NickB Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I think the anonynmous rating system should be replaced with a member onlyrating system - or the two should be separate so we can ignore the mindlessratings given by too many of the "quickie" reviewers. It is true excellentphotos will always show their quality, but sometimes, depending on the time acritique request is posted, very few ratings will be received and one 2 or 3rating from the photographically blind will damn a photo to the end of the listwhere noone will see it. I think people should be forced to stand up for theirratings - hence they should have to give their name. It would also liven up theforum posts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 this must be the 2000 time we herd this . not going to happen. But feel free to cheat the system there are a few that do. open five accounts and rate your own pictures. there are a few that do that and that have been banned . but they just open another account and start all over again . forget the rating system and hope you mite get lucky to make it to the top of the trp. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Phew. There I was, thinking I was going to miss my regular dose of ratings venom, and Nick comes riding to the rescue. Surely someone's now going to suggest that people should be free to alter any rating they don't agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 No way! A couple of years ago, when the Top Photographers represented truly top photogs, I would have agreed with the desire to be shown there. But not any more! Just take a look at the first page of the All Time <i>Greats</i> and what do you see? The really good material is actually to be found about a third of the way down and further from the top. The best of the photography on PhotoNet will never be seen by the majority of its visitors. <p>The excrutiatingly sad part of all this is that this site's administration could give a damn about the situation. To quote a well respected and well known member, of Hero status no less, in a recent Feedback Forum thread:<p><i>"...This site really does not promote excellent photography like it did years ago. It is simply a money making machine..."</i><p>I will not identify the poster; it would be easy enough for an interested party to find the response. And I agree with this particular member's capitalistic conclusion regarding the desirability of profit, but only to the point that it does not degrade what was once considered to be the preeminent site for the visual arts. <p>Wade offers sound advice when he states that it is best to disregard the rating system, if only to maintain your sanity ;0) But luck has nothing to do with making it to the first page of the TRP. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ester Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I always feel like I dont mind so much getting the 3/3's but i would love to be able to feel like they are coming from good photographers because then, i could take the rating more seriously. I hate the idea that someone judged my photo so harshly and is themselves not capable of a decent shot. Maybe there could be a requirement of who hands out the 3/3's and for that matter the 7/7's. But having said that, where once i minded the 3/3's now i mind the 4/4's lol. So maybe we will never be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 "I always feel like I dont mind so much getting the 3/3's but i would love to be able to feel like they are coming from good photographers because then, i could take the rating more seriously." I think I would rather get a 3/3 from a lousy photographer than a good photographer. Anybody that takes any rating(good or bad) seriously is in for a long and bumpy ride here on PN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 What I am saying is there are people on this site that have and DO there own rating to make it to the top. Photo.net has banned them . But they return open up another account and start all over. Then you have others that all they do is 3/3 ratings. if you look around you will find them. We have a list of the few going now. then you have the buddy rating circle. everyone seems to have there photo.net buds . But good pictures still seem todo good and just about any nude..:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ester Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 WHy, an honest rating will help me learn and is part of the reason I do this. Having that 3/3 come from someone with experience means more to me. I can take it. We all could do better. Granted the WHY would be even more helpful but I look at it this way, one 3/3 and someone is grumpy and being spiteful, two 3/3's and maybe, just maybe, my photo could use improving. I'm still a beginner and trying to learn this all on my own so every bit helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 <I>"Then you have others that all they do is 3/3 ratings...We have a list of the few going now."</I><P>Are you heading up the inquisition Wade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Most of the regulars to this debate will point out that comments mean more than ratings. It is interesting to note that since Nick has joined this site, he has made 178 critique requests and yet only commented on 26 photos. Nick has also rated 269 times approximately 99 of which have been 3/3 or below. People in glass houses etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4sawdust Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The 2/2 or the 3/3 are killers for the new people as myself, who are these coming from and why? I jioned Photo.net to learn and get help. I realize that a lot of my photos are of things I like, alot of them not much more than a snapshot, why do some continue to bang me and not leave a reason? If I don't like a photo I won't rate it, it's not fair and I'm not a professional. If you are a professional then be one and give a reason, if your not then leave us new people alone! If you want to give a 1,2,3,or 4 leave a reason. If someone wants to give out 3s then I want to see their fantastic work. Thanks for the chance to vent. Scott Behling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Wade, there is actually one of the all time 'gaming' greats here on p.net who was busted a couple times for it who now sits in the "all time" list that's been spoken of. LOL. Bounce them twice then let them back in a 3rd time, get a POW (yeah that's right) and end up on the top 10 of the all time TRP. That'll learn em... In the end it doesn't matter. It's just a shame that so many great photographers go un-noticed here. P.net has become so large it's impossible to come up with a system that really finds brilliance. But then again, maybe it does and I just don't recognize it. It is art after all and very subjective. One persons shit is another persons gold. The best thing to do is comment your ass off and hope some reciprocate. Trying to get feedback out of the rating system is useless. Granted IMO it doesn't do what it's suppose to (find the best on the site) but it's probably as good as it can be considering the size of P.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter?rank_by=photog_avg&period=2000 Go to "period" and select "5 years ago" Definitely my favorite year in the all time. Great photographers and a wonderful covering of Genre's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ester Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Nothing beats the buzz of a nice comment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Mr. McCracken makes an excellent point. I would be interested in hearing Nick's explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Dave hit it spot on! There is a fellow in the Top Photog page that <i>just just can't can't play play honestly honestly</i>, and he lowballed his competition as well. But he was "rewarded" for his efforts, to the diminishment of this site's integrity. This instance, and others like it, have made the TRP and Top Photog page a sham. <p> And speaking of witchhunts, there was a time when the PhotoNet administration would monitor excessive numbers of low ratings if given out from a single account. This was called abuse control, not hunting for witches. The practice has gone by the wayside, so to say, because there are technically no more low rates on PhotoNet. The 1's and 2's have not been counted in the averages for, what, a year now? I do not like getting an uncommented 3 either, but that is not technically a low rating anymore. Some few people, however, use the 3-rate almost to the exclusion of all other ratings, and that is wrong. It is a form a lowball ratings abuse. So if the administration has given-up the role of monitoring the ratings, I see no reason why interested members can't do it. It's their time, right? The problem, though, is that the administration will just classify these intested members as whiners and put them on their "list of people to ignore".<p> I would rather be taking photographs. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Walter is right. The whole ratings system is a joke. There are people that low ball, high ball and mate rate. There seems to be a Spanish speaking fellow who gets 100 rates within 3 days, all of them 7/7 or 6/6 for mediocre shots. Then there are members who just give out just 3/3s. I'm finally over it. It's just not worth worrying about ratings. It's not like we can cash in these rates for money. I appreciate anyone who takes a few second to tell me their thoughts far more than dropping a meaningless number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevespencer Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Nick says, "I think the anonynmous rating system should be replaced with a member only rating system - or the two should be separate so we can ignore the mindless ratings given by too many of the "quickie" reviewers."<br><br>What makes you think ratings by members wouldn't be just as mindless? <br><br>My personal solution was to just not participate in the ratings system at all. Submit your photos 'for critique only'. And, yes, I haven't antied-up my membership fee yet. Some really bad experiences I had early on made me hold off on it. I'm still thinking about it. Just 2 more cents from a freeloader.<br><br>-s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe baker pine bush ny Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 you will notice that Brian and company, never post a rebutal comment on this topic. that tells me that they are happy with the rateing system,because it works for them, and they don,t give a dam about what others think of the rateing system or cheaters. the site is rakeing in the bucks,and so all is well. we can comment and complain until my dog lays an egg, nothing will be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Joe, I imagine Brian and Co. gave up on replying a long time ago. Lets face it, the people that post in this forum are just a small amount of the people that enjoy this site. I would bet, if polled, that most are happy with the system. And really if one believes your statement (making lots of money) then the system IS doing well and doing it's job. More money means lots like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe baker pine bush ny Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 i have seen many many differant people complain about the rateing system in the forum over the past year or so that i have been comeing here, i bet if poled the majority are very displeased with the rateing system, to belive otherwise is to belive the sytem is just great and the 3/3 people and the cheaters do not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 <i>you will notice that Brian and company, never post a rebutal comment on this topic.</i><P> I've noticed that they have explained the rationale for anonymous ratings many times and in some detail. They've also debunked the claims about "the people who give every shot a 3/3 as soon as they're posted" many times.<P> <i>I think people should be forced to stand up for their ratings - hence they should have to give their name. It would also liven up the forum posts.... </i><P> In other words, you think people <i>should</i> be subjected to abuse for daring to give a rating that's lower than what the photographer wants. Here's a truly radical idea: if people don't want to know what strangers think of their photos, they shouldn't submit them for ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namurray Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I think if the ratings were abolished and we put them up for critique only, the site would collapse. In the past few days I have received a hammering on five photos I submitted. Plenty of 3/3s and 4/4s, but not one critique on any of them. If I had submitted them under a critique only system, I would have no feedback whatsoever. I prefer to suffer the 3/3s and get some idea of how my photos are received. In the main, I reckon the rating system sorts photos by their photographic merit fairly well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orensztajn Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 The problem here, I think, is that we could take an honest 3/3 (I have a lot and still can sleep) as good but how do we know it is honest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 "if people don't want to know what strangers think of their photos, they shouldn't submit them for ratings." Indeed, Mike, very true. Perhaps that ought to be the new strapline for the submissions page. 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