root Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Is everyone equally qualified to evaluate "originality"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 People will judge originality in different ways. It doesn't matter much anyway, since the overwhelming majority of originality ratings are within 1 point of the accompanying aesthetics rating. The originality scale was a bad idea, which we are now a bit stuck with. But that is a different discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Sorry Brian, wrong in both situations. That is, wrong in what I was attempting to say. What I was trying to ask was since (let's use Dave N. for example) a professional like Dave has almost 500 people interested in him, many simply because he is a professional who's perfecting his craft, and not due to a mate rating circle. You mentioned earlier that if a photographer has rated Dave's work in what you might consider a "disproportional" number of times (even if Dave does not do the same in return) that these ratings could be given the axe because they perhaps represent sock puppets, friends etc. In actuality they may be following him simply because he has some outstanding work. Same with Emil, Jorge, Richard Van H. etc. None of these rate others by the way. So if I like to rate say Richard Van H. each time he uploads, to disqualify my ratings on his image would be in fact penalizing him simply because he has work good enough to attract people in larger numbers... who in fact would be rating his work in a "disproportionate" manner but certainly not a dishonest manner. In other words why penalize the photographer for having a fan base that follow his or her work? Especially if they do not rate others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 My reading of the recent discussions suggest that people want a change in TRP content, not just the process which "Calvinball" is designed to improve. When they keep referring to "same old, same old", that's "originality" by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Brian, If you deem it not against the rules......can you reveal how soon after a photo is posted do you start playing Calvinball? Just curious. I understand if you decide it's against the rules to reveal this. Vincent, I'm not challenging your assertion that some professionals might lose genuine rates because they have a large following. That being said.....If I admire someones' work so much that I visit often to review their work, I would post a comment vs. a rate. Also, if the professional has 500 people visiting often, it's unlikely all 500 are visiting him exclusively so not all the rates would be disqualified, likely only a handful. With the high number of total rates on such images I suspect it wouldn't make a huge difference in the "average" (if any)unless those rates were 7's and the rest were 1's. As you stated, these are folks who have reached a level that they're not likely to get many low rates. Besides, the rates stay...they're just not included in the average (if I understand this correctly). These photographers probably care less about rates and more about comments from the other professionals that visit their work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 <i>My reading of the recent discussions suggest that people want a change in TRP content, not just the process which "Calvinball" is designed to improve.</i><P> So let them start their own photo rating site where they can dictate what gets featured. If the majority of people who participate in rating photos really wanted a change in the the TRP content, then their altered ratings would result in a change.<P> Brian has made changes to prevent mate raters from unduly influencing the TRP content. His thanks? Just like every time changes are made to address problems, people immediately start whining about those changes. And tacking on complaints about how things still don't suit them!<P> If you feel so strongly that <i>your</i> tastes are what should be reflected in the TRP, nothing is stopping you from starting your own gallery. If your views really are shared by so many people, your gallery should take off immediately, leaving photo.net in the dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 "Brian has made changes to prevent mate raters from unduly influencing the TRP content . . " How do you know that was his motive? . . especially since there are ways to accomplish that more effectively. And what do you care? . . . . since you've offered a grand total of eight gallery comments since 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Carl, since you're obviously far more qualified than Brian is to design a photo critique site, and your design would give everyone (including you) a much better place to offer and get really meaningful critiques plus suppress all forms of cheating, why don't you design and publish your own site? Face it, your excellent suggestions will just fall on deaf ears here, so you're pretty much wasting your time trying to show those in charge the error of their ways. You can purchase basic gallery and review software for about $100 which can easily be modified to your liking, and hosting charges would be under $100/year until you really build up your traffic. Is $200 too much to pay for the perfect site? If it is there's even totally free open source software (PHP/MySQL based) you can use and modify in any way you want. Clearly this isn't brain surgery. Anyone with 1/2 a brain (or more) can do it. Perhaps we should take up a collection to start you off. You'd be doing a service for all of us and perhaps you'd become rich and famous in the process. You wouldn't be constantly frustrated by the inability of others to recognize your excellent ideas. How can you lose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Ok Bob, you can sit down now, and no more runs to the coffee machine this morning, we've got work to do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 I don't drink coffee. It makes me irritable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 I have already mentioned above that I am unsure of the efficacy of the 7-7 heuristic in solving the problem at hand. This is mainly for two reasons. Foremost, I view it as being unfair. On the surface it appears that the innocent are paying the price for the abusive actions of a few. Perhaps, in time, a more positive change will become evident from its use. <p> Beyond this, I think those abusive few will continue to circumvent the controls that are being implemented. The first comment from Mr Lucas in this thread expresses this concern: that bogus accounts will increase. Also, Carl's above mentioned hypothesis of the short term benefit of mate rating is very plausible.<p> Try as I might I can not, however, arrive at a way to stop what is happening. A possible solution that I agreed with in the previous thread produced considerable acrimony.<p> In spite of that, I have one other observation. This site does not have that many members and subscribers who are willing to take the time to intelligently critique another member's work. Those who are qualified and do take the time to critique should be considered as PhotoNet assets and not belittled and asked to leave. It is easy enough to lose one's temper, I should know, but in the end the best course is to keep a strong center. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Mike you and Bob must be spending quite a bit of time together. You both sound alike... old, grumpy and very boring. I agree with what you say Laurie, comments are better, deleting rates won't hurt the professional photographers that much etc etc. I was simply "suggesting" that deleting a persons ratings on the sole criteria of *proportional* issues, may very likely be deleting very honest ratings. Especially in the case where the photographer does not rate in return. There area quite a few people that appreciate specific photographers posting on this site. And they are not mate-raters. A little extra programming just might be able to factor in some of these added circumstances. That's all I am suggesting. As I added above, no big deal, just a thought. No harm in asking. Carl's point has merit. If despite all of the changes going on, the mate-raters images continue to be plastered all over the TRP pages, then there will still be quite a bit of complaining along the way and down the road. However, I certainly do believe in giving the system time here to see what happens, to let Brian make adjustments as he sees are needed, and to see how it looks a bit down the road. I do know this, when he put his attention to the lowballers, he absolutely cleaned house and fixed that issue thoroughly. There is no reason to believe then that this will not be successful as well. It is a different animal in many ways, but nonetheless remedies are in the process. And THAT is some pretty good news to hear! I will be happy now to get out of these forums for a while now and back to the business side of things. I'm sure I speak for many when I say, thank you for addresing this matter Brian. Let's hope for the best!! Aloha and goodnight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsontsoi Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Ain't no matter however you shake it. Calvinball is all cool. In the end, what matters are the images themselves. Be your own judge, kick back, and enjoy. If they work for you super. If they stink, move on. Have to say some seriously awesome work by you all and hate to see the artists getting p.o.'ed and move elsewhere. I have favorite photographers I keep tabs of and I'll continue to rate and comment as I feel just and please based on images' own merit. It's suppose to be enjoyable and not so stressful. I'll let Calvin do what he does and meanwhile I'll do my part best I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 PS- I have never heard of Calvin Ball by the way. I have no idea what in the world you people are talking about regards Calvin Ball. And quite frankly couldn't care less about Calvin Ball. Perhaps it's something Bob and Mike can go play together. Of course after they are done being grumpy... Does Calvin Ball rate images? Many 7s?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 <I>Mike you and Bob must be spending quite a bit of time together. You both sound alike... old, grumpy and very boring.</i><P> Nope, he lives on the other side of the planet. I'm not particularly grumpy, either--I actually find the absurdity of the masterberators quite funny.<P> <i>If despite all of the changes going on, the mate-raters images continue to be plastered all over the TRP pages, then there will still be quite a bit of complaining along the way and down the road.</i><P> Ahhh, the good old mate raters! It was nice to blame it on the bots for a couple of weeks, but when you found out there really weren't many bots, the good old mate raters were there to take up the slack. And even now, when the mate ratings are stripped from the averages, and the top-rated photos are receiving their high rates from a large number of different people--people who aren't engaged in reciprocal ratings--well, <b>they're still a bunch of filthy mate raters!</b><P> What you absolutely, positively <b>refuse</b> to accept is that <i>the vast majority of people participating in the ratings have no interest in your complaints, don't care whay you think they should be rating highly, and are enjoying the images that they, <b>the masses</b>, have chosen.</i><P> Frankly, I think most of the top-rated photos are trite and boring. But I don't actually expect the popular vote from thousands of strangers who may or may not have any experience or taste to reflect my opinions, and I don't think the system is screwed up when the popular opinion doesn't match mine. If I want to see images I think are interesting, I visit museums and galleries or look at books, magazines, and websites that appeal to my tastes. Seriously, do you guys go around haranguing shop owners if the images in their postcard racks aren't up to your standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyscrivner Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 JUST FOR THE RECORD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 Yes, I find it hard work but someone has to do it. But seriously Mike, if everything is so perfect on the TRP why is Mottershead so busy? Were those 130 deleted sock-puppets just a lot of BS that I just didn't pickup on? And I think even a novice hacker would agree that it only takes one well-written bot to do the trick. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 I never made the claim that everything is perfect. I noted that, despite their claims, the constant complaints of a tiny but highly-vocal minority are not a true indication that the system is fundamentally flawed. There are obviously some who have tried to subvert the rating system to their own end. Rather than congratulate Brian on his efforts to stop them, however, the constant complainers continue to do what they do best. From my seat in the peanut gallery, it looks more and more like the complainers aren't upset that a few people are subverting the system so it fails to reflect the view of the majority of users--the complainers are upset that the system isn't being subverted to reflect their particular views. As to why Brian is so busy: it's a big, dynamic site. There are many things that need to be done to keep it running smoothly (and I doubt that catering to the whims of poeple who are going to bitch and moan no matter what you do isn't that high on the list of priorities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acearle Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 So, I will start to ignore my favorite photographers here, since I already *like* them and would have a tendency to give a higher percentage of high ratings, I guess I am one of those "Mate Raters" eh? Sorry to people whose work I like, I will refrain from doing the evilness of giving an honest rating and will seek out work that I think is mediocre and focus on harping on its mediocrity. Since the "ideal" is to make sure that a bell curve is used when rating here, it is no wonder than problems exist. Bell curves have been discredited in education, why are they still considered important here? Ahh well, maybe its time I started using another site for critiques...seems that the photo club mentality has won... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Please... Make sure not to help Mike Dixon convince himself that he's right...:-) In other words, stop bitching and think for a moment, and observe what's happening and will happen on the TRPs. Give Brian a break, this time... He's obviously trying now to do something for the better, and the way he went about it, as explained here, is absolutely logical. Those who are still complaining at this point just fail to realize how the measures described by Brian will indeed help the TRP greatly to get rid of mate-rating.<p>Let Brian proceed with the adjustments he will see fit, and wait some time before drawing any conclusion. <p>What's sure is that A FEW HONEST ratings may indeed be deleted in the process, but that FAR MORE DISHONEST ratings will be deleted in the same process. And this, once regulated properly and adjusted over time will undoubtedly make a great difference. Wait and see... I certainly trust Brian to be able to sophisticate the system to a very high level of perfection once he has decided to take care of it.<p>People should now stop focussing on the few ratings they lost and start focussing on the overall effect the Calvinball will have on the TRPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin.e Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 "Oh, I've lost 4 ratings too, whinge, whinge, whinge". Agreed Mark, this needs some time to see how things develop. No matter what is done to rectify matters some will still moan because thats just human nature and some love bitching just for the sake of it. the old adage holds true "Some people would moan if their arse was on fire and you peed on it to put it out" Good work Brian! drink plenty of liquids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acearle Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Marc, that is exactly my point, if I rate honestly the way that I often rate (I don't waste time looking at things I don't like, life is too short, so I tend to have a ratings curve that is far from a bell shape), I am a "mate rater." I tend to like certain people an awful lot (their work, that is), and tend to look at it because, errrm...well...I like it, and I don't feel that viewing/rating their work is a waste of time. Oh, I'll still post now and again, and rate now and again, but I will be focusing energy on another site. The fundimental paradigm that the photo.net ratings system is based on is flawed, fundimentally flawed. It tends to create a sense of competition one way or the other (to be perfectly honest, I don't give a rip if my shots are on any top rated photos pages, it is meaningless...the focus on it is bizarre, but to each his own). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kslonaker Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 I think we need to give Brian a chance, too, to see if this will be the solution we are all looking for. It sounds like a lot goes on behind the scenes that we are not even aware of and that gives me confidence that someone cares and is working on it. If nothing changes, I will still be around, finding the hidden treasures on PN, and learning and growing as a photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Brian, thanks for the explanation. I guess Calvin ball can succeed depending on who is playing it. I am just afraid that it might set a precedent, and before long there won't be any rules for some irresponsible raters. Even so, I suppose that it is worth a try, since we are already being overrun by such people. My larger concern is the possible unintended side effects of Calvin ball, but, if the result really is (as Marc said) the cleaning up of the site with the loss of a very few valid ratings, then it it is probably worth a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 For those of you advocating the wait and see approach, you might want to see what happens with the new, improved FAQ that Patrick will be working on this weekend. That should tell us a lot about where we're going. . . . and do try to rate 'originality' more honestly. Please. 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