vincetylor Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 " But Mottershead just told me that he is selectively deleteing the 7's. Regards." THIS comment offers real promise! At least something appears to be happening. If this is true, Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Not necessarily dishonest. Lately, I've been running a program that disqualifies the mutual 7 ratings between people when there are too many of them. I'm not going to say how many is too many. I'm not going to say whether they will stay disqualified. I'm not going to say how often this program is run or how it works exactly. One reason I'm not saying is that I don't want people who might try to game it to know. Another reason is that I might change it if it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. If people stop mate-rating, I might turn it off. Right now, it has a relatively light touch. I've been running it for a while, and nobody even noticed until today. If people don't stop mate-rating, I might up the settings a bit. I might have it include sixes. We'll see. The purpose of this is to frustrate mate-raters. If two excellent photographers who receive lots of sevens from everyone happen to rate each other a lot, then their mutual sevens will be disqualified too because they will look like mate-raters to the current heuristic. However, it shouldn't affect the standing of their photos in TRP since, being excellent photographers, they will receive plenty of high ratings from people who aren't excellent, and with whom they therefore aren't exchanging many seven ratings. (Right?) If they don't, well maybe they aren't so excellent, after all. What this means is that if someone gives a photo of yours a seven, there is a cost to reciprocating, since if you do it too much, it might cause the sevens you received from the other person to be disqualified. Everyone might want to think about that. I have some other software running and am doing some other things also. It will be interesting to see if anybody notices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Patience is a virtue, so they say. I will certainly be patient as you employ this new system Brian. The best news for the many on these threads is that you do recognize the problem, and are taking corrective measures. Many of us have wondered if it even mattered anymore. I guess it does. The more teeth this system has the better. I think we could all live with that. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 brian, as you know i think a major part of the solution to "mate rating" is for the site to incentivize people making constructive comments on each other's works within the present system. i won't repeat the lists i've posted over the past six months unless you'd like me too. any additional plans for encouraging text critiques? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Brian I applaud your efforts to make the system more fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark lucas Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Brian , I know you're overworked and underpaid, but..... Firstly, thanks for acknowledging the problem, I think I speak on behalf of most of us here to say that means a lot. Secondly, is it possible to post, in a prominent place, perhaps at the beginning of the critiques section under a photo, the importance of rating honestly and how you do nobody any favours by over-rating? Just something brief that could automatically appear there. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but at least nobody could say they misunderstood the ratings system - could they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathywilson Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Brian, Thanks for the move toward a positive solution :) It may only be a light touch at this point, but anything at all is helpful. It's a shame you can't rig a program to administer an electric shock through the keyboards of mate raters and lowballers <g> A little operant conditioning... <evil Calvin smile> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 In all seriousness, thanks Brian. My faith renewed. Three-year sub next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheely Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Can I suggest changing the words "Rate Recent" to "Critique Recent" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Hanna Reitsch , oct 05, 2004; 12:03 a.m. Faith, you might want to consider getting a life. Boo hoo, let the tears flow Faith. You bring absolutely zero to the table. Dear Hanna, perhaps you can apply your own words written toward another (since banned member) to yourself. Good day to you too dear. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Brian, I haven't read all of today's posts, but I wanted to thank you for your attempts to address the issue. The best part - and I'm serious - is that you aren't telling people exactly what you're doing. Shoot me if you must, but I suspect the halo effect will keep the rankings intact, having an effect on only the longest views. A change that would have at least as much impact as what you seem to be attempting is to include only RFC images in the TRP. Wouldn't that also increase subscriptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanna_reitsch Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Yes Vincent, you cry just like her. Everyday it's a new Vincent complaint. Get off that high horse, ratings God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofoto Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Can I just ask you folks a question here? When you rate or leave feedback do you tend/always goto Gallery/Critique forum or Gallery/Rate recent or Gallery/Top photos? Or do you just check 'Your Friends' and rate their recent photos? I'm maybe suggesting the more experienced photogs would only bother to view the top photos rather than spend time wading through all uploaded pix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 paul, i respond to people who leave me comments first, go to people whose works interest me, mostly from them marking me or me marking them as interesting, follow up on prior comments, use rate recent and go to the critique forum, all in roughly equal amounts (of time at least) in the course of a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsontsoi Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Thanks for briefing us all here, Brian. Lets, "Calvinball!" (Ben Stiller in it, or is that only in, "Dodgeball?") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kslonaker Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Thanks, Brian - sounds like a possible solution. I don't mind a few ratings (of mine - on mine) deleted if it helps solves the problem. I follow pretty much the same course as Ben for critiqueing back - commenters first, others I've marked as "interesting", seldom even look at the raters, sometimes follow other comments on other pages (a great way to find new photographers). If I have time, I sometimes visit the TRP and usually find ones I want to comment/rate on, but not often on the first page. I usually do a selection for originality, rather than average because I find some really great shots that way. This site has a lot of value just in the sheer number of images and ideas to inspire us all. Sometimes you have to dig deep to find them, but they are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Applauding your efforts and at the same time question it somewhat. We are rating art here and art is highly subjective. Example theres a few people i have never seen produce less than a tru 6/6 image...they clump together as friends. I'm sure you have good judgement on this but the very point is those adjustments in the end come down to one persons final word. No human can be put in that position and not make mistakes... besides all that it must be a whole lotta work. My view is a system mod could virtualy eliminate the prob and if i may run it by you here. In my view, the biggest factor is initial ratings. Like 8 7/7 on a brand new image sets it to position #1. The general populataion is very learly to go stick a 4/4 on it if deserved...thug intimidation. So they go 6/6 or 5/6..shy down a bit. The uninformed see it on page #1 and figure its a masterpiece without too much question, so escalate the rates.....The actually rate mate action on the TRP is more obvious once its been there awhile and much harder to manipulate,,,. So a manditory feed in to random member rating system is the idea. Duplicate the present TRP or expand the RFC. Every new upload feeds into this system, term it the RFC in this example,, but its not sorted by rate just in order of upload. It has a property that it can only be rated on the RFC. Once it has 10 rates say, its property changes and it enters the TRP as per its rate order and remains with that property forever.... if a traffic jam backup due to more uploads than raters it could be easily overcome by adding a "must rate 10 other images before their image changed properties", attribute on the properties. New images go to the back of the line. So we open page 1 and considering this would be the only place to rate new.. each image should get its dose within minutes then hit the TRP. Only deal would be a rater starting page 1 must rate every image there before advancing to page 2 etc., if it was in thumbs. If done like rate recent same deal....no skip image. Mate raters could work it, sure, but would have to sit for hours to wait on a given image. Just as you stated you used to hand pick them well basically the same only we all do that..... just an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 This thread is now fading into the sunset but I thought I would answer your question. The condition of the TRP has evolved (devolved?) to the point where I very rarely rate or comment on anything on the first two pages anymore. When I do visit the Gallery, I invariably click on the PREVIOUS click box and start at the very bottom. After viewing a few pages that way the site bogs down and will not serve any more pages. The site always bogs down when I do this.<p> With my frustration level now fairly high, I resort to viewing what the people in my MOST INTERESTING member list have done recently. I start at the top of that list and work my way down, as time permits. This is probably to the detriment of those interesting people. I say this because they are the only ones who now get my highest rates. With rare exception, I find someone at the bottom of the Gallery who has posted highly rateable work, but not too often. To the best of my ability, and when I can, I offer as much help as I can give to those who look like they need it. But my highest rates end up with my interesting people list. <p> That is the problem. I do not particular like the way the Rate Recent system is set up, so I hardly ever visit it. I am brought almost literally to the point of nausea when I look at the first page of the TRP, so I try to avoid that too. Therefore, I only have a handful of people that I care to visit on a regular basis, those that I have marked as interesting in the past. Why else would one mark someone as "interesting" if not to revist them and appreciate their work or offer and ask for help? <p> It is natural that when these interesting people see that I have visited that they, too, would like to see what I have been up to. Some of them, I am proud to say, are friends. Infrequently, when I have posted a photograph that has merit, these interesting people may rate it highly. Some here construe that as cronyism and mate-rating. Undoubtedly, the Calvinball heuristic will see it as such. Iti s a conundrum. That is a problem that I have with it.<p> In conclusion, Paul, I hope that this answers your question. I fully appreciate the problem that Mottershead has on his hands; not only with the topic in this thread, but with other ones as well. I think that it is great that he is trying to solve this. But only time will tell if this solution works. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Your correct about that imo. Maybe mate-rating/cross-rating paranoia, is seen as the downside to a system designed to encourage groups clumping together in the first place....the "most interesting" list being the centre point. Even the function of it sorting to "latest" posted friend speaks "come rate me". We shouldn't get guilty from taking advantage of an inbuilt function. The inter-rating amonst the friends list is a great thing. You choose people who you respect for quality and good morals. Least you know the person is going to give it decent consideration as opposed to someone seeing it on rate recent and nails a 2 to a beutiful flower cause they didn't want to see a flower of any kind. When a rating "friend" tells you of a flaw, or something else they don't like, its a lot more meaningful than a stranger. The criminal element uses email to mate rate and can bypass the systems cross rate "machine" easily by some fixes i wont elaborate on, but just saying mutual rating is the best thing going and the vast majority don't abuse it. Real obvious who does. And speaking of page 1 i don't get "nausia", usually, Walter... theres most times some great stuff there... but slow page speed ya sometimes. My friend whos got 56k a lot of times can't even get the next page loading and gives up, but enjoys rating pics way back in the trp normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Paul, like all the other mate raters who have responded to this thread in record numbers, you're rationalizing. All of the group benefits that you have mentioned will remain even if you had limits placed on the number of sevens you offer, whether self imposed or by the site. Or will they? Maybe you haven't had the experience of seeing a dramatic reduction in the number of high rates received coincidentally because you stopped rating. Then you rate a few, offer some comments . . . and presto, amazing how much better your photography gets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Well your first line implys i'm a mate rater which is far from the case, maybe the wording? Anyway my rates actually improve drasticaly when i DON'T comment. Probably because am still learning the fine art of saying something negative to oversensitve people who can't seem to be objective about a picture. I do comments and rates over 4 hrs a day Carl and have learned its best just to pick ones from mid trp and offer advice if possible or dont say anything bad and just see the good. Its not the best scenerio but then again lots here just post for fun or folder content and really don't aspire to be great photogs. My above wasn't written in the light of endorsing mating..just pointing out the system is designed for people to cross rate so how can you blame them. Its all relative. Lets say we formed a group of F5 friends ..rated each other. So we base scores on what an F5 can do... another group does the same with disposibles and would have the same criteria. Its only when the 2 groups meet in the real world the great indifference would be apparent. So we would say look at them rating that garbage 6/6 all the time. In reality they are sayin...wow thats really great for a disposible.... 6/6.... and their being honest too. So how u gonna go critque a pic from a beginner with a $150 digit? Well its lifeless, too much contrast, glumpy..no real way to fix that. Fire out that cam and buy a real one.3/3.... suddenly having told the absolute truth your port is shedded. So i just keep my yap shut unless its someone who really wants to know objectivly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 (continuing rant) unless its someone who really wants to know objectivly... or someone like the "king" of page one, who posts ok stuff, some excellent... just the devices to get there, so point out the massive flaws in the pic and he runs straight to my folder and 3/3's all my new ones for the effort. Now he has even cloned himself and the prob is 2 fold. How can he put 5 new pics up a night and get 20-30 rates on those within hours?? And real curious so many of the raters are faily new accounts with no pics..Its so blatent and ripping off every member here, yet nothing is done, somehow this guy is out of jurisdiction it seems . I don't see any of your comments on the trp Carl on major mate rated pics either, but seem to be pointing the finger here. I don't see anybody in this post as being a mate-rater as u mentioned Carl. They just have their own values and are some of the most honest here. You just have a more old school set of values for a photograph which is actually the correct one, but unknown to a lot of them. Maybe i don't see it cause they wouldn't want me in their group, if there was such a thing, cause i speak my mind and most don't want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_laban Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 <i>" Maybe you haven't had the experience of seeing a dramatic reduction in the number of high rates received coincidentally because you stopped rating. Then you rate a few, offer some comments . . . and presto, amazing how much better your photography gets!"</i><p> Very true, but I'd take it one step further. Everyone who rates images on photo.net receives biased ratings. The same applies to comments.<p><b>Catch 22</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 well, I have read that the site's mantra is that ratings are for the site and comments are for the photographer. and since I am for the photographer then my choice to eschew ratings altogether seems quite the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevespencer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 In my opinion, a comment should be <i><b><u>REQUIRED</B></U></i> to leave <i><b><U>ANY</b></u></i> rating. <br><br>Furthermore, unless a photo was submitted <i><b><u>FOR RATING</b></u></i>, <i><b><u>no one should be able to rate it!</b></u></i> <br><br>This would result in fewer bogus ratings, and a lot more exchange of information in comment form.<br><br>This doesn't address all the problems, but it would be a terrific step towards improving things.<br><br>-s 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