Mate Rating: A different angle

[jimknowles]

Site needs new SUBSCRIBERS all the time to grow and to earn $.

 

ALL people have EGOS. - ERGO: TOP PAGES & RATINGS.

 

Okay - if one understands these are simply the basic facts of this site, then surely the

following must make some sense to most of even the most cynical here.

 

A. Only paying members can rate others photos and this only after signing electronic

agreement stating rules have been read and understood; which rules you ask? The new

simple rules, of course!

 

B. If you want to rate you first must comment according to ethics rules stated in rules of

the site. No swearing / No wow thats great! / No personal attacks.

 

C. EVERYONE'S newly uploaded images will NOT BE IDENTIFIED until AFTER first 3 days.

This way, no one know's who shot which photo until they go into the week view of the Top

Pages.

 

Do these simple things and everyone will have a lot more fun and a lot less complaining.

imho anyway.

[mike dixon]

Do these simple things and ad revenues will take a nosedive, participation will drop, moderators will have a few hundred additional hours of work per day deleting all those comments that don't follow the rules, and there will be a flood of complaints about the "new" system.

[root]

. . . and all the photos with names on the mats/frames will be . . . what? . . . . deleted?

[vincetylor]

Calviball appears to be having zero impact on the TRP as of 2/22/05. It appears the only thing accomplished has been the slashing of many honest ratings on photographers that do not cheat the system. The same mate-raters with many images posted are once again plastered all over the TRP with no adjustments to their ratings whatsoever.

 

Patience for your new Calvinball system is waning...

[mike dixon]

I've noted this odd lack of logic before, but it's funny enough to point it out again: The reciprocal high ratings are being removed from the system, so those images in the TRP (whether you like them or not) are getting high ratings from a variety of people who are not receiving high rates in return. One would think that, by definition, they're no longer "mate raters." Unfortunately, the definition of "mate rater" is now "anyone who has images in the TRP."

 

As I've noted before, some of the complainers care nothing about the system fairly representing the views of the majority who participate in ratings--until the results conform to their personal opinions, the system is "broken." [Of course, this is nothing new. It's been the same old story since ratings on photo.net began. And it's the reason that most of the photo.net "veterans" don't take the ratings controversies too seriously.]

[vincetylor]

No disrespect Mike, but you is dead wrong!! Perhaps a cup of very strong coffee may help, but I doubt it because your mind is already made up. ANYBODY that posts in the forums is just a selfish complainer, right?? You offer nothing to this site from what I have seen and read. That would be a big zero in my opinion. Eight comments (TOTAL!), zero ratings given yet 32 images posted. And plenty of whining in the forums.

 

Not one image on the first page has one rating deleted. The most obvious gamers of the system, are right there, side by side with sevens on each others images. When you then go look at the number of ratings, verses how many are actually counted, they are the exact same. Meaning not one rating is discounted. Meaning either Calvinball is turned off, or it just is not working.

 

Sure I know, blah blah blah...

[mike dixon]

<i>You offer nothing to this site from what I have seen and read.</i><P>

Perhaps if you ventured outside of the ratings and feedback forum . . .

[vincetylor]

Sorry Mike. I am sure there are things not visible. But rather than complain because I make a point, why not look at the posssible validity of that point??

 

Calvinball was implemented because Brian finally acknowledged mate-rating has been through the roof. Well, it appears to be off, because the same old song and dance continues...

[mg]

"Calviball appears to be having zero impact on the TRP as of 2/22/05. It appears the only thing accomplished has been the slashing of many honest ratings on photographers that do not cheat the system. The same mate-raters with many images posted are once again plastered all over the TRP with no adjustments to their ratings whatsoever."

<p>

I haven't checked, so I will suppose for a moment that you checked carefully and that what you are saying is right... Now, have you checked on older images...? I have had a look, at random, a couple of days ago, and saw a couple of images with 3 to 5 ratings missing, and even one image with 10 ratings missing out of less than 30... So, could it just be that Calvinball was turned off for a while, or that it would only be turned on after a couple of days - not immediately after the picture was uploaded...?

<p>

Another thing I had noticed about that picture with 10 ratings missing out of 30: its average had gone down after deletion of ratings from, say, 6.5/6.6 to somethinglike 6.3/6.4... Not really a major difference... What does that tell us...? It tells us simply that there might not be enough honest people rating images they consider weak. If all 30 ratings this picture had were 6s and 7s (as it was more or less the case), deleting a couple of 6s and 7s won't make a major difference, right...? The difference will appear only if they are people who rated these images low as well. So here is my question: what have you done and what have honest raters out there done to help the system...?

<p>

I have, for quite some time, on and off, done my fare share of rating images as I found appropriate, and you are the one who called it abusive... Meanwhile I have received my fair share of retaliations, and it still goes on, trust me - a couple more 1s and 2s in the last few days...:-) Yet, nothing will stop me... Have 100 raters express their opinions everywhere like Bailey Seals or like me on regular basis, and suddenly Calvinball + a collective effort will solve the problem once and for all... The problem at present may be the lack of "balance-raters", but then, people like you said that balance ratings were abusive... So, what exactly do you want ? A photo.net world with no low raters and no low ratings, and where Calvinball would solve all problems...?

[vincetylor]

"So, could it just be that Calvinball was turned off for a while, or that it would only be turned on after a couple of days - not immediately after the picture was uploaded...? Marc G.

 

That would defeat the purpose of "Calvinball" in my mind Marc. If these mated images receive three or even seven days of TRP exposure BEFORE the system kicks in, what's not to like about that if you are playing the mate-game?? Sure they will just delete plenty afterwards, as has already been the case.

 

"I have, for quite some time, on and off, done my fare share of rating images as I found appropriate, and you are the one who called it abusive..." and "The problem at present may be the lack of "balance-raters", but then, people like you said that balance ratings were abusive"... Marc G.

 

Well Marc, I've tried to avoid having to get into this again with you, because it would only embarass you as it did before, a couple years ago. Since you keep asking for a spanking, you just may in fact receive one. I will let it go one last time. Your ratings were not honest ratings before. It was proven. They were just as you have labeled them "balance-raters" ratings. One high (unfair-dishonest-cheating) rating is "balanced" by a low (unfair-dishonest-cheated) rating. I can understand why many did participate in that lowball party, but it was not right. Even if it was acceptable, do you really believe it will make a difference with the biggest abusers?? I will not participate in that type of dishonesty either. And why should I, you, or anybody have to?? This is an issue BRIAN has agreed to do something about. HE should indeed be the one to take some drastic measures against the ones who've been taking advantage of the system. HIS gallery and HIS website suffers because of this problem. As it is now, his "Calvinball" (having high ratings cancel out each other) absolutely eliminated many honest ratings. There is no way around that fact. He instead should just focus on the obvious abusers, the ones clearly cheating the system, in my opinion.

 

It is getting to the point where it's an old boring problem not gettin handled properly. Like you, I am beginning to just not care anymore. It's not my problem. Thanks for the thoughts.

[mg]

"Your ratings were not honest ratings before. It was proven"

<p>

Oh yes...? Nowthat's interesting...:-))) Proven by whom and how, please...? Could it proven by the fact I disliked some of your over-saturated and poorly composed pictures by any chance...? :-)

[vincetylor]

It had nothing to do with me. Does Francis Toussaint ring a bell?? Don't make me get the paddle out Marco. It hurt last time, probably hurt again...

 

heh

[WJT]

The TRP is a stinking joke, they are not even subscribers for God's sake! The photographs do not even have RFC's. Yet the inflated mate rating orgy continues on and on at the expense of those members who help support this bloody site. The mutual 7's are being exchanged with impunity. This isn't "gaming" the system; it's a putrid hijacking of it. This is sick.<p>

This site does not need vigilante justice (aka balance rating). Normalizing the ratings by placing dishonest low rates will add further insult to a corrupted system. Even more importantly, why impune your own integrity by doing that? When you see something is wrong you don't fix it by removing what is right. The only solution is to grab a hold of these people and make them an offer that they can't refuse.

[mg]

Please do take out your paddle, Mister Smartguy...

[mg]

When you write "Normalizing the ratings by placing dishonest low rates will add further insult to a corrupted system"...

<p>

I think you are just repeating what your heard from Mr Smartguy... Again, who told you about a "normalization" ? And who told you that "low rates" were necessarily "dishonest" ? What a nonsense... You and your good friend Vincent may be interested in reading again the "balance" thread started long ago by Doug Burgess, and in which you should read the real definition of what a "balance rating" was supposed to mean in the first place. THEN, if you still believe that some low ratings on some pictures (yours or not, makes no difference)were abusive, either write to the abuse department, or show some evidence to support your accusations. Feel free to post links to pictures that I supposedly rated "abusively". I have never made any mystery about what I think of a given picture, and have no problem explaining a rating I gave. On the other hand, I'm getting a bit tired of ad hominem attacks which are not substantiated by any evidence.

<p>

You and Vince may want to realize at some point in time, as Mike said, that low ratings are NOT ALL NECESSARILY ABUSIVE...

[root]

I have taken some heat for recently defining the term mate rating very broadly. This bothers people who need to make a distinction between people who blatantly exchange high rates and those who simply rate high and often. The idea that I haven't been able to get across clearly yet (at least to most of the high-and-often crowd) is that there is no distinction between the two subgroups in the high raters category because the result are the same in two respects.

 

1) High raters' images appear much higher on the TRP than similar images uploaded by photographer's who don't rate high or often. Bob Dixson uploaded two similar images some time ago and showed the huge disparity in the average of that clearly demonstrated this point.

 

2) Photographers whose images routinely get to the top TRP pages almost without exception believe the high status of their images to be justified and therefore are offended when someone expresses an opinion to the contrary in a comment or a rate. This is further reinforced by those inflicted with the halo effect running to the support of these high rating / prominent photographers and responding in a way that characteristically has no comment worth reading (which shows it to be the knee jerk reaction that it is and reveals its true motivation and lack of understanding of the social dynamics involved.)

 

Vincent, as an example, I find the use of a sunset filter to be tacky and lowers my aesthetic appreciation of an image where it's used, regardless of who uses it. I also take the 'originality' rating seriously instead of applying it as a piggyback number to the mostly inappropriate subject-as-aesthetic rate.

 

The ratings tutorial makes perfectly good sense, but it is rarely applied in a way that shows a reasonably sophisticated understanding of its' content. The fact that most popular photographers are complicit in perverting the process does not alter what actually constitutes an image that is aesthetically presented and has an original component, personal tastes not withstanding.

[vincetylor]

Well Marc, you just do not know how to humble yourself and be quiet do you? It seems as an older person you'd start to learn a little from experience here. I read this about you somewhere last week; "I've always found him to be a pompous, bloviating blowhard with way too much time on his hands, shmaltzy taste, and a thin skin stretched tight over an outsized ego." I admit, I still get tears in my eyes from laughing so hard... But here we go again.

 

I do not know how or what you rate today since of course the ratings are now semi-anonyous. I would have to guess you are still lowballing, since that is exactly what you were doing a year and a half ago! Interesting then, how you only sought out photographers on the *TOP PHOTOGRAPHERS PAGE* to pull your little stunts. You would go through the entire folders of at least a dozen (or more) of these photographers slamming down ratings that were not only 1-3 points below their listed averages, but you were also rating these a full point or more lower than YOUR OWN listed averages. Francis Toussaaint (remember him Marc?) was where you hung yourself for all to see. Remember the "BURIED BY HIS OWN NUMBERS" proof?? I laid out for all to see that BEFORE Mr. Toussaint was on that top photographers page, you rated his images altogether (approx 15 at the time) OVER a 6/6 average. Then, AFTER he made it ahead of you on the top photographers page (around number three all-time) you slammed him by rating another 16 images with an average in the low to mid 4s. Now, did poor Mr. Toussaint actually digress THAT MUCH as a photographer in such a short period of time Mr Gougenheim?? Or were you on another one of your "lowballing" missions?? And remember, you were rating all of these photographere much lower than YOUR OWN posted averages. Poor Adam was getting regular 2s and 3s. Remember those. You even said yourself, he was hammered by you. It was a long list Marco. Remember too your quote "These people cannot be better than Emil"?? You were going to try to rearrage the order of the top photographer to fit your likes. At least you tried.

 

Now for the hypocrite of the month award (or another OSCAR MAYER, FULL OF BOLOGNA STATUE): Here comes the comment from you just last week. Carl Root said this:

 

"You wrote: "If there was one person on this site who understood that portfolio visits can be abusive in a way that won't be corrected, I would have thought it would be you." Carl Root

 

Your hypocritical reply sir Marco was this:

 

You are bloody right here, Carl...:-) I have had dozen of times people going through my folders with average ratings as low as 2.XX and such. :-) And many times, indeed, these ratings (which I assume, perhaps wrongly, that they were abusive) remained. BUT... Lately, I saw that many abusive ratings were deleted on the site - and on my pages as well... " Marc G.

 

Well, well, well, so some people had the nerve to rate YOUR images almost 2 points lower than their averages did they?? They were "abusive" (in your own words) were they?? Then tell us Marc, if you did this very same thing, what does that make YOUR ratings?? Abusive?? Lowballing?? Or are you trying to tell us that ONLY when it was done to your images it is abusive?? Of course when you do it, they are sincere, they are honest, they are true! Sure pal, whatever you'd like to convince yourself. But Marc, we know what you are really doing. And the fact that you have the nerve to be a hypocrite about it to boot only makes your actions even more lowly. At least Doug was willing to admit the balance brigade was actually using lower than honest ratings. So why not learn from him and at least be honest about your lowballing tactics towards photographers rated higher than you??

 

Since as you tell us, you are still getting hammered by others, I venture to say, you are still doing the same today. Most of us try to learn from our mistakes. "Those that refuse to learn from history, are destined to repeat it". Welcome back to Photo.net, why did you leave again??

 

 

[root]

"At least Doug was willing to admit the balance brigade was actually using lower than honest ratings."

 

Vincent, that is not my recollection. Please show me where he said that.

[vincetylor]

Doug Burgess , jul 05, 2003; 02:29 p.m.

"Suppose there were balance brigade? My answer to that is that if there is a "group" of members that promote an image (mate raters), wouldn't it be natural for there to be a "group" of members that feel the opposite? If not natural, then how about appropriate? Why can one group exist and be excused, and not the other? If Mate Rating can exist, yet be denied by those who practice it on the grounds that they are simply rating images they like, what is wrong with a Balance Brigade doing the opposite to the same images because they don't like them?"

 

Doug Burgess , jul 05, 2003; 08:03 p.m.

"Right Vincent, and this is why the word is "balance" and not revenge, or attack, etc. Both "groups" strive for objectivity, but are subject to human nature, so if one rates high by virtue of fallible human nature, then the other's being low by the same virtue is still a balance. The result should be a more accurate assessment of an image's true worth, I would hope. As it is, thinking in terms of groups or teams, the Mate Raters have little to be afraid of as the Balance Brigade is woefully out numbered and the affect of one or two balancing opinions has little overall effect on a portfolio."

 

 

My reply then:

 

Vincent K. Tylor , jul 05, 2003; 07:17 p.m.

"I can agree with your comment in both principle and as a current fact Doug. Let's at least call a spade a spade here and agree that the balance brigade DOES rate to balance the mate-raters, NOT just to rate honestly. Fine if you wish to balance it all out, I can accept and live with that. Some high rated images are overrated. Mate-rating exists and is wrong as you say....I agree. So then, the balance brigade is wrong as well...dong the exact same thing but the opposite way. However I wish ALL would be upfront with what the brigade is truly doing here. You might for example see an image that in your own opinion deserves a 5/5. Yet because the mate-raters have given some 6s and 7s, the temptation will probably cause the balance brigade to give this a 4/4. NOT an honest rating....perhaps on both sides. My argument is that this balance brigade movement is also not rating with complete objectivity. THAT is my point exactly. At least Doug is agreeing that's the case!"

 

Will that suffice Carl?? Perhaps do your own homework next time.

 

"Vincent, as an example, I find the use of a sunset filter to be tacky and lowers my aesthetic appreciation of an image where it's used, regardless of who uses it." Carl Root

 

Carl, since I did not reply the last time you said the exact same thing (just last week) on Richard's image, you surely must know that your opinion on my using a filter on an image carries very little value. I do believe one can benefit from such a tool designed for photographers. I do not use one all of the time, but often will shoot with and without from any given location. It just so happens as you gain experienece, the images with one applied correctly are often (not always) aesthetically more appealing. And since this is not a hobby for me, I will often use these images in our print/gift lines. If you have an issue with that, I can respect your point of view.

 

I can see why Doug stopped posting in all forums but one. What a waste!

 

Walter, I couldn't agree more with you. Word for word!

[WJT]

I am not attacking you personally, you just have to settle down and collect your thoughts. I won't change your opinion of me, nor will I try. I agree with you unequivocally that low rates are not by themselves abusive. They are as necessary to the system as any other rate that is given, as long as they are given honestly. But if I, for example, should visit one of the mate-rated photographs and lowball it because it is being artifically pumped-up in the TRP, I would be as guilty as the mate raters. I do not believe in smoothing of ratings, whether here or anywhere else in life. <p>

You quote my phrase on nomalizing, but I direct you also to the rhetorical question that followed it. I restate it here: why impune your own integrity? If one rates, or comments, using any motive other than one that was specifically initiated by the work at hand, it is false and corrupting. I am actually unfamiliar with how you yourself rate and comment on photographs. I assume that it is done honestly. I am completely unfamiliar with your involvement with Toussaaint. I will have to take a look at that because, if memory serves, I thought that he had some pretty nice work.<p>

My reason for posting the previous comment was that it is obvious that Brian's method is not working. It seemed to have a good effect soon after the first implementation of it, but it is not working now. A more direct approach is needed. <p>

[mg]

"You were going to try to rearrange the order of the top photographer to fit your likes. At least you tried."

<p>

This is, Vincent, the only sentence in your long nonsensical post, that I may agree with. Assuming here you mean the following...

<p>

I was indeed going regularly, for a couple of years in fact (and I'm still doing it these days), through the top photographers list, and indeed I saw pictures that I liked a lot, and others that I liked, and others that I did not like at all.

<p>

As far as I am concerned, this is not a crime: it's MY taste. Never rated, as far as I recall, any picture by Fred Vnoucek a 2. 3s on very rare occasions, lots of 4s and 5s, some 6s, some very rare sevens. The same for you. Again, you'd get such ratings by LOADS of photographers, if only they took the time to post on your pages.

<p>

Please try to realize that any rating to any picture on the site contributes either to promote this picture to higher visibility, or to demote it. I did rate many pictures, sometimes by the same photographers, indeed, to DEMOTE them. Why ? Because I thought they didn't deserve the visibility they had. I believe I am entitled to think this way, and entitled to cast my vote just like anybody else. That's what I did. I casted my votes (ratings) in order to contribute (but honestly) to rearranging the ratings to MY LIKING - and certainly not to help my own standings here or there - what a ridiculous hypothesis...

<p>

Nana Souza, Emil Schildt, J. Gründler and Richard van Hoesel (although Richard's work is perhaps less original) are 3 photographers I have great respect for. They are not my "mates", hardly ever rated my work, and they were in the top 10 photographers on this site. Yet, I rated their work much higher than you would, and certainly higher than I rated your's or Igor L's. Sorry, but that is just MY taste. And Adam was not low-balled at all. Ask Tony Dummett, Ian McEachern, Emil Schildt or even Brian Mottershead for example (or carl Root!) what they think of the pictures by Igor L. or Adam that I rated a 2, and you may be surprised to hear the heat that will fall on these images all of a sudden. The word "garrish" exists for a reason, and you haven't seen much of it, Vincent, but trust me, I've done my fair share of "garrish" PS work. It got slammed at some point in time here and elsewhere, and slowly, I have the feeling I have improved (a little) my capacity to distinguish "garrish" and "original" or "interesting" works.

<p>

All you do in your silly paragraph, is to induce what you believe my goal was, but you have strictly no evidence - of course. You are basically lending me thoughts that you can't demonstrate I had. Show me pictures, and I'll justify my ratings, and you'll demonstrate that my ratings don't make any sense - if you can. And I'd try to call a couple of people in to give you THEIR opinions of these images. Don't hide behind words, Vincent, don't be scared about talking photography for once... The rest of your polemic can't bluff anyone - well, not anyone with a reasonable mind, at least.

[laurie_m]

Although I've been tempted to "balance rate" on more than one occasion (on both the low and high end), it seems it will just exacerbate, or at best perpetuate, the current problem. Lets say I see an image with a pile of undeserved 7/7s. I give it a rate obviously lower than it deserves in hopes it will put that average closer to what I consider an appropriate rate. That will likely result in someone else giving an inflated rate to "balance" my low rate. Eventually, it will become impossible to get any honest or appropriate rates on an image. It will simply turn into a war between the raters and have nothing to do with the merits of the photo. Of course, there is always the retaliation rates that will inevitably follow. It looks to me that the only sensible approach, considering the variables out of our control, is to rate honestly, if at all, and forget the TRP. As it is now, the TRP with a few exceptions is populated with so many images from the mate rate crowd that the honor of being at the top has been diluted to such a degree that it's meaningless. It's especially regrettable for the photographers whose images make it there on true merit.

 

I'm not sure what happened to Calvinball. Perhaps Brian put himself in the penalty box and isn't playing right now. It did seem to have some positive effect for a brief time.

[mg]

you wrote: "If one rates, or comments, using any motive other than one that was specifically initiated by the work at hand, it is false and corrupting. I am actually unfamiliar with how you yourself rate and comment on photographs. I assume that it is done honestly."

<p>

I agree with the first line. Thanks for having the humility Vincent seems to lack, and not judging me or others based on assumptions.

<p>

Now... The story about Mr Toussaint... If I remember it properly - and I do, more or less - Vincent's story is roughly correct, yet probably a bit exagerated. Saying that all my ratings to Mr Toussaint's work were 6s at the beginning is probably wrong, but yes, I rated some pictures of his that I liked at 6/6 or 6/5, or 5/5... Vincent forgets to mention that Mr Toussaint was already at that time a "top photographer". Later, indeed, I went to inspect his folders more closely, and yes, I did find some weaker pictures - imo. Is that really so surprising ? I believe I have weaker shots too. I believe they are weaker pictures in about anyone's folders in fact: even Tony Dummett and Emil Schildt have slightly weaker pictures - and they are well aware of that, I'm sure. Imo it really takes a very self-sufficient, closed and ignorant mind, for someone to believe ALL his pictures can only be excellent or very good.

<p>

For example, Walter... I recently rated one of your shots, with a 6/6. I have gone through your folders already, but haven't rated many pictures of yours at all so far; but I did see images that were imo worth a 3/4, and many 4s or 5s. I don't see the point of rating much more of your works right now. But if tommorrow you are one of the most featured photographers on this site, then I'll rate more of your pictures, and post a couple of comments - including harsh ones on the pictures of yours I find weaker. Why ? Because more people will then read my comments, and because I'd always say so if I see an Emperor with (imo) no pants. What's the problem with that ? I would do the same with absolutely anyone on this site. I wish Brian Mottershead could for example show you all my ratings to Doug Burgess so far. You'd see some 3s, and plenty of 4s and 5s too. He never complained about such ratings... I no longer complain about ratings like 3/4s and such on pictures which are "risky"... I did, long ago, but I later realized "it's like that". Some people don't see clean technique as a sufficient reason to rate a shot at a minimum of 4/4 - even I don't, in fact... So what...?

<p>

When I talk about low raters nowadays, I talk about folks rating pictures 1s and 2s. And yes, sometimes I see or i even know there is malice in such ratings. And I don't even bother writing to abuse - haven't done so for about a year... Where Vincent is mistaken is to think that his cute shots are necessarily worth more than a 4/4. Rating Vincent's present pictures a 1 or a 2 makes no sense, but 4s are meant for "fair" pictures, and are not "low ratings" - unless you are used to nothing but 6s from your friends of course...:-)

[mg]

I can't agree with this: "Although I've been tempted to "balance rate" on more than one occasion (on both the low and high end), it seems it will just exacerbate, or at best perpetuate, the current problem. Lets say I see an image with a pile of undeserved 7/7s. I give it a rate obviously lower than it deserves in hopes it will put that average closer to what I consider an appropriate rate. That will likely result in someone else giving an inflated rate to "balance" my low rate. Eventually, it will become impossible to get any honest or appropriate rates on an image."

<p>

If you think carefully about what you just wrote, if you rate a mate-rated picture a 4/4, how could any of the "mates" possibly COMPENSATE for your rating - they already applied a 7/7, and there are no eights...:-)) Nobody needs to balance anything. Just rate a picture for what you think it's worth. It's THAT simple. If they want to, they can still create fake IDs to make their points-count raise of course... Well, let them...:-)

[vincetylor]

"I did rate many pictures, sometimes by the same photographers, indeed, to DEMOTE them. Why ? Because I thought they didn't deserve the visibility they had. I believe I am entitled to think this way, and entitled to cast my vote just like anybody else. That's what I did. I casted my votes (ratings) in order to contribute (but honestly) to rearranging the ratings to MY LIKING -" Marc G.

 

So to "rearrange the ratings to YOUR LIKING" (in your own words Marc) you are in fact manipulating the system to a large degree. You should rate each image according the the value of THAT particular image itself and NOT according to where you believe they belong. Now that this *absurd* type of thinking is printed for all to see, it would not surprise me if all of your ratings were deleted. And what makes your actions even more contempable, is the fact you have decided to go into entire folders to accomplish this very purpose. Your one sentence critiques were obviously a sham as well, just used as a coverup so your real and true purpose (that of rearranging the photographers location on the TRP) was not so obvious.

 

For some reason your preoccupation with the Top Photographers Page has corrupted your activities on this site. If I were Brian, you'd be banned just from your comment above! And none of that includes all of the other nonsense you bring to this site. I think Brian asked you and Carl; "Why do you keep showing up like a pair of smelly socks"??

 

Yep, sounds about right.