Number of ratings reported do not match no of people.

[vincetylor]

"By the way, I have always admired your work."

 

I that case I take back everything I said!....

 

Seriously, in my opinion, you may have just had an off day. Like I said above, I've never had any negative experiences with you. Generally you are a very nice fellow, and most all of your comments that I've seen are rather kind hearted. When I first read the thread you posted earlier today, I felt you were perhaps just being a little more sensitive than I'd seen before. Still, not compelled to say a word since these forums have taken a toll...(is why I want to get out..for a while if not for good).

 

The "fried fish" and then "Marc G" comments for some reason brought out the good-ole boy side, so what the heck. It's nice to see you take that with a grain of salt.

 

PS- I also read about your recent hospital visit. Sorry to hear that. I hope you are doing much better. My best to you and yours! v.

[Landrum Kelly]

Thanks, Vince. No, I wasn't super cool today, to be sure. Nor was I last August when Andy and I had our little "go 'round" when George Peterson came to the site. I thought that George was a bit pretentious, as did Carl, but Andy liked him for a number of reasons, including his capacity to speak honestly and his willingness to go beyond technical questions to larger issues. I respect that, and George and I finally made an accommodation of sorts before he quietly disappeared in early September. He came to the site in July or early August, and so he wasn't with us long. I did say those things about Andy's PoW and street photography, but I was not serious, just looping back something he threw my way--pretty infantile, but not really vicious, I hope. I actually like Andy's style of work now. So it goes. . . .

 

As for requesting the two deletions, those are very unusual for me. I hate censorship, and I usually ignore trolls. I think that I have written abuse@photo.net only once or twice before, and I have been posting here for three years. One time was about a guy who was attacking Marielou Dhumez, and then started in on me for no discernible reason.

 

What could not have been obvious to you or Andy was that one of these two most recent trolls has been on my case for some time, and the other suddenly hit me today in a very clever way when he got into a twist over my challenging his claim that Asier Castro (PoW winner) was using some pretty terrible light-enhancing software. I fully concede their right to dislike the photo and to say so. It is dark, after all, and can only profitably be viewed when the lights are off, and with a black background. That said, I rather like the effect, but I might well be the only one who does. (Then again, I took the shot, and so it means something to me personally.)

 

Actually, put in perspective, none of this amounted to a hill of beans, even though one of the trolls (the second one) is already back on my site (on the same photo) posting inanities. I can live with that. Most of the postings on the site are arguably inanities.

 

I certainly was not trying to hijack the thread when I posted the URL to the picture. I had no idea what I was starting or I would not have done it.

 

As for being "fried," well, we all know that the stakes are typically pretty low around here. A lot of people pull away from the site when things get acrimonious, and it is funny how things can blow up out of nothing--but that's the web, not just photo.net. Most of us could walk away and suffer no pecuniary loss, but I would miss the site, and it is curious that we can get so emotional at times.

 

Marc? Well, I owe a special debt to Marc since he sort of took me under his wing when I came here at the age of fifty-six with virtually no real knowledge of photography, even though I had had an SLR since 1977. Yeah, Marc can get on my nerves, too. Most of us have that ability, I have found. I still don't know much and don't have the kind of time to learn what I would like to learn. "At my back I always hear time's winged chariot drawing near. . . ." I have a lot of unfinished projects on ethics and terrorism that compete with my desire to become an accomplished photographer. "Growing old is the biggest surprise." I don't know who said that but I have to agree.

 

My apologies to Andy, you, and anyone else I have offended today. I wasn't trying to get people mad. I just seem to have a gift, as my ex-wife will tell you.

 

Thanks for writing back. I wish that I were doing what you are doing rather than burying my head in books all the time.

[WJT]

Why is it that every time I start a thread around here it ends up like one of my family's weddings that I went to as a kid. Thay all started out with everyone having some fun and ended with the cops being called to a prevent a multiple homicide. Let's get back on track here.<p>

Guy, you are right about the rating/commenting system. But the proposal to have a panel of judges to sort through several thousand photographs every day does not seem tenable. Regards.

[Landrum Kelly]

Actually, Walt, Vince is going to find a horse's head in his bed tomorrow morning. "I have always admired your work" was the line used by Tom Hagen (Robert Duval) when he said goodbye to the Woltz (the director) in "The Godfather." I have connections in Maui, or is it the big island? Wherever Vince is, my people can reach him.

 

As for the panel concept, or any other scheme involving actual humans reviewing ratings patterns, it becomes pretty clear why Brian wants a system that it at least partially computerized: the time costs are simply too overwhelming. I'd like to know how many hours Brian has spent on "Calvin ball" so far. (I would also like to know whose ratings got axed.)

 

Sorry for the extended digression. At least nobody got killed--well, not yet, anyway. I'm locking my deadbolt anyway.

[akochanowski]

Actually, Hugh's contribution to the picture in qustion is very, very funny. Too bad it will get deleted.

 

Apology accepted Lannie, no need, I am not psycholgically invested. I understand your position better. But no, I will not strive to be like your hero Marc. I've always found him to be a pompous, bloviating blowhard with way too much time on his hands, shmaltzy taste, and a thin skin stretched tight over an outsized ego.

[kslonaker]

I would love to get everyone who has commented in this thread in one room and see what happens. I would anticipate a lot of hand-shaking and intelligent discussions taking place, actually. The typed word tends to be very cold sometimes, without expressions to accompany it. I've seen more conflicts at work when people only communicate by email. It gets to the point where I have to sit people down with each other in person and it's amazing how quickly the hard feelings disappear! I think that's why some people tend to put the "lol" and emoticons throughout their typed comments (which, personally, drives me nuts, but I understand why!). Nothing is worse than spending a lot of time thinking what you want to say, then it getting totally miscontrued and out of context. You're all a great bunch and have a lot to offer.

[root]

Walter, a good example of what Kim is saying right here.

 

"But the proposal to have a panel of judges to sort through several thousand photographs every day does not seem tenable."

 

I've proposed this panel on several occasions and every time someone puts down the idea, they present a distorted version of it, as you have.

 

For openers there is no way that someone should be able to offer multiple images on a daily basis for consideration for what we'll call

"The 21 Images Selected For Todays Discussions." If you search today's 24-hours / photographer's highest, you'll come up with 240 which includes non RFCs, multiples by the same photographers who got the same average, and images with only one rate. A computer can presort daily uploads any number of ways in order to give the panel a larger or smaller number to pick from.

 

And Bob, the reason I don't set up a site of my own elsewhere is that only on photo.net would a panel have access to several hundred daily uploads that are worth discussing, not to mention hundreds of egocentric critics to make the effort a success.

[howard_foto]

since site management fancies heuristic computer sort techniques to solve problems (calvinist hobbian gaming to achieve blind justice?) then why not appeal to the site editor's methodical penchant to achieve a "photos of the day for discussion" type sort? it would have to be limited to photos that are uploaded to the request for critique queues since these are done by category. since currently there are 25 categories (the categories can be revised or fine tuned later) that should be enough to fill out a 15- or 18- or 21-image page. perhaps the sort can be by most comment characters in the previous 24 hour period. it would certainly eliminate the need for some committee of so-called experts. and though not all of the sort-selected images would be ideally interesting to discuss, at least several would be.

[guyscrivner]

Walter, when I click on Gallery, Top Photos and select by week and average, the highest rated photo is by Jim McConnell Moth 12-Feb-2005 Canon DIGITAL REBEL Ratings=6 O= 6.67 A= 6.83. This is what I would consider the popular vote. The members rated it and the computer tracked it and presented it along with 499 other images as the best photo of the week. I don?t understand why you say sorting though thousands would apply. IMHO this is a great photo and perhaps it should stand as this weeks top popular photo. There is, however, always a chance that this photo could have reached the top because of mate ratings, bots, etc. If it was determined not to be legitimate then a panel of judges could make that determination and strike it down. In that case it would be a service to the community and all should be pleased.

 

Hey, what would be wrong with establishing two categories? The first as judged by a popular vote and the other by a team of judges perhaps referred to as the Blue Panel Award for POW. I would expect this would be easy enough because only once a week, from a pool of 500 pictures or less a panel could select the POW. I think this method would offer an opportunity for serious photographers to get feedback from both sides of the fence. The popular vote would normally be the best judge of an images potential commercial success while the Blue Panel award would satisfy a photographers need for professional appraisal since the judges would have to provide a critique. I would love to compete for the Blue Panel Award and I believe that this would offer senior members an opportunity to work together in a positive manner to improve this experience for everyone.

 

In either case, there is a need to change the rating and critique system. Isn?t it a shame that Jim?s moth image was rated only 15 times? Compare that to Bill Owens Polar Bear 09-Feb-2005 Canon EOS 300D Ratings=63 O= 6.73 A= 6.60 with 63 ratings and yet they both are included in a search result for top rated photo of the week. Doesn?t this discrepancy demand human intervention to sort this out? They are both great pictures.

 

Carl, I am pleased that you support this concept even though we may have different methods as to how it should be implemented. That indeed is the reason for appointing a panel to sort it out. The bottom line is that there are simple solutions to the frustration that we all experience and the cops should not have to be called. After all, we are family.

[howard_foto]

a computer generated sort of images in each critique request category would have a number of good features going for it. no one category can dominate, not nature, not landscape, not portrait, so variety would reasonably be guaranteed. if done by comment characters (the maker's own can be excluded) it would exclude popularity via ratings votes in favor of a comments-type sort indicative of what would be "interesting" images to discuss. if done by 24-hours of critique requests it would guarantee turnover once each day.

[root]

Guy, some of us are not interested in the "top popular photo". Are you interested in learning about images that explore ideas that go beyond popular taste?

 

The highlights are blownout in the moth image, so it is unpublishable.

 

Two-thirds of the ratings on the image were removed. Do you understand why?

 

(And yet it's still in the top spot for the week - thought those images needed a minimum of ten rates . . . hmmmm. I know . . . . give it time . . . )

[Landrum Kelly]

Ad hominem to the end, eh, Andy?

 

Carl, what if the Top Popular Photo were picked by a panel of judges, with no popular input? Yes, I recognize the incongruity of a popular photo that is not chosen by the public, but are we not making a first step in that direction?

 

By the way, how and when will we know whether Calvin ball is working or not? I'm all for waiting and seeing, but exactly what are we waiting for, and how will we know when we see it?

[WJT]

Guy, I am sorry if I misundertood you. My vision is getting progressively worse and it is increasingly difficult to read through these threads (let alone use my camera, Hah!). It seemed untenable to me because I was trying to view it from the likelyhood of that ever happening here. Even with 200 or so computer selected photographs, do you see Mottershead going for the idea? Therefore...untenable.

[guyscrivner]

Carl, this is in response to your comments. Yes, I can understand that not everyone may be interested in the ?top popular photo?. That may be especially true of top professionals like yourself who perhaps it has already been proven how your work is received by the public. That, however, does not apply to all of us who are PhotoNet members. I would love to know what the popular response to my images are if could be assured that they were legitimate. You for instance would not rate the moth picture highly but the general public may. That is an important difference to me. You may not ever want to have a saturated image on a postcard but I may. But, I might also envision my image one day displayed in a gallery.

 

You ask if I am interested in learning about images that explore ideas that go beyond popular taste. The way you asked that question I find a tad insulting but I will overlook that. The answer is a resounding yes. I am attracted to images on multiple levels. The reason for my interest in images that explore ideas beyond the popular taste is because it is only those photographers and artists that push the limits of the envelope that I get a peek at true creativity. It is these images that inspire. I find that there is not a shortage of these images on this site. To state it another way, I am the guy taht buys the postcards but also lingers in front of a work of art to try to understand the intent of the artist.

 

By the way, your comments on the moth image are a perfect example of why I am contributing to this forum. It is your professional and experienced eye that took in all the aspects of an image that I personally found to have a high level of aesthetic appeal. It took someone like you to point out the highlight problem and the resulting issues with publishing. I rarely find this type of critique on this site. I believe in a Blue Panel forum this type of information would be forthcoming. You also know that two thirds of the ratings were removed on this image. How do you know that? No, I do not know definitely why they were removed although I would like to. Email me if you do not want to express this publicaly.

 

Your last paragraph points out a flaw in the system that appears to be a technical one. I really do not understand how this can happen.

 

Finally, I nominate you to head up the panel to help resolve these issues. I base this on your outstanding portfolio, your seniority, your bio, your experience and your frank comments. Just think how much value there would be in the collective thoughts of you, Victor, Walter, Lannie, Kim and the others. Thanks.

[guyscrivner]

Walter, Mottershead has a choice of being part of the problem or part of the solution. In any organization it would appear that management benefits from feedback from within. I am confident that he wants a solution to this as much as we do and that the right thing will be done. He will be much more likely to make a positive change if IMHO there is less bickering and more collaboration among respected members. Besides, it is hard to deviate from the status quo even if it is for the betterment of the situation. Time and reason are on our side.

[Landrum Kelly]

Yes, Peter, but in Calvin ball the rules keep changing. . . .

 

Actually, I think that your point is well-taken, although I don't think that anyone has referred to Brian by his last name with the intention of conveying disrepect. I get called "Kelly" all the time in a variety of social contexts, but maybe that is because my last name often is a first name. On the other hand, my best friends at the end of my freshman year were called Brockman, Patterson, and Hart. Sometimes the use of the last name in a male-dominated context implies respect, not aggression, at least in the U.S.

 

"Brian" seems friendlier to me in this context, if only because it tends to bridge the social divide that any inequality of power places in the way of human communication, and I know of no other community quite like photo.net, even on the web.

 

Brian gets fed up, we get fed up, and complaints are typically the order of the day--the amazing thing is perhaps that we cohere as a community at all. If Brian and some of the rest of us were not at least a little abrasive at times, then someone would think that something might be wrong with us.

 

In spite of it all, most of us trust Brian explicitly to run the site, and there are not that many people whom I could say that about. Even Calvin ball doesn't trouble me on the ratings issue. Somebody in power who has no axe to grind has got to get a handle on it. We have to have someone whose judgment we can trust, and I think that most of us do trust Brian, even if don't always agree with him.

 

At least we don't have a Southerner running the site: "Hey, how y'all doin' this mornin'? Good to see yuh. Why doncha let me stab ye in the back?" (Standard Southern Baptist Greeting--one reason I had to stop teaching part-time at these two-year colleges around here: no national searches, incestuous social relationships, syrupy viciousness, etc.)

 

I don't know much about Australian culture, but in the Northeast and North Central states in the U.S., a certain amount of curtness and even gruffness is the norm in many settings. Whether than carries over to differing modes of address I have no idea. Interesting sociological question you have raised. . . .

[mg]

I thought ad hominem attacks were NOT allowed on photo.net. Well, I supposed so a LOOOOOOONG time ago, at least... In the mean time, I have learned that M. Kochanovski is way above photo.net's terms of use. This is probably why he took the opportunity, once again, to write the following line about me:

<p>

"I've always found him to be a pompous, bloviating blowhard with way too much time on his hands, shmaltzy taste, and a thin skin stretched tight over an outsized ego."

<p>

Lovely, and shows a great mind was at work behind the scene...

<p>

You may also note that I took absolutely no part in this discussion between Lannie and K., and yet Kochanovsky is back on my back...

<p>

Now please, photo.net, is it perhaps time to take some action against M. K...? Or should all photonetters leave if he doesn't like them...?

[Landrum Kelly]

Forgive me, Marc, but in calling Andy a "rude idiot" you have also just used an ad hominem expression.

 

Now I am going to duck out of here before I get killed in the crossfire. . . .

 

Where is Rodney King when we need him?

[akochanowski]

"...a thin skin stretched tight..."

[kslonaker]

I think you all need to be taking photos instead of arguing moot points on here, guys! We all share the same passion for photography and it seems a shame to let personal feelings get in the way of that.

[mike dixon]

It's funny that some people spend more time and effort talking about what the site should do (and complaining that it won't do it) than it would take to simply implement many of their proposals themselves. You want to have a daily discussion about a particular image? Select one, post a link to it on the General Forum, and let the discussion begin. You want thoughtful critiques among a group of photographers who are genuinely interested in improving? Form a Critique Circle. In short, stop expending your efforts running your mouths about what other people should be doing (or should be appointed to do) and actually <i>do something</i> yourselves.

[root]

Get a clue, Mike. Critique Circles died two years ago.

 

Everything looks so easy from the outside. I notice you're not doing any of the things you think are so easy for the rest of us. The biggest waste of time are posts like yours from people who really have nothing invested in this sort of activity at all.

[mike dixon]

Hmmmm, why did the Critique Circles die, Carl?<p>

<i>Everything looks so easy from the outside. I notice you're not doing any of the things you think are so easy for the rest of us.</i><P>

Now there's some irony for you. Are you really the same guy who's been posting how much the site can be improved if the administration will just do things the way you want them to?<P>

Believe it or not, there are people on this site displaying pictures, exchanging honest comments and critiques, and sharing their common interests in photography. If you actually participated in the People, Street & Documentary, Wedding & Event, and Leica forums you'd know this. There is a community of <i>photographers</i> on photo.net, and while moderators do have to break up the occasional brawl among them, that community doesn't give a rat's backside about being in the TRP or getting high ratings from a bunch of unknown strangers.<P>

So to answer your implied question, I'm not doing the things I recommended because I'm not the one constantly bitching about how useless the site is for people who have an interest in photography and who want to improve their images. I also have the good sense to realize that the photo.net administration cannot force people to have such an interest or desire.<P>

You have numerous options available (both on photo.net and elsewhere) for promoting <i>photography</i>. Is that your interest, or are you more concerned with constantly haranguing the photo.net administrations because they won't do the work to turn the site into what you think it should?

[Landrum Kelly]

The value of a thread at a given moment is inversely proportional to the square of the length of time that has elapsed since its inception.

 

Welcome to the morass, Mike.

[guyscrivner]

Peter, I can assure you that I meant no disrespect for Brian and my statement was certainly not intended to convey aggression. On the other hand I agree that it was rude to use his surname in this manner. I failed to keep in mind that this is a multi-national and multi-cultural site. I apologize.