for ratings given

[domenico rota]

Hello I'm new subscriber of photo.net and new to this web too, but

not new in this field of privacy.

 

I would like to wish my congratulation and compliments for this

wonderfull web.

 

I've made a 3 Year subrscription at first view of this website, this

can explain my happyness and satisfaction about this wonderfull work

on the photonet webpage,and will sustain it in accordance to my free

time/hobby.

 

I would contribute even for getting to Photo.net comunity if I know

where to submit my reports about places, new hardware camera

test/reports, lens filter etc. please tell me in wich way I have to

submit my material to the web staff.

 

In the mean time using the web I found some problems about the

rating system photo.net is still using for the photos submitted for

a critique / rating.

 

The privacy of the voters is not well keeped....

 

As everione knows "THE VOTE IS SECRET". This is the only way to

keep off votes and cuounter votes arond members that dislike or like

some subjet, lowering the vote strengt.

 

With a secret vote all the negative feeback, privacy and democracy

is well keeped.

 

IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE VOTE IS TO KEEP SECRET :

 

I try to explain better my Ideas:

 

- When I set the first rate of a photo my name is showed with my

rating. In this case my vote is not secret.

 

- When someone with more than one rating receive a low rate on his

photo, He can go to look others rating reports

(wasting time and internet resources) to find who have set the low

rate to ask sometime and sometime to revenge

with some bad ratings even all the photo of the chosen one that he

think is the one who have rated bad his photo.

In this case if I give even 1/1 rating to another photo and others

not, my vote is not secret again, and well detectable,

if also others have rated for example 1/1 a photo the probability

goes to the one that have more 1/1 ratings given, and

in this case the vote is again not well keeped secret.

 

My ideas of what to do on photo.net to get better on this crucial

aspect of the photo rating / feedback is to :

 

-- To better keep secret the vote:

 

1) Removing the list of members on the rate detail page.

2) Removing from public page the ratings given report, this report

must be usefull in the private work page of the photo.net member.

 

-- To better interconnect interest of the users:

 

1) When in searching/rating the newest photos submitted

Add in the photo checkbox for A/O rating a third check box to

check: yes or no for making an invitation to vist the photographer

page who is still looking or rating the photo.

 

2) Implementing this invitation not in connection to the photo, but

in the general photo portfolios.

 

As result :

 

- When I put a photo on photo.net I receive a rating don't matter

how I'm rating the other photos.

 

- People interested in one photo of my porfolio are visible to me

and to others that come to see my portfolio of photos.

- No more annoying offended people that use photo.net web site for

personal revenge aginst a bad vote on their photo.

 

This is only an idea, I don't know if some other people of this

comunity have thinked about it but I find usefull even to be

discussed.

 

Regards, Domenico Rota.

[meddler]

If you give honest ratings and honest feedback I don't see why this should be an issue. If you rate someone 1/1 you should be prepared to tell them why in a critique.

 

TBH nobody unless they are delusional is seriously going to put up a photo here that warrants 1/1. If they do its probably not worth rating that photo as you will only get grief over it no matter what you say in a critique.

[anthony_m1]

I vote for bringing back the rater attached to their rate.

[ilkka_nissila]

The ratings are relative to the quality of photos in the photo.net. So, a 4/4 is an average photo.net gallery photo. 1/1 just means it's one of the worst pics on photo.net. There shouldn't be any fewer 1/1s as there are 7/7s.

[domenico rota]

My purpose is not related to rating honesty but in wich way the lack of privacy tend to influence the vote on the subject of photo.

 

excuse my example about 1/1, is wrong, the point is on privacy for

the vote only, no need to discuss the rating scale I understand it's a very critic point of view.

 

My request/proposal is only around privacy.

 

Regards, Domenico Rota.

[meddler]

I realise that, but why should you want privacy?

 

It seems to me that privacy is solution for something, so what is the problem?

[micheleberti]

Domenico ti posso dare un consiglio? Scatta foto, mettile su e condividile, se ti va. Se vuoi dare un 'voto' dallo, sennò lascia un commento e saluta dicendo quello che pensi della foto: se ti piace dillo altrimenti, se ti fa schifo, dillo lo stesso. ;-)

[mark lucas]

Dominico, as if mate rating isn't bad enough already - you want to add more privacy? These people will have a hundred fake accounts within hours of it happening.

[ma_ho_fong]

I never knew we can post responses in Italien language! What about if I write in Chinese carracters?

[micheleberti]

<p>"<i>I never knew we can post responses in Italien language. What about if I write in Chinese carracters?</i>"</p>

<p>Why not? Try! Try it out! By the way, is forbidden by someone or somewhere to write in italian my friend? Take a life!</p>

[ma_ho_fong]

?G?s?s?|?~?Q?@?ë

 

No problem. I like multilanguage. I just tried to write a lign in Chinese but the codes I entered are changed by the photonet program. It doesn't work.

[mg]

More anonymity ? Less anonymity ? I don't know. Been wondering, still wondering. Pros and cons, I think..........

[WJT]

"I vote for bringing back the rater attached to their rate". Add my name to that vote too! Regards.

[ma_ho_fong]

And why not a page where we can rate the raters, perhaps with one category for "honesty" and another one for "competence"?

[seven]

<b>Domenico,</b> ratings were once anonymous - and the abuse this caused (both high and low) was, I believe, the main reason for PN making it transparent. Until a few months ago the rater appeared next to the rating awarded; this resulted in raters receiving emails of complaint from dissatisfied photographers as well as retaliatory and complimentary (mate-rating) rates i.e. photographers and not photographs were being rated.<p> It's been a lot more peaceful since the introduction of semi-anonymous ratings; I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by going back to the secret ballot.

[seven]

<b>Ma Ho Fong </b>Why would you want to "rate the raters?" In your vision of a revised PN do you envisage the rated being able to rate the rater who just rated his rate? <p>I don't understand how anyone could be in a position to judge a subjective numerical value assigned a photograph or any work of art: what would be the point & how would this improve the status quo?<p>

[domenico rota]

Steven, thank you updating with information about the past

 

>Until a few months ago the rater appeared next to the rating >awarded; this resulted in raters receiving emails of complaint from >dissatisfied photographers as well as retaliatory and complimentary >(mate-rating) rates i.e. photographers and not photographs were >being rated.

 

In my opinion secret ballot gives more freedom to the voter than this semi privacy and more over not having privacy as You well described.

 

I think the crucial point in this website is to connect the ideas of the users to find ideas for creativity and for photographic progress...

Again if it's available an invitation to see the photo of the rater, even if one accept to send his name for the invitation to see his photo portfolio to all the photo he is rating It's HIS Free Decision.

 

Regards, Domenico.

[stefanovandelli]

I say kill the ratings altogether. No more, finito, gone, forever. Only critiques left.

"Ahhh, but what about the TRP..." I hear you saying.

Well, how about a rotating group of individuals nominating whichever photos they personally like. After all someone is already picking a POW and they are not doing it based on ratings (thank God).

 

Q.Are the TRP going to be fair? A.No

 

Q.Are the current TRP fair? A.You tell me

 

Disclaimer: the above is for the sake of talking. I no longer give a damn anyway.

[anthony_m1]

<i>Well, how about a rotating group of individuals nominating whichever photos they personally like. After all someone is already picking a POW and they are not doing it based on ratings (thank God).</I><P>Will this be done every day, 3 days, week, month, year? Who will do this? The already burdened staff of Pnet? Getting rid of ratings is not the solution in my opinion. IMO the majority of the critique requests are wanting ratings more than critique most of the time anyway, right? Could you imagine the volume of threads about why someones individual image wasnt chosen for TRP? Bottom line is everyone will want a different rating set up and there will be only 1 format. There will be unhappy people either way you go.

[domenico rota]

One thing about the initial problem that start influence the votes and reactions by the users is the rating method.

 

Who's rating who is everytime in my mind, a people without some experience can rate a photo 7/7 even if the photo is bad for another, I think before one can rate the photos of others have to do a sequel of training in which way the rating is to be applied.

 

Whithout a method, founding the rating only on personal inpression sometime is not sufficient, many still thinking Picasso's paintings are stupid , and many others think Picasso is a master.

 

In this field of amateur Photography without a scheme to set the rating, is nonsense, also the privacy I think is necessary but not sufficient, a masterpiece someting is understanded to be it by few peoples that are art critique for profession and sometime is luck.

 

1/1 - 2/2 - 3/3 rating ...... thinking about this I belive they have to be processed in other way for example if a photo takes:

 

1/1 + 2/2 + 3/3 the mean is A= 2 O= 2 by math .... but if someone

found (or think the photo is good...) and give 6/6 to this

photo ? 1/1 + 2/2 + 3/3 + 6/6 = Again the mean by math is 3/3 BAD.... IT IS REALLY BAD ?

 

How about the difference of ratings ?

 

If we think the rating have to be good (a positive way of thinking) we can consider the rating in two range

1-2-3 make a mean toghether , and 4-5-6-7 make another mean, so in the example above if we consider the artistic sense that someone have the right to discover and put in discussion 1+1 + 2/2 + 3/3 =

2/2 + 6/6 = (2/2 +6/6) / 2 = 4/4 average/fair but not BAD...

and so on ....

 

With this kind of rating mathematics the good work comes out... even if someone think it's bad, and if a photo is really bad receiving only 1/1 2/2 3/3 IT IS REALLY BAD and we are "sure" the photo is bad.

 

And if a photo have for example this rating situation:

 

5 *(1/1) + 4*(2/2) + 6*(3/3) + 1*(7/7) ?

the mean is 2,375/2,375 (Very bad) with the math...

 

and with the modified math ?

1,935/1,935 + 7/7 = 4,4/4,4 its between average/fair and quite good ?

 

I think so, even if 7/7 is given by the photographer himself ......

 

 

About peoples that have 2 or 3 or even 50 logins registration it's better to think they can be patron before making bad ratings or limiting them with a rating scheme that even disturb the auto rating or revenge rating situations.

 

EXAMPLE :

 

"Jhon" have 1 login true and 10 false login to rate his photos or rate bad the other's photos (I think Jhon is a mad wasting his time but...) he put a photo and the system gives to "Jhon" as non Patron a number of rating available the system can calculate the number of rating "Jhon" can give tho others considering the number of photo submitted each month or each week or even if he post critique or contribution in forums.

With other 10 false login he have to upload each one a photo to make ratings of others photo or for himself ... this is a method I think can fight against the actual rating situation.

 

again if he upload a micro jpg or bulk material it's well'detectable as a fake account used to waste the game.

 

In this way:

If you put a photo today you can rate others for 12 hours(for example) or have a number of photo you can rate, if you are patron no need to put a photo and you can rate everytime, the people with 10 or more logins are well detected too, and if someone want's 10 logins to rate himself with $250,00 he can do the job too....

 

I hope my writings give some ispiration !!

 

I think people with 10 logins would critique this....

Also I belive there is many people not patron that are true honest and can't be patron by many reasons I can understand them, by the way if they like this hobby they surely have photos to put on Photo.net to enabling them for rating others if they want.

 

Best regards.

[johncrosley]

I have a doctorate in something or another, and while the exercise above may be very meaningful for some of you (even staff of life meaningful for a few of you), I'm going to go out and take pictures -- and let the ratings fall where they may.

 

I don't aspire to TRP anytime -- the 'mate-raters' spoiled that, but that doesn't matter. Besides, the method of picking TRP has changed.

 

Through PN I have made wonderful friends, had wonderful discussions, viewed amazingly wonderful work, and found common ground with people I could have met no other way in life except through PN.

 

As to the negatives, they exist . . . they always will exist . . . in every forum, in every format, in every organization . . . and in organizations it's often called 'office politics' which I strive to avoid as much as possible.

 

And I do avoid it.

 

I post my images for others to see, and an amazing number of people view them, thumbnails or otherwise. I also love the critiques and colloquy, and the number and quality of the colloquy under my images sometimes astounds me, and continues to gratify me.

 

I would improve things, here and there, but who couldn't.

 

For the price of free or $25.00 (Brian I sent in my second $25.00 over 2 months ago, where is it, it was a money order with my account number on it and name?) one gets exposure to millions of views by others and a professionally organized and well-run site that has very little relationship to 'big business' as we know it today.

 

Photo.Net is one of the biggest bargains on the planet, and even when my ears get trimmed if a comment gets censored here or there, or someone refuses to remove a 1/1 rating on a photo averaging 5/5, so what?

 

I'm happy.

 

Brian, thanks.

 

It's a good site and I'm very thankful.

 

In the end, it always works out.

John (Crosley)

[hanna_reitsch]

Well look at that, Ma ho wants to rate the raters, I have heard it all now.

[ma_ho_fong]

Why not? I know it is difficult to have such a system, but suppose a coefficient is given to each rather: A rather that is rated 5 for honesty and 5 for competence will receive a coefficient of 5. Each time he rates a photo, his rating will be counted 5 times, while another photographer, a bad one that give 1/1 for really good pictures to purposefully degrade another photographer score, will be rated as 1 for honesty / or competence, so each time he rates a photo, his rating will be counted only one time. For example:

 

Photographer "A" (the honest one) rates 6/6

Photographer "B" (the bad one) rates 1/1

6/6 x 5 = 36/36

1/1 x 1 = 1/1

36/36 + 1/1 = 37/37

37/37 divided by 6 (total number of added coefficient)= 6.166/6.166

The photo will receive 6.166/6.166 instead of 3.5/3.5 even with a 1/1 rating, this will be more just.

[ma_ho_fong]

Sorry, there is a mistake in the above math, it must be lslightly less than 6.

[paul e. wog]

I vote for bringing back the rater attached to their rate yaya