johnmyers Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 "Stephen H , jan 04, 2005; 02:00 p.m. John, I was just looking at the summary of the ratings you have received, and it looks to me like a fairly normal distribution. What exactly WAS your complaint? Is there a specific photo in question?" You must have seen the photo ratings after the 7 2/2 ratings were deleted. I send an email to abuse@photo.net and they took care of it. What I can't believe is that those clones haven't gotten their accounts deleted yet (though I would keep their email addys on file so they can't register again). But then again, I suppose the admin doesn't particularly care about this issue, though it has been going on for years apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Brian: "Overall satisfaction, participation, subscriber revenue, and the overall quality (by my eye) of the photos in the "Top Rated Pages" are the only things that I care about . . ." I wonder if there are any long time members who fully participate in the photo critique forum whose judgement you would value on both the quality of criticism and the quality of the TRP. I suspect that difficulty in coming up with a short list would be a negative indicator of 'overall satisfaction.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmyers Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 Christopher Appoldt, I totally agree with what you just said. I hope it gets taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Crap, I have to break my swear. Brian, PERCEPTION is very, very important to a customer, vocal or silent. How can you begin to assume what they're perceiving? It's pretty important to find out in business of any kind, don't you think?. . . <tips his hat>. . . 'Nuff said. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 One of the problems with this thread here (and other threads running concurrently with this one) is that there are several issues actually being lumped together into one. They need to be separated. If I was a brand new site manager and read all of this, I'd probably just want to go to bed. It is confusing. The *hackers* issue is a bit overblown from my own point of view. Brian mentioned that some of them WERE subscribers. I had my latest image bombed by twelve of these robots a few hours after posting. Went from the first page down to nowhere-land. The next morning they were all removed and ultimately deleted completely. Sure I would have preferred an instantaneous deletion, who wouldn't? But twelve hours later is still very decent, all things considered. I would suggest we give Photo.net a little more slack in that department. They really seem to be "on it" in my mind. The mate-rating, lowballing, skewed, TRP is an entirely different situation. I could not agree more that many photographers whose images are on the top few pages are there solely because of mate-rating, or because of being part of a clique of friends, that have ulterior motives when rating other photographers. When posting my latest image, I followed it carefully as well as others around me on page one of the TRP. It was a rather sad experience to be honest. I saw other photographers who *regularly* have images on that first page rate my image very low (even though they also rated their own friends very high...friends with snapshots in my opinion). At the same time these exact same "snapshot-friends" also rated my work as well as anybody ahead of their photo-buddy on the TRP very low marks. There is an outright conspiracy or movement to down-rate images, simply to move their buddies up. I also saw photographers give the flattering "great work, have a happy new" year remark on hundreds of images, seeking the same in return. This is in addition to the typical mate-rating clubs that still exist in full force. Basically they hand out high marks to the same people regardless of the actual image quality, expecting the same in return. The fact is, it works! Now, because the default page TRP is based on over-all *average* score instead of *number* of ratings, these maters, cliques, lowballers have even greater incentive with the added exposure they receive. The fact that ratings are semi-anonymous only makes the situation worse in my book. Unless you want to carefully monitor your ratings (something I do not plan to do in the future) there is measure of protection to those with insincere intentions. They can hide. The fact Brian that mate-rating, lowballing, cliques etc DOES work, that it DOES alter the TRP and the visibility that follows, is what I believe motivates to people to ask you to do something about it. Marc, Carl, Dave, myself and many many others all over the forums are asking you, the *Head Honcho* out here to try to do something to eliminate the degree of dishonesty that obviously permeates the gallery on this site. By allowing a limited number of 7s on one day to eight, there is obviously some action to try to limit the maters effect. I would also suggest putting the names back up next to the ratings. This way all can clearly see who's up to what. There is more accountability when the truth is exposed for ALL to see. At this point people are asking you to do something, almost anything would seem to be better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 as you know, i suggest more actively incentivizing and encouraging comments to photos, and making them easier to make; i've left you lists of suggestions in the past about this. i urge you to consider this route as a way of dealing with concerns. serious photo posters not overboard into the ego/visibility created by ratings will find a lot of satisfaction by maximizing comments, whatever the ratings. and you don't need to change or inhibit the ratings system to do this. maximizing access is important; guiding people into what it means to be a "good" photo.net citizen is also a part of the process if you want to maintain a stable base of quality photographers, which i maintain is important in the equation along with growth. what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 "...I would also suggest putting the names back up next to the ratings. This way all can clearly see who's up to what. There is more accountability when the truth is exposed for ALL to see..." really? and how would you propose to have specific members be held accountable? give em the wet noodle treatment or...? of course you know that the real answer to that question is the reason why PN now has semi-anonymity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 You are correct Mr. Spaghetti Man! But I believe you must choose between the lesser of two evils at this time. Just look around the site right now. These issues are not imagined. Also, the names made the site more interactive. And certainly the experience was more fun in the opinion of most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 "...serious photo posters not overboard into the ego/visibility created by ratings will find a lot of satisfaction by maximizing comments, whatever the ratings..." nice thought. but nice thoughts require bold action to bring them to fruition. "IMAGE-ON THIS" is one idea of mine that is unique because it requires absolutely NO SITE INVOLVEMENT to get it started. when i have the time i will explain it (again) and attempt to launch it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 much is true sir vincent k. cept for nasty retaliatory comments and emails and complaint emails they generate to abuse, or a lot of the fun you dont get to experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmyers Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 Haha! This is getting pretty funny now. I upset Guillermo Gonzᬥz by giving a real critique to his "top-rated photo". So his buddy, Pedro Arroyo S. rated my own most recent photo with the same rating I gave Guillermo. I swear, people are so stupid/silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 "cept for nasty retaliatory comments and emails and complaint emails they generate to abuse" And this past weekend?? Far more people are jumping out of their skin right now that at any other time since I have been here. It all has to do with mate-ratings, lowballing and the like. At least by putting the names back up, a measure of frustration can be remedied by taking matters into my own hands, by using my own pistols, aka Charles Bronson. Just kidding Brian! By putting the names back up it will lessen the degree of these problems Spaggy. Never has it been so flagrant and ridiculous as it is now. Never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 What John just experienced is happening all of the time now. Sorry John. The cliques are in full force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmyers Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 Not only is it detrimental to rate other people's photos HONESTLY, now we can't even critique them without fear of some ill-mannered retaliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 refreshing to read such honesty, vincent k. dont agree, but is good to read that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 <i>Or maybe we should call B&H or Adorama. Maybe they'd like to know our opinions!</i><P> Now that's funny! After you do call up B&H and Adorama to complain about the ratings system on photo.net, please post a transcript of the conversations here. I'd love to hear the reaction of a typical B&H salesman to such a call, though I suspect it would make Brian's responses look like the model of patience and civility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_collins1 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I've just spent the last hour reading this thread (there goes my lunch time) and I still didn't finish it completely. Can you imagine trying to administer and reply to this flow of forum postings along with the stream of e-mails that Brian must recieve? Information overload, or in this case, complaint overload. Brian, if you ever need help, let me know. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayme Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Mike- the referrence to B&H & Adoroma was just a little tongue in cheek humor. I think Vincent is right, putting back the names next to the rating is one way of making people more accountable. I really like PN, I've met a lot of wonderfully talented people on here. But the way things are going, makes me wonder. But it is nice to be able to voice an opinion, even if it makes no difference to Brian. And Brian- you are pretty rude sometimes, maybe toning down your frustration with our complaints would help defuse the situation a bit. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Jayme, you can think me rude, if you like. But would you prefer that I pretended to listen to the complaints and then ignored them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 The mere fact that Brian is answering the posts in this forum show that he is concerned, and is giving a level of commitment to the users that larger websites never do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Regarding the last changes done in photo.net we can see <b>Brian concerns:</b><p> <b>Retaliation ratings</b> -> (semi)-anonymous ratings change is a big success! The comments like "you rated my photos 4/4 how can you, you ignorant" are now nearly history. Increasing newbies perception of photo.net.<p> <b>Mate ratings</b> -> limiting the number of 7/7 + changing the TRP photos rules (from number of rattings to average of rattings) decreasing the influence of mate ratings. Improving a bit the TRP galleries.<p> <b>Any ideas to make the system more fair will be more than welcome especially if it will not add efforts from the newbies, not increasing the number of action they do.</b><p> So here is my suggestion: from my own experience I would say that people give too much importance to the ratings game, it is really insane. Especially because the results are imediate. Me too I can't help to check it from time to time the first day. So why not display the ratings after a delay of 3 days? During these 3 days the one who rates a photo will not be influenced by the previous ratings, mates raters will not fool themselves with a "7/7 I can believe my eyes or other 7/7 I had seen god face" to discover that the photo after the 3 days had scored only 3.2/3.2<p> Moreover the photographer will care less about the rating because he will discover them when the games is finished (it is the difference between watching a football match or just listen the final score in the news)<p> But to be effective it will require that the photo will not be displayed on the TPR gallery before that 3 days. This way if people want to mate rate they still can do but their influence will become minimal. The 1/1s will be deleted as right now but will be unoticed by everyone.<p> This formula can be tested quite easily - not too much work to be done, no drastic changes, and it will certainly benefit to most of us. Just one thing it will certainly decrease the average rating but we can all live with that. well maybe not all ;-)<p> <b>Any other one wants to support this idea? As Brian requested from us to first agree about a proposition before he will think about it.</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 <b>To summarize the idea: keep the ratings confidential the first 3 days. But what to do if people mate-rates then submit for critique the 4th day? Each request for critiques should reset the previous ratings!</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_milbank Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Yvonne and I have just quit, and asked Brian to give us pro-rata refunds because we've been subscribers for such a short time...about one calendar month. We are not among the (to paraphrase) few who've been making the same tired old complaints for a long time. We are new customers who are extremely discontented with a flawed system and with Brian's lack of interest in fixing it. We read that he puts much value in 'honor', so I'm hopeful that he will give us refunds. I will hit the unsubscribe button tomorrow whether or not I get an acknowledgment from Brian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brncr6 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I am here becuase I can see my ratings, Ratings are why I am here, I have had very few comments on my photos. So ratings are important. I see no problem with the way PN works right now. I could see no point in submitting a photo if I had too wait three day for my rating, If that was the case I would leave PN and just ask my wife what she thought of my photos or try a new site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabriella_lucia Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Brian says limiting ratings would encourage the mate raters, that may or may not be the case but I don't understand why this site has in effect has endorsed a group of vandals who hang around the TRP and rate low just to bring ratings down. By the way this group or more likely one person is a non-paying member. It's seems this site is more interested in appeasing these people who bring zero to the table. FC, GW, YL and friends have some pull here. It?s a joke and it derogates the site. 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