Critique Only

[afterthoughts]

Dear Photo.net Administration and other site members:

 

Please explain to me why the Critique Only Forum remains a difficult

to find behind the scenes option?

[sarahunderhill]

I wonder this too. I have book marked the link, so it should be easy to just add some button....Brian, what is up with this? Why is this such a big deal to you? We did have this before. This request is coming up gain and again. Really, what is the problem?

[jayme]

Ditto :)

[mottershead]

It is because I never intended "Critique Only" to be a forum, and I basically don't want things to work that way.

 

It encourages people to submit photos for "critique only" in order to gain access to an alternative forum that they view as more desirable and attractive than the regular Critique Forum. But in that alternative forum the photos basically become invisible except to the other participants in that forum.

 

If people are not comfortable with subjecting themselves or their photos to the vagaries of the rating system, I don't mind if the photos are submitted to the Critique Forum as "critique only" photos. But I don't particularly want to encourage that by making it seem desirable. I view the photo ratings as a integral part of the systems of the site for giving visibility to the most interesting photos. I don't want to present people with an either/or choice: where they can participate in a critique sub-group but only if they foreswear their participation in the regular systems of the Critique Forum.

 

Photos submitted as "critique only" shouldn't have any special visibility for getting critiques, compared to other photos. I think critique-only photos should just be in the Critique forum, the same as any other photos. If this means that they receive fewer critiques because they have opted out of one of the main vehicles for visibility on the site, that is the member's choice.

 

I also didn't like how the Gallery was turning into two camps, with some in the "Critique Only" camp being very aggressive about denouncing the rating system in the Site Feedback forum, etc, questioning the intelligence, honesty, and motivation of people who participate in the rating system, and trying to encourage people to stop submitting photos to be rated. Even though most participants in the critique-forum were not aggressive, I didn't like how whenever someone complained about the rating system in the Site Feedback forum, which was often, someone else would chime in that the person complaining should just submit the photos "critique only", thereby gaining access to something called the "Critique Only Forum", which was depicted as much more calm and desirable than the smelly Critique Forum with its obnoxious rating system. The impression was always left that if you *really* were interested in critiques, you would go all the way and submit photos "Critique Only", that anybody who submitted photos to the regular Critique Forum, couldn't really be interested in critique and could only be some kind of ratings-obsessed rube.

 

Almost everybody here wants more and better critiques, including the people who submit their photos to be rated. Why should "Critique Only" photos be the only ones to be entered into a special form where photos are "really" critiqued? The *entire* Photo Critique forum is supposed to be for people who want to critique photos and have their photos critiqued. I understand the need for subgroups. The Critique Forum is currently too large, with many participants. People feel lost. This is why you see a steady stream of requests for additional "Categories", which is another mechanism for creating subgroups. Years ago we experimented briefly with "Critique Circles", small groups of people who would give each other critiques. The pilot was very popular, but we abandoned Critique Circles after creating only about ten of them, because they were too labor-intensive to set up. I am planning to bring back something like the "Critique Circles", with some new ideas about how to make them less labor-intensive to establish and more scalable.

 

Meanwhile, the Critique Only "forum" won't be returning in that form. I haven't removed the code or made the link not work, in deference to the people who were frequenting the Critique Only photo list as a type of forum. But I'm not planning to make that link visible on the site, and eventually the Critique Only "forum" will be superceded by something else that will give all participants in the Critique Forum access to a critique circle of their choosing without being compelled to submit a photo as "Critique Only" .

[yann_r.]

Thank you Brian for this complete response.<p>

Even if it's true that's difficult to content everyone, less people has the choice, more people becomes alternative.<p>

If you allow members to post photos in the critique forum with the CO case checked (I didn't use the words *CO forum*), I think it could be possible to have a direct link to this category. Not to make this subcommunity more active or more independant but to give members like Howard, Sarah, Jayme and many others (who are pretty active commenters/raters/posters) a more direct and easier access to these photos.<p>

I personally don't use CO feature to be part of an alternative community but I use it to 1)be active on PN by posting (I do my best to comment/critique/rate), 2)make my photos visible at least some minutes in the critique forum, 3)show to other members that true critiques are welcome.<p>

PN is a very interesting website. Point of views differences should be constructive.

[john falkenstine]

Does this mean that untold unrated images submitted to photo.net over the years will become invisible?

[mottershead]

John, there are many images that haven't been submitted to the Critique Forum, and they are just as visible as any other images. It is just that if they aren't rated and aren't in the TRP, there has to be a way for people to find them. Otherwise they are effectively invisible, although not literally so. For example, there may be unrated images in the portfolio of someone who by virtue of doing a lot of commenting, is on a lot of "Interesting" lists, etc.

[mottershead]

Yann, as I said, I recognize that the Critique Forum is large and needs sub-communities. It is just that I don't favor the development of a sub-community of people whose common point is opting out of the rating system.

 

Critique-only is not a category. In fact, every critique only photo is also in a category. The "critique only" checkbox was intended as a way for people to post a photo in the Critique Forum without being compelled to expose the photo to rating. It was never intended to be a badge around which a "community" would coalesce, and I've given reasons why it is not a good thing for the forum for there to be such a community. Since there is (a relatively small) community that has developed around it, I don't plan to destroy it. But I don't want it to help it get bigger. I am planning other sub-community features that I think will work better and be more consistent with the overall Critique Forum.

[yann_r.]

Brian, your response sounds fair for me.

[natureshots]

I didn't know that the CO was receiving that much visibility. This question may be rhetorical but isn't it true that CO images do not show up on rate recent? That takes away the main visible vehicle from those photos. I don't doubt that if I submitted my images for ratings, some of those images may have received thousands of views and perhaps tens of thousands of views rather than hundreds. I may resubmit a photo with ratings for kicks but what I don't understand is what kind of "special visibility" you are talking about? Even if it may be true that the critiques are "better" on CO, those who like CO are not having the cake and eat it too; yet you make it sound like we have ice cream on top of that cake also.

 

You didn't want CO to be a forum but when it seems to work that way, you yanked the rug out from under our feet. How long has it been? Yet, still, there is no replacement rug. This seems like big brother crushing a group of dissidents.

 

While I may not agree with the rating system, I cannot remember the last time I dissed it. I do agree with you that the debate between the two camps is silly at times but to me, this is perhaps your only valid point for removing the rug. But you run the site.....

[bennyboy]

To be sure, the ratings system is a very contentious subject, and I dipped my toe into that boiling lake a couple of times soon after joining the site. But, for more than a few months, I've decided to treat ratings exactly how Brian envisages them. This means that I submit all of my photos for critique AND rating, in most cases I don't care about the ratings which follow - sometimes I've clearly had an editorial braino and delete a photo, but not very often. Since I've adopted this approach my time here has been virtually stress free, and I feel less creatively bound than I used to - read into that what you may.

 

I'm quite sure I've followed in the footsteps of many other members, this is easily verifiable just by looking at the portfolios of some of the people ranked as most interesting (and many many others of whom I am one).

 

One thing I have noticed is that the average scores on portfolio pages can be perceived as a badge of worth - this is clearly not the case, would it be worth having this info as an opt in/out? I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this.

 

My overall advice (for anyone willing to take it), chill out, there are FAR more important things in life to worry about.

[WJT]

Howard, my friend, you might as well face the "facts of life" on PhotoNet NOW! The Critique Only is a subscriber feature; non-subscribers have limted access to it. In the usual course of things, one would think that subcribers had some extra worth to this site, but that is not reality. That is a fiction. <b>NON</b>-subscribers are <i>far</i> more important. Consider this. None of the advertising is blocked for non-subcribers. They get to see the banners, they get to see the in-line ad-links. They get to see everything that you and I do not (thank God, I mean, Brian). A non-subscriber is a cherished commodity whose browsing generates revenue, unlike you (and me), Howard. <p>

There was a time when the subscribers were considered to be more than just pieces of raw meat. That's just what I feel like now...a piece of stinking sausage being ground-up for the money machine! I post my photographs for critique, but the site uses them to generate hits. Yes, yes, we have promises of a new PhotoNet World Order imminently bounding across the horizon. Meanwhile, all of the inadequacies, all of the rating injustices, all of the bologny still permeates the site. <p>

I have rarely used the Critique Only forum myself. When I post, it is in the usual way. I have nothing against the Critique Only, and more power to those who use it. Undoubtedly, Brian has a great master plan in the works and it will provide a new paradigm in the PhotoNet experience. I can't wait for it to unfold. Regards.

[WJT]

Yes Ben, there are indeed far more important things in life. But as a diversion, many of us liked to spend some time here. It use to be that it helped with those other <i>more</i> important things in life. Regards.

[yann_r.]

I'm planning to buy a DSLR.<br>

For the moment, I use a very compact and full-auto basic camera. So, I should only be rated on composition cause almost all things like DOF, exposure, etc. are fixed by my camera.<br>

Auto mode is usefull and allows me to take some good shots but how boring it's becoming! When I'll get my DSLR, I'll be able to make me, my eyes, my mind, my feelings more important in my photography. Ratings will be more suitable.<p>

As soon as I'll get my DSLR, I'll come back in the rating system. I could be an anonymous member. That doesn't interest me. I want to be active then OK, Brian, I'll work for the site.

[jayme]

Brian- You have the power, do with CO what you will. I am all for making PN a better site. But I must respectfully (not aggressively) disagree that the CO forum hurts PN.

 

I feel what hurts PN is censorship. Lately, the site has become a little "mundane". As evidenced by the majority of comments on the top photos on the TRP. Same old, same old. "Wonderful image", "Super image", "terrific image", yada, yada, yada. Truly dribble. Reminds me of a few other photos sites. A kinder & gentler photo site?

 

I think that most participants on the CO forum want "meat" not "dribble". If I could, I'd start at the bottom of the TRP & move up towards the top. It appears the posters at the bottom desire honest input, those on the top seem to have become self inflated & a tad arrogant. Talk about "aggressive" & "defensive". Do they really want "critique" or just a "pat on the back?"

 

But of course, this is just my opinion & it is not meant to be aggressive or intimidating.

[afterthoughts]

First off, I would like to thank everyone who responded, including Brian with his detailed explanation. Here is my response. Photo.net is a business and Brian Mottershead is the CEO, responsible to set corporate strategy. I doubt if there is a board of directors so I think Brian has total control in that regard.

 

A business strategy includes values. Sometimes those values are clear and sometimes they are not. In this case, Brian has articulated his values which are reflected in his business strategy. Anytime a business changes strategy and the new strategy conflicts with the old strategy, the business runs the risk of losing certain customers who disagree with the new strategy and the values that are implied by that strategy. In reality the old customers are replaced with new customers who align better with the new strategy.

 

The bottom line is that Brian is responsible to grow revenue for Photo.net. From my perspective Photo.net is in position to differentiate itself from other photo sites on the Web by capitalizing on what his customers are telling him. Think about this. Members have three choices and are permitted only one change after they make a choice. Choice number one is Ratings Only Land. Choice number two is Comments Only Land. Choice number three is Ratings and Comments Land.

 

On the other side of the coin is the customer who also has a choice, to play or not to play.

[mottershead]

Actually, there is a Board of Directors, and I'm not the CEO. The CEO is Rajeev Surati. However, if you look at the About Us page you will see that I am the Publisher of photo.net and the Editor-in-Chief. In any case, I get to decide things like this.

[minicucci]

Brian: Perhaps you'd be willing to consider some middle ground? Why not allow a link to

the Critique Only submissions...for now...with the up-front notice that the CO forum, as

we have known it, will deactivate upon release of the critique circles that you discuss

above. (Which I find a very intriguing idea with a lot of potential.)

 

Done in that context, your goals and strategy are intact and the CO group has due notice

of changes coming. Howard's point about changes in strategy often means changes in the

customer base is correct. I'd argue, though, that most of the vehement CO community are

good citizens making a substantial contribution to the site through prolific critiques

(valued by members) and are worth keeping around if not all together happy.

 

As I think Jayme mentioned, I've never read any ratings diatribes by the more prominent

CO users. I have read them from participants in the rating system who became angered or

embittered by the rates given to their photos. These folks rarely last long in the CO

community because their interest is in the competiton versus meaningful feedback.

 

After looking at the profiles of a handful (5) of the more committed CO users, a minimum

of 66% of their last 100 critiques went to images submitted to the rating system, versus

the CO forum. That translates to thousands to mostly meaty comments to the membership

at large. It is worth something.

 

I'd also like to acknowledge one real positive of the new system that I have not seen

mentioned before in context of CO. The new list of thumbs that show when clicking

Critique Forum expands the visibility of CO submissions considerably. Before the changes,

images tagged for CO went by in the nano second of the limited CF page. Now there is

some staying power, especially in the categories. That's a good thing!

 

In any event, Brian, please consider a little bit of transition accommodation.

[James Kazan]

Mr Tatulinski I believe has nailed it. The site is about traffic and online advertising and not about the paying membership. He is right that the non-subscribers are much more important that the paying subscribers. The TRP is the bait, lure, and hook for the non-subscribers. Send in an Email address and become an instant member and start rating. While you rate and go through the site you generate hits or traffic. It is all about advertising and revenue. What I don't understand is why the critique only forum cannot coexist at the same time. There are plenty of photos posted for ratings every day that the critique only forum should not affect the numbers in the TRP. I was hoping for a much better looking critique only forum with thumbnails but alas I guess it is not to be.<p>My two cents.

[mottershead]

Advertisers and subscribers are about equally important. Subscribers account for about 40% of the revenue of the site. In fact, the site revenue is about 40% subscribers, about 40% Google, and 20% other advertisers. The Gallery, TRP, portfolios, photo pages, etc, only account for about one-third of the advertising revenue. Most of the advertising revenue comes from the forums and the articles (Equipment/Learn/Travel). The Gallery does account for most of the subscriptions.

In other words, while advertising is a bit more important than subscriptions, overall, subscriptions are a lot more important than advertising in the Gallery. The only reason we make any revenue from Gallery advertising is that there is a lot of it, since people don't very often click on the ads in the Gallery. It isn't completely accurate, but if you said that the Gallery produces subscription revenue, and the Forums and Articles produce advertising revenue, you wouldn't be far off. Another thing you could say without being very wrong is that most subscribers pay for themselves and contribute heavily towards the costs for non-subscribers, and the advertising pays the rest for Trial/Guest members and the people who are just passing through.

 

So the notion that subscribers don't count isn't true, even from a financial point of view. It is the opposite of true. The site wouldn't survive without the subscribers. If we did manage to survive without them, it would only be by having a lot more ads than we currently do, and probably the site would be quite different than it is. The site probably couldn't survive without the advertisting, either, at least not without making subscriptions mandatory. That would make the site tiny in comparison to the current site, so small that I'm not sure anybody would be interested in subscribing to it. So the site needs both subscribers and advertising and we didn't get on the more or less sound financial footing that we have at present, until we were able to attain reasonably significant numbers of both.

 

However, the number of people who are submitting "critique only" photos is pretty small, and the number of people who use the critique only list to decide which photos they will comment upon is even smaller. And the group who think of the Critique Only list as the basis for a community is even smaller than that. So, it is far from correct to think of this group as "the subscribers".

[bennyboy]

Brian, as a pure aside, would you be willing to divulge what number (or proportion) of gift subscriptions have been purchased (and indeed the overall total subscription size - I think this may give people some cause to think about just how tight a ship the site is in light of the figures above)? I think some recent threads stimulated this somewhat - not sure if there's a steady flow, or it comes in fits and starts.

[afterthoughts]

Brian, I think you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare the Critique Only Forum with the normal ratings TRP protocol. Look at the time line. Compare how long Photo.net has been supporting the normal rating system compared with the length of time the Critique Only Forum in its present state has been attracting users. You can not compare the two.

 

Again, you miss the point. I am a loyal Photo.net user and supporter and a customer who is requesting restoration of a service. The people that are requesting this service are not trying to undermine your authority. They just want what they perceive was an ADDED VALUE photo.net option. If you can�t justify restoration, I say kill the whole thing and don�t give people any choices and let the chips fall where they may.

 

BTW, thanks for pointing me to the About Us page where there is lots of interesting info.

[mg]

Brian, you wrote: 1) "If people are not comfortable with subjecting themselves or their photos to the vagaries of the rating system, I don't mind if the photos are submitted to the Critique Forum as "critique only" photos. But I don't particularly want to encourage that by making it seem desirable. I view the photo ratings as a integral part of the systems of the site for giving visibility to the most interesting photos."

 

Just a comment: I understand, but I find surprising, that you declared elsewhere these days, that you don't believe in "aesthetic universals". So it would be interesting to know, what you mean exactly by "the most interesting photos", and whether you think the present TRP gallery actually presents the "most interesting" ones.

 

You wrote: 2) "Photos submitted as "critique only" shouldn't have any special visibility for getting critiques, compared to other photos."

 

I agree. But at this stage, I'd say that the photos submitted for rating are the ones, that are clearly getting a lot more exposure. Right ? So, having a thumbnailed page of photos submitted for CO would just be the beginning of a fair treatment. And that's all many members interested in critiques only are asking for. I stopped commenting on CO photos because there were no thumbnails available, but I would restart both commenting and posting photos the day there will be thumbnailed pages: it's just too much of a waste of time to click on every line, to finally find a picture I wamt to comment on.

 

Now if I may, here is a summary of MY OWN experience on PN for the past 2 years or so - although it is certainly not representative of many more people.

 

I don't like the current rating system, as you know, but what you may not know is that I tried once or twice to post a CO picture, and then stopped, simply because I was getting even far fewer in-depth comments, than I do when I post a picture for rating.

 

BUT I'm still very interested in the future of this CO forum, because it may be the only way I will have to get more of the type of comments I'm looking for - comments that are detailed, and not necessarily kind, by people who have a fairly trained eye. That's why critique clubs and such are also, to me, a promise with a good potential.

 

What you may not know either, for what it's worth, is why I have more or less stopped posting pictures here. I still post one or two pictures every three months or so, when I really need feedback, and then delete the picture after a few days, a) because it won't get any more comments anyway (no TRP = no visibility), b) because there are just a few old PNet friends who still drop by on and off to tell me something useful for me to improve.

 

The reason why I stopped posting is that comments were fewer than before, and that ratings were what I considered silly - and probably biased both ways, always ranging from lowest to highest marks for pictures that were technically and aesthetically correct, but not much more than that. The other reason being that the originality rating gives no hope of visibility to most of the commercial work I do anyway. I'm not an artist, and I am mostly interested about the way viewers perceive the light, composition, skin tones, etc of admittedly unoriginal pictures - which are what sells in the editorial and advertising worlds I deal with.

 

You wrote: 3) "I think critique-only photos should just be in the Critique forum, the same as any other photos. If this means that they receive fewer critiques because they have opted out of one of the main vehicles for visibility on the site, that is the member's choice."

 

Okay, fair enough. But thumbnailed pages are all CO people are asking for: why can't they have what other rating members have ? they are paying the same subscription fee, aren't they ? Why don't they even get thumbnail display, like the others ?

 

You wrote: 4) "I am planning to bring back something like the "Critique Circles", with some new ideas about how to make them less labor-intensive to establish and more scalable."

 

Sounds great... Would it be possible to have an idea of what these new "critique circles" would be like ? For exemple, would there still be ratings and TRP involved, or a CO option ? Would each "circle" be category-oriented, or topic-oriented, or...? And what would be your aim when setting up such circles ? Finally, do you have any idea, roughly, when these circles could start ?

[mmmee]

Marc has raised a number of questions that I am sure we all want some sort of light shed on the basis for some of the presumptions and other ideas that we all have been mulling over to try to make a photo.net that answers to the needs of more people.

 

I don't see the two camps as being in opposition to one another. I see critique only as a choice for people who do not want what was once termed as 'subway' traffic through their portfolios. In lieu of the fewer views and no ratings anyone who opts for critique only has less visibility. Anyone who wants the visibility can participate on the ratings page.

 

We all started on photo.net rating and commenting. A lot of us have seen the ratings games/wars continue. We have heard the Editor declare that it is addictive. Sure it is. It also brings people to be subscribers because it is fun. It is fun, until we realize we are spending our time quantifying the unquantifiable. There are many people who have very small numbers for the number they have rated. They opted out of the ratings earlier. Many of them has ceased commenting also. I wonder why.

 

I don't want to see the rate recent or other ratings features disappear. Its a service for the site, apparently. The rates are for the site, we have been told. So what do the photographers of the site get?

 

As a result of participating fully in the rating system, the rater photographers get yet another page of thumbnails that says the MOST RECENT PHOTOS OF THE TOP PHOTOGRAPHERS. And the Critique Only photographers -- who are in search of good critiques -- get nothing.

 

I like the new critique forum. It reminds me of how photo.net was when I began. There was a full page of thumbs of everyone loading any photo. You could see who was loading when you were on line and comment indiscriminately of friends list or any other considerations. Since then photo.net is much expanded and by far larger.

 

I think we need the two camps to drive the traffic to where subscribers want to be evaluated. I wonder if new circles will not just divide the traffic into even smaller warring groups. Like my circle gets better ratings than your circle. So what? my circle gets better critiques than your circle? We will be like the National Hockey League, ever expanding, until it takes 18 months to complete the playoffs. (I am Canadian, I should like hockey! Off I go to watch the TV, clutching my big {hockey} stick. Go Brian go.)