Names Back Beside Ratings

[vincetylor]

There is a greatly appreciated *connection* in my mind by seeing the names and the rates together again. That is a definite improvement Brian. Thank you.

 

While I probably agree with others that seeing ALL names would be preferred, the fact that these are still anonymous does not bother me much at all for the moment. However (and a big HOWEVER here) I would not be surprised if this BECOMES a problem fairly quickly with lowballers choosing this route to do their thing. The Faith Cohen, Golarka's etc etc who made lowballing an art-form would simply have a field day under the cover of complete anonymity. True, they could not choose their victims as in the past as easily and would have to go through everybody that posts anything. But in the end, knowing the amount of frustration they could cause by going under-cover, I see the potential for these ones to flourish and of course frustrations to therefore follow. Just a thought.

 

Two things that I'd like to put on the table Brian:

 

1) Could you please post the names of the raters in the order they were given, rather than alphabetically? This as you know is how they used to be listed. If it does not matter that much to you, it would be much more of a help when it comes to people rating older images in our folders. One of the things I missed the most about having ythe names with the rates taken away, was the ability to see who took the time to go into my older works, and see what they thought of those images. Even though the names are back up right now, if someone does go into these older images, there is no way to know who it was exactly. Whereas in the past when the last rater was listed at the end of the list, you could quickly identify them and the rates. It would be very helpful if you could post them this way once again.

 

2) The rate recent SUM is as unfair a system as you have ever used. That is, unfair to people with any time put in on the site. It still baffles me that you continue with that view at all, much less as the default TRP view, especially since mate-raters are not curbing any of their bad habbits. Again, if Dave N., Kim Slonaker, Wilson Tsoi or anybody with and experience posts an image, and people outside the RR rate those images (very likely by the way) then they are penalized and have virtually no chance to get TRP visibility simply because the system is biased now towards new people. New people that have yet to contribute much of anything on this site. There is no problem in my mind if these experienced ones get pushed down the TRP list because of posting a weaker image. But the fact is, they are being pushed down the list (often FAR down) because of having many others interested in them that rate outside the RR and therefore take away rates needed to get any decent placement. It's just an uneven field Brian. Or try this; allow All of these images to get the ten ratings in the RR regardless of who rates outside of the queue. That would work just as effectively. This way everybody gets the 10,12 or whatever number needed to gain an honest placement.

 

IF you do switch over to rate recent average (as you seem to hint at) then some images are placed on that list right now with only a couple of ratings. I would suggest making the minimum 10... again to make the filed a little more level.

 

Just a couple of thougts from experience here. Over-all I do see your putting the names back up as a step towards making the experience here more satisfying, and more enjoyable.

[john falkenstine]

Vincent, as I have experienced the system today, those low-ballers would only be really effective OR anonymous if they participated thru the "rate recent" category. This setup effectively prevents folks from "shopping" for certain photographers (because then their names would pop up.) BTW I appears for right now that all of the Golarkas, Faith Cohens, and Hanna Reitsches have been purged from the system. (However, I note that those folks who accused me highly incorrectly thru their own E-mails to their pals of me of being ANY of these personalities have yet not found the fortitude to at least say...ooops mistake)

[vincetylor]

"BTW It appears for right now that all of the Golarkas, Faith Cohens, and Hanna Reitsches have been purged from the system."

 

I agree that they would be less effective having to go through the rate recent queues. They could not *target* specific individuals as in the past. However, it took almost ONE YEAR to get these lowballers and their lowball ratings purged from the site. Imagine just how bad the disease COULD spread IF they have the cover of complete anonymity.

 

Yes some suspected you might be one of these ones because they rated many of your images 7/7. I was NOT among those that suspected this however.

[tony bell]

I finally decide it is time to post photos again and now the names are back with the rates so that anyone who rates a photo HONESTLY as they see it can once again be retaliated against for rating a shot 4/4. That's it, no more rating for me, just critiques and comments. Probably all for the better anyway.

[vincetylor]

Tony, just do your ratings through the Rate-Recent queues, and there you have complete anonymity now. Under the old system many people knew if you gave a 4/4.

[root]

Tony, why would you have ever wanted to select an image from the TRP or someone's portfolio for the purpose of rating it as average?

[root]

" . . . Under the old system many people knew if you gave a 4/4."

 

And now that the rates are separted, it's easier to identify the people who retaliated. I have a couple images that were rated HIGHER from the queue than from visits . . . . . but all ratings are honest, right?

[mbb]

Thanks Brian. I think there is a hope. Bringing names back is a great change. I am not interesting in rates for long time but because of stupid anonymous rate system I also stopped upload photos year ago. It was delighted to find out that the only 1/1 I got under one photo was coming from the specimen in dog collar that I deeply believe has nothing in common with me as photographer or person. Now I have to find time to update my portfolio. Thanks again, Mark

[tony bell]

I don't believe I've ever just picked a photo out of someone's portfoilo just to give it a four (although over the years it may have happened). Why do that? If I rate someone's work outside of the critique forum it is only because I've found something I like. I've always tried to take the photos in the order they come in the "rate recent" menu and rate any and all that I feel I could fairly judge based on my abilities (and comment as well when I felt compelled). Far too often that has resulted in some very nasty e-mails and a few revenge rates. Revenge rates on their face don't neccessarily disturb me but it IS somewhat demoralizing and had almost a year ago convinced me to stop posting photos. And while the rates through this menu appear to initially be anonymous, at some point they must be identified because all the ratings on all my older photos are identified. So Carl, now I'll just do what you encouraged me to do LONG ago.....just comment.

[root]

Tony, I don't believe the ratings from the queue are identified on any images as of today. My point is that you can now rate images honestly and impersonally from the queue for the benefit of the site without fear of retaliation.

 

(One thing I did notice just now is that older images used to get more RFC rates than they do now, so something was intentionally changed when the current default TRP was set up that allowed non-RFC rates to count towards the accumulated total. It's time to change that back.)

[ken dennis]

I earlier, in a fit, after being slamed by Mr Motterhead, on a photo that was not the one I was talking about "it wasn't the dissfigured one, I said a photo that I had submitted earlier, it was of my cats" I prepared to leave P.net for good, I deleated all my photo postings, and made some comments that "in part", I will take back!

 

"And that is that I will not post here again", the down raters, hate raters, rate mongering missfits will not run me off that easy!

 

After calming down and comming to my senses, I realised that, if I gave up, and walk away, the bad apples of this site become the winners, and I and everyone else here would become the looser, as they would have chocked another one up for them selfs, I will not let that happen, I have never gave up on a fight in my life!

 

But, there will be some changes, from this day forward, I will not participate in the rating game, all my postings that I will submit, will be for critique only, and I will not give anymore rates, all my rates will be in the form of a comment!

 

If you don't like what I have to say, feel free to say so in the forum, on an email or request my phone number and I'll be happy to give it!

 

I know I haven't been a member here long, but like I had said several times in other threads, I can't stand nonsence, and will not stand still for it! I can't see how some of you folks that has been here for years have put up with this sort of thing for so long!

 

Its in my opinion that there should not be anymore ratings system or TRP, and this will be my stance from now on!

 

Anyone else feel the way that I do, feel free to join me in the critique only forum!

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope to see all of you there!

 

Ken.

[WJT]

<b>"...<i>I can't see how some of you folks that have been here for years have put up with this sort of thing</i>..."</b><p>

It is because we are all stark raving mad. Deprived of sleep and forced to watch people rate each other's photographs, I have lost what little mind I had months ago. Like you Ken, in fits of utter frustration, I have in the past deleted my entire portfolio and decided to quit this scene. But because of the support and encouragement that others had given me I realized the better course would be to continue the good fight. I also want to get my money's worth out of my <b>non-refundable three year subscription</b> :0)<p>

If you do not wish to rate any more photographs, that's cool. If you would prefer to just comment, that's cool too. The important thing is to keep creating photographs that you can be proud of. Indeed, it is doubly important to be honest with yourself and to others while you develop your skills.<p>

Ken, if you can just remember that this site is populated with the widest variety of eccentrics on this good planet, you'll do fine. Regards.

[yongbo]

<b>Ken</b>, The rating game was crazy last month, but who got trapped?

[abintraphoto]

Good Lord - I don't have time to read all of this but - making people accountable for their actions (good or bad) is a good thing - Thanks Brian. Let's give this new set-up of yours a shot.

 

The biggest thing I miss from all the changes over the last 2 years was the rating scale of 1 thru 10. It spread things out a bit more and gave you more choices in rating an image between *average* and *excellent* ........ less chance of offending someone therefore less chance of the retalitory thing. My recollection is the reason we went to a 1-7 scale is because *wine* is rated that way ?? (lol - sorry).

 

As it is now, if I rate an image with a 6-6 on any of the first 5 pages it knocks them clear off the radar (i.e. back to page 56 or whatever). It never use to be that way - 6/6 use to be positive thing - not a negative one as it is now.

 

Thanks Brian ...

[carlos miguez]

I don't like the new system. This is not what we wanted. It does not arrange the problem of the anonymous stupids. I only have clear that a person who does not have any photo exposed should not be able to rate the photos of anybody. And I want to know the one who rates me.

[panyitu]

Maybe I'm about to post something utterly stupid, disregarding the wise saying that goes: in doubt of whether to speak to don't seem silly or talk to prove so, best to keep quite. As I was saying, incapable to restrain impulse to talk, would it be not better if the name of the photographer on the RRC would not show until the rate was given. Would this not be more in accordance with what I understand is the reason for the late changes and previous ones?

[mottershead]

The problem of the "anonymous stupids" is mostly that people have come to expect every photo they upload to be rated Very Good or Excellent, and anybody who rates it "Average" is regarded as stupid. However, this expectation defies logic. The average photo on photo.net is, by definition, Average. The stupid people aren't the ones who are rating average photos ... Average. So, while I'm planning to continue to deal with trolls who rate every photo low, I don't plan to do anything about people who use the full rating range and call average photos average, who call good photos good, and who reseve "very good" and "excellent" for photos that are ... very good and excellent -- other than to make it easier for them to do so.

[ken_thalheimer]

Nice job. I think your compromise works well. Hell, you can't please everyone!

[jayme]

I read the majority of this, but I still have a question. Sometimes, as I go through the rate recent, I find myself wanting to know a little more information, so..... I click on the image and go to the photographer's folder/image. After reading & checking for more info. I then rate the image from their folder, not the queue. I hope this means that my name will be next to my rating.

 

Personally, I pay little attention to the ratings, but ratings are very important to many for a multitude of different reasons. There's nothing wrong with feeling that ratings are important. The problem arrives when people start equating their worth as a photographer to those ratings. That's when people like Faith, Golarka, Yani, etc create anxiety, anger & ill will.

 

As Kim mentioned above, honest, helpful comments is what I think it's all about. These comments help us learn and help us to look at our images objectively, from a new point of view.

 

This site is amazingly representative of a small scale world. Like a small world you are always going to have a mixture of different kinds of people. Nice guys, who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. People who retaliate or dislike just about everything if they didn't photograph it. Then you have those in the middle, who try hard to be honest and tactful at the same time. The middle represents about 90% of us. The other 10%, while difficult to accept, do add spice to this world. Getting rid of everyone but the middle seems to me to invalidate the rating system & make it mediocre.

 

Brian- You keep trying and that's good. Obviously you are listening, and that's good too. Everyone needs to realize that solving ALL problems is NOT possible. Flexibility and honest dialogue is the key. Nice forum discussion.

[mottershead]

No, if you navigate over to a photo from a Rate Recent page, and rate it on the photo page, it won't count as a RR rating. It will be a "direct" rating and your name will show in the list. If you want the rating to be anonymous and count in the default view in the Top Rated Photos, you have to give the rating from the RR page.

[afs760bf]

This is not a complaint - just an observation. I just looked at one of my photos, and the detail view says I got 29 ratings. There are 29 names listed with the associated rating. I had submitted this for critique. So that means that NO-ONE rated it through the "rate recent" queue and EVERYONE somehow found it directly and rated it? I find that a little incredible. But I like knowing who gave me what ratings.

[maurik]

Hello Brian,<br>

I did not yet get to read the whole discussion here, I will catch up later.<br>

I was just in the RR queue and rated a few images. My name DID appear in the "Members who rated this photograph directly" list. Also looking at my own photos, it seems everyone is listed. <br>

Not that I mind. I try to leave a comment most of the time lately, so it would be pretty easy to figure out what I rated. But for consistence, I would like to know how it works.<br>

If I may, I have a request. Would it be possible to have a "Rate Recent Category" version? I would like to go though and Rate Recent a number of children photos, and rather not have any nudes appear. That is not possible in the current scheme it seems. Or am I wrong and clicking on the "Gallery, Critique Forum" and then choosing one of the categories, which looks like Rate Recent when I'm there, counts as Rate Recent?<br>

And now for the blatant plug: Thank you for your hard work. I've not been a member that long and already seen a lot of changes, many for the better!

[kathywilson]

I happen to love this! I would prefer complete transparency, but compromise is fine with me as well. No system will ever be perfect, and some people will always find a way to game the system. That's just life. I know this is open to abuse, but since I don't rate if I leave somewhat negative comments, I'm not likely to be affected as much as someone who rates low (even with valid reason) with or without comment. It's ratings which most get up ppl's noses, not comments. I also don't rate the work of photographers I like (after the first one or two) because I don't want to even appear as though I'm in the mate-rating camp. Who would have thought a simple photography site would have so much bubbling turmoil and political gamesmanship to it!? I get more than enough of that in daily life... this is just a hobby for pete's sake!

[yongbo]

Hi Brain, <b>it was showing the correct number of anonymous rating 8 hours ago, but now it's broken.</b> I just gave some ratings this morning might break someone's heart. Oops!

[lbattjes]

Wasn't sure at first if I really wanted to get into this, but why not? :) I joined this site several months ago and fell in love instantly. It was amazing to see this wonderful art gallery! It was even better to be able to "talk" to people who post their work. I posted some right away, and have kept on posting since...there were some times a month ago when I started to be discouraged...I was still finding my way around, and I found threads on mate-rating, etc. I was so shocked! I know that I have rated pictures from those photographers I have already "met", but never considered this a bad thing. I also am guilty of not rating photos I don't have a strong feeling for...why bash someone whose vision of beauty is different than mine? So, I find myself instead rating photos in the 3 to 7 range. I do like to get on the rate recent when I have time, because it opens up a whole new group of people to keep an eye on, but I still go back to my "interesting" list to keep up with those I know as well. I sometimes also leave "vapid, empty" comments such that just tell of my true interest in the beauty of a photo, not its technical side. As for ratings, I like seeing who posted what...not to get revenge or to reciprocate with like ratings, but instead to look over that photographer's work to see where they are coming from...it really puts their ratings into perspective. Also, if they have no postings or their postings are not my "cup of tea", then I just don't worry about a rating they've left.

Well, I've rambled and am no longer sure if I've said what I meant to say (my 4 year old keeps interrupting!) Anyway, thanks for adding the names to the ratings...would like all ratings to be that way.