The Ultimate Solution to the Ratings Problem

[reuben_c]

Regarding copyright, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't doubt that Photo.net's counsel could work up a viable "cover" to address any concerns. I believe that it's possible to copyright a work under a "nom de guerre", and if that's the case, then the system could assign one on the fly. Or, perhaps a statement could be provided that the copyright was retained by the original poster, whose personal information was on file, and would be provided on thus and such a date, etc.

<p>

Like I said, this is something that would be best left to the lawyers, but I think it's probably a case of "where there's a will (to implement such a system), there's a way (to do it without compromising ownership).

[leorossi]

Reuben: as far as I'm concerned you've got the part. I just can't wait to get to the scene where Faye Dunaway shows you her photographs!:)

[reuben_c]

One final note on the matter -- as I said, I'm not a lawyer, but from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, a copyright notice is required to adhere to a couple of different formats, such as the word "Copyright" or an abbreviated form ("Copr."), or the "©" symbol, followed by the two items -- the year(s) claimed, and the holder's name. (From what I've read, the commonly used "©" form is <i>not</I> acceptable in lieu of the "©" symbol.)

<p>

I mention this because out of curiosity, I took a look at one of your images, and saw that it did not include a year in the copyright statement. I see that you're located in the UK, so perhaps the year is not required there, but if you're claiming a USA copyright, from my "non-lawyer" understanding, the format presented is not valid.

<p>

Complicating (or simplifying!) matters (in the USA at least) is the change in copyright protection some years back; my understanding is that unless you explicitly declare an item to be in the public domain, you <i>retain</i> your copyright to the work. There are (from my understanding) different degrees of ability to be remunerated for breaches according to how the owner handles the copyright. My understanding is that your right to be recompensed for theft of your work is fairly restricted unless you actually <I>register</i> your copyrighted work with the government, even though your <I>ownership</I> is inviolate.

<p>

In the case of an image, it would be trivial to be able to prove ownership of an uploaded image, inasmuch as the uploaded image is inevitably displayed at a lower resolution and/or smaller size than the original. By presenting the actual original for inspection -- something no thief could ever hope to do -- your ownership would be logically unquestionable.

<p>

On a more practical level, as I've seen posted several times by various posters, if you really don't want your image to be appropriated by others, you should not be posting it online. Theft of IP is both despicable and rampant -- and enforcement for "little guys" is sufficiently rare as to be news when it does happen. (And that's one bit of news I'm still waiting to discover.)

[panyitu]

Who ever wants to try it can comment at PT.

[Wayne Melia]

The concept of double blind ratings has already been thrashed about several times.<br>For instance, see <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0054hW">this thread</A>, scroll to Brian's comment May 09 2003 1:21 pm, or<br> <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004haU">another1</A><br>I think Mike Dixon's arguements are the most pursuasive on the con side, but for whatever reasons, the administrators have decided against it, and that is the bottom line that must be respected.<br>Repitition of old ideas like this is pointless, and no doubt annoying to the point that I fully support the deletion/banning of whines about the rating system

[leorossi]

Yes but who's whining? I personally didn't find this so-called repetition annoying in the least. Also, what do you exactly mean by saying that "the administrators have decided against it, and that is the bottom line that must be respected". That there should be no voice of dissent?

[bobatkins]

There's a constant voice of disent that eventually just blurs into the noise.

 

Photo.net's not a democracy. It's a business run by Brian. He calls the shots. Whatever he does he can't win. If he does "A" people say he should have done "B". If he does "B" people say he should have done "A". When we had anonymous ratings, people wanted public ratings. When we had public ratings, people wanted anonymous ratings.

Like I said, he can't win.

 

All he can do is listen to the constant barage of criticism about how he's doing things wrong and if he'd only make a few simple changes, things would be better.

 

Attempts to build crytographically secure systems for ratings and anonimity sort of miss the whole point of photo.net and the gallery. It's just supposed to be a little fun. It's not the meaning of life. If it brings a few good images to the attention of viewers and occasionally provides some useful feedback to image posters, it's done just about 100% of what it's designed to do.

 

Those who want the ultimate in an image rating and critique system, where nobody could ever cheat and where only meaningful comments could be left and where some sort of "rater rating" scheme could be introduced would probably be better off starting an open source project on a site like sourceforge.net and gathering a team of software developers together to hash out the details. Given you could start with the open source code for a gallery system like Coppermine, it shouldn't be all that difficult for a few developers proficient in PHP and MySQL to hack something together.

[leorossi]

Once you put on a 'site feedback' space you've got to deal with dissent and complaints. Either that or close down the specific space. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

 

Yes people are constantly complaining about the ratings. It seemed to me the originating poster here was instead offering some kind of idea to face facts.

[jreades]

Uh, Floyd, quit sounding like a jerk. You sound like you have *some* idea what goes on on the backend (though I'd like you to name one other site that uses AOL Server), so you must know that what you want to have happen is a lot like, say, trying to get from one car into another (along with all of your photography gear) while travelling at 75mph down the interstate? Operational systems under heavy load do *not* turn on a dime.

 

Sites like c|net or the New York Times *do* make changes to their sites, but they do it slowly and very, very carefully. And they have whole teams of people working to develop, Q/C, and roll out the changes. We have Brian and, I think, a couple of volunteers. And they are also responsible for handling every single technical issue that crops up whether big or small. And Brian is not getting paid loads of dosh to do this either.

 

Think about what you did online in 1991. This thing runs on AOL server for god's sakes, so it doesn't get much worse than that. But if you can get everyone to sign off on, say, a couple of weeks' downtime (after four or five months of full-time development work to prep the new site and come up with a migration tool to get all of the data from one schema to another) for the entire site I'm sure that Brian would be happy to ditch this system and start over from scratch with a site that supports all of the 'modern' conveniences.

 

I think that the recent changes to the rating system *do* make it clear that Brian et al. listen to our complaints and gripes. But what they can't do is respond to every member's whim. It takes time to see good proposals and ideas float to the top and win general (but never universal) acceptance or odium.

 

If you're so unhappy then what are you still doing here? You must get *something* out of sticking around photo.net, reading the forum postings, and so forth. If you're not then you are 100% correct and you should go find a site that tries harder to do what *you* want them to. Like everyone here, I'm not 100% happy with the way things run (I'd like to see a new page/section/post about what changes are in the works for the next release so that people could stop re-hashing the *same* arguments), but I do get something out of it, however infuriated I get at times. It makes my involvement worthwhile and makes me happy to pay some small amount towards photo.net's costs.

 

It's a bit like a building -- if the thing is still standing it's a success. :)

 

jon

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><i>There's a constant voice of disent that eventually just blurs into the noise. </i></blockquote>

It seems like the <i>real</i> griping is coming from a direction other than the "peanut gallery". I'm talking about the "griping about the griping".

<p>

I've seen this kind of thing all too often, it's <i>not</I> "a photo.net thing" -- it's an Internet web forum thing.

<p>

And if you analyze it, I think you may agree with me that it's one of the main driving forces behind the wild success of weblogs.

<p>

What I'm talking about is the surreal doublethink that is imposed on users of most "public fora". On the one hand, the members are told that the service is "a community". They're told how they <I>make</I> it "a community", and there's lots of happy talk to go with the sentiment.

<p>

But, at the first sign of <i>criticism</I>, no matter how mild, "the administration" circles the wagons, send out a message that <i>"This is NOT a Democracy!</i>", and lets "the dissenters" (AKA anyone who doesn't drink the koolade :) know that they're skating on thin ice.

<p>

This is <i>classic</I> doublethink. Or to put it in more two-dimensional terms, it's like the double corner in the checkerboard. One box is labeled "we're a community", and the other is labled "we're a beneficial dictatorship".

<p>

A lot of sites will attempt to use the "livingroom" metaphor, i.e., "This is John's livingroom, and you're all guests in John's home, here at his pleasure. You have no say in how he chooses to run his home, etc., etc., etc."

<p>

The argument breaks down of course when you <i>examine</I> the metaphor. I've had lots of visitors to my real life living room, but I've never once solicited donations from them, or even <i>suggested</I> that by "having them over", they were part of some warm cuddly "community" (until, of course, they ticked me off, at which point I slid into the othe corner of the checkerbord, and informed them that "it's my livingroom, I make up the rules, like it, or leave."

<p>

I guess I <i>could</I> behave like that in real life. But I think that it wouldn't take long before the only "friends" I'd be able to find who were willing to "visit" me in "my living room" were the type of guys typically found queued up at soup kitchens, or at intersectins with squeegie in hand.

<p>

So, the doublethink freaks people out, and the natural <i>outlet</I> is the blog.

<p>

What is a "blog"? It's a forum where "the livingroom" metaphor really <i>does</I> fit.

<p>

The age of the traditional web forum is at a cusp, and the "industry" as a whole should probably consider itself on a de facto sort of "notice". If it doesn't figure out how to navigate this sea change, it'll quite likely find itself residing next to "the dotcom era" in the dustbin of e-history.

<p>

Ultimately, a "web forum" is neither "a democracy" <i>nor</I> "a livingroom". It's a venue, of sorts -- and regardless of its particular particularities, there is one overriding rule that it cannot escape. That's the rule of the marketplace.

<p>

Invite "guests" into "your livingroom", and then treat them like dirt, and they'll go elsewhere. Where? The conventional wisdom has been "other fora", but I'm of the opinion that a more realistic answer is "nowhere" (as in politics, more and more people are "voting with their feet -- I find it pleasant to stay home on election day), or, they'll spend an evening setting up a blog of their own. It'll be <i>their</I> "livingroom", and it'll succeed or fail on its own merits. But in any event, they'll be able to speak their peace without being attacked, insulted, demeaned, or threatened for having said what's on their mind.

<p>

Getting back to <I>this</I> particular "not-a-democracy"... I've been wondering about something. We've just been told that it's not a democracy, "It's a business run by Brian. He calls the shots."

<p>

OK, that tells us that he's either a manager, or an owner, or both.

<p>

I suspect I'm not alone in wondering who actually <i>owns</I> the service. I know it was originally owned by Phil, but his absence seems to be pretty consistent for some time now. Did he sell it, or give/donate it to some other party/parties/entity?

<p>

Is it a "proprietorship"? A "partnership"? A corporation, or subsidiary of a corporation? I see the copyright notice says that "Luminal Path Corporation" holds the copyrights, and the "about us" page lists the corporation as well as the names of a few individuals as being "involved with the site", but I can't seem to find any actual statement of <i>ownership</i>.

<p>

If it's truly <i>not</I> "a democracy</I>" (a statement I do not challenge!), then it must be <i>owned</I> by someone, or something.

<p>

I'm curious because whenever I see the sort of iron-fist-like "We will NOT tolerate <i>dissent</I> in <i>our</I> complaint department!" policy shaping up, I get a gut feeling like someone is trying to "groom" a property, perhaps to attract investors, or to sell it to another party, or for some other undisclosed reason.

<p>

I expect by now that I'm at the "this is NONE of your business!" zone, but regardless, whether or not I am "permitted" to wonder about these things, I <i>do</I> wonder about them.

<p>

Thought crime is <i>so</I> troublesome! :)

[bobatkins]

<em>True Bob but theres not much business to run if the peoples needs aren't met</em>

 

<p>

True, but they are. Membership is growing, the site traffic is growing, most people are pretty happy I think. There are clearly a group of unhappy users, though they don't seem to be unhappy enough to leave the site. There will always be unhappy users. Any business has to accept that. Trying to please the complainers ("power users")is probably not good business strategy if it soaks up to many resources. Keeping the majority of users ("casual users") happy is.

 

<p>

I'm the wrong person to ask about ownership, but photo.net is owned by the Luminal Path corporation. I'm not exactly sure who the shareholders of that are, but I imagine it's a matter of public record somewhere. There were a number of investors in the original photo.net (someone had to put up the money) and I assume they have some share in luminal path. The board of directors is public information (see the "About Us" link below). My understanding, at least as of a year or two ago, was that nobody had actually made any profit out of being a "shareholder" in photo.net (luminal path)...I may or may not be wrong on that point. I have no direct knowledge of photo.net finances.

[mike dixon]

<i>But, at the first sign of criticism, no matter how mild, "the administration" circles the wagons, send out a message that "This is NOT a Democracy!", and lets "the dissenters" (AKA anyone who doesn't drink the koolade :) know that they're skating on thin ice.</i><P>

A review of the site feedback forum will show how absurd this assertion is. The forum is filled with threads criticizing the administration of the site, including many rather personal insults about the administrators. It's only the most egregious abusers, those who make repeated personal attacks or constantly violate site policies, who get suspended from the site.

[vasilis]

Maybe administrators and most users do not think that there is such a big problem with the gratings or that the problem is important. So it is not that they oppose to the idea of solutions but they do not want to take huge amounts of time to solve a problem that it is not that important.

[jreades]

Vasilis -- that is one of the *best* typos I've seen on photo.net and has quite made my morning. I, for one, would like to see 'gratings' become the new term.

 

Think how much more to-the-point our flame wars will be when we can just write: "I find your gratings really irritating," or "I'm tired of playing the gratings game."

 

Genius! :)

 

jon

[vasilis]

:-) it is funny ! but I work on optical fibers and more specifically on gratings !!!!!!

[orensztajn]

As Heller Harris said:"It's simpler to just cut off the top and bottom of the ratings, as that's where the abuse occurs. E.g., Cut the top 5% and bottom 5% of any set of ratings, and then calucate the score based on the remainder. A system like this works to eliminate eccentric and/or ignorant scores, as well as intentionally abusive scores".

This is a solution like in sports, gymnastics, etc.

i think thi a good solution if you get a lot of 1 or 2 and a lot of 7 then you do en average with the rest plus some porcent of tghe low and high numbers, that is the solution.

 

Annyway the non-members are anonymous and I get the low points from them without knowing what kind of photo they have, they do not leave even comments and that is irritating, just a number and nothing more.

I mean you want to learn so all comments are welcome.

But the members seems to be more serious.

If you take photography in serious you will not go and rate down another because he put you a 1,2 or 3? or?

Thanks.

[leorossi]

Now that we all know it's a question of obsessive compulsive behavior we can stop lamenting :)

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><i>I'm the wrong person to ask about ownership, but photo.net is owned by the Luminal Path corporation. I'm not exactly sure who the shareholders of that are, but I imagine it's a matter of public record somewhere. There were a number of investors in the original photo.net (someone had to put up the money) and I assume they have some share in luminal path. The board of directors is public information (see the "About Us" link below). My understanding, at least as of a year or two ago, was that nobody had actually made any profit out of being a "shareholder" in photo.net (luminal path)...I may or may not be wrong on that point. I have no direct knowledge of photo.net finances.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Thanks, I guess that's as good a starting point as any. I punched "Luminal Path" into Google, from the first link it returned (<a href="http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pcce-ccop/reana/pubs/economic_model/6_e.cfm"><i><b>Ensuring the Economic Sustainability of Online Cultural Projects: Far from Standard Models</b></i></a>), it would seem that there are only <i>two</I> individuals deriving any income from photo.net (apart from any revenue gained by the corporation itself, which my brief parse doesn't seem to reveal):

<p>

<blockquote><b>In 1996, Photo.net, to which a number of discussion forums had been added, became a test bed for Ars Digita programmers. By 1999, business at the parent company kept Philip Greenspun so busy that he transferred Photo.net to a separate company (Luminal Path), of which he owned 50%; three financial partners shared the rest. The company now has one full-time employee (Brian Mottershead), a part-time consultant (Bob Atkins), and about fifty volunteer moderators. </b></blockquote>

<p>

Other than mentioning that as of 1999, <i>Luminal Path</i> was owned 50% by Phil, with the other 50% owned by three unnamed "financial partners", there doesn't seem to be too much of interest, other than this section, which is probably common knowledge to anyone who's been following this stuff:

<p>

<blockquote><b><i>Funding</i> The organization's structure is still that of a for-profit company, although it has not turned a profit since 1999. The administrator admits that a not-for-profit company would better suit the members' vision, but states that likely will not happen until the original investors recoup their investment. In spring 2002, Photo.net faced the greatest crisis in its history. Its revenues barely covered the cost of its bandwidth (about US$3,000 per month). There was only one source of revenue: a commission of 1% to 10% on purchases made by members at affiliated photography equipment stores.

<p>

Since these revenues were unlikely to increase and the site was vulnerable to the least crisis, several measures were taken to reduce costs and increase revenues. First, the privileges of a tiny group of very active users were suspended until they paid a voluntary yearly contribution of US$25. This resolved some misuse of bandwidth. More significantly, revenues rose as the result of an advertising banner system in April 2003 and more vigorous promotion of voluntary membership, which ultimately provides few advantages. In April 2003, revenues reached close to US$10,000, of which US$4,000 was spent on bandwidth.

<p>

In short, under the new business plan, 40% of revenues are generated by clients through a voluntary yearly subscription and 60% by third parties through advertising and affiliation. While modest, these funds have allowed Luminal Path to modernize its equipment and resume paying its sole employee, illustrating how relatively inexpensive it can be for large communities to operate.</b></blockquote>

<p>

I guess I'm still curious about plans for the future, primarily, is the site being groomed for bigger and better things, such as an IPO, or merger/acquisition? I don't really expect an answer, since that's the kind of stuff that's invariably held quite close to the vest.

[reuben_c]

I probably should have read that a bit more carefully, since it does seem to raise some additional questions. I plead "Barbie Syndrome" ("Math is <i>hard</i>!")

<p>

From the numbers given in that article, it looks like net revenue is something less than $6,000 a year ($10K gross, minus $6K for bandwidth, with an unspecified amount assumed for things like equipment cost, maintenance, utilities, and other overhead).

<p>

If the numbers in that article are correct -- and, the corporation is covering Brian as a full time employee, and Bob as a "part-time consultant", then either those two guys could tutor sparrows on how to live economically :) or (perhaps more likely) <i>someone</I> is investing/injecting funding into the site on an ongoing basis.

<p>

Realistically, I think the latter is more probable than the former (wage and hour laws being what they are), so the "additional questions" raised would be who, and why?

<p>

All I can figure is that it's either pure altruism, or, an investment with the idea of an eventual <i>return</I> on the investment. As to the "who", who knows? (Well, someone knows, but it ain't me, babe! :)

[bobatkins]

Those numbers are per month, not per year and are from two years ago. I have no idea how they have changed. I assume the revenue has gone up a bit (at least I hope so!).

 

I'm not on the photo.net "staff" but I am an "independent contracter/consultant". I won't reveal the fabulous amount of compensation I get from photo.net except to say that I'd make more serving fries at McDonalds - and I'd get benefits (plus free food and a free uniform...). They don't even let me use the corporate jet or holiday in the company villa in Hawaii.

[mottershead]

Those revenue and cost figures are per month. Both the revenues and costs have increased somewhat since that report was written.

 

Regarding the alleged contradiction of a "community" run by a "for-profit" corporation: I don't think there is a contradiction. Think of it as like a big pub. There is an owner who is running it and hoping to make a living from doing so. There might be some investors, even, hoping for a profit, and if there aren't investors, there is probably a banker, expecting loans to be repaid.

 

Much of the appeal of the more popular pubs is that there is a "community", a group of regulars who determine most of the character of the establishment. People don't come because of the beer, because all pubs have beer and, anyway, you can buy beer more cheaply at a store and drink it at home. They come for the atmosphere and to be with the other people who come.

 

A pub isn't a democracy, since the owner gets to decide things. It isn't the owners' living room -- it is a public place, although the owner has some rights to bounce people out of it. The level of decorum required isn't the same as in someone's living room, and a pub owner who insisted on parlor manners from his guests wouldn't be in business for long. Though it is the owner who makes decisions, he doesn't do things that would drive away the regulars, unless he is very, very, sure that new regulars will appear promptly to replace the ones who leave.

 

Some of the regulars figure they own the place, and are constantly giving the owner advice about how to improve things, letting him know all the time that they are the customers and he better listen, and constantly threatening to leave. Sometimes the owner listens and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes people threatening to leave do, and sometimes they don't. When someone leaves, sometimes he is missed and sometimes he isn't.

[reuben_c]

I can see how the "pub" metaphor looks like a good fit at first blush, but I don't think it's really all that good of a metaphor. For example, any pub that monitored conversations at the tables, and told the patrons what topics were off limits, and enforced it with things like orders to stop discussing various matters, or being expelled from the pub, would likely find himself in an unenviable situation before too long.

<p>

The problems with web fora is that they're not like pubs, they're not like park soapboxes, they're not like <i>anything</I> in the real world. The only thing they're like is web fora. They are unique.

<p>

As a result, attempts to enforce "pub rules" or any <i>other</I> "real world" rules on a web forum results in what might at best be described as a forced fit producing awkward moments.

<p>

I've seen (on other fora) even more complications, in the form of written "rules", which are in practice meaningless, as the moderators rule by fiat, and anyone pointing out the fact that their rulings are at variance with the written rules is banished for being a troublemaker. This sort of thing sometimes seems almost endemic to the medium, and IMO is something that needs to be guarded against. The problem is that the traditional means for "guarding against" that sort of thing is what's commonly termed "checks and balances" -- and the mere <i>mention</I> of "checks and balances" inevitably results in indignant reminders that "this is NOT a democracy!", often followed (on other venues I've observed) in waves of banishments. The result is that the "survivors" walk on eggshells for a while, meek as mice, afraid that they might offend "the rulers" (something difficult to <I>avoid</I> when the <i>real</I> rules bear little if any resemblance to the "offical" rules, and are in reality unknown and unknowable except in the breach). This systemic fear is then interpreted as "good behavior, good attitude, smooth sailing, everything is fine" by the rulers. Kinda pathological, when you think about it.

<p>

I would not want to administer a web forum in <i>any</I> capacity, and I do not envy those who do. Unfortunately, "moderator" status is generally viewed <i>as</I> "status". Any "RHIP" tendencies therefore <i>must</I> be guarded against for the obvious reasons, and the aforementioned systemic <i>obstacles</i> to guarding against them ("checks and balances"/"this is NOT a democracy!") makes it very difficult in the best of circumstances.

[reuben_c]

<i>Those revenue and cost figures are per month.</i>

<p>

You might want to get with the owners of that site and tell them to publish a correction. I was using their figures, which they asserted to be "<i>From an interview with Brian Mottershead, site administrator, on May 1, 2003,</i>" which I assumed to be correct, since the page does give the appearance of being fairly current ("<i>Date modified: 2005/01/06</i>"), and I'm assuming that no issue has been raised <I>by</I> Photo.net as to its contents (prior to today).

[mottershead]

Of course web forums are not exactly like pubs; the only thing they are exactly like is web forums, and not even all of them are alike. My point was that there is no inherent contradiction involved in a community developing and gathering in a venue which the community does not own itself and whose rules are set by people who are attempting to derive income from providing that venue and the services that are available there. There are many "real world" examples of this, and now web forums are another.

 

Your objection does not reach the basic point, but regarding the difference you assert between pubs and web forums, you are, anyway, not correct. The proprietor may not listen in on the conversations at the tables, but you can be sure that if someone came in to the pub and started a fight, or sat down at a table and loudly insulted the people sitting there, the pub owner would be expected to do something about it. When fights break out, the owner doesn't stand around betting on who is going to win, taking a hands-off attitude. If he doesn't maintain a certain level of decorum and standard of behaviour, and caution or toss out people who don't meet it, his pub will get a reputation as an "anything-goes" kind of place, and the pub will attract the type of people who want to hang out in an anything-goes kind of place. That may or may not be profitable for the owner, and it may or may not fit in with the type of place he feels comfortable running. So even that part of the analogy holds.

[bobatkins]

The analogy also fails because photo.net doesn't serve beer...and there are no barmaids.

 

If Brian can figure out how to add those, I think photo.net will be onto a real winner...