A test I did today to prove a point, and to me I did prove it! Goodbye!

[currents_serene]

Good one, Carl.

[dk.]

Brian, Sorry for getting everyone so upset here and for giving you a headache. I know you are trying your best, and I appreciate it very much and hope you can do something about those obvious low blows.

I was just getting a bit tired of this as this is not my only picture that this has happened too in the last few days. And it discourages me and others from putting our pictures up for critique and because of this we get the name calling routine etc.

 

Can I give you a few thoughts to think about?

 

#1 Can you make all rater's names and rates show not just direct raters so we can police ourselves? I feel this is best and in time will cause things to calm down and settle as we question those that we see have low blowed us and see what it is they have to say about it (As I am about to do to Carl below) Right now it is to easy for them to hide with no responsibility whatsoever.

 

If not then can you

 

#2 Make it so that when we put a picture up for critique that our names do not show up under our pictures in both the Critique Forum and Rate Recent options?

 

I think if you want fare critiques then there should be no names under the pictures to associate with the photographers who took them until after they rated it as there is now in both options. And they should not be able to re-rate it while they are still in the critique forum etc if they want to re-rate it a second time they can go the photographers page but then there names should show up with the rate.

 

I know others will want to see there names with their pictures so leave them everywhere else like the TRP etc. but not in the Critique areas.

 

 

 

Carl Root

 

Carl I don't remember when I rated your picture! It must have been a long time ago and at least I am not hidden.

But to me it is not a good picture it is average and what I rated it is not to far off from what some others rated it. At least I gave you a 4 for average and not a 2. It is a picture of a window with tree branches all over the place and as far as the 3 goes for originality well it's a picture of a Window Carl! Like come on! How original is that? But to me Originality is an iffy mark! And if it will make you happier I will change it to a 5/4 if you like and makes you feel better, as I can see it looked at for that rate also, just let me know. And well try not to whine too much eh. I am sure there are many others out there that can say the same things about you. ;o)

 

Take care.

 

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone else for your time and comments! Yes I like Comments and think they are great and a great way to learn and grow and better then rates but everyone likes good rates also when they are deserved and not to be knocked down for no reasons with low rates. So thanks again everyone Including you Bob with the osprey! :o)

 

DK.

[Alex_Es]

David,

 

I've checked your portfolio and find you happen to be a very good nature photographer. The bird in question (if it is the right bird) has gotten lots of rave revues. I wouldn't let a few 2 and 3 get you down. Some people have problems with birds or whatever.

[oswegophoto]

David, as of right now, the photo you're so huffy about has ratings of A=6.08, O=5.58,

which is actually pretty darn good, and well deserved. Seems to me like premature

huffiness, brought on by taking the ratings a bit too seriously, perhaps? Cheers.

[janpeter]

I agree with David about hiding the photographers names in the rate recent list. People should judge a picture by its content not by the photographer. And it would make it a little harder for the bots to spare their own pictures.

 

As for Carls window picture: David, I think you missed the reflections. That's why I'd rather give no rating instead of a low rating. I might just be too dumb to understand the picture. And if I'm not attracted by a picture, I don't have the patience to look at it long enough to get a hidden message.

 

Brian, all of the 3/3s vanished from the rating list, so I guess after all they were caught by your system. However, I think it might be quite simple to compromise the rate recent queue. Since this is what's now counting in the TRP, attackers will try to exploit any hole they can find.

[ken_thalheimer]

David, get yourself a crying towel. It's got good scores. What are you complaining about?

[root]

"As for Carls window picture: David, I think you missed the reflections. That's why I'd rather give no rating instead of a low rating. I might just be too dumb to understand the picture. And if I'm not attracted by a picture, I don't have the patience to look at it long enough to get a hidden message."

 

Jan, the second part of your comment would make a good philosophy of photography question.

 

Let's deal with you, Mr. Koen and the broader questions that your behavior raises. My image was uploaded April 17, 2005, got 12 rates (plus yours) and had 4000 views. You did not find this by accident. You visited my portfolio with malice aforethought and slapped a low rate on an image without even looking at it!

 

But your response is normal. It happens hundreds, maybe thousands of times a day on this site and the lower number examples can't help but have a chilling effect on direct rating. As I've said, the reciprocity evidence is there. The question is do we want to know how badly it contaminates the integrity of the process?

[dk.]

Ken Thalheimer I was just doing a test here, it had good scores and many great comments before I put it up for Critique, I knew as soon as I put it up for Critique that what happened would happen instant 3's and 2's and within minutes that is what happened, I know its not the end of the world and I have let it go. (It is just a picture) But I still would like improvements to be made here on this site, take care.

 

 

Carl Root I will go and have another long look at your picture and see what I think about it and rate it again if I feel it necessary I hope you will do the same for pictures you too have given very low marks too maybe a bit to quickly. Take care.

 

 

DK.

[currents_serene]

Koens pleads guilty of the reduced charge of poor judgment, and in return grants Root's photo better numbers. Are there any objections to this plea bargain?

[mike dixon]

Now this is a funny thread. Maybe part of the plea bargain should be that the original poster has to apologize to all those people he insulted and downgraded for doing exactly the same thing he has done.

[vincetylor]

"Carl Root I will go and have another long look at your picture and see what I think about it and rate it again if I feel it necessary I hope you will do the same for pictures you too have given very low marks too maybe a bit to quickly. Take care."

 

How can I get in on some of this action?? Let me find Hannah...

[root]

David, I'm not at all interested in your changing your rates, although I see that you have changed a 4/3 to a 5/5 and made a decent attempt to critique it. What is clear is that you started this thread and, as Mike has just noted, my analysis of your motives have now been proven by your own admission. What you still don't understand is that the difference between your rates and mine is that my rate of an earlier image image of yours is not at all personal, since it was found in the ratings queue.

 

You then retaliated, plain and simple . . . . . . and apparently there will be no consequences.

 

As an aside, the bird image you offer in this thread is overrated due to the OOF FG branch, yet all your friends are either unable or unwilling to note that flaw as evidenced by their rates. The problem is that you take their rates to heart because stastically they outnumber the lower ones (which are admittedly also emotionally tinged.)

 

 

Rework the old "curators" sort, Brian. We're going to need it.

[pawel_czapiewski1]

Some threads turn out to be more educational than expected. i often wondered how many of us deserve spanking for similar rating escapades. For that reason i'd rather have all names (including author's) off in RR and no rating after (one could always visit and leave his numbers in comments area). Provided that software against bots is reasonably tight. Generally i find myself in agreement with Carl's analysys of the Gallery and it's inhabitants' behavior.

[charrisi]

Now that all is said and done I would like to say to David, I can empathize. I have felt the same way more than once and to my own detriment, have deleted at least 100 or more from my portfolio. Silly, taken my toys and gone home... One has to develop a very thick skin as a member of this community. Today, the good outweighs the bad. I live, and learn. And that's all that matters in the end, isn't it?

Sincerely~

[tcrowe]

I have been on photo.net a little over one year. I am an amateur photographer and was looking for a place to have my efforts honestly critiqued. I researched this site before I settled here; eyes wide open. I am a Vietnam Vet and, therefore, have NO problem with negative opinion. I have posted one picture, Cosmos, for critique. It averaged a 4.3 rating and I was pleased. I knew my photo was one of millions of the same subject; there is nothing new under the sun. I love the fact that I have this resource available and negative feed back is a part of the learning process;that is how I take it. I learned nothing in life that didn't have a heavy set of negatives attached. That is life. It isn't the negative; it's what you DO with it that makes you better. (two personal pennys worth)

[timothy_eberly]

No need to make a huge fuss, but we all want the phots we are proud of to rate high. When we get high and low ratings it confuses us for a moment. This is only natural. Instead of feeling hurt that someone rates it lower than you would like, try seeing how you can either target the higher raters with images that they like, or try to please everyone. If I am not mistaken you will learn that not all images work in all situations. With the ratings you are receiving maybe you can discover what genre you are best suited. Use the ratings to fine tune your technique. <br><br>

Brian, good job. Please don't get discouraged. This is a learning process for many. :)<br><br>I, for one, am glad that you are trying to find a way for us all to rate accurately.

[mike dixon]

<i>When we get high and low ratings it confuses us for a moment.</i><P>

I've never been confused by receiving high and low ratings on the same image. It seemed pretty clear to me that some people liked it and some people didn't.