andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Hello ... in the last days, after I posted a photo on the critique forum, the first rate I receive is 3/3 (on at least two images): http://www.photo.net/photo/4853444 http://www.photo.net/photo/4853439 ... the problem is that all the other rates are way higher 5-7. Of course, this 3/3 rating is annomymous, and I don't know who it is ... and he doesn't even comment to justify his low rating. Please advise what to do, or if you can find our who it is ... please tell me who the member is. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 "the problem is that all the other rates are way higher 5-7" Why is that a problem? Aren't different opinions equally valid? "please tell me who the member is." In that case, don't you want to know the names of the other raters as well? Best advice that I can give you, is not to get upset over any single rating, high or low. Just look at overall scores, read comments and enjoy the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 Hehh ... ok ... I'm not upset, don't worry, I'm preaty new on PNet and I didn't know of the problems with these so called "hate-raters". You don't care about this fact only after it happens to you personally. And trust me ... and trust the others ... it's perfectly fine to gine a low rate and to sustain it. To give it only to screw a good rate ... now this is a shame. And you know it is happening cause everyone is complaining. Good day and thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Andrei, You assume the 3/3 rater is the same person. That is pure conjecture. Many watch new photos and those who rate frequently and watch the queue closely tend to rate photos they don't understand with a 3/3, or ones they don't feel an affinity for, the same way. I have been a member for just over 2 years and now am approaching 20 million views and get a fair share of 3/3 ratings, but I just ignore them. I pretend they don't exist. Like Whoopi Goldberg, when asked if she ever experienced racial discrimination, she answered 'No, I just never tell them I'm black'. Well, I just never acknowledge that I get the 3/3s and concentrate on the fact that lots of my photographs are getting exposure and I shoot a lot of 'street' which is considered generally quite unpopular for ratings and low ratings have caused many of PN's finest street photographers to pack up their cameras, lenses and leave because they feel insulted. I take the Whoopi Goldberg approach. I suggeest you do the same. If you genuinely feel a single person has it out for you (and is waiting, day and night for you to post so they can give you a 3/3), you can report your feelings about being obsessively watched to abuse@photo.net together with any 'facts' on which you base your feelings. Be polite; they get lots of complaints, most all of which are ill-founded, and be prepared to let it go if they find no justification. If your work is popular enough that you get tons of 5s through 7s, a single 3/3 will mean almost nothing anyway, so why sweat it? Better to go read some better photo magazines devoted to genres not found on Photo.net, realize there are many kinds of photography not found on the Photo.net fishbowl and know in your heart whether you are taking (or not taking) good photographs rather than let your self-worth be determined by some no-nothing who may have joined a week or two ago, may only own a point and shoot. may not even know how to use it, may never have had any photography or art training and finally, may never become an accomplished photographer. On the other hand, watch the comments,and view the portfolios of those who critique your photos; some of those photographers may have some gems you may want to take to heart,and you may recognize them by the quality of photos in their portfolios. Best wishes. John (Crosley) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 <i>"And trust me ... and trust the others ... it's perfectly fine to give a low rate and to sustain it."</i><P> <P> Just as it is perfectly fine to give an anonymous 5-7 with no justification (nobody complains about that), it is perfectly fine to give a 3/3 without an explanation or justification. Written critiques are voluntary. <P> You may or may NOT have been the target of a "hate rater". It may or may NOT have been "someone" - it could have been multiple persons. The rating may or may NOT have been dishonest or malicious. You, and I, and everyone else here, has no evidence one way or the other. <P> If you are going to submit your photos for critique AND ratings, then you must be prepared to accept a 3/3 as honest and valid, just as you accept those 5/5 and 7/7 ratings as valid. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and that opinion doesn't have to be in agreement with the majority. And trust me ... and trust the others who tell you so. If one person (a hate rater) is giving out nothing but 3/3's, it is visible to photo.net staff and the ratings will be removed. If they don't get removed, then you need to accept that someone judged your photo "below average", no matter what you or others may judge it as. <P> I took a quick look at your portfolio. You do nice work. Don't sweat a few 3/3 rates. If you can't accept 3/3's, then submit your photos for "Critique Only" - otherwise you need to take the good with the (percieved) bad. Learn from the comments and suggestions that are left, ignore everything else. You can't learn ANYTHING from a random number rating (anonymous or not, good or bad) left by persons you do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 Thank you Michael. You are the first who gave an objective answer ... because of various reasons. This issue is new to me ... I have just encountered it .. this is why I was looking for answers. Also ... you are the first to admit that "bad things do happen once in a while to good people" (: ... if you know what I want to say. So ... in conclusion ... we just have to go with the system. Fine by me. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 John ... you are the man. Put yourself in my place ... the first time you have noticed those 3/3 ... didn't you asked yourself "WTF?" ... didn't you asked others about this? ... did it feel right to you? Of course ... as time passes, you get over it. I just found out today about this "3/3 issue" ... so I am entitled to be a bit cranky, I guess (: Thanks for your answer, much appreciated. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Andrei, I personally doubt that you really have an "issue" with 3/3 ratings, or that anyone is targeting you or attempting to bring down your rating scores with 3/3 "hate-rates". With the random nature of the "Rate Recent" queue it would just take too much work and time. Some of your photos do not have any 3/3 ratings. Of those that do, most also have a few 4/4 or 4/3 or similar ratings, so it is not a stretch to conclude that if some judge a shot as average (4/4) or above average / good (5/5), a minority will also genuinely judge the same shot as below average (3/3). That's just the nature of averages. As I noted above, although the ratings are anonymous to us, they are not to the site administration, nor to the code that runs silently in the background to detect ratings abuse. Such abuse DOES get deleted. If you take anything from your ratings, judge them on the aggregate score, and try not to read anything into individual ratings, be they high or low. As Patrick suggested, "read comments and enjoy the show". Keep shooting and submitting, and don't sweat the small stuff. Life's too short. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_dube Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Andrei; I am also a fairly new member and yes, those first dings do hit a nerve or two. Once you somewhat understand the "nature" of the beast then it will sit better.<P> What I've learned from tracking the issue with my own photos and others: Most of my photos are matted/framed, many people don't like matted digital photos > 3/3. The other variable, some like a finished border but when I add size and or color > 3/3. I seem to do a lot of bird photos, many don't like birds > 3/3.<P> I too have looked at your site and yes, you do good work. One thought, this is summer in most places, should be a happy, lively time for most. Your photos are dark and the frames are black and heavy. Many who rate quickly won't spend any time with your photo and will snap a 3/3 because of a quick "emotion". You will get a more honest opinion from those who post similar work and a few who slow down and look at the technical aspects of your photos.<P> I have also learned that many ask and even demand critiques, positive or negative. They say that's the only way they can improve and learn. I'm always amaized at how many will be offended and defensive when that happens. Just bear in mind, if someone is offended by a 3/3 or 4/4, they very well may be offended by a 3/3 or 4/4 critique, no matter how well intended.<P>Anyway, as I said, I am fairly new to this and present what I've been able to filter out from my ratings and comments.<P> Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_dube Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Oh, forgot one major comment - sometimes I just post bad photos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 Michael ... ok ... got the picture and the message. Let's leave this behind. You could look at these things in many ways, let's just leave it the way it is. Dave ... :)) ... now this is a damn good theory you have, really. Maybe you are right. Anyway ... maybe if I have looked closely at this forum, I wouldn't have posted this thread after all. But it got be good answers to many things. Thanks all for your answers. I declare this thread closed, from my point of view. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 "But it got ME good answers to many things" ... sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 <i>the problem is that all the other rates are way higher 5-7. Of course, this 3/3 rating is annomymous</i><br> You should sometimes believe that 7s are not more deserved than 3s. (I said "sometimes") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry ting Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Andrei, a hearty advice from me my man... let go of the ratings. Try to forget about posting this thread and don't even come back to check responses or you will find some remarks that will make your blood pressure go all the way up. Certain people on this site really love to 'educate' others how to accept 3/3's and put some really 'heated' remarks on your compliments/suggestions about the rating system. It's almost like they come here, purposely look for any rating-related threads, and practice their abilities to hammer/humor the topic as possible as they can. Not very helpful IMHO, especially for new members like you. I remember reading this review from some UK website a couple months ago which states Photo.net is a great website where photographers can share knowledge and learn skills. But it also mentions it is the most unfriendly website that could easily scare amateurs/new members away. Go figure. I truly believe you'll survive just fine on Pnet and have some really 'helpful' contributions to this wonderful community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_glover1 Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Well, I haven't rate either of those photos. I only do rates as light relief occasionally. However if I rated the legs shot I'd probably give it 3/3 and move on pretty quickly. so as an proxy explanation for you anonymous reviwer: it doesn't strike me as particularly original and while well executed technically it doesn't do anything for me aesthetically, dull would probably be my descriptor (the wife walked up while I was looking at and her first comment was "tacky"). That said 3/3 isn't low - it's average - I wouldn't consider a rating low unless it was 1 or 2. The water drop is better and I'd rate it higher (5/4 I'd say). While waterdrop freeze frames aren't exactly new its been nicely execute and perfectly timed, though it's a bit stark for my tastes despite the geometry being spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 Jerry ... (: ... only thanks ... for ... everything. Ian ... you are right. If you gave low rates to any of my images, with comments like this ones ... respect. It takes years of practice to get something done so perfect, so that even the most unsatisfy-able persons to appreciate your image. If you consider yourself a good photographer, that 90% of the photos presented here are "deja-vu" for you ... or "nothing special" ... you just give low rates even to the newbies? ... give him low rates, his images are crap ... but give him a piece of advise also, for cryin' out loud. It's a comunity ... teach him what has he done wrong. Respect 4 the people that have more comments on photos than ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevespencer Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Let me understand this. Someone rated your photo lower than you expected? That is what this whole thread is about? You did submit it for rating, did you not? This site is set up for both anonymous ratings, and identified ratings to rank the photographs. Mr. Mottershead has explained it to us numerous times, and he must be so sick of explaining it he probably retches everytime another one of these threads arises (I even posted something like this before, I'm ashamed to admit). You must understand the site is set up so that people are encouraged to get in and rate photos, and, it is set up so one might believe one is doing a community service by doing so. I thought that when I first came here, and when I did my part and rated someone's photo 3/3 (which is only slightly below average, by the way) I was subjected to an email harassment and hacking campaign by that individual that left me one step short of having to take legal action to stop it, but photonet's abuse people did step in. That is, by the way, why I've not yet antied up the $25 to become a supporting member - that incident left a lingering bad feeling that has not completely dissipated for me. The bottom line is, if you submit your photo for critique (criticism) and rating, don't be thin-skinned when you don't get the rating or critique you expect. I've since adopted a policy of don't rate/don't be rated. I submit my photos for critique only, and I don't rate others' photos at all. I prefer comments to ratings, and try to offer some when I feel I have something of meaning to offer. This has resulted in some exchanges of valuable information both ways. I have always, and still do maintain a high level of respect for the emotional attachment people have for the photos they make (and all things they create), and I am always considerate when critiquing others' work, even when I feel it needs a lot. I would like to become a paying member. It is the right thing to do, and if there are no repeats of the things that happened to me a while ago, I might do so, especially since Mr. Greenspun is assuming a more major role in this site once again. His photos, and this site, as it originally was, are the things that made me stick around here for a closer look in the first place. Don't get so upset because you got a slightly below average rating from someone. It's just an opinion, and perhaps not even a qualified one at that. it is also an opinion you asked for when you submitted your photo for rating and critique. Put that in perspective. -S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momente Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Threads like this will soon become trendy, at this rate of posting. However, opinions like those of Jerry.. well, they're pretty rare, and I can only smile and nod my head in agreement; well said. As for the bike shot, Andrei (cam aiurea, englezeala asta, nu crezi?), I just commented on it (before I saw this); it actually seems original and well executed, in my opinion. The tones and the contrast between femininity and 'bikeness' are interesting, as is the tight crop. By no standards can I accept 3-3s as perfectly legitimate, in this case. On the other hand, I don't think they're... hate raters, so let's just call them.. speedies. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 :)) ... this is getting out of hand. Spencer, as I said before, I consider this thread closed, cause now I understand the thing with the annonymous rating system. Didn't know that it was introduced to avoid other past problems. Yeap, I did sweat a bit over this issue, just as you said you did in the past. It's ok now. And ... as I recall ... there was a issue with one of Dave Nitsche's photos ... who got angry cause someone rated his photo with 6, and didn't leave a comment. If you have a different opinion than the others regarding one image ... sustain your point of view. For the record ... I didn't start this thread to complain about a couple of low rates ... I started it because many members figured out there is something wrong with this annonymous rating system. Now that I understood the meaning of this rating system, it's fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Andrei Pfeiffer this issue is brought up almost every other day. its a no win thing here on PN BEst thing I can tell you dont pay for membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjfraser Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Don't the posting instructions explicitly say to search for threads on similar questions before posting a new thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 28, 2006 Author Share Posted August 28, 2006 Wade ... why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 See the rating System I think works Ok. But theres a few things that could be fixed. The other problem is some of the people on here . remeber this is the Inernet. So you have anyone and everyone rating your pictures. Some rate Just to Ajust the rating system. There are some members here that Just rate to cheat the system. The staffing on PN seems to care about money only. this is not for you bennifit it is for PN So you can post one picture aday for free So why pay when People with No pictures posted can rate your pictures. hang out read the forums for a few months Dont worry about ratings on this site worry about learning photography. there are alot of good sample pictures and forums but there free to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreipfeiffer Posted August 28, 2006 Author Share Posted August 28, 2006 Yeap ... you are right. Another theory of mine was that, if you purchase that subscription ... you won't be worried about the image quota. So ... not being a free member, is also like a quest ... you have to view images, comment on them to get to the "next level" and increase your quota. It's fun actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_thalheimer Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Andrei, neither photo is deserving of a 3/3, even taking one's personal tastes into consideration. Technicality & origin would push them above 3/3. Notice the 33 rates are anonymous. Try & pay no attention to the anonymous and only to those who have their name associated with the rate. Moreover, the critiques are more meaningful. This is just another prime example of how PN's rating system just stinks 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