"Mate Rating" Ain't All Bad

[david robinson]

Mark, you have restricted the universe of mate raters to those who only go about it in rather crass and obvious ways. There are others who are much more subtle, but who are mate rating nontheless. I repeat: we are all mate raters.

[howard_foto]

I just had a moment of thrilling recall that simply went beyond the photographic cut-and-dry. it would not have happened had I not made connection with this photographer. see my comment on what this photo evoked for me regarding a classic film shot at the same location 80 years ago:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3186325

[yani_luva]

Check the end of<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=1127619&include=all"> <b>THIS</b>.</a>

[WJT]

Sorry Ben, I not only emphatically disagree with your position but I am also dumbfounded that you even took it. The abuse of mate-rating does not, as you suggest, motivate "...people to take more photographs...to strive to improve..." but rather the exact opposite. The abusers do not consider improvement necessary since they are at the obvious pinnacle of thier accomplishments, while the contributions from the honest members atrophy because of increasing levels of frustration. It is a sad situation in which no one wins.<p>

 

In addition, your position fails to address the scenario in which the serious and dedicated mate-rater imbarkes on a mission to lowball those who disagree. Uncorrected, abuse leads to an exacerbation of the problem and more abuse. <p>

 

Ben, is it lawful to cheat? Is it lawful to deny other well-meaning honest members (most of them <b>paying members</b>) the fair unencumbered use of this site. I restate my rhetorical question above: when your child misbehaves do you punish your neighbor? For that is exactly what the parent (adopted parent) of this site is doing. The first and best solution is to directly correct the abuse by dealing directly with the abusers. <p>

 

 

 

Off Topic: I always suspected that Gary Cohen Golarka Pasta-man just couldn't stay away. He, his other avatars, and the other abusers have, as Ivan said above, destroyed the once wonderful showcase of PhotoNet. Everyone, and I mean everyone, that I work with roll in fits of laughter when they see what is being presented, foolishly commented, and blindly rated without limitations on the TRP. None of the Pro-photogs that I work with would now even consider posting here, let alone contributing financially. It is an embarassment to say that I have posted anything here. This site is dying a rapid and ignominious death.

[vincetylor]

I agree with you Walter!

 

The deterioration of the Photo.net (in my opinion) began when they instituted the "TOP PHOTOGRAPHERS" page to begin with. It was at that point the ratings took on a new meaning here. All ratings on all images all of a sudden mattered more. I never even knew that page existed until another photographer told me about it. Admittedly I too became conscious of that list. Perhaps too aware. Before that, the only other important list/view was the Top rated photos which happened to be a 7-day default view at the time, now a three day view. I believe mate-rating really began to take off once that list of Top Photographers was posted a few years ago. This was the start of the wrong direction in my mind.

 

I also believe the site took a major step backwards when the decision to make the raters semi-anonymous was implemented. The bottom line for myself and many others was that it was much more fun before, since everybody was better connected. If an experienced photographer rated an image, it was nice to see his name and rating. Many times people would take the time to look through my older work as well and leave plenty of ratings. Now, it happens far less often, plus there is no way to even know what they thought about those images unless leaving a comment after each rating. Sometimes people simply do not feel like typing out a comment, so leaving a rating would be the next best thing. Especially was this helpful, when I knew a particular photographers work. To do that now, the rating would have to be a 6/6 or higher for the photographer to know what the rating was (IF he was willing to go through all the clicking to do so). Go less than 6/6 and people might think you left the 3/3 or whatever lower numbers were given. Just know way to know for sure. Yes, giving comments are better, but at the end of the day, sometimes you just don't feel like it. Ratings DO have meaning to the photographer and always will. Doing away with the names then, was a major step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

 

Another step backwards (but not a significant one) was when the ratings process took on additional scrolling and clicking. Just making the procedure more tedious, less enjoyable. Changing the systems default and large view was another step backwards. Before, the default view was the highest quality and you'd lose a little quality at the large view. Now, IF you even offer a large view, the default is noticably inferior. I no longer even bothered with that after the change.

 

Categorizing images was initially a nice move so many thought. However after doing that, the TRP was all of a sudden filled with images containing nudity because the default view was based on NUMBER of ratings. So, because management does not allow a member to filter OUT that category, the TRP default view had to be changed from *number* of ratings to *average* score of ratings once again. This may initially have seemed like the fair and correct decision, yet what a mistake it turned out to be. Now, the mate-raters really had even greater reasons to fire up that entire process of collecting mates, because now the images with these highest averages would be featured most prominently. Both the Top Photographers pages AND the default view are the rewards for those willing to game the system. And GAME the system they have! Mate-rating is worse now than ever before because the rewards are greater than ever before. Lowballing is also very bad (for the same reasons) though usually the result of a few very bad apples or bots. The Faith Cohen/Golarkas/ etc. fiasco went on far too long despite numerous complaints about these lowballers, causing many to leave the site altogether. Calvinball has been a terrible way of handling the mate-raters as well. Haphazardly enforced, and eliminating very honest ratings in the process. Just adding to the downward spiral of the site from many a photographers point of view.

 

When I first joined almost three years ago, the quality of talented photographers on this site was tremendous!! I was quite intimidated but also felt privileged to learn from so many great and artistic people. Now, the quality is a mere skeleton of what it once was. It has deteriorated dramatically, and continues to do so today.

 

Poor decision after poor decision has been made creating the state of affairs we see today. If the bottom line is a financial one, or number of visitors is the important criteria to judge the success of Photo.net by, then I have no clue how it's doing, perhaps doing great. If satisfaction from the point of a photographer is the criteria, then I'd give the site management an D- on performance....and quite honestly it's getting worse.

 

Why not simply do the following:

 

1) Put the names back on the raters.

 

2) Do away with the Top Photographers pages altogether.

 

3) Warn and then delete all ratings by obvious mate-raters.

 

4) Allow (members only) to filter out images containing nudity (even if not completely or perfectly).

 

5) Make the rating of images much easier/faster as it was before the changes.

 

6) Make the larger view the one that compreses and loses quality rather than the default, since many more will be looking at that view anyway.

 

These are just my opinions, but the hope is that some change of direction be considered. The future is not looking so bright from all that I can see. I hope it turns around soon.

[paul e. wog]

Ben i love the context of your post and am really convinced you have a good grasp of the big picture as it stands today. Some of my points to add here are already layed out in this...http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BSjL ... post, but thats mainly on "is mate rating even a concern" venue....first Carl

 

" No one has given me a good reason why anonymous ratings restricted to an RFC queue won't work."......... if you mean thats the only place rating is allowed a good reason is other than the rating obsessed most would be too lazy to go there.

 

Howard and Vince and Walter... Maybe don't forget to factor in that PN used to be a much smaller machine and small towns have a lot better behavior and true value than big citys. Page 1 is a 21 car lot and the site has grown 10x and its still a 21 car lot.

 

More than any single point Ben makes i see the colour of his post to truly reflect the general population. Ben is here a whole lot, out on the trp, commenting and meeting the people. And they are people...not creative "machines" obsessed with perfection of the single photographic image and whos the absolute best.

 

This is an amature site and read the "about us" to grab the concepts of it. Walter says it in a way...if you were "truly a pro"..why are you here? Its not a promotional venue for your print biz and no photographer is going to buy a photograph... "nice idea but i could do it better" rules.

 

The percentage of "most excellent", on an ongoing basis is very small compared to the general user it serves. Most people are average and own a moderate digital which is a childs toy compared to say a medium format film, yet they compete against that on an equal playing field. If the system ran true to some ideals you would expect high end large format to dominate page 1.

 

Not many here really "aspire" to be photographic genius. Some want to appear so to serve delusions within that they are...but if they really were why are they on PN all the time moaning about perfection...don't u have shots to shoot and a mass biz goin for ya?

 

A good mate rate study is the "tupperware circle" (lol)... been takin pics couple years, pretty good equipment...come home from work have a cocktail and maybe lean the cam out the condo window and click something they construe as interesting. All their friends they joke around with and share time here with see the beauty or whatever in it and even if its sad their not gonna say hay thats garbage... cause its more about friendship to them. But their rational, not greedy, middle class people and can judge the exceptional... within THEIR crowd...cause they don't have time in their busy lives to get the big picture of their group in context of the entire sites output.

 

So whats a 6 or 7 to their group may be truly a 5 in the big reality... but they are rational and just want a bit of recognition every once in awhile. Whats wrong with that? I think thats Bens basic message and its right on.

 

Like myself..i post more from obsession than any rational reason, like it. Don't mind being page 1 every once in awhile for an hour or so, but thats about it. When i open page one i wanna see other stuff not my own, i seen that thing for hours producing it...then again i don't wanna see the same artist there every time either...so there is some argument against the people madly serving some egotisitical need for a constant presence there and these people actually are hurting themselves as i think (Vince?) pointed out. They need help on a personal level if they need to constanly dominate on a huge site like this, which by its own proclamation defines itself as tupperware orientated.

 

Everything seems to be just fine when the major groups are getting a bit of exposure and i think a lot of people subconciously think "oh u havent been in the sun for awhile" to regulars and promote their image and thats really how it should be.

 

All the sub group types you could catorgorize, and there are many, should actually mate each other, but rationaly, and promote the best of "their" group, to the top. That gives the widest variety to all and apeases the most.

 

Ben proposes no government intervention and i agree. The entire deal here is self governing and all u have to do is speak out and throw a rate on it if its getting outta whack. The rational far outweigh that element of egomania-ism that inspires domination and when the patience threshold is reached will quicky demote it in one way or the other...and the rational will aways dominate.

 

[root]

"" No one has given me a good reason why anonymous ratings restricted to an RFC queue won't work."......... if you mean thats the only place rating is allowed a good reason is other than the rating obsessed most would be too lazy to go there."

 

Paul, in my proposal, there will be no such thing as "rating obsessed". No one will ever see any numbers. Your name will not be connected to your rate except in management views of each image. You take a couple minutes out of your site time to rate a few of the daily uploads because your rates will actually have an effect on the their visibility. If you don't care which images get viewed on the daily sorts, then don't rate. I'm convinced a lot of thoughtful people will because they see the potential of the TRP sorts.

 

Mate commenting, with all its' pros and cons, will continue to flourish.

[howard_foto]

<p>"<i>Mate commenting, with all its' pros and cons, will continue to flourish.</i>"

 

<p>indeed. especially because the site admin. won't do a thing to help improve this aspect of interaction.

 

<p>having lurked on another site that seems to promote good mate-commenting by featuring a daily critique and a separate good-critique/comments-given area, I would think PN would eschew such a feature here given its paranoia about anything that might compete with its sacred gallery ratings system cash cow.

[root]

Do people become subscribers because of the abilty to rate and have their images rated? Where's the evidence?

[paul e. wog]

I agree actually it would be a better venue to restrict it too, but most aren't interested in doing it. I confess i haven't been to the RR in months and hate the thing as it is...my point is only most cruise the trp and click and interesting pic to see...then they figure "while i'm here rate the thing"...which i try to do. I figure, well u opened the thing and got something from it...at the very least u can do is fire a rate on it for the guy.

 

Lot of people probably think that way too and that factor keeps the high quality rates coming more than the "dedicated rate session" on the RR. Like rates off the trp seem of more value (excepting the downraters)

[john falkenstine]

Where do you folks get all of the time for this chattering? I ignore the crackpots comments to a large extent because I want to go on to the next photograph. If the comments appear to be preplanned attacks I turn it over to abuse@...