3-3-The Solution is here

[jayme]

Folks- there really is NO solution that will make everyone happy. Brian has talked about reviving the "Critique Circles". While I'm not familiar with them, they do sound interesting.

 

I think the object here is not to "win", but to "learn". While I completely understand it is difficult to learn much from any rating (high or low) if it is not accompanied by a constructive comment. One should certainly realize exactly what the PN rating system is used for. It is not a grading system. Brian & others have repeated this over & over & over again. Stop equating your ratings with the value of your images. You will burn yourself out.

 

One must remember who is rating. Anyone and everyone. Some people know how to use the rating system, some don't. Some have good taste, some don't. Some have expertise in photography, some don't. Some have expertise in Art, some don't. Etc, etc, etc. Why are high ratings so important? Once you come to a realization that it is NOT an indicator of your worth as a photographer, you can move on to having more fun & learning new things. Isn't that what it's all about?

 

I am reminded of one of the TV news magazines that did an experiment a while back. They took a famous abstract painting from the 60-70's (I can't remember exactly which one) placed it in a group of paintings made by some Kindergartners & displayed them for people to view. They chose ordinary people plus a few art critics to judge these paintings. Interestingly, the art work by the Kindergartners scored highest as "more valuable" & "better quality of work" :)

 

What should this tell us? Art is subjective & open to internalization & interpretation by the viewer. Yes, I know, technical skills such as choice of exposure, lighting, etc. is important to good photography but, some of the most famous photographic images are not ones that are tack sharp, or perfectly exposed, etc.

 

So think about enjoying the Art of Photography instead of "How high did I score in the TRP?" "What idiot gave me a 3/3?" "Why did someone give my 'masterpiece' a 3/3?" "There must be some sort of conspiracy against me, personally getting to the top of the TRP!" "Someones out to get me!"

 

So....Stop wasting your time & energy, plus stop basing your ego & emotional self worth on the TRP. It's not reasonable or rational. There are so many exceptional photographers on this site, take advantage of the fact that you get to see there works. If you feel so inclined, email them for advice & enjoy the fact that you have the opportunity to even post on this site with some of the best :)

 

Just my opinion, for what it's worth :) Have a wonderful day!

[tcampbell]

jayme-

 

i think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that without high anonymous ratings, the photos get very limited exposure.

 

tony

[jayme]

Tony- I'm not sure that is true. Because.... I think I'm pretty average, I don't spend a lot of time on the front pages of the TRP. I do however, look quickly through the first several pages & move on to the middle of the stack. This is where I spend most of my time. I find the most interesting, inspiring images there, in the middle.

 

But of course, this is just how I do it. I may be way off base. I kind of figure those who only spend their time looking at the top 3 or 4 pages of the TRP are not really interested in photography anyway, they just like looking at the top 3 or 4 pages. There's nothing wrong with this, but I happen to think the middle is where the real action & thrills are :)

[root]

""Still, I also tend to consider that some limits are being reached when an objectively good composition- that is according to the rules of photography taking- gets seven 3/3s in a row without any comments or anything else, which was the case very recently on this site.""

 

"How well a photo follows some "rules" has nothing to do with how good it is. I've seen tons of photos that follow every bit of advice from Photo 101 which are still utterly forgettable and uninteresting. It would be more logically consistent if images that follow the "rules" get lower marks for originality--it's hardly a fresh or original approach to a subject if you simply apply some general guidelines."

 

Mike, you're implying that intelligent application of basic principles should get no recognition because it's the norm, and we should be promoting only those images that get beyond the basics. If you spent more time rating off the RFC queue and analyzing the attributes of the popular TRP images, you'd soon discover that fresh and original approaches are not rewarded unless they also happen to be overly saturated, contrasty, and pretty.

 

Conversely, images that are weak due to poor lighting and sloppy composition still manage to get a large number of 4s and 5s. Why? Again because they have cliche'd subjects or PS processing, not because they're fresh and original?

 

Getting beyond the basics? Not with this rating system.

[tcampbell]

you're right. shouldn't have said high ratings. but, below a certain number of ratings, whether high or low, the number of views drops off sharply.

 

tony

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Nothing I've seen in the responses argues against my proposal to include a "rater's

average" value alongside ratings by anonymous raters.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Does not require any change to the existing (flawed or wonderful - take your pick)

rating system.</li>

<li>Does not compromise rater anonymity.</li>

<li>Allows those who are interested in the ratings to have a bit more information about

what ratings might mean. (This includes everyone: those who rate, those who are rated,

and the photo.net admins.)</li>

<li>To a certain extent, "self-corrects" for rater biases.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>What about it? Any chance of doing something like this?</p>

 

<p>Thanks,</p>

 

<p>Dan</p>

[c.r._hips]

It amazes me how this worry about ratings never ends. As though some peoples entire

identity is rapped up in them. Who the ____ cares. Doesn't everyone know by now that

ratings are an artificial manipulation on this site? Ratings seem to be given for all the

wrong reasons, often as negative aggression. Why would anyone want to be part of such a

flawed system? If you want critiques, bring your pictures up in critique only. But don't be

surprised if what is in peoples thoughts equals their ratings nature. If we let ourselves be

part of the game then we deserve whatever comes. The best road is to just feel confident

in who you are, with out the requirement of others numerical support for who you are. I

mean, Darrell, you are an excellent photographer. When you take a picture are you actually

concerned with what anyone else might think other than yourself? I hope not! If we

communicate it is after the fact and usually with people we don't know and who's reactions

we are not privy to. This site has great features that as Artists we can all take advantage

of, but lets just not take it all too seriously. I still find it hard to understand why revenue is

so connected to ratings when the site doesn't even require membership dues by users.

Anyway, just have fun and know that in the end the only rater that matters is yourself.

[dave_dube]

Well, I think it's only normal to care if you have emotions. I knew posting this photo last night would get a great variety of ratings and it didn't let me down. This is nothing more than humor.

[gdanmitchell]

"When you take a picture are

you actually

concerned with what anyone else might think other than yourself?"

 

Say what?!

 

Of course I'm concerned and interested in communicating with others through my

photography.

 

I do, indeed, start out from an internal perspective. I search for images that appeal to me

and I try to create photos that please me. However, for me photography does not end with

my own "appreciation" of my own photos. I'm very interested in whether or not I can

communicate my internal perspective on a photo to others.

 

I also learn a lot about my internal point of view by hearing and understanding the

reactions of others. Mind you, I'm not saying that I always agree with what I hear but there

is often still great value in hearing it.

 

Critiques are great and I very much value them, particularly when they point out to me

something in my photographs that I wasn't noticing - an element that I had overlooked, a

different way of approaching the image, etc.

 

However, even ratings have some value to me - at least when looked at in the aggregate.

For example, if I post an image that I think is really wonderful and no one sees it the way I

do, this leads me to ask myself some important questions about the image. This is even

more true when I post a series of similar images and such a pattern results.

 

Again, I'm certainly not saying that I think that the degree to which I please others is the

only or even most important gauge of the quality of a photograph, and I continue to like

certain images of mine that others don't appreciate the way I do. However, I don't work in

a vacuum, and it is a great pleasure to me when my images evoke an emotional and

esthetic response in others.

 

Respectfully,

 

Dan

[laurentlacoste]

I think a lot of us speak the voice of reason here, but I do agree too with Dave and Dan who consider the human side of things. I think too that it is normal to care about others if you have emotions, and artist generally try to communicate, share, exchange, receive recognition, appreciation or love or whatever they may expect, they expect it from their inner self as well as from the outside.

[c.r._hips]

When you post a photo on this site, I would think , the desired effect is to have it seen. In

that context the amount of views a photo gets should be of more interest than ratings. I

have posted some pictures that have 15000 views each but only maybe 10 ratings. I put

more value in the views. Hopefully I am communicating with 15,000 viewers. I don't really

care how they are affected beyond the fact that they saw the image and probably each

interpreted it in their own way. As Artists we will never know what all viewers think of our

works, We can only put them out their to be seen. Why make the tiny percentage that

actually rate or comment ( sometimes for suspicious reasons) so important. If you want to

be politicians, get into politics and kiss everybody's asses so they will like you. That kind

of behavior is part of the ratings problem. Forinstance, give an honestly felt negative

comment and you will recieve endless trash ratings your way. When creating, do we think

of it like playing 21, where we are trying to beat the system for approval? Are we trying to

find the secret to the elusive 6's? I hope not. We should be responding to our world in our

unique ways. Our primary concern should be sincere personal expression. We are only

communicating with our selves when we are creating. That is true even when we have

models. It is our interpretation to our realities that matters. And it is nothing we should

ever be concious of or give thought to. That all comes later, after the fact.

[laurentlacoste]

I must admit that what you say makes sense. But trash ratings sometimes hurt some, even though only a little. That's why I think it won't certainly be the last time this issue is debated here.

[c.r._hips]

If anyone is 'hurt' by trash ratings, it is because they are given importance. Shift your focus to

what is more important and you will see how silly ratings are.

[antoniodiaz1]

My opnion, all the images should be anonymous during the first three days. Regards.

[garry_young1]

Dan Mitchell - I like your idea of a percentage in parentheses next to the rating, but as you have asked for anyone to

point out a problem with it - let me mention one concern.

 

I have received help from different members on this site, and among them are one or two people who do not give out

high ratings, and in fact seem to give out a fair amount of more middle-level ratings, but who focus on rating photos

done by people who are learning and striving towards some goal. As a result, in their good intentions they would have

a lower percentage, but this would (I feel) not equate to the advice they offer. Now, I know that you would

immediately point to the fact that they left me with a comment and not just a low rating - Yes. Thanks to them, I have

something to work with.

 

But back to the percentages. I do not feel confident in my knowledge of photographic technique etc., so I only rate

pictures that I admire, leaving along with my fairly high rating a comment explaining what aspect of photographic

technique I recognize has been brilliantly applied - not just a "Wow dude!". But this means I would (unfairly) have a

high percentage next to my ratings.

 

As I learn, I offer more and more in terms of comments that suggest something technically that may or may not add

to the photographer's intent. But I do this hesitantly as I am still learning.

 

As I said, I like your idea and I think a number of other people have mentioned that it makes sense, but I feel that I

don't deserve to be rated a "better rater" than many other people, who would in the percentage system, be "average

or poor raters".

 

Anotonio's suggestion of initial anonymity makes a lot of sense - but then again I feel that I would recognize his work

easily! It is so unique, and in my perspective, simply brilliant!

[cristina-velina]

Hello!

 

Sry if i enter in this discussion too, knowing that i am still on begining and i have many to learn.. my opinion is that,

if it is possible, even you go thru "Rate Photos" , your name to be showed same way that you rate the photos thru

the "Critique Forum".. so this way the anonymus will not be anonymus any more and you will have the chance at

least to see if you have what to learn from the person that rated you with 3/3 for a photo that in fact is much better

then that.

 

Best regards, Cris