louis1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 "Maybe you've just had a wakeup call as to the mediocrity of what you're doing..." CALEB. Caleb Brian et al. Put forward comments like the above or in a similar vein. My take is that I have won awards and commendations from top photographers here were I live. This is for images here on Pnet which get low or average rates and maybe few or no comments. Just to say to those who get low rates etc. that they are really only a fairly useless measure and not to take them to heart. Hopefully Philip will look beyond the rates system (leave it as is , it is not worthwhile tweaking something which is fundamentally flawed). There are many more ways to promote/bring together the best images on photonet without having to depend on the current rating system. It is appalling that after so many years the overall community is still manacled to the TRP. The sickening thing is that all you ever hear is NO that probably won't work (never a whatabout this......) or someone suggests a scheme which requires a huge amount of manual searching and clicking, this when we have huge computer processing power at our fingertips. The lack is of imagination and resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 How about we give a POW to each person who moans about ratings? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 <I>"Why not just prevent contributors from seeing the individual scores (anonymous or otherwise)?" -- E Welthorpe</i><P> An excellent suggestion. It would certainly cut down on a lot of the noise in here (although it might be unpopular with the mate-rating cliques). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Unfortunately it would also allow for venge rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david morgan Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 Well Caleb Conduit, I have spent some time looking at your ''work'' and one of your shots would perhaps pass muster for inclusion in a family album comprised of shots of family and friends. The remainder could best be descibed as a load of pretentious excrement. Please feel free to directly rate my work, it should create much amusement. Wanker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug bowles Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I'm not a real big participant in these forums, but I've been lurking for several years and have some degree of experience with "the way PN works", for lack of a better description. I'm not a great photographer by any stretch of the imagination. I would consider myself "average". By far, most of my initial ratings are 4/4's and in addition, I get just as many inital 5/5's as I do initial 3/3's. There is no conspiracy. There is no "automatic rating engine" that tries to pull all high-rated photos down to a certain curve. If it will make everyone happy, why not try a typical statistical method: simply throw away the best and worst rating up to a certain number of accumulated ratings. After that threshold is reached, then throw away the two best and two lowest ratings. To use one of my own photos as an example, I have garnered 27 ratings for an average score of 4.78/4.74. If the two best and two worst are thrown away I lose two of the 3/3's and two of the 6/6's, and the average becomes 4.82/4.78. Not a whole lot different, but my ego is assuaged because I lost a couple of low scores. If you work the same trick on another of my photos with a lower number of ratings, only throwing away the best and worst rating I get very similar results - the 4.09/4.45 becomes 3.88/4.33. Set some thresholds: Up to ten ratings the best and worst are thrown away. Between 11 and 20 the two best and two worst are thrown away. Between 21 and 40 the three best...or whatever, and so on. Obviously I haven't given any thought to how difficult this would be to program so that it would be transparent to us, the PN population. At the very least everyone can perform the calculation for themselves. Or maybe some of us should hire a bunch of people who spend hours whizzing through PN leaving a trail of 7/7's on every photo they see to counteract the evil 3/3 demon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Because the recipient would no longer be able to notice when he was being targetted - I agree the management could spot this, but they first have to be looking, and there just are not enough of them to do so. I do like the idea though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 A clarification, I'm talking about direct rates here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david morgan Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 Hi Ben, I remember you joining just after me, you seem to have become a big noise on the site. Can't think why, your photos are nothing to write home about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 David, then I'm in great company aren't I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david morgan Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 Except that some of us are aware of our shortcomings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 E. Yes I think there probably is some automated stuff running. I just don't underestimate the lengths that people will go to. Let's hope something is done soon that works well - in whatever form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 David, Yes it's good that we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david morgan Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 We? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I think Brian's first answer is very well put. That said, David does have a point about it being a photographic forum. Personally speaking ANY rating without comment or some sort of justification is worthless. People by nature would tend to seek out things they like. It is for this reason that the average for ratings that are not anonymous are higher. I cannot think of an example where this is not the case, certainly on my images.<br><br>While, Brian's point is well put, I would remind everyone that they are submitting their photographs for <b><i>critique</b></i>. You cannot submit your photographs for 'rating' only yet ratings on this site seem to carry more weight than 'critiques.' The site wants ratings, the photographer wants critiques. Personally, I wish there were an opt out for anonymous ratings. I don't want them. Many people don't want them and they are usually meaningless unless you just happen to get <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3090581>a huge number of them</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 �I am sorry John but I remarked on the speed with which low ratings were recorded not on their validity.� What possible purpose would there be to bring it up then? The entire thesis of the post was that the rating system was flawed and lacking credibility and that a rating system for raters is needed. Are we to believe you brought up the alleged speed of the 3/3 ratings for some incidental purpose and not to support your claim that such ratings lack credibility? Indeed, in the very next sentence, you suggest that such ratings could be likened to a �BOT at work on permanent station�. That�s not questioning the validity of those ratings? Talk about credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe baker pine bush ny Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 if you want to see less 3,s you have to post at about 1:am when monday to friday, when most of Europe is sleeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david morgan Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 I am saying that all anonymous ratings, high or low, are worthless to anyone wishing to learn the true worth of his/her offerings. How difficult can it be to understand that very basic statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 "John: Did I say that ratings 3/3 and 4/4 are invalid?" You seem to be now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 <i> "I am saying that all anonymous ratings, high or low, are worthless to anyone wishing to learn the true worth of his/her offerings." </i> <br> Anonymous ratings aren't not intended to teach you the true worth of your offerings. AGAIN, they are merely <b> opinions </b> . When you submit a photo for ratings, you are asking for people's <b> opinions </b> . One does not have to be a great photographer to offer an opinion on a photo, just as one does not have to be a film maker to offer an opinion on a movie. If you want to learn photography, pick up a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Some various observations here. One is that, in the past when they had trouble with mate rating/ revenge rating, the people doing it were not necessarily bad photographers. So you might get a 3/3 rating out of the blue, and it could actually be a pretty decent photographer with lots of good photos in his portfolio. Getting into TRP by downrating other pictures or materating is going to appeal a lot more to someone that is almost there than to someone that doesn't stand a chance. What I find useful about ratings is not the high or low, but the consensus. (A single high rating is nice, lets you know someone appreciates it!) Getting one or two 3/3's on a shot with a bunch of higher rates doesn't tell you much. But when the shot gets mostly 3/3's, that is really informative. David, in looking at your work, it looks like you have quite a few landscapes, and you especially should take ratings with a grain of salt- simply because landscapes are under-appreciated here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Stephen is right. A 'highly rated' photographer can give a biased or whimsical rating just as much as a lesser experienced and talented photgrapher. So rating the raters will accomplish nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orensztajn Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I kind of like the ide of David M. It can not be so difficult to have symbols that means different things. For instance a photographer with average of 5 could have one kind of symbol, the one that do not have any photos another, and etc, etc. Then when the anonymous 3 comes you will see the symbol and know if you should take this 3 serious or not. I do not mind of getting 3 either, but the inconsistensi in PN raters is hughe. Ratings go from 3 to 7 in many pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 "when the anonymous 3 comes you will see the symbol and know if you should take this 3 serious or not." And how will you know if the 5 is serious and has no bias, agenda or quirky reactions? How will you know that the 3 is automatically making an unsound rating. You said in the same post that 3s are given just as easily as 7s. Since the rater will be rated by this inconsistent rating process, the raters rating are likewise corrupted. It won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david morgan Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 John, please try to understand. 'ANONYMOUS' ratings are worthless because it's like having your exam papers marked by an unqualified teacher. You may pass or fail the exam but you will never know what the true verdict should have been. As I have said before I couldn't care less what the raters on this site think of my work. In a few minutes time I will be ringing a Gallery owner to see if my photographs have sold. If there are no sales, that will concern me. Making a living from photography is when you learn about how good you are. The transition from hobbyist to professional is a massive step. Having said that I do not want to lose touch with the hobbyist side of photography and for that reason I would like to see an effective rating system in place. If you're going to have a rating system let it be one that does what it sez on the can or drop the whole idea. The current method is a joke. The sychophants and nay sayers are trying to defend the indefensible and I predict that they will be ignored and a new system imposed pretty soon. 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