root Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 " . . . . Brian has stated in so many words that individuals who significantly draw people to their photo areas (and ads) get a break on some of the rules." The only relevant comment that I recall is that portfolios larger than those permitted for non patrons will not be deleted if they have a certain number of rates, comments, etc.. I have never seen a reference to attracting traffic to personal members pages or portfolios. And if he did, one might ask how he could be sure those views represented a net gain to site traffic. Instead of of 1000 views to member MR, why wouldn't we expect 200 views to five different members? Incidentally, we do have a test case. When AP was booted, if there was no noticeable drop in traffic, then the argument that favoring popular photographers increases site traffic fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annabeth_smith Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 There are many members who are more clever with their mate rating habits than those in the 7/7 club being discussed here. These covert mate raters liberally throw out 6/6 and 6/5 ratings to average and below average photos in the hope of receiving inflated ratings in return. Some of these covert mate raters actually have the nerve to complain about the less discrete 7/7 mater raters commonly discussed in this forum. Here is an example of the kind of rating distribution that a covert mate rater might display: # Ratings Given: Rating:_____1_2_3_4___5___6___7__ Originality:__1 0 0 104 2015 6359 207 Aesthetics:__1 0 8 90 1344 6280 963 Very amusing, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 <<<<simply give each one a very sobering and honest critique of its faults. say nothing of a personal nature. don't even attempt to smooth over the critique. keep it dry and to the photographic points.>>>> Howard are you talking about these exact comments that YOU are CUT AND PASTING all over my images? Yes and over 5 images you have yet to even say 1 dam thing about the image itself. If you have some misconception i am a mate rater why are they holding near top of trp and were run through RFC ? don't see point of manipHoward Foto, February 10, 2005; 07:11 A.M. don't see the point of this poor manipulation, nor it aesthetic. no knock on the photographer, mind you. strictly on the image's photographic merits I would rate this 3/3 but I don't rate and it's just one humble expert's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 paul, marc g., thanks for kind words. marc g., after about three years of hanging around here (jeesh, i didn't know i was that old!) i've felt, expressed and been through many of the emotions expressed here. this site has become like "groundhog day" to me. the only thing i can change is me. after posting hundreds upon hundreds of photos and recieving comments well into the 4 figures, i have reached the conclusion that when i have been among the top photos (no wisecracks! it happens once in a while!) does NOT lead to measurably more comments. commenting on others photos with something specific to say -- including constantly reaching out to new people, to people who do similar work and share similar interests, AND to people who are so darn good that they intimidate -- being politely honest, sometimes blunt and, when moved, not being afraid to figuratively stand up and applaud joyously -- while maintaining an overall portfolio that has some interest to others -- seems to work the best. slowly, what goes around comes around, never in enough amounts i suppose, cuz there can never be enough for something we all love to do and share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 If you don't rate. What makes u think u have the right to broadcast your "theoretical" rating in comments on my pics?? Man talk about full of yourself........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Annabeth, Welcome to Pnet. I'm amazed at how quickly you discovered the Mate Rating and as you put it the "covert" rating here on Pnet :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I'm amazed, too, Annabeth. About as covert as an elephant in a trenchcoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheely Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Annabeth, <p> That's also a similar distribution to me and I don't have any mates. Mark "No friends" Grant, they call me. <p> I think, many new people to photography, like myself, when starting out, are just not able to make a meaningful comment on anything that they don't like instinctively and certainly don't feel able to say an image is average. It takes a while before you know the average quality of images on PN. <p> Also, it takes time to find photographers whose work moves you in some way. These people I rarely rate but do leave comments, but only because rating them somehow demeans them in my view. <p> As I have become more experienced, I sometimes go through the last few pages of the TRP and find pictures that the photographer genuinely seems to wants an honest opinion on. Usually the average rating is around 3/3 or less. I don't feel able to give them another 3/3, I'll give what contructive advice I can and any encouragement I can. I have found a couple of young photographers whose images, to my eye, are well below average technically and aesthetically but you can see a passion for experimentation in their shots. You almost know that given a few years they could be masters of their trade. I don't think I can offer what limited advice I have and also rate them below average. <p> I realize the site aims for a 4/4 average and I recognize the sense in that but for some of us it isn't easy. Doesn't make us all covert mate raters. For me, that casts doubt on the validity of some of the non-covert mate raters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 PG - you were the unfortunate exception to my rule. but fortunately now, you have earned sufficient PNG points to be placed on ignore. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annabeth_smith Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Laurie, I've been looking in on this site for a few months now. I don't know exactly why I decided to sign up today. I guess I just can't stand hypocrites and felt like speaking out here. Hope no one holds it against me if and when I get up the courage to submit my first photos for critique. (-: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Dang....the critique circle is falling apart before it ever gets off the ground. Oh well, no matter. I have added you all to my list and will make it a point to offer meaningful critiques to the best of my ability. I may not get around to everyone before next week. (going away for the weekend). Annabeth, my apologies if I've offended you. If you've been poking around the site for a few months, you probably know that it's not uncommon for someone to create a new account with an alias to make "anonymous" comments. I thought that's what was going on in your case. Apparently, I was wrong. I look forward to seeing some of your work. Please let me know when you're posting and I'll add you to my list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 annabeth, come on in, the water's warm (enough)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Annabeth Smith looks to me like another bogus account. No images posted, no ratings, no comments, just signed up today. Those ratings listed are my own. He/she does not even have the courage to say that, or post it under their own name. Probably one of the maters in fact. However my ratings distribution is laid out is completely irrelevant IF those ratings are honest. And honest they have always been. I always make a point to go to the folders of those who've taken the time to rate my work and do the same. There is nothing wrong with that in any shape or form *IF* you rate anothers work in honest fashion. This is the reason the names are posted at all, so we can visit the work of those that have already taken the time for us. Mate-rating in the context we are talking about, and that damages the site and even the photographer, is when you hand out nothing but inflated ratings over and again to the same people expecting (and usually receiving) the same in return. TRP becomes skewed, beginning photographers think they are masters, and that their snapshots are now masterpieces. A messed up system I'd say. Just as many on this page have expressed an interest to create a circle of friends that offer honest, critical comments trying to help others improve, so too has the mate-raters CIRCLE only grown and grown to the point of taking over the galleries top pages every day. This type of circle needs to be busted up. Instead when Photo.net changed the default Top Rated Photos pages to highest average ratings they then began rewarding the maters with top visibility continuously. The incentive (and thereafter the activity) to do this has only become worse since that point. It is worse now and will become even more so shortly. Yes Marc it is true Jeremy is one man. However Jeremy, Brian and whomever else deleted so many accounts that were bogus (just last month) that over one percent of all ratings ever given were deleted. And more have since followed. I still believe this is at the very least the correct approach in trying to handle this situation. Just send them in, as you or I see these obvious underhanded tactics. Fine let's form helpful groups too. Fine let's focus more on perfecting our craft. But, at the same time let's also do whatever we can to help get rid of this practice of mate-rating that is more or less like a cancer, slowly destroying the integrity of the gallery, and eventually will spread to the rest of the site. Just a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 And what a surprise, Annabeth Smith has a hotmail account to boot. Her first activity is in the hot forums?? Okay, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 It becomes clear that there are different definitions of mate rating, and I would be the first to admit that mine is more stringent than most to the point where I assert that nearly everyone with decent images to upload has mate rated. It's human nature and the site does its' best to encourage it. The question is, how do you change your rating comment practice once you understand the correlation between the rates and comments you give and those you get. The correlation is undeniable and works 1:1 and across the spectrum of all the photographers you interact with. Many photographers who I admire have reached the conclusion that the influence they have on the numbers they receive is so strong that they realize they no choice but to stop rating pretty much entirely. When I look at someone's favorites and see photographers that I know rate seldom if ever, then I know they are looking for an honest unbiased exchange, but if they're filled with popular images by people who rate highly and often, then I know you've been the recipient of some of those rates and are recognized as a nice generous person rahter than an honest helpful critic. In short, you've bought it. . . . . sold your soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 watch it, AS. having a separate hotmail account - so that crud mail doesn't intermingle with good mail - automatically makes you suspicious to town bullies and town criers, especially if you have no photos uploaded. suspecting that was the case (this ain't rocket science, you know) was why I uploaded as quickly as I could request critiques on each of them. I suggest you do that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 carl, that's an interesting view, and may be some of what happens. so i don't mean to challenge the analysis, but to step back and question, as i have throughout this thread, if it matters. i would have said nothing, except for your "sell your soul" comment. two points, one utilitarian and one cultural. i've knocked around a bit, and included in my background is extensive work teaching and motivating volunteers. my experience is that if i want someone to get from point A to point M, i must encourage them to go one step at a time (B, C, D, etc.). So giving constructive feedback to someone at A is different than to someone at J. To "rate" either of them could be very discouraging and i tended to avoid such a thing at all costs. Instead, i learned (from wise people training me) to try always to tell people first what they were doing right, and second what they could do better -- and to avoid saying what was bad. Why? Because teaching the "right" way and motivating people to strive, to commit to the effort, are not always the same thing. i think i differ with people like Vincent here perhaps because his eye is on the integrity of the site more than mine, which is more frankly on encouraging artists i like and learning back and forth from them. i've gone through periods of no rating and only commenting and every other variation. there's some correlation between my numbers and those i give out. but getting a rating is nothing compared to an substantive comment, and that's what i'm hoping for. the second point is cultural, and perhaps a little controversial. but i have a suspicion that those of us raised in the United States emphasize "fairness" more than in other parts of the world, in part because our culture is more competitive by nature than many other parts of the world. we are raised to be long on individual achievement and shorter on collective loyalty. i suspect this mate rating concern has some roots in that particularly "american" sensibility. hope this doesn't offend anyone. i love the international flavor of the site, and live with the fact that such a thing brings different views, including some i dislike myself, about how to make use of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Sorry Howard, read the comment again. She just opened an account today, she has no ratings, no comments, but goes right into this hot forum with my ratings. Wake up Howard, smell the coffee. In fact Howard, it surprises me very little that YOU of all people would say such a thing. We know who you are, many of us know who you WERE. We've also said IF you behave will not turn you in. The "no ratings" and "not interested in visibility" was a good start. Just a final reminder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kslonaker Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I guess I belong to a group of mate-raters; I have about 73 photographers marked as "interesting", including Vincent. I like to go and see what new work they have posted and most of the people I have marked interesting get rated by me anywhere from a 4 to a 7 (probably an average of 6) because I feel like they do good/interesting work most of the time. I try to critique honestly and sometimes it's not well received, but I do it anyway (two people who sometimes take offense at my critiques have also posted comments here, but shall remain unnamed). If someone leaves me a comment, I try to visit some of their photos and comment in return. I don't visit the raters (only) because I try not to get caught up in the numbers game and just give my ratings a quick glance after a few days. I've noticed some people can tell you what rating you've given them which tells me they are totally obsessed with the ratings and keep track as each one comes in. I'd rather be taking pictures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Ben, I posted this same idea a while back and the light bulb went on for several people. I think your focus on cultural differences is important and frankly think that Brian's concept of fairness on this site is based on a cultural norm that not everyone shares. People keep saying that it isn't a contest and that people shouldn't invest so much in getting and giving rates instead of trying to understand what is really going on and take steps to control it even though they don't understand the personal and cultural basis for the behavior. You also seem to talking about some sort of separation between rating (selecting) images and offering constructive criticism. I wholeheartedly agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Ben, as an ex-educator myself, I find your theories fascinating. "Injustice," of course, hitting a particular sore spot. It does admittedly irk the hell out of me. From recent International affairs to the office mutt who takes credit for an idea, the hypocrocy seems to know no bounds sometimes. Having gotten so much out of this site, it makes me nuts to see it abused, taken advantage of - become like so much else in this world that's marred, impure. I'm such an idealist:) It's not just "injustice," though - it's dishonesty. That stinks, too. However, above, today, I think I learned that even THAT angst I must take with a grain of salt. After seeing the above, I think I now feel that some of these mate raters seriously believe that they're NOT mate rating. Ignorance doesn't make it right, but that means my wish for them to knock off a conscious act is really a wish for them to not be so lacking in the ability of introspection. I may be an idealist, but I'm also a realist. I ain't gonna get THAT wish! Vincent - don't forget that too, she pulled a screenshot of a rating curve in and posted it. Annabelle, my sincere apologies - as you may have noticed, paranoia around here is rampant, and sadly, often justified. Should your name and intentions be genuine, more power to you - and see you around. So, you're gonna have to do better than that:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Kim, may I ask you if a new system was set up to redistribute the exposure to include other photographers who aren't as generous with their rates as your friends are, would you find that acceptible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Kim, for what it's worth, in my often kooky, but usually humble, opinion there's not a person out there, after reading your comments on your posts and others, that could deny that you're a good person with a kind soul. Last I saw, you're a free spirit - a well-meaning independent - not a follower or a leader of Photo Mafia hoardes:) Don't change a thing - I don't believe any of the above applies to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 So if thats the case Howard remove your snotty comments and save me a letter to abuse. I got tons of ps work ahead. Cheers. Its curious how u just started Pnet yet do a beeline for my port and won't lay off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kslonaker Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Carl, I'm not understanding what you mean. For all I care, the ratings could go completely away, leaving comments only. The TRP could be compiled by revolving critique circles that change weekly/monthly. I have no idea how these critiquers would be selected and how they would wade through the many images posted, but it would be nice to think a bigger variety of photographers would end up on there. 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