petre_petrov1 Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 From what I gather, a new controlling feature has been introduced, whereby the number of 7s one gives out in a day is limited to... 7. If it is not new, please excuse my ignorance. I am applauding the general idea: to make users conscientious about the standard of rating and curb those who use rating to make good friends. Still, a "day" seems a rather arbitrary measure. What if I look at 200 photos today, at 15 tomorrow, and zero the day after? Why should I be under the same constraints on all these days? It would be much better if the limit is imposed relative to the number of critiques given. Let's say, no more than seven 7s for every 50 photoes rated. Since the system at photo.net is already geared to recording each user's critiquing activities, such a calculation would not be hard to implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 A member of the PN community since Feb. 8, 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Let's limit it to seven sevens a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjn Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Seven 7's for each $25 contributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 of course . . . of course . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venicia_l Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Yup. Anyone just having joined couldn't possibly have a legitmate idea. The reactionary response of members here to object to ideas based on length of membership is one of the worst mindsets permeating this place.<p> The most prevalent response to any new idea here (from members and administration) is, "Go away. We like it the old way. We don't want any change." What possible relevence has Petre's date of joining to do with his question? And do you appreciate how offensive your response is?<p> VL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petre_petrov1 Posted February 13, 2005 Author Share Posted February 13, 2005 Before paying my $25, I wanted to see how the forum works. The kind of attitude displayed in this thread is not necessarily an encouragment to join PN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Petre, the basis for Tim's comment is that the issue is far more complex than anyone who's been here for only a few days could possibly grasp. Check out the archives on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Petre and Venicia, I will tell you what I am sick and tired of. I am really sick and tired of reading about all of the whining and complaining about ratings, numbers, percentages and blah, blah blah. I have not looked at the TRP for at least four months and don't intend to ever again. It is corruptive and corrosive for someone like me that enjoys uploading my images on a daily basis. For the casual viewer here on PN that does not participate by sharing images, the TRP is fine and dandy. If I start thinking about what viewers want to see and shoot accordingly, my vision of how I percieve the world is out the window. If Petre is bothered by this attitude, tough luck. I am more concerned about serious photographers leaving this sight because of the silly and insane desire to get high ratings so they can get on the TRP. If anyone wants to see the list of some great photographers that have moved on because of all the silly sevens, contact me and I will clue you in. There are still enough good image makers to keep me motivated and posting but hey, it's a free country and I feel duty bound to put in my two cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venicia_l Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I haven't used the rating system since last year. I never will. It's a useless, meaningless, waste of time. And I think discussion of it is the most wearisome issue on these boards.<p> But how is a new member to know that your otherwise unqualified slap at his time in-country is anything other than a put dowm? There are about a hundred ways you could have said that these issues have been raging here in almost as few words as you used. And you just <i> might </i> have gotten an ally out of your effort.<p> And don't tell me he could have searched first before he brought up the issue. This site is as impenetrable to search efforts as it gets. Besides, doing such a serach before bringing up a topic on an Internet forum is not a part of normal human behavior.<p> VL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Venicia, I agree that it not possible to get a thorough understanding by searching, but it's easy to discover how often it comes up and you can read enough to get the idea. The real point here is that even as we speak, Patrick is working feverishly on a revised FAQ which maybe, just maybe, will include content that we could have sent Petre to . . . . . and every other newcomer who discovers all these idiocyncracies of the (avert your eyes, Tim) ratings system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venicia_l Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 The FAQ section of any site is:<p> 1. An attempt by the regulars to avoid answering the same question for the millionth time, not just to newcomers, but to anyone who has not participated in a particular discussion.<p> It's wishful thinking that it will work. Poor babies, those regulars who are just, oh so weary of dealing with <i> that </i> issue again.<p> 2. To newcomers, a dense list of boring "homework lessons" to be ignored that snotty regulars think they have a right to demand be read before "membership" is granted.<p> How many FAQ lists have <i> you </i> read before participating here or elesewhere?<p> VL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petre_petrov1 Posted February 13, 2005 Author Share Posted February 13, 2005 Tim, it is a curiosity of sorts that while you are encouraging me (in your own idiosyncratic way) to become a FULL member of PN, you are, at the same time, advocating less than FULL participation on the site. After all, the critique forum is an essential component of PN. I understand your motives. But if I am to take your logic a step further, I would have to ask why I should pay full fare for a ride that takes me half-way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Petre, I think you misunderstood me, I don't really care if you become a paying member. If you are concerned about not having enough sevens to toss around, I would rather you not become a paying contributor. The owners and administatrators of PN would probably disagree with me but such is life. In a perfect world, I would like to see more action (uploading photos) and less talk. That's my story and I am sticking to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Maybe this explains why I've had a bunch of pics in the past few days that have gotten nothing lower than a 5 then a suddenly a 2/2. Rate-maters who operate by knocking down everyone who isn't a mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petre_petrov1 Posted February 14, 2005 Author Share Posted February 14, 2005 Tim, my question was about logic and principles. It is a mistake to read it as a statement of my inclinations. You can check my profile and see the average ratings I have posted. They are considerably lower than the ones you have handed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Petre, I am not a numbers guy so I don't care about averages. I like to look at peoples work and what they think is good work by checking out the images they have rated the highest. Any way, welcome aboard and don't send in your $25 on my account. Edward, I think you are on to something! Venicia, I promise to be warmer and fuzzier next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venicia_l Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 You sensitive guys really do me!<p> VL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_e Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 "Let's limit it to seven sevens a year." Lets limit it to one 7/7 a year, mine one is reserved for your first posted picture. RE 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