Names Back Beside Ratings

[nicholasprice]

Brian, why are ratings important? If you get rid of them, all we are left with are the comments.

Why is this not a good thing? Or do you like the competetive element?

 

Nick.

 

P.S. I ment what I said about Brian's photographs, and recommend that you visit his portfolio.

[ken dennis]

Brian, I don't think we are talking about the same photo, the one IM refering to doesn't have a 7/7!

 

And thank you very much for the conformation as to what I have been expecting, I can see now that your main consern isn't the site, the community or photographers for that matter, you are implementing new programs for your own benefit!

 

I will never post to this site again, you can keep it, and all the rediculous bull it has to offer!

[kslonaker]

Nicholas, if you get rid of the ratings, then what happens with the TRP pages? Not necessarily a bad thing if they go away, I know, but if you came across this web site in a search, that's probably something you would check out first (I know I did in the beginning). Most of the images on the TRP are generally well done - some perhaps more deserving of a 5 than a 7, but usually better than average. It's enough to make newbies excited and wanting the exposure on that page themselves. The alternative would be to have a committee who select images to be put on a "top" page and there would be room for complaints if that happened, too.

[nicholasprice]

Kim, you are probably right, people are essentially competitive creatures, but far to much

emphasis is on the TRP. Perhaps you should only be able to rate if you leave a comment. I

know there will lots of useless comments, but it may encourage some people and start the

ball rolling as it were.

 

Compulsory comments, and completely transpatent ratings! - is that too much to ask?

 

Nick.

 

P.S. People should also visit Kim's portfolio. She is a very accomplished photographer!

[mottershead]

Ben, yes I am discouraging rates outside of Rate Recent to a certain extent by making RR ratings the basis for the default view. The total number of ratings of photos has held constant since I introduced that change, but the number of RR ratings has increased. People are shifting to the RR feature for rating. Good: that is what I wanted.

 

As for whether the site encourages comments: obviously we don't, other than to provide people with the ability to comment. We don't discourage them, but there is no extra "reward" for commenting.

 

The interchange between photographers is what commenting is all about, and people will get the kind of interchanges for which they are looking. If people don't write comments, they probably won't get any. If people make harsh, sarcastic, comments, they will probably be reciprocated. If people make balanced, perceptive comments, with a mix of praise and criticism, they will probably receive the same, although they will have some oversensitive people reacting more strongly to their criticism than to their praise, especially if the two aren't as balanced as the commenter supposed. And if people write vapid, empty, comments, that is what they will probably receive. If they can recognize a vapid, empty comment, and are writing them anyway in order to get high ratings, then getting them back is what they deserve. If they can't recognize a vapid, empty, comment, then they will probably like the vapid, empty, comments they get in return.

[nicholasprice]

Fair enough Brian, then maybe a better comprimise would be to only allow rating in the "rate

resent queue" and nowhere else?

 

Nick.

[kslonaker]

Brian, you're right on with that statement. I try to word my comments as nicely as I can when making suggestions, but some people still take them the wrong way, particularly if others before me have said "WOW", "7/7", etc.

[nicholasprice]

......then if people want to make friends, they will be compelled to make comments. Surely

this is much more important and is a good way forwards?

 

Nick.

[nicholasprice]

......then if people want to congratulate each other as part of a mutual appreciation society,

they can do it with ratings that do not affect the TRP.

 

?

 

?

 

Nick.

[nicholasprice]

sorry, I ment "comments that cannot affect the TRP"

[kslonaker]

I have learned much more from comments than ratings on PN, but only from the people who care to give me an honest opinion. When I first joined PN, I posted a few shots that I thought were really good. People like Walter Tatulinski and Lou Ann Aepelbacher gave me constructive critiscism and that was so much more valuable than if they had given me a 4/4 and went on by without saying anything. Even if someone rates my photo highly, I like to know WHY - what's working for them with this image. That's the best way to learn. I don't learn from drive-by low ratings and I also don't learn from the "wow"s or wordless 7/7s. When I get those, I have to wonder if that person is looking for a reciprocal response from me. While I generally DO check out the work of everyone who comments on my images, I don't feel compelled to rate/comment the same as they do on mine.

[nicholasprice]

Kim, you have just successfully explained what I think this site should be about!

 

Essentially - honest critisism without reciprical cost!

 

Nick.

[kslonaker]

If only it was that easy, Nick! Try going and posting a comment on a page where everyone else has said "WOW", "7/7" and come in with a suggestion to make the image better or a reason why you wouldn't rate with a 7/7. Not everyone takes offense, but enough do that I hesitate leaving a comment that doesn't agree with the majority. However, me being me, I usually go ahead and do it anyway. :)

[root]

" . . . . It's enough to make newbies excited and wanting the exposure on that page themselves. The alternative would be to have a committee who select images to be put on a "top" page and there would be room for complaints if that happened, too."

 

Kim, you're right about everybody wanting exposure. The question is whether or not that exposure should feature the very best, most of the good ones, or darn near everyone. You can make a case for any one of those three levels, but instead, we have a fourth and fifth sort. One is the group of people who both rate high and shoot popular images. The other (the current default) is defined by people who manage to avoid being rated by someone outside the RFC queue.

 

It's pretty clear that neither of these options are satisfactory to the majority of contributors, nor are they in the site's best interest.

 

The committee approach, which I support, as you know, is really nothing more than a manual version of what a computer could do if the input was provided by changes to site interfaces.

 

1) Limit the number of uploads - or at least those that qualify for prominent view.

 

2) Limit the number of sixes and sevens available to each rater that can be applied to current images.

 

If this isn't being done because we're afraid of a dramatic increase in sock puppet accounts, then you end up with a committee of experienced ethical members as the last resort.

 

People who would whine about not being picked would probably be featured in due course . . . and perhaps wish they'd kept their traps shut when they get the feedback they say they so want so badly.

[root]

The only way we will be able to offer critiques of popular images in a reasonably neutral environment is if the site stops promoting them to such a large extent by allowing all the pop rates and mate rates to stand. We've seen ample evidence that people really do start to believe all the vacuous praise.

[root]

. . . . so Brian, I think an argument can be made that the site actually discourages critiques of overrated pop images by not taking a more direct approach to reduce mate rating and halo rates.

[oswegophoto]

I'll state up front that, right now, I don't see this as a positive change. I felt, under the

previous mode, that the amount of uncertainty as to whose rating was whose was about

right. So I disagree with both changes (making RR raters' names vanish and making direct

raters' names appear with their ratings). If the goal is to solve a problem related to ratings,

I don't see how this helps. I liked being able to visit the portfolios of those who were good

enough PN citizens to rate photos in the RR queue, <i>whatever</i> they thought of

mine, and discovered some fine portfolios that way; you've closed that avenue.<p>

And, once having discovered such an interesting portfolio, I like to investigate it, rating

and commenting from time to time (note: these photos will nearly all be too old for the RR

queue). I comment when I leave a rating, if I have something to say, and generally just

move on past photos I don't care for at all (unlesss I can suggest a fix). Your new mode

dictates that none of these ratings will be in the least anonymous; anyone offended by a 5

(after slews of 7s) will now have no trouble determining its source. Can you say, "chilling

effect?" I hate to sound reactionary, but I preferred it before.

[mattvardy]

I see what you mean, Kim. I usually feel the same way...

 

One thing I've noticed is that the majority of popular photographers on PN (those that frequently occupy the TRP etc) usually aren't looking for help or advice. Or at least they don't seem to be interested in your honest opinion/insight. I remember once leaving a good chunk of writing on one of Ms Cano's images, amongst dozens of the one-word-wonders like the "Wow, 10/10" sort you mentioned. Nothing came in return. No "thank you" - no response - in fact no acknowledgement whatsoever and it felt as if my efforts were totally lost amongst the echoes of praise. Maybe some people just know it all... or, they have become so accustomed to receiving the praise that they are no longer interested in hearing something different.

 

The problem I see (and as Brian pointed out in response to Ben's question) is that there really is no reward for giving comments, and they are no guarantees that they will be well receive - if at all. I know most of us who enjoy writing comments/interacting try to respond when we can, but after being "ignored" a few times one becomes discouraged from commenting, and usually takes the easy way out by rating. Comment "at own risk"?..

[michaelhills]

For what it is worth, my two cents:<br><br>

I have been a member of this community for less then a year. When I first joined, I use to browse the Top rated photos (in all their various calculations) all the time to see some truly excellent images. I have been inspired by many of them and elements have made their way into my work. This is good. This is how we, as photographers, should be sharing our knowledge. I even started rating images and got ratings in return. I remember getting my first '7' and the joy it brought me :)<br><br>

Then, I discovered the forums - and the site feedback forum in particular. I read about the dastardly mate-raters, the evil revenge-haters etc, etc... All this I previously did not know existed. Here I thought the TRP got there on their own merit :) Based on all that went on in the forums, I decided to stop rating and only to continue to leave my thoughts (usually substantial) about images I found appealing etc. <br><br>

Later, I realised that I personally, would still love for people to rate my images, but also to leave a comment to substantiate that rating. So, I started doing that, and still am - leave a rating and comment at the same time. I have found this to be incredibly gratifying.<br><br>

It has always bothered me that there were no names besides the ratings on my images. I just don't understand why names have to be detatched from ratings. To stop revenge/hate rating? Please. Thats going to happen regardless. People so inclined will always find a way.<br><br>

My suggestion - either make ratings totally anonymous or toatally transperant. Why bother with half/half? <br><br>

And Kim, don't stop rating. With respect, I think that is a form of 'giving up'. Your portfolio is outstanding and for you to share your knowledge with others is simply a good thing. Why don't we all start rating AND leaving constructive comments on an image? I can assure you that most members on PN will find this incredibly useful and positive. So what if a few members act like juvaniles? <br><br>

OK, that was probably more then 2 cents... I'll leave a further 5 cents on the table to cover the extra lines ;) M

[bens]

There are many interests at work here, and I respect that you have some that are not particularly on my radar. For my purposes, the site is about access to other photographers, and anything that prevents that dilutes the site's value for me. I liked better your hard line that ratings are for the site and comments for the photographers. By taking ratings more and more seriously, and not encouraging comments, and in fact taking steps that discourage dialogue like making ratings anonymous, you create a more competitive environment that is less and less user-friendly for amateur hobbyists like my self. ratings are nice, but they mean much less than good dialogue with other photographers.

 

it makes me sad to hear you acknowedge essentially that the site does not consider it important to encourage comments. What motivates people to participate in the site then who are here to learn rather than compete? Isn't it to your benefit to encourage both types of participants under the theory that the more the better?

[kslonaker]

Well, Michael, in some ways there is anonymity in commenting only. If I leave a detailed comment with suggestions, there is nothing to get too offended about if I do not leave a 4/4 or 5/5 with it. Actually, I take that back - I have left suggestions on images with high ratings and enthusiastic comments, only to have the poster either ignore me (as Matt said) or vehemently disagree with me. So no wonder Brian is tired of all the complaints - there really is no easy fix and he's trying different things to see what might work.

[guyscrivner]

I think some of these changes are a step forward and if I understand them then this is why...<p>

(1) RATE RECENT All ratings that contribute to rankings for TRP are anonymous and can only be rated in the Rate Recent Photos. Since our complaints in the past have been those individuals who have mate rated to drive their friends photos to the top it would seem this is no longer possible unless they want to sit and click thru all the recently submitted images until they find their friends photo to rate. <p>

So, finally a system that allows a blind rating of images. This is good because there are images where the photographer needs to know that his/her image truly should be rated average or below. Many have been afraid to rate at these numbers because of the fear of retaliation. Now there is the freedom to do this. Comments can also be placed in the Rate Recent at the time of the rate. <p>

(2) CRITIQUE FORUM OR DIRECT rating and comments. There are photographers whose work I really like on this site. I want to rate their photos high because I truly think their images are well done. I have been reluctant to do this because of the fear of being labeled a mate rater or even worse causing them to be labeled. Now it appears I can do this without any negatives associated with the rating. Since this does not impact the TRP ratings neither am I unfairly penalizing the work of other photographers because I have rated a popular photographer's work.<p>

(3) COMMENTS Images can now be commented on in either the Rate Recent, Direct or Critique forum which will truly help improve upon our skills. Again, no penalty on TRP or. For those that want only comments and critiques this is the way to go.<p>

(4) TOP RATED PHOTOS The only drawback I see is that some very popular photographers whose work is rated high (legitamately I might add) by a loyal following will still not be helped in their photo rankings. I do believe there should be a way to allow this. Think of the Rate Recent as a blind sample of photographers images and the Direct or Critique Forum as a Fan Club approach. I think there should be room for both and the only way I can think of allowing this is to stop reciprocal or mate raing. Sorry Brian but I think this class of members is easily identified and something should be done. <p>

 

Well, I hope I understand these new procedures properly. If I do, as I said, I think I am going to like them. I hope these changes will encourage somne of the better and more senior photographers to begin conributing their images again. I have missed seeing their work.<p>

Regards, Guy

[mário m. rodrigues]

I just want to say that I will continue to rate and comment directly, the system doesnt really matter, what matters is what you do with it. I always (with very few exception over the last months) let people know how I rated, sometimes it only takes a few words to let people know that you like the photo, I also think that if one rates from 1 to 3 there should always be a comment. By the way,I rate high because I rate what I really like and I dont expect retribution. I often like to see the work of those who rated me, thats a way to understand the rate and find interesting photographers. Guess I cant do that now, but there are other ways. The most important thing is that, not being perfect this is a very good site and I,m glad I found it.

[michaelhills]

<em>I have left suggestions on images with high ratings and enthusiastic comments, only to have the poster either ignore me (as Matt said) or vehemently disagree with me. </em><br><br>

Kim, isn't that the nature of the 'game'? Not everybody in this community will share the same agenda as you or me. People get on this site for very different reasons. If you were ignored, well, don't rate/comment that photographer again. If someone disagrees with you, well, that's their prerogative. I have disagreed with some suggestions on my work. But, I have also replied (with courtesy) as to why I disagree - I still have good online relationships with these photographers. <br><br>

And, lets not forget sometimes, we just do not have the time to reply to everyone within a reasonable timeframe. And because of this, a particular comment might get buried in more recent posts etc. I have been guilty of this, as has another person who has posted on this thread :) <br><br>

Brian, I do not envy your role - damned if you do and damned if you don't! I think at the end of the day, you have to implement what mechanisms you think best (as the site admin). There will be photographers that will leave PN because of it (maybe myself as well), but there will also be new photographers that will join too. <br><br>

And the earth turns another cycle...

[john falkenstine]

OK Brian: here's more on "the bug" in rate recent, if I only rate originality and nothing else, the picture goes into an endless loop until I rate aesthetics. If I only rate Aesthetics and NOT originality, the photo.net engine now goes into a server error mode.