romu Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 And those 7/7's weren't "instant" ones, I noticed they the day after I posted the picture. The first ratings were a bunch of 5's and 6's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 It's worth noting that the ONLY 3/3 I've been getting have been the instant ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I think this is what you call anecdotal evidence. You have a couple of days where the initial ratings on your photos are low, and you see a "pattern". You post in the forum about this pattern and ask if anybody else "sees" it. On any given day, there are going to be some people whose initial ratings were low, and some whose initial ratings were high. So a couple of people who think they see the same pattern as you chime in and agree with you. Those who didn't see it think they are just the exception and don't bother saying anything. Pretty soon, everybody is convinced that there is "bot" lying in wait to slam photos with 3/3 ratings as soon as they are submitted for critique. In fact, in the last few days the percentage of 3/3 ratings amongst the early ratings on a photo (that is the ones made right after it is submitted for critique) is the same as the percentage of 3/3 ratings amongst the later ratings, and in both cases the percentage is the same as it has been for some time. In other words, the pattern is in your imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmw w Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Brian. For me it's the baffling 3/3's that are given to photos that the many of others raters feel is at the opposite end of the rating scale. The first link has 1-3/3 at one end compared to 24-7/7's at the other end. The second has 2-3/3 compared to 29-7/7's. Both of these photos generated direct ratings from members here. That to mes says a lot. There are many rates in the middle but I think you see what I'm talking about. http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=4208371 http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=4209886 The two I've linked are nudes so maybe that might have something to do with it. However, as I've suggested before it would be great that if someone is going to rate 3/3's or 7/7's that they be required to post a critique to at least explain why. I'm hear to learn and expand my knowledge and skills. If they are concerned about revenge ratings allow them to remain as anonymous raters. It will be obvious to all who are being serious versus malicious in their comments. Thank you. GMWW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yeah, but why do you care so much? If 30 people rate a photo 7/7 and one person rates it 3/3, the low rater can be an idiot who doesn't like anything except for pictures of cute puppies, or he can be the only person in the bunch who realizes the photo is just over-saturated kitsch. Or it might just be that the 3/3 guy hates spiders and this is a great picture -- of a spider. You can't tell anything about the qualifications and good-faith of a rater from the ratings on one photo. And you can't tell anything about the quality of a photo from just one of its ratings. If someone was rating more than, say, fifty percent of photos at 3 or below -- well, we would pick that person up after a while as a probable troll, or at least as someone who basically is motivated to let all the photographers know how much they suck. Whether this person is correct on that or not, we would remove his ratings after a while as being more trouble than they were worth. Someone who is rating everything low just becomes background noise in the system: he isn't helping us bring forward the best photos on the site because he thinks everything is bad (or else he's a troll). The person who thinks everything is great and hands out only 6 and 7 ratings is barely better, but at least the moronic high-rater isn't making the photographers feel bad. But one isolated rating: who can tell what the reasons for it were and whether they were legitimate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmw w Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 "But one isolated rating: who can tell what the reasons for it were and whether they were legitimate?" Exactly why a required critique when such ratings are so low or high would help filter the abuses from the legitimate rate. Thanks for replying. GMWW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 How would that help? If someone accompanied his 3/3 rating with the comment "Boring", "Don't like it", "Bad", or "Below average", would that be abuse? Though 3 is not an extreme rating, we did have the requirement for comments on the extreme ratings before, because photographers kept saying they wanted them. I assure you that they weren't enlightening. At all. Believe me, you only think you would feel better having an explanation. You wouldn't. The explanation for a 3 rating is that the person rating the photo thought it was below average and that he didn't like it, but it wasn't as bad as a 1 or a 2. Is it going to make you feel any better knowing exactly why? Are you hoping that he will reveal himself as an idiot so you can dismiss the rating? Of course, the people rating the photos high won't be idiots, and won't be dismissed, even if their mandatory comments turn out to be a tad inarticulate. Is the person rating the photo low compelled to know and to be able to articulate exactly why he didn't like it? There is nothing illegitimate about disliking a photo, you know. You don't have to justify your likes and dislikes in real life, and you don't have to do so here. Besides, requiring a comment on 3/3 ratings would discourage people from giving them. I want people to give more 3/3 ratings. I don't think there are too many 3/3 ratings. I think there are too few. I want there to be more of them. I want most photos to be rated 3 to 5, and for 6 and 7 to be used to differentiate the really exceptional photos. That means that a lot of the 6's and 7's should turn into 5's; that a lot of 5's should turn into 4's; and that a lot of the 4's should turn into 3's. A 3 is not an extreme rating: it means somewhat below average but not exceptionally bad. Half of the photos are below average, by definition, and most of the photos that are below average are not exceptionally bad. Meaning they should be rated 3. 3's should be about as common as 5's. There should be a lot of 3 ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romu Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 "The person who thinks everything is great and hands out only 6 and 7 ratings is barely better, but at least the moronic high-rater isn't making the photographers feel bad. " Is that why those two 7/7's were taken away on my most recent picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmw w Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Roumaldo. I might have an explaination for why a rating disappeared. If you accidently rate a photo twice directly it will ask you if you want to keep it as the original or not. I've run into that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Moderators do delete the ratings of individuals from time to time, and anybody who is banned has all his ratings deleted. Sometimes a bogus account will be created to pump up one person's ratings, but their might be some other people who receive ratings from these bogus accounts, in an attempt to disguise the intent. All the ratings get deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmw w Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Brian. As far as dicouraging 3/3's by requiring them to post a critique is the exactly the point if they don't mean it. As far as abuse critiques that you gave I wrote this previously. "It will be obvious to all who are being serious versus malicious in their comments." However, if it is your belief that there are not enough low ratings, then what you are doing is will probably have that effect. Or, maybe not. Thanks, GMWW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I didn't read this whole thread so excuse me if this has been dealt with already but I can add to the ancedotal evidence of getting two 3/3 ratings within 5 seconds of requesting a rate on this photo. It burned me because I wanted people to see this photo more than I cared how the community rated it. With the instant 3/3's it pushes it down the list and makes it more invisible. Perhaps it's just a bad-to-average photo. Not in my eyes but then I am the creator and like a protective mother probably don't see it objectively. <BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/4332118">here</A>-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 correction. only 1 3/3 within a few seconds. It was another that got 2 3/3's in the same time span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romu Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Oh, I see. I found it odd because that picture had three 7/7's throughout all day yesterday, and then this morning 2 of them had disappeared. It was kinda frustrating, because it was like, FINALLY! I got some 7's, and then half of them are taken away... And this wasn't a case of one "isolated" rating, because many people gave me 6's too. But I understand your point Brian. Well, at least one of them is still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexguerra Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Brian, that 'hero' icon you have in front of your name is more than deserved. You really are one for the infinite patience you have to respond to the endless ratings moaning in here. Hats off! ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 What is constantly pushed to the top of the gallery are pictures without any originality. Right now are slot canyons that look just like all the other slot canyon pics Iﾒve ever seen; a lot of nudes with meaningless poses as if that was the intent when the real intent is just to show young flesh. You always have many less than breathtaking landscapes. 90% of the pictures I see in the galleries top pages are "pretty" in the most superficial way but not beautiful or thought-provoking. Theyﾒre anything but original although they score high in the "O" rate. But if youﾒve seen one, youﾒve seen them all kind of thing. They're throw-away pictures in a throw-away culture. Consequently the galleryﾒs top pages looks the same to me no matter when I visit. Digital pics of bugs, flowers, birds, landscapes, nudes that are pretty but without meaning, depth, significance or art. That is what most people like. It's sad. I don't think there is much wrong with the rating system. It's the common taste in pictures that is lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I agree that the first few pages of Top Rated Photos reflect the tastes of the raters, and that this is basically popular taste. The site audience is primarily college-educated, relatively affluent, males between 18 and 50, living in North America and Western Europe. Nudes are popular, which isn't a suprise given that the audience is 80% male. Why this audience likes saturated landscapes, insects, birds, etc, I don't know. I think it is probably because the audience has many photographers, and this is the type of work they are doing themselves. These are not only the most popular categories; they are the largest categories in terms of photos being uploaded. Given the size of the audience, the controlling tastes are going to reflect the popular tastes of the demographic. Something would be strange if it were not so. However, Kent, there are quite a lot of people in the community with more sophisticated tastes and many of the people whose first preference may be "popular" images are open to other types of images. So images that don't conform entirely to popular taste also reach the TRP. The people who give high ratings to these photos aren't a majority and therefore they rarely propel a photo that does not conform to popular taste to the first page or two of the TRP. But the photos are there: generally a few pages down rather than at the utmost top. From there you can surf to other photographers who are similar, especially if those photographers have taken the time to rate and/or comment on like-minded photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I have found many wonderful photographers on your site Brian by following your original advise to me 3 years ago. Since then I've hung out in mostly B&W forums and believe me, the avant-garde has it's own particular kind of problems. We tend to be edgy, contentious and not very supportive of each other. We are not the kind of people you would invite home to meet the folks. Several times over the years I've gotten depressed and tried to quit this site but I always end up coming back. There must be something here that feeds my artistic ambitions. I have a love-hate relationship with this place but I am hooked. I think your site is different things to different people and for that and all of your efforts I commend you. It is the only place on the Internet I am a regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Well this is how I look at it :D Non paying members dont care and rate as they feel even if they know nothing about it. then you got the people that dont really think about what there doining before they rate because there not in to that type of photo then you got the ones that do for revenge. So Unless you got a really out standing pictures that just jumps out at you then If your lucky you mite not get hit with the 3/3 one thing that i cant figure out if the 1s and the 2s dont work then they know they have to use the 3/3 to give you the lowest rating....:D just my opion Wade Rose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Well, I just posted a photo and got a rating within about 5 seconds. Wow! Only it wasn't a 3/3, it was a 5/4...on a shot taken with one of the $1 cameras from the dollar store... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mário m. rodrigues Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 It just proves big, expensive cameras arent everything....Or that one can never tell how the ratings will go...or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leorossi Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I just got an instant 5/5 and 4/4. Then the 3/3 came in. There is no correlation between the digit value and the time it takes to rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc11664880155 Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Their is a defect in the scoring system. Particularly photo critique under �rate recent Photos�. You can actually open several windows of www.photo.net in your computer browser. And you can send several 3/3 simultaneously or quadruple 4/4 or a 4 combination of 3/3, 4/4 in the different windows. Last night is the first time I try this scoring system. All the score I send to photo net are direct scoring. If my observation is correct. I think it is better if we stick only to direct scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave d Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 I've been on this site for about a month. I learned the rating & critque evauation process provided by Photo.net. My feeling is, If your going to RATE a pic, then a Critique should be obligatory. I ALWAYS provide a critque with all pics I RATE. ...Dave De 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