TRP by Average

[jnicholson]

Has anyone looked at the TRP by Average lately? It has changed

considerably. Nice work Brian et al. I know you've been given

praise before on this subject but we're starting to see more subtle

changes now. Excellent!

[cappoldt]

Jamie, I just looked at it (8:50pm EST, as I do from time to time. And, as there usually are from time to time, there are some nice pics up there, but same old, same old...highest ratings are by name/friend. Lots of familliars, rating themselves to the top regardless of content. As usual.

[jnicholson]

Hmmm! I could've sworn I looked a couple of hours ago and didn't see the usual names.

[hanna_reitsch]

I correctly predicted it doesn't matter what changes are made, the same freaking crybabies will find a way to shed a tear. Brian will continue to be a lapdog to these people. Chrissie, have you ever considered it a possibility that some of these people do constantly good work?

[cappoldt]

<Yawn> Actually Hannie, the TRP view by default has me very content, thank you:)

 

And yes, I've considered that. I'll quite happily relent that it's possible that 20 some-odd people consistently find that they themselves take consistently good photographs. Without a doubt.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I must attend to my lapdog's bellyrub.

 

Ciao.

[mondiani]

Hanna do this experience: take one of these ppl photo - one you like - post it under your own name and do a request for critic. I'm pretty sure you will not got a 6.5/7 and 6.5/7 average with 40 mate-raters.<p>

 

Come on these ppl have huge average close to 7. It is simply ridiculous.

[mondiani]

this one for instance 3273022

[tom_henkel]

I, too, have noticed a change. But I can't say I understand the mechanics of the new system.

 

While it is certainly flattering to have a photo on the first or second page of the TRP, the real value(at least to me) of the Photo.net rating system is to get a sense of what people think of your work. In spite of the significant flaws in the old system I think I understood it. Hence I could assess how one of my photos resonated with the Photo.net community. The chances of getting a photo on the first couple pages of the "old" TRP was virtually impossible unless you wanted to play the mate-rate game. But being #1 wasn't my objective, so I didn't find it that bothersome.

 

Now it seems as though the "new" TRP has become an "everyone gets their day in the spotlight" type of system (I could be wrong, that's just my impression). There still appears to be some focus on quality, but I see things on the TRP that don't really impress me and I wonder why they are on page one or two when other, better, shots (at least in my opinion) are much lower. I don't understand why multiple versions of the same shot keep appearing on the TRP. For example, there are some shots of colored pencils that keep appearing high on the TRP. The first one was a nice shot. The subesquent versions are a yawn from a creative perspective. Yet they keep appearing on the TRP. Why? Sometimes you see three and four versions of same thing on the TRP at the same time. that seems wrong. You should have to pick the one you feel is the best shot for consideration.

 

I'm not really complaining about the "new" system. I do think better variety now appears on the TRP. But it's overall value to me has been diminished because I don't really understand what causes a particular photo to get a higher or lower ranking. If one of my shots makes it to the first couple of pages of the TRP is it because it's a good shot, or because it's my "turn" to get some exposure? And if I post another photo a few days after having a one high on the TRP, does that second shot get penalized? Or is it just because people don't like it as well as the previous shot? So I find it harder to assess what the TRP actually means. Also the "new" TRP appears to discourage meaningful comments (which always have been weak). So I think that is another downside.

 

Personally, it wouldn't bother me if the same names appeared on the TRP every day -- as long as the work being shown was the best of bunch. That certinly wasn't the case in the "old" system. I'm not convinced it's really the case with the "new" system either. I guess time will tell....

 

Tom

[afs760bf]

I've never really seen a good explanation of how the default view of the TRP works now, but it is confusing. When you post a photo for critique, all previous rates are deleted (at least that's what I understand - anad that's what it says on the load page) and you start fresh. That's good. Then the only ratings that count are the ones obtained through the "rate recent" queue. That's OK. But it seems that if the rater clicks on the photo while in the "rate recent" queue, because he or she wants to see the technical details of the shot, or see if anyone else has left a comment, and gives a rating to the photo while on the photo page, it doesn't count toward the TRP. I'm not sure that's the way it works, but I have no other explanation for why a shot would have nine ratings averaging 5.6/5.4 when you look at the photo, but when you look at the TRP page, if you can find the photo, it has five ratings with different averages. I'm not particularly worried about it, since the closest I've ever come, I think, is about page eight of the TRP, but it is hard to explain the workings. Just something to keep this forum humming, I guess. But I do see more variety in the TRP default view than before, so that is refreshing, and I believe Brian is to be commended for his efforts. My only remaining question is still "Why are there Requests for Critiques from non-subscribers in the Subscribers-only critique resquest queue?" Presently, the first eleven critique requests in the subscribers request queue are from non-subscribers. I suppose there is an answer??

[gerald_widen]

<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3312744-lg.jpg">This photo</a> speakes volumns for what goes on with the highest average rated photo page. Somewhere between 6 and 7 ??????.

[afs760bf]

The owner of that photo has given more seven ratings than any other number on the scale. And you will see some names you recognize. You might want to do a little investigating on that one and go the abuse routine.

[bens]

KEATING: Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard. We're not laying pipe, we're talking about poetry. I mean, how can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? I like Byron, I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it. [Pause] Now I want you to rip out that page. [The students look at Keating as if he has just gone mad.] KEATING Go on, rip out the entire page. You heard me, rip it out. Rip it out!

[afs760bf]

Sometimes it just makes you feel like a dead poet? Give it a 7.

[maurik]

Barry, Tom,<br>

I am not an expert on this, but I think I <b><i>deduce</i></b> the following about how things work now on the <i>main view TRP</i>. I could be wrong of course, but now the <i>main view</i> is "Rate Recent Sum", where it used to be "Average". That is it folks, that is <b>the only change to the system.</b> Hell, that was not a lot of work on anybodies part. <br>

This means that if my photo has one rating through the RR queue of 7/7, I will not appear high on the main TRP, since the SUM is quite low. Someone else with 40 ratings all over the place would be quite high.<br>

I think this is nice for several reasons: <br>

1) Because it goes through RR it is a little harder to rate your own picture (so all the mate raters are still on "Average" page, but no longer on the main one.) Yes, you can "flip through" until you find your own picture on RR as well, but it is a little harder (got to write a BOT for that, maybe make some money frome a crazed mate rater...) <br>

2) A controversial picture which attracts a lot of people to rate it in the RR queue will get some exposure, whether rated high or low. <br>

3) It gets more people to rate through RR, which is really a nicer way than to look for pretty pictures on the TRP and rate those.<br>

On the other hand, this is also not very nice at all: <br>

1) It does not "fix" anything. Clearly mate rating is still going on, and clearly people find ways to still mate rate on the RR (damn, no money for my BOT, I've been beat...) <br>

2) The comments on most of these photos are still rather short and usually not insightful. So the RR queu rating is not enticing people to actually think about the rating they give and then <b>let the photographer know what they think!</b> This is the most important part of Photo.net to me, and it is not always working so well.<br>

<br>

Some time ago there were suggestions that would actually do more than just provide a different view on the ratings (see collaborative filtering). There was actually someone willing to provide the code. But there did not seem to be a much interest in this solution, nor has any other <b>real</b> solution been suggested.<br>

So fine, Ben "The dead poet" perhaps we should stop worrying about ratings, I don't care about the number. But I <b>do</b> care that people look at my work and tell me what they think, and unfortunately, unless you are scoring high on TRP, you don't seem to get a lot of views or comments. Now how to improve that?

[bens]

Its not brain surgery. If you write enough constructive critiques to people who do the same, they will respond in kind.

[cappoldt]

Oh and FYI, folks, the above identity "Hannah" is likely some dude. I've never met a woman who couldn't spell "Chrissy," anyway. Besides, this rather boistrous and minimally-contributing insultor is obviously a sham, especially when you consider that Hanna Reitsch was an enthusiastic Nazi, the mistress of Robert Ritter von Greim. (Reitsch begged Hilter to let her stay with him to die in the bunker, having just delivered von Greim there.)

[mike l]

It's discussions such as this that make photography such an interesting subject.

[hanna_reitsch]

Chrissie is a correct variation of Christine Mr. Chrissie. I guess you must be a sham because you can't spell boisterous and insulter. Why would anyone put their real name on this site, too many nuts out there that can't spell? I am proud of you, when did you let Google give you a crash course in history? It certainly took long enough.

[vincetylor]

Hanna dear, you better calm down, might pop a vein...

 

The only time you show up is to flame somebody, nothing more. Your posts in the forums contribute nothing. Your lowball ratings on my images were all deleted too. You have some nice flower shots though...

 

"I correctly predicted it doesn't matter what changes are made, the same freaking crybabies will find a way to shed a tear. Brian will continue to be a lapdog to these people" (A quote for the archives by Hanna Reitsch)

 

Perhaps if Brian gets it right for a change there will be fewer problems. As it is, with the sum total (not average) being used to determine TRP, mere snapshots are on the first pages simply because they have MORE ratings, than obviously better images with higher averages but LESS ratings from the RFC. This system makes ZERO sense... as do many of Brian's decisions over the last year. I have personally watched the Photo.net gallery/experience spiral downward. The site gallery is the worst it has ever been. Brian seems to think he will curb mate-rating behavior by using the sum rather than average for TRP placement. It will never happen. You know why?? Because the TOP PHOTOGRAPHERS page is what they have always been after. In fact they continue to move up that imaginary top of the hill. You have to go after the abusers Brian. One day you might figure that one out. Calvinball was a trainwreck. Anonymous ratings curbed complaints NONE. The rating process is longer, more tedious than before. Larger views now mean the default medium view is now compromised in quality. (Wasn't like that before). Adding categories but not allowing people to filter out nudes meant changing the default TRP from *number* of ratings, to *average* of ratings (because the number of ratings category was FILLED with nudes) giving mate-raters even more incentive now since both Top Photographers page AND three day TRP were based on averages. All of these decisions have been steps backwards in my opinion. The same one person is responsible for all of these decisions and therefore responsible for the mess we see here today.

 

So Hannah dearest, seems to me your gripes are in the wrong place. Perhaps you should RE-evaluate your thoughts before hitting the keyboard next time.

[tijean]

Vincent, it is that way because 10 ratings of any kind knock a photo out of the RFC, so the good photogs with lots of people watching them fill their quota up quickly with fans (not necessarily mate-raters) and then no longer receive RFC ratings. Brian has said that he was correct that problem once people get adjusted to the new system as whole. I think that will clear things up nicely.

 

As it is, it gives more exposure to new or unknown members and less to people already embedded in the community. A bit socialist, but whatever. That said, it will be readjusted once everyone gets over the apparent trama of the initial change, as per an earlier thread on this forum. Baby steps.

 

As for Hanna, well, the last time I saw someone so argumentative as to blast someone for their spelling was back when I hung out at a web design forum for teenagers. Come to think of it, the last time I saw someone follow a person around pulling hair and calling ridiculous names (as she does to Chris) it was a case of grade school love. Better check your cubby for love notes, Chris, I think you have a secret admirer!

 

And no, I will not check my spelling because people understand what I am saying and I rather spend time taking/printing/viewing/discussing photographs, so excuse any typos, sentence structure errors, or misuse of commas. This may cause the fall of photography as we know it, but I am willing to take that chance.

[michaelseewald]

Common sense is not too common. Well done Jessica.

[vincetylor]

Jessica,

 

Brian has stated that he has chosen the rate recent SUM over the Rete recent AVERAGE for now to try to curb mate-rating habbits since he is still concerned about ALL of the different views available. Where he is clearly mistaken is that these mate-raters have always preferred the Top Photographers pages to the default three day TRP anyway. When I go to the "average" page-view right now, the exact same people are still there doing the very same thing. In fact they existed even before he had to make the TRP based on *average* of ratings, from *number* of ratings (due to an influx of nudes). They were happy then even though they usually did not receive much attention from the TRP, because they were on the TOP Photographers pages.

 

His choosing the sum over the total does give new people more visibility, that is true. But he is also penalizing more experienced photographers as well as long time subscribers simply because they are better photographers or, because have been active on the site longer. How reasonable is that?? Is that how you treat loyal customers in any business? Furthermore, these "newer ones" are receiving this extra visibility because the system is flawed, not because their images are better. In addition, the average Joe-public that clicks on the TRP is not getting the best images posted.

 

The only reason Brian had to resort to foolish changes like Calvinball, and changing the entire system like we now see it, is try to curb the effects of this problem known as Mate-rating. It is not working and will not work until he instead decides to go after the PEOPLE that are cheating directly. Something he refuses to do, and which in turn is making a bigger mess of the Photo.net gallery/experience.

[mottershead]

Vincent, nobody cares about the Top Rated Photographers page. It is obsolete. There aren't any links to it except in the odd forum post. The traffic to it is practically zero.

[melody1]

Why don't we have a forum dedicated to complaints about rating, comments, and 'Top Photos.' Seems like it would be the most active forum around. (Yes folks, that's dry humour. Some call it sarcasm.)

[bobatkins]

Melody. We have one. You're in it now...