jp zorn Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 never seen this before. seems to make it very easy to not think much while rating. i've posted many pictures that get rated within seconds of being posted. just someone clicking on numbers very quickly. with no name left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momente Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Welcome to new and improved photo.net; thing is, the guys in charge think (do they?) the current rating system endorses elitism, objectivity & a never before used, yet very healthy function - mysteriously disguised as 3/3-ing. <p> What do we/they know.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Not sure I understand that last response. Anyway, the rating system used to not be anonymous. What that meant, is if you saw a photo that you were not impressed with, and rated it accordingly, that person would then get mad and go rate one of your photos lowly in revenge. And if you rated a shot 7/7, they'd come around and return the favor. The current system is an attempt to fix those kinds of problems. The ratings coming up very soon after posting is understandable. If you click on the "Critique Forum", the latest photo posted is the first one on there. It would be an ideal situation if the truly expert photographers here on photo.net would properly rate and critique in some detail every shot posted. Only there's not enough time in the day for that to happen, so basically, you're getting rated by Joe Q. Public, with the occasional artist thrown in, so take the ratings (and the occasional critique) with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Why indeed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 JP,<br>Click on "about us" link at the bottom of the page, you'll read there recent statistics:<br><i>- 5.4 million visits per month<br>- 514,000 registered members; 8000 new registrations per month.<br>- 65 million page views per month<br></i>IMHO looks absolutly normal to receive ratings within a few seconds.<p>Regarding the anonymousity of the ratings, is it really disturbing? The most important is the few comments/critiques you can receive, ratings are more useful for the system in order to edit the "top photos" pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp zorn Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 yes, but you can still leave your name behind if you want to so people can still trade high ratings. just makes it easier to leave a lower number without much thought (very quickly) or accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momente Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Stephen, dearest, wouldn't it be easier and more fair if one user, when indeed would like to leave a low rating for a shot, could and should be able to click on a special anonimity box, easily itegrated within the rate recent feature? As it is now, the default is anonimity, no getting around that; makes it easier for people to shrug and just go ahead on a rampage. Now, look at the top photos, good, solid photos, most of them; they still get a couple of threes. How do you explain that? Inertia, stupidity, bad moods. And you know what? Even though you can't 'get back' at those 3 spreaders, given the current system, it's very probable that because of the frustration, people who get those threes start giving away threes themselves, at random, just to feel better. And this creates an ever revolving trend of unjustified 3-s, a phenomenon even worse that the 4/4 reciprocation that was supposed to be avoided in the first place. So, you see, things are a bit more complicated than mediocre photographers complaining about their shots being flamed, while those in charge convince themselves that the upgrade was welcome, necessary and works as intended.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfimages Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 One possible idea would be that each member gets a certain number of ratings they are allowed to give in any one day, based on a percentage of the members rating history. For example, I have rated 2900 photo's with an average of 4.75/4.91. So I'd get a certain number of ratings per 24hours as a percentage of that 2900. To get the math simple for example purposes, lets say 1%. So I get 29 ratings per 24hr. Of these, 35% would be 5's, 32% 4's, 20% 6's etc (these %ages are rough guesses based on frequency - I'm too lazy to search out a calculator and work them out properly). So now I have a fixed number of ratings I can give (and I wouldn't be allowed to "save" my ratings and rate 200 one day, then none for the next 6. It'd be 29 per 24hr). Naturally, comments/critiques would be unlimited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Why anonymous ratings? Because some people are childish, petty, vindictive, egotistical, etc. If you had been active here when the ratings were not anonymous, you would have seen who those people were, because they were wrecking havoc on what was a seriously flawed ratings system (the TRP having been effectively hijacked by mate-rating cliques). If everyone was mature, genuine, responsible, humble, etc., we could have a non-anonymous system that would work well. Everyone isn't - hence we don't. The childish and petty "photographers" are still here, but they have a much smaller visibility and impact now. As with all good things, the few spoil it for the many. Despite some of the constant whining about "undeserved" 3/3 ratings, the system is better than it was. It's far from perfect, but it's a vast improvement from the not to distant past when mate-raters made a complete mockery out of the ratings system and filled the front pages of the TRP with Photoshopped renditions of pink flamingo pictures. And it's completely normal to get ratings almost immediately after posting a photo to the critique forum. As soon as you post it, it goes to the front of the queue, so anyone visiting the "Rate Photos" section after you post will see your photo almost immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hilander Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 And before the ratings went anonymous, you could give 1's and 2's. That was fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 D Are, I don't doubt that improvements could (and will!) be made to the rating system- I just don't think you'll see a system where no one complains about it, either. As to the default being anonymous or not, that might be a good change, but that wasn't the question, either- it sounded like he was questioning why they existed in the first place. When I first started on photo.net several years ago, the ratings worked differently, but one reason I never really got into the ratings were because there were a lot of complaints about it then, too. Just a reminder: I understand anonymous ratings are not anonymous to site administrators, so if someone really is lowrating every picture but their own, it ought to show up. Something else I've run into is a time delay in picture presentation, and haven't really figured that out. I could submit a shot for critique, and it wouldn't show up immediately on the critique page, even if I cleared the browser cache and reloaded. But I could pull up that shot from my workspace, and find ratings (and not just 3/3's) already on it- so someone was seeing it. I don't know why it would work that way, but the ratings might not be quite as fast as they seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momente Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 "Despite some of the constant whining about "undeserved" 3/3 ratings, the system is better than it was" <p>I don't see how being condescending and non-constructive about this will get us anywhere. And I don't see why people unpleasantly surprised by a certain jerk-rater factor are to be considered whiners, if and when they outwardly express their reactions. <p> Now, I wasn't and am not necessarily writing strictly to the person who opened this thread; I actually started in a pretty rhetorical mood, motivated by empathy and something very similar to disgust. No matter how much argumentation people like Michael R. Freeman will bring, what I constantly see are good shots getting 3-s. With no exceptions. This fact disgusts and drives many serious people away from what they perceive as being a bluntly harsh & childish forum; it simply is not fair, and - frankly - I don't care if this is better than before, because it (still) is not acceptable. I'm sure changes could and should be made, in the direction of refining the CURRENT system, as to bring it to a more effective and constructive balance. Perhaps special emphasis should be placed on encouraging (maybe even forcing) people to COMMENT rather than rate; example: for every 3/3 or 7/7, the user is forced to leave an equally anonymous comment. example2: for every 10th rating without a comment, the next 2 contributions should not be possible without leaving behind a verbal feedback . To conclude, I'm sure that the bright(er) enough minds around here will find time to bring forward even better, relevant suggestions to this important subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 "what I constantly see are good shots getting 3-s. With no exceptions." I don't disagree with the "good shots getting 3's". But just for the record- I checked just now, and the top rated shot was showing 46 ratings with no 3's. The second rated shot had no 3's. The third rated shot had two 3's in the originality (it's a butterfly picture). Fourth highest had no 3's. The fifth highest had one 3/4 rating. Knowing the past rating problems that have existed here, I'm sure there are some people out there that just do mean-spirited low rating. But I see such a diversity of outlooks that I think a lot of what is taken as mean-spirited low-rating is just an altogether different outlook on what a picture should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatley Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 I've posted several things on this issue which boil down to "don't sweat the ratings" - it is almost impossible in my view to completely perfect it because there are pitfalls on both sides of the anon issue. The way it works now seems pretty middle of the road. Now, I'd also agree with doing away with ratings completely....if and only if I was happy with retaining the current membership. The fact is that for truly improving your photos or developing style, comments are about the only way to go. But that isn't what ratings do in my book, I think their main value is to bring in new photographers who dig the feedback and process of rating. At some point if they get serious about the pursuit, they'll shrug and move on about the ratings. Really the deal is I'd rather have a slew of 3/3s on a photograph I took a lot of time on and dig than I would cut off the faucet of new faces. I'd think anon ratings also generate a fair ammount of revenue from unregistered users from ad impressions, so 3/3s pay for new servers, yadda. Now, fleshing out the critique system - creating community tools based around this, making it a more weighty part of photo.net, oh I'd love that bigtime. I'd evangelize the site actively if it pulls in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 <I>"Perhaps special emphasis should be placed on encouraging (maybe even forcing) people to COMMENT rather than rate; example: for every 3/3 or 7/7, the user is forced to leave an equally anonymous comment."</I> <P> Dinu, you've been around for three years, you should know the answer to this. It didn't work because all you got were comments like "this sucks", Or "BORING!" or perhaps worse "ljkhaslsk". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 @Craig Ferguson - yeap ... I was thinking of the same idea also ... but there is still one problem ... and that is for the newbyes ... they join photo.net ... they have 0 ratings. What ratings ... can they give? ... ok, let's say that the rates that you receive also counts here ... so, you post those 5 photos, and wait for ratings. What if you don't get ratings, cause you are a beginner, and your images sucks? ... so there is a problem here also. @D are - esti superb, pe bune. You are right, a checkbox that reads "annonymous rating" would have been more than enough, instead of creating a new rating module. But regarding the rest that you said ... I really feel you, this is shitty ... but is the best shit we will get. Either way, those "double 3-ers" will find some way to beat the system. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david morgan Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Anon ratings are of no practical use due to fact that the rater's skill levels are an unknown factor. Getting a brace of threes from a respected photographer tells you that you need to up your game whereas a similar rating from a new or less able member will be treated accordingly. How about maintaining anonimity as to the individual but displaying the rater's personal overall rating or a symbol indicating their level of ability. That way you have anonimity and credibility. It seems to me that whatever method is used, the current system is a source of much discontent and needs to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusty2004 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Only those who have nothing to fear have nothing to hide. Without shame there can be no honour. There will always be those that feel the need to put others down to make themselves greater. There are none so great as those who will stoop down to help those in need. Lets focus on those. Cheers 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