stever2 Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 attempts to fix humpty dumpty always seems to leave pieces. context shift: suggest create alternate universe that generates greater interest. example: Gunfight at the PN Corral. Format: weekly team competition to determine best photograph in a given catergory. catergories are the 10 (prefer 19 but that makes 5 month comp)chosen in advance by PN from the listed Critique by Catergory, weekly sequence follows posted listed order. points awarded weekly based on final average rating accumulated over two weeks. results published in third week. teams ranked by score in catergory and overall. Rules: teams consist of paid subscribers only, 4 to 8 members, each paid subscriber limited to one team. one team member per team submits team's one photograph for that week's category. overall, no one team member contibutes more than 3 photographs, each team member must submit at least once. members of teams can not rate any photographs. other paid and non paid subscribers can rate as is normal now. top and bottom number of ratings submitted (suggest 3-4, but same number)eliminated from average. (prefer critiques not allowed to force 'fresh' look at photo without influence of others). suggest thumbnails, open in own window when clicked. post teams under their team name, with members listed. just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 It seems only photos with less than 11 rates are listed and if some mate-raters vote for you it push your photos out of the TRP<p> look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3270364">this link</a>.<p> Are the mate raters definitely KO? Is war against mate-raters won? To be continued ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasprice Posted April 10, 2005 Author Share Posted April 10, 2005 Great idea Steven, but you would have to run the competition, as no-one else would understand the rules! I always thought that photo.net was a competition (only joking)! Regards, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennington Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Many of the pictures on the front page have over 10 ratings. I'ts just what now seem to be the default sort only counts ratings that the picture attained from the "Rate Recent Que". No mate rates count, no hate rates count, and if you did not request a critique for your picture it won't show up at all.<p>I hope this stays the default view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 And to prevent people from submitting it for critique AFTER their friends have rated it, it must have at least one 5/5 or higher from a genuine rate-recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Ignore my last comment. I just looked at the TRP. Things are getting better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertigoclimb Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 are you kidding? i just looked a the trp... and I hate to say it but, the birds were better photo's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbrown Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Lisa, I'll agree with you that the quality of the work is now lower--but this is just the beginning. Currently, the top-rated page is filled mostly with photographs rather than PS creations. There is a diversity of styles and subjects. And more importantly, the images were rated: or at least as fairly as the average user of this site can rate. I think that's a vast improvement to the large club who rated each other's 7/7. Perhaps you prefer the other system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Robert, next time, do your homework first. :-) We are used to seeing a fairly narrow range of styles on the TRP, many characterized by over saturation. To many of us, this is NOT aesthetically pleasing. Now we don't have to be inundated with them. In short, it's our turn. (it's also interesting to see how many people respond to one thread without realizing what's been reported on some of the others.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 carl, following you around in these threads to get your reaction to the all-time leaders for "rate recent sum," which i checked for the first time a little while ago. check the top 100. they are all from one category of photo exclusively. is this where the trp is headed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbrown Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Ben, the all time leaders really don't matter since the ratings have become so inflated (older photos have no chance). Carl, I did check. There are some pretty weak photos on the TRP, but as I stated earlier (perhaps you didn't read my post carefully?), it's an improvement to what we had before. Hopefully, as more serious members go back to rating photos (since it has some meaning now), the TRP will improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Yes there are some weak photos, but there are also some strong ones THAT AREN'T FLAMINGOS! I find myself enjoying looking at the TRP again. There's probably some extra tweaking to do, but a lot of it is now up to us the audience since we can go back to making meaningfull ratings again. I almost forgot how much I used to enjoy visiting this site. What a difference this makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Robert, I was referring to the photographic preferences of the poster before yours. She LOVES manipulated images . . . . oh, never mind. Ben, I don't understand how any image can get 300 rates only from the RFC ratings queue, so this new sort must get rates from another source as well. I suspect Brian will comment on this at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 The problem is that the numerical rating system is intrinsically flawed. It is based on a c. 1950s kindergarden mentality. (All right children, your pictures must all be pretty pictures and they should be original pictures; otherwise Sen. McCarthy will put you on his list.) It encourages pedestrian tastes. This is why much of the supposedly top photography in Gallery falls under the catagory of bedroom art. Maybe having a photograph submitted for general critique and requiring at least 11 ratings might make things a little better. Yet it might not. Anyone with 11 mates will win every time. To make Gallery more fair and more intelligent, first trash the numerical rating system based on "aesthetics" and "originality" and then start afresh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 As long as we are wishing, I want a system with private ratings and personal recommendations. Then people can rate with honesty and see more of what they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knicki____ Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 If we're wishing can we have something like pnetters who liked this image also liked xx image or have rated xx image or something along those lines. I think amazon does something like that- or some place that sells books. Recommends titles and so forth. Example, pnetters who like dark dreary and depressing photos also liked blah blah... A girl can dream, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Can you explain your views Emre? It sounds clever and interesting but I don't get it O:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertigoclimb Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Carl, Like you, "she" loves things that are pleasing to her eye. I'll not prejudice/limit myself by liking only what you like, as I'd happily expect you not to do with what I like. But, just because you don't like something doesn't mean no one does ...and just because I like it doesn't mean that I expect you to. But, I would expect you to give me the same respect I give you. "different strokes for different folks". I have a good friend who's a professional photographer who "hates" landscape photo's. He says they all look alike don't take too much talent. He also hates "abstract" photo's of things like reflections and macro shots of wall textures. He feels that "an ape could take those shots". But, he's a photojounalist and see's things differently. I disagree. I love what pleases my eye and hope we agree on this. What pleases our eyes is just different. Being an artist who also loves photography it's only natural (to me, again you don't have to agree) that I'd do things a bit differently. If I didn't have my inclination towards art my photo's may have stayed more to what you like to see. But, then again my father who's been a photographer for many, many years in the most purist of ways, says he wishes he had my "talent". Isn't photo.net big enough for all of us? Also, was your comment about things being reportrd about other members directed at me as well? wow. Are people complaining about me personally now, just manipulations, or in particular my manipulations? Please note that I've not been accused of mate rating or any other abuse that I'm aware of. I don't have the time nor the desire to be a part of those things. I just create through film or film and digital media and post images to my portfolio. If they are rated great, if not... so what. I used to care but, now I see the folly (to my peace of mind) in that and just enjoy the show. One last thing. If the members have a say in the direction photo.net takes then why should your ideas or opinions carry more weight and or have more validity than mine? If the members are making the rules now then, wouldn't it be a shame if the friend of mine I spoke of above's opinion was deemed "the right one"? Yes, ratings were quite inflated, mate rating is running rampant, and many people were abusing the system. It's a shame and I'm all too glad to see something finally done about it. But, to nullify one genre to give preference or inflate the validity of your own is also a shame and just as manipulative and self-fufilling as some other things that have gone on recently. I do apologize if this got a little off topic but, he did bring it up... ;o) Though I know you've read this, I think you may have forgotten that your opinion isn't held by all: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BiFM&unified_p=1 I've seen before that you've a tendency to take bits and pieces of what people write, selectively repost the bits using quotation marks to try to tear their reasoning down. Please keep my words intact, in their original order as a whole of what I said, and really think about them instead of simply reacting. My mother used to tell us to be proactive, not reactive. Always Kind Regards, Lisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Lisa, I make one reference to your love of manipulations, and you go off the deep end!? Me thinks you protest too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertigoclimb Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 lol. I was a little worried that people had begun to complain about me. Yikes. But, I do hope you know I admire your photo's and apologize if I went off the deep end. And you're right, I do like some manipulations but I also like some photography. Hope you ahve a good night Carl. Smiles, Lisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheely Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Lisa's image manipulations are absolutely extraordinary. I would hate for her quality of work to be frowned upon by this site. <p> I like the diversity of the new TRP and I like the fact that it has some bad shots on it (means I might get there too some day). I think, in time, this system will be refined so that the good images that used to be there can still come through. However, if they don't put them up for critique, I'm glad they are not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasprice Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 I agree with Mark's comment above regarding Lisa's work. However, to some extent the members here do, or should make the rules! They do this by rating photographs in the Critique Forum, and from here the TRP page should be produced. If you want a photograph on the TRP page, what is a more honest way of getting it there, than by having it "voted" there by a load of strangers, rather than by a load of mates? Please don't make any personal attacks or accusations here, my original question was ment to be a general and serious proposal, and not an attack on any individual or style of photograph. Regards, Nick. 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