This is getting ridiculous!

[bens]

okay, so its a fantastic site, you've been around almost a year, and you can afford a canon 16-35/2.8 lens. so why not support the site financially?

[mark_j_james]

Hi there Ben,

 

Thanks for looking at my Portfolio!

 

Good point.

Check out:

http://www.photo.net/photonet-subscriptions

It is probably about time I upgraded my membership, but my use of the site over the past year can definatly be described as infrequent. Therefore I havn't. This is probably about to change, as I will be in a position to use the site more frequently, but thats not the point.

 

Oh, and I dont own a 16-35mm lens.... The bank does!

 

 

Mark

[a.cule]

Or however it is said :) <br>

I think that idea that only paying members should rate is not at the present good idea.<br>

Why?<br>

Just because that there are many of us who can't use pay pal services to pay.<br>

If there were some other way - that would be maybe different.<br>

(personally, this is the first site I would like to be member - not to achieve some benefit for myself, but to help this great site to exist - unfortunately, I can't pay via pay pal, PN is not accepting credit cards....)<br>

<br>

But, the beauty of this site is just for having so many members- from novices up to old "wolves" in photography.<br>

This rating is not quite good. But I haven't heard of completely good rating system anywhere...<br>

<br>

However, I do have an idea - just idea, since I'm not familiar with software behind photo.net.<br>

<br>

How about that rating system becomes like posting photos system - one can rate only one (or few) photos per day if he is not subscriber.<br>

Plus, new accounts can not rate let's say for first 3 days.<br>

It would lessen malversations, at least, it seems to me...<br>

Alex

[vertigoclimb]

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=371498

[vertigoclimb]

I would report it to abuse but, all someone needs to do is read these threads to know that if they give a some high rates they are free to abuse others at will and their abusive rates will stay because it they're balanced. silly. anybody could figure that out.

 

sigh... I guess the abusers win and it's our job to accept it.

[acearle]

Okay, I've read about 1/3 of this thread, and there are valid complaints, and valid responses from p.net...

 

...I *do* take issue with Brian's "So What?" comment, but the simple fact is that p.net is a rather unique site, and he has a monopoly so he can get away with it.

 

HOWEVER, if *I* were in his position, I'd DEFINITELY do a customer satisfaction survey, maybe even incorporating a list of suggested changes for the person taking the survey to rank, that way he would have a good idea what some of the less vocal people think (errr, I think that the p.net rating system is fun, but take it about as seriously as finding a nickle lying on the sidewalk...I also realize that in art, photography, and music, that you are NEVER going to be able to enthrall ALL of the people and SOMEONE is ALWAYS going to *hate* what you do....hopefully the odd person now and again will like it....

 

BUT, this is my official vote for a customer satisfaction survey, it would only provide good information and metrics to p.net management, and would give them a statistical defence instead of a "go to hell" defence of "So What?"

 

Personally, I'm still undecided as to whether or not I'll renew my membership, probably...the ratings are worthless to me, as I can no longer see who is giving the rating (a low rating from a great photog is USEFUL to me, a low or high rating from someone shooting snapshots of his/her own navel with a disposable camera is one that I used to ignore).

[acearle]

That has to be one of the most fascinating studies I've seen on ratings...on two occasions, I've deleted and re-uploaded a photo (errr, both times because I'd somehow missed a HUGE cat hair or something like that which had gotten onto the scanner, I really should not post process under the influence of exhaustion). What surprised me was the HUGE difference in average ratings (both times was a long enough ago that I can't remember the exact numbers, or even if it was 2 or 3 or 4 shots). My recollection is that in some cases, the new ratings were appreciably higher, and on others appreciably lower, but I could be wrong (still working on my second cuppa coffee here, gimme a break :-D)...

 

My point is that a different set of raters will give different ratings averages, BUT, that being said, I do notice that p.net ratings averages drift over time, almost following the moon phase or something from my knothole....some months averages seem higher, some months lower...I dunno, that's one reason I use ratings as a general thing, not really that important...

 

However, the down drift that seems to appear in your folder is significiant, as is the fact that some idjit would rate ANYTHING there a 2/2 is mindboggling (okay, I admit it, if I was to become a mate rater, I'd head for your portfolio, I love it....and I *do* have a tendency to look at shots that I initially like from the thumbnail and have a bump at the higher end of my curve as a result, but why on earth would I look at something I didn't think I was gonna like? There are only 24 hours in a day, and life is too short to spend an awful lot of time looking at things I don't like)...

[louis1]

I did this with my top image = Feb 2003 got 158 - 5.38/5.74 and the second time round

Feb 2004 it got 25 - 5.88/5.32.

It is still up in people folder

 

 

When I remarked on this before Brian deleted the comment!!

[scott_j]

Brian and All,

There is considerable interest in this problem evidenced by the book written above. To say this has been this way for so long and being happy with the status que is sad. I want a site that wants to improve, to find ways to be better. Consider what might be! PN could be much more successful. Many of us say we are not concered with ratings, if that were so, none of them would have written in responses, we are all impacted by the nonsense, some more than others. But, what is important it is impacting PN.

 

Number one rule about customer comments is you only hear from about a few percent of those actually concerned about an issue. That implies there is a much larger population on PN that are concerned about this issue of false ratings.

 

PN should consider what could be, this is an easy issue to fix... So I make my recommendations: a.) if a rating of less than 3 is entered, a critique is required. b.)The rater must be identified and PN contact information provided. In this way a dialog can be generated between the receiver and sender for the purpose of photo improvement.

 

If this is to much of a hassle to the low raters then their rating is not worth the bits and bytes of memory. Those honestly rating are likely and pleased to link a low rating with their critque. I would say this should also be true for ratings of 7 as well.

 

The code is not so difficult to write, so what is the honest resistance to this on going issue. To be the status que photo site, no I think not, so what is it, budget, staffing, know how, profit, lets put the real issue on the table. I hope for a PN site that thinks about what it can be.

Regards,

Scott Jenkins

[johne37179]

Damn! And I thought all those 2s I was getting were real and I was getting really inspired to finally get my act together...now, I find out they were fiction...all that inspiration wasted!

[alex-m]

If I may (playing a bit of devils advocate here)

I would like to over-simplify by saying that Brian is overworked and most likely has difficulties with the tremendous growth rate. I have to admit at first I was angered by some of the ratings (and complained... grins at Brian) because it did not teach me anything. Now I have adapted to my own interpretation of the rating system (and leave Brian alone), because (and with help, indirectly) of some good people I have had the privelege to listen to and even meet some of them (Thank you, Brian for that platform). There are some folks here, within PN who have formed a, lets call it an association, that is open to anyone who wishes to escape the rating stuff. I loved reading their outline under which they critique and rate. Among them you post anonymously (generic name for all) and critique under your name.

Very constructive!!!

 

I can promise a few things:

there will always be trolls on public forums!(deal with it!)

servers will always bog at some stage!

and my ego will take a pounding here and there... over there too... (grins).

But with the help and encouragement of some folks here, I am learning to cope. There are a lot more good people here than bad. The evidence is right here in this thread. Some very good thoughts have been expressed by many of you and your basic willingnes to communicate compliments your intent.

 

May I offer the idea (I always poke a little fun at things if I can get away with it and its really not my idea)to start a photo gallery, open to all, with the starting theme: "anger at internet trolls". I will gladly offer some of my alotted PN space to do this (or Brian could allow a small gallery alotment... hint hint.. on a rotating image basis with maybe a 100 image max or so (once the limit is reached, it pushes the bottom picture out). Here is how we could do this: First you post your contribution to your own PN home page. I'll create the gallery on my PN space and post the starter picture. You access the folder through my PN home page and open the starter picture. Click on "Contribute a critique" and post your image with html. For those who don't know how or don't want to know how, I'll furnish a template where all you would have to do is cut 'n paste the url into it (its really not hard) or you can make your own. Better yet, Brian has all the templates for this in place... (hint again... grins). I think I've rambled enough... Live long and prosper!

[stever2]

Cleverly disguised as non paying (my check was in fact sent 2 weeks ago but i know checks take forever), i found this thread informative. These last 3 weeks of browsing some, rating some, commenting some,and posting some (2) pics has confirmed my suspicion that,yes, the 68 bucks for 3 years was going to help my photographic skills.

I have received one comment. A nice fellow helpfully pointed out feeling in a picture that i had taken for geometry and light. I will recognize the emotion more readily in the future.

I have received a total of 15 ratings on the 2 pics both from subscribers and non subsribers alike. I have rate 18 pics, commented on 6 or so. I no longer rate without comment.

What i would find helpful are the two following changes:

1. attach names to ratings.

I understand the concern over revenge ratings and the "TRP" issues, and the math of eliminating low and limiting high ratings, but I beleive that the value gained by the poster from being able to view the works of a rater as insight for the rating given outweigh those concerns.

2. present the option to see the "lowest rated pictures" by any member in addition to the "highest rated pictures".

This allows the poster to learn from those photos how the rater critically views photos.

My understanding is that photo.net is a place in which learning is emphasized and personal growth encouraged. These two options would aid those goals.

For those good enough to be attacked, my sympathy. If the rater is identified at least then you can publically post a comment on your own picture asking for the 'why' of it from that rater. If there is no response, others will notice its lack of existence.