Notice the Silence in Site Feedback Forum????

[chris_grant1]

Brain if I may..."Social rating is a problem on this site and all other photo rating sites that I am familiar with. The more the site attempts to foster "community", the more of a problem it is. It is sometimes dishonest, but more often, it is not. One person's "mate-rating" is another person's "mutual respect for high-quality work". If the admins are going to try to distinguish the two by making their own judgements about quality, we might as well just eliminate the rating system and have the admins decide directly which photos go into the TRP." In my email to you and Jeremy when you removed all of my ratings due to the whining groups that had nothing to do but daily complain of my ratings to Paul, I posed that same thought to you.

 

That being if one stayed on pnet for any length of time, and formed a core of artists they liked, then rated those, would this not produce the same issues as you speak of now? Yet here you seem to accept that fate while taking actions against me for doing just that.

 

I am curious as to why ratings are even allowed when they seem to create such a "headache" for all here. What is really won or accomplished by rates anyway? Seems to me the system causes friction and does nothing but create venues for certain groups to howl about. This in turn results in waves of abuse emails, almost forcing retalitory actions warranted or not, by mods.

 

It makes one wonder who runs the site, fair set of rules for all to go by, or certain groups that cry foul, loud and long enough until they achieve the results they were after.

[mottershead]

Chris, groups of people forming who "like" each others' work (and probably each other) may seem natural, but it is a problem, and it does tend to defeat the purpose of the rating system. The purpose of ratings is not to be the social glue that binds together little groups of mutually-respectful (friendly, etc) people, but to be a system that selects the best, most interesting work for prominent display on the site. The TRP is not intended to be an exhibition of the work of people who have been the best at making friends. It is supposed to be an exhibition of the best work. We aren't trying to make photo.net the Friendster of photo rating sites, or if we are, the rating system is not supposed to be part of that.

 

If I could get people to behave, when rating, like the jury members in a juried photo competition, it would be ideal. That would entail double-blind ratings, and some system for qualifying the jury members. It would not be a popular site, and rating would be a lot like work. Part of the motivation, in some cases a major part, for participants in the photo.net Gallery is social interaction. In the extreme, this degenerates into people using the ratings to slap each other on the back.

 

So we are torn between the goal of having the rating system be a reasonable system for selecting good work, and the desire that the site be popular and be seen as a friendly "community". So we accept as inevitable a certain degree of social rating, reckoning that the quality photos will emerge, more or less, from the "noise" created by the social rating. In cases where people seem to lose all sight of the purpose of the rating system, we "deal with" it as abuse. But there is a vast middle ground between impartial jury members and corrupt back-slappers where we can't "deal with" it because almost nobody is as much a "impartial jury member" as he might like to think. A lot of people are more in the back-slapping camp than they might like to suppose. So, we periodically change the rules a little when the social rating seems to be getting out of control in order to bring the system back to its intended purpose. It is a constant back and forth, and I don't think we will ever have a rating system that is both popular and perfectly fair and impartial.

 

As for your ratings of Paul, Chris, since you seem to use the same computer as Paul, the admins reckon either that you are a sock-puppet for Paul, or else a room-mate, co-worker, etc, and therefore we aren't interested in giving your high ratings of Paul's photos any weight at all. That is why they have been removed. This is an example of where we do deal with "mate-rating" as just straight abuse.

[root]

Mike, there are different ways to process the data, and the lists they generate would look quite different. As Vincent has pointed out, the site encourages mutual rating and many newcomers participate until they begin to recognize the politics surrounding that behavior pattern. At that point, many change their rating practices or stop altogether. Makes me wonder if my early rates to Michael Chang, Dave Nitsche, Ken Williams, and a few others would be processed any differently for the purposes of the list than if they had all been made recently.

 

John, you seem to be unaware that several people have found that there are real world financial benefits for gallery visibility on this site.

 

Brian, the gallery would be a lot less popular if a panel picked images only inasmuch as the activity of rating (dominated by people fond of snaps, as well as mate raters) is itself the reason for visiting. Aren't you forgetting how many visitors participate less because of the gaming and ignorance that so many of these rates represent (and more importantly, the weight given to them, even now)? You attribute that to natural attrition, suggesting no particular response to site conditions . . . . except that over the years, many have stated in very clear terms why their interests waned or was never sparked at all, preferring the forums instead.)

[chris_grant1]

Brian as pc skilled as the pnet group is. I can assure you that Paul and I do not share anything other than friendship. He lives in Vancouver and I in the state of Virgina. I am sure that this is easily checked if you would care to check further. That is a very slanderous comment to make without bothering to show any proof.

 

Is this the reason you banned Paul? You thought we were the same? I used his pw to give him a membership as a gift. Thats the ONLY time I have ever accessed it. I sent several emails to you concerning this fact when I was trying to find a way to do it without him knowing..hence the gift...I was directed in forum post to contact pnet thru mail or eventually get Pauls pw and go that route. Without any reply from pnet, I finally had to ask Paul for the needed info.

 

Search for my requests..easily done. You give me some long speil on etiquette and how the system works, then throw out sock puppet, roomate, mater, telling me my rates are insignificant. Nice way to treat the customers. I only rated quality pics..from lots of artisits, Paul was the recipient of alot, but I rated all highly. I have no pics so to speak of and never once received any mate rates. So please explain to me why my rates didn't matter.

 

I'm not here to fight, so don't take it that way. I just feel you have unfairly made statements that you need to retract.

 

Chris

[mottershead]

Chris, Paul was not banned temporily because you gave him a subscription, or even because there seem to be several accounts which seem rather more closely linked with him than seems quite correct. I'm not going to go into the reasons why Paul was banned in a public forum. We told Paul the reasons for this action, and we didn't have any reason to give him anything other than the actual reasons. So you can ask him.

 

But concerning using the same computer, you'd be surprised at what we can tell from the web logs and other information we gather. One of the things that we can tell is who uses the same computer to access photo.net.

[chris_grant1]

Yes by all means lets concern the same computer use. You are still implying that we use the same pc when this is not the case. Am I not to expect public clarification on this from pnet? All I want are the ip facts...

 

I'm tired of being accused of this. Your abuse department let these accusations go on here giving rise to alot of the grief being dealt with now. I don't understand when Rash and the boys cried this all the time, and I asked for you guys to set the record straight, I was ignored. Yet now I sit here still feeling I have to defend myself.

 

After you guys removed all my ratings, I virtually quit rating pics, yet my rates were still being brought up in the same old noise. It seems whichever turn I take it's incorrect here.

[mottershead]

March 19, 2005. IP address 68.57.95.148. Same browser, even.

 

The point is not that people who are friends or relatives can't belong to photo.net. We have many cases where married couples both belong to photo.net, for example. The point is that when they do, they should be careful not to seem to be acting in concert with each other to game the rating system. Stick to comments. If two people are friends in the "real world", photo.net is not interested in their mutual ratings. The ratings are supposed to be impartial, and even though they frequently are not, we generally give people the benefit of the doubt. But if we know they are not, then those ratings are deleted.

 

In any case, this is not the reason that Paul was banned. You will notice that you were not banned. The only thing that happened was that your cross-ratings with Paul were deleted.

[chris_grant1]

So what happened on March, 19th 2005 from that ip? Perhaps that was when I logged in to purchase more webstorage for his photos that was never creditied to his account but I was charged by PayPal for it. If you will look further you will see that I also logged in and paid for someone elses membership too. Does that mean that they are now lumped in as me?

 

As Jeremy was told in letter from Paul,I have an account as Chris Grant and my kids share an account here. Both are paying members mind you. Until this week my account was on seperate pc from the kids, but mine finally shorted out from all the 7's I was dishing out.

 

I brought up Paul's temporary banning one time, yet it seems to continue thruout this conversation. I am sorry to see him in ShawShank, but that is between you and him to resolve.

[bens]

Brian, I thought I'd add a little more of my perspective here, having spent a lot of time on the site in the past year.

 

I think there are several communities using the site to post photos, with somewhat different desires and goals. The first are serious, experienced, often professional, photographers who use the site for some feedback, but also as a showcase. My own sense is that they are the most competitive group. They provide a disproportionate number of the high rated photos, naturally, though a lot in this group use the forums and don't display much at all.

 

The second are the site's "middle class", of which I count myself, intermediate amatuer hobbyists who see the site as a place to get a little recognition beyond friends and family, connect with other photographers. and learn. We don't have a ready place to display work other than on sites like this. We tend to do more of the "social rating" you refer to, and don't have the experience or perspective to apply the kind of neutral ratings approach you seem to seek. But my guess is that we are the bulk of the committed users of the site.

 

The third are relatively new photographers and site participants, who often want feedback to improve and feel frustrated by the lack of it at times. This group is more of a revolving door, checking out the site and then moving on.

 

I don't know what are the site's demographic goals. But I think its important to distinguish between these groups.

 

The recent change in the default TRP seems to address the concerns of the first group primarily. As my message above suggests, I've long been concerned that the increasing focus on managing the ratings system can negatively impact the culture of the site (by making it more competitive), and ignore the desires by many for more extensive feedback than ratings.

 

So, broken record that I am, I encourage you to do everything you can to offset the growing competitiveness, which I think is inevitable given human and ego and that there is a ratings system that determines the most prominently displayed photos on the site, with incentives that encourage people to constructively share their thoughts about each other's photos. A significant portion of the site's participants continue to seek this feedback as much as, or more, than they desire a "fair" ratings system.

 

Thanks for all your efforts. I'm sure its not easy, and I admire your effort.

 

Ben

[markplawchan]

"a bit of compensatory unfairness in the other direction does not concern me very much. Think of it as a little photo.net affirmative action on behalf of new and "friendless" people."

 

sign me;

"New and Friendless"

(Pnetwise)

[johncrosley]

I'm glad my remark started this discussion. It's been one of the most free-form and revealing discussions I can recall on Photo.net's rating system. (Apologies to Tylor for misspelling).

 

One thing revealed that's of great interest is that Brian has the IP address of any machine that has rated -- something the mate-raters should fear greatly, and I long have suspected, and Brian keeps his cards pretty close to his chest -- something I have long known. He must play a pretty good game of poker, and probably would have made a good attorney, letting people 'entrap' themselves before revealing damaging evidence.

 

To re-interate, I did NOT praise the new rating system, I just noted that there had been a long new period of quiet in the site feedback forum.

 

What had been a forum filled with long series of rants about ratings problems, suddenly had become quiet, and instead of continual complaints about mate-raters and drive-by ratings, members seem to have gotten the word that complaints to abuse@photo.net DO WORK in the aggregate (as I have generally found) so that individual complaints to this forum are obviated, and also that the Administration does pay attention but does not act hastily, as it is aware of the 'Rule of Unintended Consequences'.

 

Again, I have had no interaction or knowledge of Brian M. outside of this forum and watching his postings from time to time. If I had criticisms, I would feel free to post them.

 

Frankly, for all the 'quirks' that I noted in my initial post of the new rating system, it seems to be accomplishing its purpose. One collateral benefit may be to free Brian M. from continual headaches from irate members -- something to which I think he is entitled. His must be one of the most demanding jobs ever, running a community that by definition is one of 'critics' who, whenever there is a real or perceived offense, turn to criticizing him.

 

John (Crosley)

[vincetylor]

Fun reading, better than the newspaper today.

 

Brian, if I have handed out almost 9000 ratings over two and a half years, don't you think eventually the numbers exchanged between photographers are going to ADD UP? Sure, giving over ten 7s may look to you on the surface like somebody is playing the mating game, but then you must ALSO look at how much time this activity took place during. Your data should also consider the PERCENTAGES of these 7s given, with how many images these people have actually have posted. The mate-raters are handing 7/7 to practically every new image posted by those in this group. Please take a closer look, it is easy to figure out. In essence the data that determines these trends needs a little more intelligence here, a little more tweaking.

 

As an example: I will use Jay Patel this time (sorry jay). I would assume I have given him more than ten 7s, so according to this data alone, I am now thrown into the mate business and all rates to him discounted. What this very general formula you are using does NOT tell you is that both of us have been on the site for a relatively long time. Close to three years for myself and over four years for him. It also fails to recognize that most of the images each of us have posted have not been rated at all by the other. If I were to give Jay only one seven every three months (even though he might post consistently good images every two weeks) I would still cross your mate-rating line after just two years time. The system is not calibrated correctly quite yet.

 

In addition, the Photo.net site itself (with raters names being visible, interesting persons lists etc.) as well as human nature in general, naturally leads to people developing ties. So what is wrong if I start to gravitate towards a few photographers whose work I like, or perhaps have similar interests with? We can still maintain objectivity. In fact it's vital that we do so in order to improve. Again, according to your current algorithms in determining mate-raters I am guilty here and ratings discounted, when in reality I have done no such thing. Jay Patel has received ONE 7/7 rating from me although he has 70 images posted. Yet all my 7s are now thrown out because I have reached the so called limit of ten. In fact, if you read my comments to Jay, you will see that I also usually have suggestions to help improve his images as well as points of commendation. The same could apply to Walter T., Dave N and a few others I am sure.

 

In effect Brian, the algorithms currently used to discount 7s and determine mate-raters that you have implemented, as well as the current TRP today, punishes people simply for being around longer and who've put in more time rating images and developing relationships. Is this how any business should treat their regulars? Just call us Rodney... let me find my red tie!

[vincetylor]

In fact, regarding ANYBODY that is active on the site even now, as enough times elapses, every single image receiving 7s would eventually have to be discounted, because everybody rating images would at some point go beyond ten 7s on a given photographer. Whether six months, a year or five years. At some point you will hit ten, IF you stay active. Unless of course the ones receiving ratings actually go backwards in their skill and get worse. Not a bad idea I guess.

 

This is why the Calvinball system needs some obvious refining.

[sprouty]

<I>"One thing revealed that's of great interest is that Brian has the IP address of any machine that has rated -- something the mate-raters should fear greatly..."</I>

<P>

The only people who should fear this are the ones who have the internet savy of an 8 year old or an 80 year old grandmother. If anyone really wants to be a wiscracking pain in the ass, a vindictive rater, or whatever, it's really quite simple to do without fear of being linked back to a primary account.

<P>

Having said that, I never rate (which by the way is something a lot of the TRP's stars should be quite happy about).

[joe604]

The above comments (May 01, 2005; 07:00 p.m., May 02, 2005; 08:11 a.m., 09:23 a.m.) are an example of Brian at his best. Brian has been criticized for his silent aloofness and caginess. For some, this is evidence that Brian is a poor communicator and ill-suited for this job, and for others, it is evidence that Brian is a savvy administrator who knows when to hold 'em and when to show 'em. But here he has opened up about his rationale for the recent change in the TRP system.

 

When the new default TRP was rolled out, I was frankly disappointed and even surprised that Brian would do such a thing. In the past, Brian's tweaks of the site have come slowly and cautiously, which I highly commend. But the new system seemed disturbingly flawed.

 

It is clear that the Rate-Recent-Sum system has a negative bias: well-respected, popular members are penalized when they receive ratings from admirers outside of the Rate Recent queue -- these other ratings prevent their images from ever collecting the 9, 10, or 11 Rate-Recent-queue rates needed to reach the top page. Thus, this system seems like a poor fit for Brian's ultimate goal of a rating system that selects the best photos.

 

Is there anyone here that actually believes that, on the whole, the pictures in the new system are better than in the original Average system? The bottom line is that, for all of its unfairness and abuse, the old Average system does successfully bring many great images to the top pages. I have my doubts about the new system.

 

What will come next? Only Brian knows. But his above posts indicate that his perspectives on mate-rating and the current ratings system seem well grounded in reality. So, I expect that he will continue to tweak the system carefully and slowly. And that is fine with me. -- Joe

[john falkenstine]

Sigh.....Whatever happened to the Pancake Bunny?

[mike dixon]

I think the Pancake Bunny killed himself because he got such low ratings.

 

Is anyone else chuckling to themselves that now, instead of people complaining about how people got into the TRP by having high rates from their friends, they're complaining that people are being kept out of the TRP because of rates from their friends? So it's unfair if people make it into the TRP because of their friends' rating, but it's also unfair if they don't make it into the TRP without their friends' ratings? I'm left wondering what exactly would be fair? If the people you like (or whose work you like) get to benefit from friendly ratings while the people you don't like (or whose work you don't like) don't get that benefit? Is that how a fair system should work?

[john falkenstine]

Ahh, Mike, he's just taking a nap. See this link. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008PQF

[yongbo]

<b>Hi Brian</b>, the problems are from two lists, the all time average and photographer average. 500 seats and 2000 seats. Nobody cares the 3 days list. Also, I think the rating system is broken now. I have a fly picture got stuck on page 2 since this morning, didn't receive a single rating or comment for the whole day. Find the abuser is much easier than find the software bugs. The Site Feedback is the dedicated rating system for you, 2/2 this time, but you have the skill to get a 7/7.

[johncrosley]

Vincent K. Tyler

 

I don't think you carefully read Brian's post or mine interpreting his post.

 

He DID NOT suggest you were a mate rater.

 

He was tweaking your argument, not you.

 

He was poking a hole in your logic, not a personal hole in your character (unless from the total number of 7s that you are referring to, you are referring to a number from which he already has deleted a great number of 7s that you are not telling us about, which I very much doubt.)

 

Again, Brian was making an argument of logic using the device of reductio ad absurdum (reduce to an absurdity) as a device, and you took it the wrong way, entirely, I think. Please go back and re-read Brian's comment.

 

If he really thought you were mate-rating, he already would have deleted the 7/7 ratings you had made, I think, since he's fully aware of them and has done so with others.

 

I carefully read what he wrote and did NOT come to the conclusion, then or now, that he was doing anything more than making a point about logic, and not a point about your ratings tendencies or your character -- a character which you have defended more than adequately.

 

(And to the other poster about IP addresses: Of course any nitwit would know that the IP address could be found out; the fact is it is now revealed that the IP addresses ARE being traced by the Administration when there is an issue of duplicate accounts by a member, and one person just found about it the hard way. It's not hard to confound a system if one wants to go to the trouble and knows how, and we can assume also that Brian has use of 'traceroute' and other means at his disposal, but he'll probably not tell us about that (and probably laments telling us about using the IP address of a member's computer, since he does not like to reveal all).

 

With so many members, and a few members who are so 'touchy', I think that discretion in communications is an admirable quality in an adminstrator, and awareness of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' may be one of Brian's first rules of Administration.

 

He needs and assuredly reads the site feedback forum, just for that. For instance, I note that when Bob Atkins wanted to call slow response time to Brian's attention, he used the 'site feedback' forum this weekend.

 

I think there's little that escapes Brian's attention and that he has been long suffering and has deserved a respite. He assuredly knows of the problems associated with the present rating system and probably is trying to figure out how and when to implement a better system.

 

The problem is not with Brian.

 

The problem has been with the previous system and the competitiveness it inspired which fostered the mate-raters.

 

And the mate-raters have spoiled it for us all, at least temporarily.

 

But bit by bit, the site gets better.

 

A year ago, the main problem was system outages and downtime, I recall. We couldn't get our fix. Now the problem is our friends' votes don't count as much or at all toward TRP. And, for what it's worth, although it could change at any minute the drive-by low raters seem to be more under control, now don't they?

 

As Roseanne Rosannadanna said:

 

It's always something!

 

John (Crosley)

[johncrosley]

Vincent K. Tylor (sorry I misspelled your name)

 

John

[root]

"He was poking a hole in your logic, not a personal hole in your character (unless from the total number of 7s that you are referring to, you are referring to a number from which he already has deleted a great number of 7s that you are not telling us about, which I very much doubt.)"

 

John, why do you doubt it? It's pretty clear from my careful reading of these posts that Brian archives some if not all of the ratings he has deleted. Vincent is deliberately misleading us by implying that 64 7/7s as seen in his favorites pages represents his grand total during his tenure here, but Brian has never actually defined mate rating in terms of either volume or frequency of high rates. Vincent does have a point that the exchange of 7s every three months isn't obviously abusive, especially compared to almost daily exchanges that occur now and have always occurred within various cliques on the TRP.

 

We do have a hint of what sort of rating distributions and reciprocity Brian would like based on the old "Curators" sort. Problem is, it is totally unrealistic - one rate (any rate) reciprocated within a month kept you and your "mate" out of that sort. There were other refinements, but it excluded darn near every active member and had to be abandoned since it turned up so few images.

 

He doesn't understand the compulsion to rate images as an integral part of every image interaction, and frankly neither do I. Why not just a comment?

 

Part of the reason is that virtually all image views encourage rating. Changing the sorts isn't enough. At some point you have to change the interfaces which have trained gallery participants to behave the way they do. Right now, uploaders are penalized for having their images rated off the TRP (and it isn't just mates or fans, Brian, it's anybody who is inspired for any reason at all to rate the image having seen it in any TRP sort.) So why not disable the rating option except where you want it to occur . . . off the RFC list?

[dagata]

This is a hell of a lot of discussion over putting numbers on pictures--

something that has nothing to do with constructive criticism. I've had shots

here that got 3's that New York Times photographers told me were

outstanding.

[sprouty]

<I>"This is a hell of a lot of discussion over putting numbers on pictures."</I>

<P>

Same thing I've always wondered. Exactly why people who already know how to take pretty decent picture feel compelled to drone on endlessly about the unfairness of the rating system? To what gain? Or more specifically, to benefit whom?

<P>

I'd be eternally impressed if someone who regularly complains stepped up and admitted it was pure vanity and ego. That answer I could respect.

[yongbo]

<b>Hi SP</b>, have you ever seen the mate rater complain? This is the site feedback forum, you can just type "7/7" here, but that's useless.