Ratings and where they are used

[timothy_eberly]

"Only the anonymous ratings in the Rate Recent feature are used in

some of the Top Rated Photos rankings."

<br>

What does this mean exactly? Only some of the Top Rated photos are

rated with anonymous ratings? huh?

[toto_frank]

Me too as Timothy, I don't understand why only the anonymous will be used for rating.

There are many pseudo-photographers that they have pleasure to give low rate only to destroy the image.

I check the portfolio of this people, in order to verify the high photograph quality that they offer, but I don't see any picture.

I advise the management of photo.net to prevent this people without any image to put rating, because they are not photographers but only silly men.

Antonio Franchino

[jreades]

7/7! Wow! Great post Timothy. Did you know that we're from the same town/city/country? We should rate each other highly so that we both get on to TRP!

 

... or ...

 

You bastard! What do you know about photography? Why did you give me a 2/4 when you can't shoot straight yourself? In my opinion your photos suck too and since your rate was unfair I'm going to give all of your photos a 1/1 in return. I would have made TRP if you hand't rated my photo so low.

 

By only using the anonymous ratings from the "Rate Recent" queue for the *default* TRP (note: you can always view things the old way by changing the drop-down) Brian has managed to dramatically limit the usefulness of mate-rating because I can no longer tell if my rates rated me highly when they came across my photo in the queue and they can't affect my TRP status my just going straight to my portfolio and rating everything 7/7. You may not have noticed if you don't subscribe to the site feedback forum, but the number of complaints about mate rating went from better than 20 per day to, effectively, zero. That alone suggests that the change was worth it.

 

As for Antonio's comment -- it *would* be nice if there were a reputation-style system so that as you participated more, you got more 'votes' (i.e. rates), but it's not your right to say that only people who post images can rate others' work. Only people who are in politics get to vote? If you're unhappy with the ratings then just ignore them, or don't submit photos for ratings, just go for critiques.

 

jon

[kai_griffin]

Ciao Antonio,

 

"Pseudo-photographers"? Are they like people who go around taking pictures using only their hand motions (like air-guitarists)?

 

Also, how does a low rating "destroy the image"? Is this something I could accidently do in the darkroom if I'm not careful?

 

:-))

 

Do people who rate/critique photographs also have to be photographers themselves? Who is your audience - only other photographers, or the world at large?

 

Tanti saluti,

Kai

[leorossi]

I think that Timothy was referring to the poor construction of the phrase. "Whenever ratings in the Rate Recent feature are used in the Top Photos rankings, these ratings will belong to the anonymous category". This appears to be more correct.

[toto_frank]

Hallo Kay thank you for your answer!

What I meaning: everyone is able and have right to judge and comment one shot, but I think, It's possible to express our opinion to a photograph exhibition.

The aim of this portal, is a chance for professional or amateur (like me) photographers, to show and to release our work in order to have constructive opinions and comments to try to improve our work or hobby (my case).

I think many people that visit photo.net like to spread their rating without any knowledge of photography; I don't know why!

I can suppose, for my experience, many people when they see a naked female as default they put a low rate, pheraps, I believe, they have problems with woman..........but really I don't know.

 

I visit your internet site. I do my compliments for an excellent portfolio.

Regards

Antonio

[kai_griffin]

Thank-you for your kind comments, Antonio.

 

A reputation-style system like Jon talks of would be an interesting way of approaching this (kind of like Amazon uses for reviewers, I guess) - but then there'd be a whole new layer of mate-rating amongst people to boost each other's reputation... or gang hate-rating to wreck somebody's reputation score....

[bartbies]

Timothy , this means that you don't should give to Cri.req. nothing of your photos, because always will be some frustrate members who had a bad day and give...;-) Regards BB

[timothy_eberly]

Hi everyone. <br>

I was talking about the wording of the text, not about why and who should be able to rate pictures. Sorry for the confusion. <br><br>

The word "some" needs to be taken out of the original text unless they actually mean that SOME of the photos are rated that way and others are rated a different way. The text is really confusing the way it is worded.

[timothy_eberly]

More confusing text....<br><br>

"Members Who Rated this Photograph Directly"

<br><br>

Is there a way to rate photos indirectly?

[kathywilson]

Timothy -

"More confusing text....

"Members Who Rated this Photograph Directly"

Is there a way to rate photos indirectly?"

----

 

no, that's actually clear, you just have to know what it refers to :)

Rated directly = the person rating went directly to your user site and rated the photo.

 

rated indirectly/anonymously = they clicked on "rate recent photos" on the PN home page, and your photo came up in the queue.

 

And, to further clarify -- the word "some" in the msg you originally refered to is there because there are a number of different "views" (better term: sorts) for the Top Rated Photos. *Some* of those use anonymous rates only, some use anonymous+direct, some use number of comments etc.