banish the 1/1 rating

[salvatore.mele]

Brian, without getting as far as the "Photo of the Century",

what about just removing the numbers in brakets from the rating interface?

 

You could just leave people with the present scale, from the "Very bad" to "Excellent"...but keep numbers everywhere else.

[root]

A bot that doesn't look at a rating pattern of rater A on photographer B is missing THE primary source of abuse. This applies to both high and low rates. Of course, the system shouldn't even allow people to rate people. We know that's the perversion of the system because we have the 'curator' TRP sort experiment as evidence.

[bobatkins]

<em>My 7-year-old daughter came running up to me excitedly, "Daddy, Daddy! Is my picture good?" <br>

I gave her the constructive criticism she needed, "No, Sweetheart. It's awful. I took you to the museum last week so you would know what great art looks like, and compared to that, your picture is awful. Sure, it's better than most of your classmates, but if I'm not completely honest, you won't learn to do better." </em>

<p>

I think that's the answer! All we have to do is treat photo.net members like 7 year olds and all our problems will vanish.

<p>

Duh! Why didn't <em>I</em> think of that. It's brilliant.

<p>

The next problem is how to incorporate nap time into the site...

[spaghetti_western]

"...A bot that doesn't look at a rating pattern of rater A on photographer B is missing THE primary source of abuse..."

 

so carl, how would a third party (or a bot) know for sure if a 'rating pattern' is the result of behavior aimed at a photographer and not the result of some other non-abusing pattern of legitimate rating behavior? after all, a correlation does not have to indicate direct cause-and-effect, except perhaps in the fantasy world of thisisspinaltap :-)

[joe604]

Exactly, Bob. I think you get it now. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034546639X/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7737575-6294352#reader-link">Here's something that will help</a>. Oh, and naps are part of the program too. --Joe

[root]

spaghetti, any rates not done from the queue are biased, but in any case, a bot can determine if the volume of rates from A to B are disproportionately high in volume as well as high or low in average. Anybody want to try to defend someone's right to give ANY images by Marc, Tony, or Emil a 1/1? (The mistaken order of high>low is joke.)

[spaghetti_western]

"...any rates not done from the queue are biased..."

 

theres a gulf of difference between bias and abuse, and my question had to do with equating a rating habit or rating pattern with abuse and not merely some bias

 

"...a bot can determine if the volume of rates from A to B are disproportionately high in volume..."

 

and a bot (and an administrator) can determine the temporal occurrence of said rates. if theyre spread over time then theres no abuse though possibly bias but if theyre done in one sitting then that indicates bias of some sort and possibly abuse

[root]

I think abuse can be spread over time, but more importantly, you're right that I am not making a distinction between abuse and bias if the behavior is directed towards individuals rather than images. Keep in mind that high rate patterns directed at individuals adversely affect the whole process much more than low ones.

[spaghetti_western]

very good. cogent, edifying, and to the question (not the man)