OK, I know, old topic

[paula grenside]

I have been here for a bit longer than a month and probably have to

read more and look around. I did read, anyway, several complaints

about rating. I mean the easy 1/1 or 2/3 clickers, of course. 100% of

the 1/1 2/2 stick out in contrast with all the other ratings. Well,

I have been in poetry forums for seven years so I know how things go

and how reactions can differ. The fundamental difference is that in

a poetry forum you immediately know who the poster is, can ask

clarifications, can discuss, confute.

 

Here I can't detect who the low raters are; yes, if I check and it

happens to be the first ( and only) rating, I know who he/she is,

otherwise it is a wild guess. The problem, though, remains why some

seem to find pleasure in dimishing the value of a photo.

 

What I am asking is whether there is a way to " oblige" the

underground raters, first, to identify themselves, second, to have

them post a few words of critique to justify their rate. It doesn't

take long to type: wrong exposure, no focus, poor composition, worn

out subject. "very bad" says nothing and, to me, has only the

purpose to humiliate, for some unknown reasons, the photographer.

 

Truth to be told, "excellent" doesn't say much either, but I have

noticed that critiquers usually praise the composition, the light,

the original angle, interpretation.

 

I like photo.net and have to say I have met amazing photogtaphers

and seen photos that are real masterpieces. So, glad to be here; I

have a lot to learn.

 

It's seems a pity, though, the management doesn't try to solve this

unjustufied low rating that ( I have seen around) causes a lot of

irritation and unpleasantness.

 

The solving of this "glitch" might guarantee more fair play ( and

the elimination of trolls) and greater enjoyment.

 

Thank you

[ilkka_nissila]

The value of your photo is not affected by the ratings.

[neal_shields]

First: if no one hates your photographs, throw away your camera. You are not taking chances or doing anything origional.

 

Second: Are you just too lazy to look at your own work before you post it: is it out of focus, shadows blocked, highlights blown, too busy? If you can't see those things for yourself, why would you take someone else's word for it.

 

Third: Photography is subjective. People don't need an objective reason for liking or dislikeing your work. You may have taken a picture of a woman that looked just like the 5th grade teacher that they hated. William Faulkner said something to the effect of: storeies are just ink stains on paper till someone creates a story in their mind from them.

 

If there are people that get their jollies rating photos low...so what? (I have never rated a photo high or low.) The ones that we should concentrate are those that give high rateings to photos that are probably garbage. (I say probably because without knowing the style and intent of the photographer we can't judge if he accomplished it or not.) However, there are undoubtedly people out there that are trying to follow in Henri Cartier Bresson's footsteps and need help badly, but because of high uninformed ratings, think that they are there.

 

I normally don't enter photographs in our local club competition more than once (you can enter a photo three times if it doesn't take a ribbon).

 

One photo of mine that I went back three times with three different formats, over a three month period of time to take, and spent hours in the dark room to get just the contact print I wanted, got a big yahn from the judge. (Note: or judges go from very successful professionals to the curitor of one of the largest and biggest photography collections in the world.) I re-entered it last month and took a ribbon. Welcome to art.

[paula grenside]

Dear Lord!

 

"The value of your photo is not affected by the ratings."

 

Of course it is not. I'll tell you more, after almost a decade of forum participation I am thick skinned, can face low rating and. My point is different and was not referring to myself,but to the unbelievable low rating I have seen on spectacular photos; it's that it is not fair and trolls should be stopped. If they are not trolls and rate seriously, then they have to give motivation and show their face.

[mike dixon]

<i>The solving of this "glitch" might guarantee more fair play ( and the elimination of trolls) and greater enjoyment.</i><P>

Look a little deeper in the feedback archives. The "glitch" is intentional. A requirement for comments when giving an extreme rating resulted in a lot of one- or two-word comments (and raising the required word count would just result in longer meaningless comments). The exact identity of raters was obscured because of excess "mate rating" among people giving each other undeservedly high scores and retaliatory rating by people who received low scores.

[paula grenside]

Oh, come on. If so, there is no need for rating, is it?

Probably I am being misunderstood. I am not saying they are not free

to rate low, only that very often, too often, the 1/1, 2/2 come out of the blue in a range ( long list) that goes from 4 to 7: so it does reflect personal taste and evaluation, which is fair. You'll say that 1 and 2 are in the rating range and, therefore, usable. No, because in most cases it's a dishonest attempt to diminish the photo. With 1, you don't even save the attempt to lift the camera.

 

And for God's sake, is it so hard to accept that I am not speaking because I am personally hurt? I got a 1/1 that disappeared after ten minutes. I suppose the management deleted it because thought it dishonest. What I proposed would ease up the management work, namely to delete the low rating considered dishonest.

 

If an easy finger clicked a 1 and was required to type something, maybe she/he'd think twice or thrice.

 

""Second: Are you just too lazy to look at your own work before you post it: is it out of focus, shadows blocked, highlights blown, too busy? If you can't see those things for yourself, why would you take someone else's word for it. ""

 

No, I am not lazy, but a sound critique (even though low rated) would make me think.

 

 

 

"Third: Photography is subjective. "

 

Agree. Also know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but beauty and craft can be distinguised, so can originality.

 

 

""

If there are people that get their jollies rating photos low...so what? (I have never rated a photo high or low.) The ones that we should concentrate are those that give high rateings to photos that are probably garbage. ""

 

I was referring to photos "undoubtly" amazingly well done ( unluckily not mine:-) and simply thought the low rating was unfair,

thus my post.

 

Congratulations for the ribbon. I mean it. Had it been really unworthy the judges would have not awarded it, not the second, not the third time. To believe in what you do is essential, but this has nothing to do with the "fast fingers".

 

Thank you

[paula grenside]

Mike Dixon

 

<i>Look a little deeper in the feedback archives. The "glitch" is intentional. A requirement for comments when giving an extreme rating resulted in a lot of one- or two-word comments (and raising the required word count would just result in longer meaningless comments). The exact identity of raters was obscured because of excess "mate rating" among people giving each other undeservedly high scores and retaliatory rating by people who received low scores.</i>

 

 

Mike this clarifies things a bit. Thank you for adding these details I didn't know.

 

 

----

 

Ilkka, Neil, sorry for not addressing you directly, but had already typed the whole answer when I realized I had not memorized the name. Sorry and thanks for posting in this thread.

[neal_shields]

One of the examples that I always give (and there must be hundreds) is Avedon.

 

After he only needed one name and anybody in the art or advertising world could pick one of his photographs out a a pile of a 100 he did: "in the American West". It took several years of his life and I expect he put his heart and soul into it.

 

Some people hated it so much that they tried to get the book banned. There was such an outcry that they never printed a second edition.

 

Let's also keep in mind that many people can't express their feelings verbaly. Some might even be better photographers because of that.

[niranjn]

Paula, I see that you KNOW that this is an old topic. Did you read the many threads that discuss this very issue, before posting this? Are you bringing a new insight or a new argument? IMO, no.

[ilkka_nissila]

Paula, why should unbelievably low ratings be stopped but ridiculously high ratings let stand? In the original description of what the ratings from 1 to 7 mean, e.g. 4 means it is an average <b>photo.net gallery</b> image. Now, in reality, the average may be 5 or more! So there are more high-raters than low-raters, which to me is a problem more serious than the sporadic low ratings.

<p>

If we really want to eliminate "me too 7/7" and "I hate you 1/1" ratings, how about not allowing people to rate photos on the TRP pages? So that the ratings would have to be given in other contexts, such as when passing through individual members' gallery pages, or in the random uploads for critique page. Currently, when someone malicious views a high-rated image which they don't like, they may try to maximize the effect they can have on a photo by giving it a 1/1 or so. This is like voting after seeing the result of the votes counted so far in an election - far from being unbiased. I guess another way to do it is by just giving voters three options: -1 (I don't like it), 0 (it's average), and +1 (I like it). In this way, one voter truly has one vote. Currently the votes are graded, and because people can see the current ratings average of each photo, the votes they give are affected by how far they think the average is from their preference. So early voters don't have the same power as late voters.

[paul e. wog]

LOL i can just imagine a poetry forum...would make PN seem like a cakewalk, and this place is tough...and i'm a vetern poster on the Nascar forums...forums forums.

 

After reading the first few lines i knew scrolling down would be the inevitable hero coming on saying its already been hashed about many times over...and thats what i want to rant about, not this issue which obviously any complaints by a member are justified over.

 

Mike..your continually coming on here, and not just you but the pile of you...and claim "its already been discussed endlessly"..thats nothing more than sidestepping issues....a huge cop out. If thats the case one could ask why after all this time hasen't it been fixed?

 

A bit of sarcasim demonstrates, ok?... Paula, this issue has been discussed countless times, its nothing new. Please in the future before posting take a leave of absence from work for a month and do a bit of research.......Mike i had to read the discussion over your POW image because it was reletive to our previous conversation...it took an entire evening to do so. People only got so much time.

 

Any forum post i ever seen goes like this. It gets posted, gets hot and current..then it fizzles out. No matter how strong your point is, if you take an old post and add a comment it will never get reborn again. Tried it many times u get some muttering maybe but thats about it.

 

The same issue disscused 2 years ago never goes the same way cause that was then this is now. Issues are time and trend sensitive. New factors enter into it...and the big thing is..who exactly has the time to read everything thats been said in the last 10 years? You would need a super puter just to try to evaluate anything.

 

The only point i raise here is that this constant rant turns to an embarressment really when one says..ya i agree fully its been hashed to death..so whats wrong with you why havent u taken your own advice and analized all the members time consuming input on these issues and come up with a solution rather than implying that its been disscussed so it must have been fixed?

[mike dixon]

<i>Mike..your continually coming on here, and not just you but the pile of you...and claim "its already been discussed endlessly"..thats nothing more than sidestepping issues....a huge cop out. If thats the case one could ask why after all this time hasen't it been fixed?</i><P>

It's not a copout--it's pointing people to the relevant prior proposals and arguments, previous implementations of their ideas, and the actual results of those attempts to "fix" the site rather than going through them, at length, yet again. As I've explained before, there is no solution that will satisfy everyone and gid rid of complaints because the fundamental problem is with people's expectations about the purpose of the rating system rather than the system itself. And as you demonstrate, no matter how often this is explained, some people absolutely refuse to accept it.

[mattvardy]

<i>"It doesn't take long to type: wrong exposure, no focus, poor composition, worn out subject. "very bad" says nothing and, to me, has only the purpose to humiliate, for some unknown reasons, the photographer."</i><p>

 

Paula: I agree with Neal. If a photo has NO focus, wrong exposure, "worn out" subject etc. why should anyone take time to explain this to the photographer? Perhaps one could explain why an image has poor composition, but when it comes to the elementary concepts of focus and exposure - these problems should be self-explanatory. Tell me what one could "learn" from a comment saying, "This photo is totally out-of-focus." Surely this would have already been known by the photographer, unless of course he/she was blind!?<p>

 

On the other side of the coin I agree that the terminology used in the rating forum seems harsh at times. But the words that are used are universally understandable, quick, easy, and they <i>sufficiently</i> articulate ones thoughts on an image. The rating forum was designed (I think) to be a quick and easy way of viewing and critiquing images - and it is. Comments aren't mandatory (though usually encouraged), and low opinionated ratings aren't forbidden (according to my understanding of photo.net's Terms of Use).

[nate_macdonald]

"Paula: I agree with Neal. If a photo has NO focus, wrong exposure, "worn out" subject etc. why should anyone take time to explain this to the photographer? Perhaps one could explain why an image has poor composition, but when it comes to the elementary concepts of focus and exposure - these problems should be self-explanatory. Tell me what one could "learn" from a comment saying, "This photo is totally out-of-focus." Surely this would have already been known by the photographer, unless of course he/she was blind!?"

 

 

You're oversimplyfying the point. First of all, if we all used that reasoning, why submit a photo for a critique at all? When I submit a shot, it's nice to see what others think of it, but I'm submitting to help learn what I did wrong, or in other instances, what I did right. Of course if it's badly out of focus, I'm going to know that. But if I could have used more depth of field, or composed the shot differently or had the exposure inccorect, I'd really like to know that. We're not all experts, I for one am here to learn. Dropping a 2/2 or a 3/3 or what have you tells me you didn't like the shot. That's great, but if you're not going to tell me why, why bother?

[mattvardy]

No, Nate, you've misinterpreted my point. Paula was suggesting that people right comments telling the photographer a photo is out-of-focus, poorly exposed etc. which imo would be a total waste of time since surely the photographer knows it is already. Still, I believe that comments/critiques which combine an outline of these technical flaws with perhaps a more in-depth analysis regarding composition, originality, mood etc. would be more appropriate, helpful, and most importantly, more influential. Anyone can tell you that your photo is out-of-focus; but it takes someone with a little more knowledge/experience (and time) to dig deeper and tell you exactly how to improve - why your image works for them or why it doesn't. Comments saying "no focus" and ratings stating "bad" are both equally, and utterly, useless imho.

[forrestberkshire]

Way back when, you could find out who rated your photo a certain way, and a link was

provided to their portfolio. I prefer tho old method, not so that I can "take revenge" for a

low rating or rate someone high that also gave me a high rating. I liked it so that I could

see how much they knew. Photography is subjective. Therefore, it was nice to put a rating

into perspective by seeing the skills of the rater. After all, I see a lot of photos here that I

think are really bad, and I see even more that I think are realy good. Personally, I don't give

a crap about some photog's opinion who can't shoot straight. Yet, if I get a low rating from

someone whose portfolio makes me go "wow" when I see it, then I take that rating a little

more seriously. Also, I shoot and post a lot of sports for critiques. I value the opinions of

other sports photographers much more than I do some fine art photographer who spends

all of his/her time looking for lines and shadows.

So I understand some of the reasons for keeping the poster blind to who gave a rating.

However, I would prefer to be able to put a rating, good or bad, into perspective. I'm truly

iterestedin the opinions on the photos I post, I'm just more interested in some opinions

than I am others.

[travis1]

Why do people who rated 1/1 need to type in justification but people who rated 7/7 need not?

 

What's wrong with a 1/1? I like the system as it is.

[nate_macdonald]

You're right Matt, I completely misinterperted you. I agree with pretty much everything you just said.

[niranjn]

> Personally, I don't give a crap about some photog's opinion who can't shoot straight.

 

Forrest, you shouldn't give a crap about the opinion of a photographer who does not comment but only rates your picture. Rates are not for you, they are for the site (so says Brian M.).

 

On a different note, Brian has "threatened" that periodically he will make the rates non-anonymous for a short period.

[paul e. wog]

You seem to hold the view ...no need to explain a low rate. I would like to raise a few points on this.

 

There are so many pics on pn nobody could ever rate them all. So it really doesn't matter if you sit down for a session and rate 1000 or 30....quantity doesn't make quality.

 

If you say 4/4 or above...u are saying, hay its average, good, very good or excellent..all positive. Now below 4 your claiming its bad. So the entire purpose of the site is not to get Mr. Perfect to the top spot and reap praise on him and he smiles away.

 

It to teach and learn. Now if someone has a pic that sucks... are you giving them a 2/2 for punishment for posting garbage? or are you helping them?...mearly dishing out a 2/2 is no help at all, all it does is further frustrate and actually hurt people. If you go hay your pic sucks cause blah blah blah...well they get a clue. Some have no clue at all and they actually think its good. So take the time to drop some hints and, think to yourself..you wanna be seeing that persons ugly pics forever?

 

Now you quote "its not required", and your right. And its not required either that that photographer posts a pic for YOUR enjoyment. So if you wanna call that picture trash..they tried to give you something, why throw it in their face? By saying that you seem to imply a certain expectation from your personal standpoint...and its not like that at all here...its an "amature" site. Your gonna see great stuff but its not all great, and don't expect it to be.

 

A major point i think is your not required to rate a given pic. Like street phtography tends to score low no matter who does it. Seems people see the drab colours, scenes, powerful ugly stuff and go yuk that unaestetic and fire a 2/2 on it..its a work of art to others. Like i see fashion stuff i just move right along..i couldn't tell ya whats good or bad. Just saying, if you wanna see landscapes, if thats your "thing" then skip by what doesn't appeal. If its an area you don't understand then if you really must rate it then leave a comment why you scored it so low...then you will get a big wakeup call and learn more about that area.

[kenten]

Good point to Paul.

[big daddy]

I don't think there's a glitch at all. It would be great if, along with ANY rating, there were some comment, preferrably a constructive one, but with a site like this, not likely, and that's OK. I appreciate ANY comment I get on ANY photo I post for critique, or even my portfolio. I'm always looking for direction, help, anything to improve, or even just a word to know that SOMEONE SAW MY WORK!!!

 

-Carl

[guy3]

Paula do you think a 100 character minimum would help?(xxxxx....x)I too have noticed the low rollers but I think it's going to happen no matter how you try to stop it. It's just human nature. I have noticed that in digital imagery the spreads are wider, it just goes with the territory. It is after all a popularity contest.