New anonymous system for ratings

[maria conversano]

I think thas the new sistem is the best way for rate low the people

that you what to take down. You see the photographer's name, so, in

anonimus way, you rate a "beautiful" 1,1 or 2,2 .... Nobody will

know the reasons of this bad rat.

In opposit, i thik that the best thig for have a photo on the top

pages is to consider only the rates copled with comments. Is the

best way to know sincere opinions on your photos.

What do you think about?

[maria conversano]

Sorry for my bad english.

[ken dennis]

Maria!

 

Your english is better than you think, no apologies needed!

 

There are a lot of people here that are in complete agreement with you on the subject of anonymity in the ratings!

 

Ken.

[pjmeade]

Hello Maria, I think that is a good idea, if people made real comments, but you could give a high rate and then comment with "[pohbhg bdb" and it passes your criterion.

 

But I would like to find an answer to the people or person who adds 1/1 or 2/2 whenever I post. (I did notice that there had been a clear out of bot ratings over the 27th-28th May, thanks Brian)

 

Best wishes. Peter

[cappoldt]

On the flip-side of that coin, Maria, is the thought that it helps deter the mate-rating issue, which dominated the Top Rated Photos page in the default view before the changes were made. You know how it is, when people hand out thousands of 6s and 7s, and the ones they rated return the favor? A sample of such practices may look, say, like the image attached.

 

The way it is now, people can rate what they honestly think without fear of any retribution by the over-inflated ego receiving the mate rates. Food for thought.

[bens]

Anonymous ratings does not stop "mate rating" because 1) mate raters simply tell the poster what they rated the photo and 2) often don't submit to rate recent.

 

Anonymous ratings 3) deter communication by preventing us from knowing many who have an interest in a particular work, 4) allow people to move quickly through photos with less thought, 5) emphasize ratings over comments and encourage people to leave ratings without comment cuz no one knows who they are anyway, 6) encourage those who want to compete in rate recent sum to down rate others so their photo by comparison comes out higher, 7) allows mean-spirited and abusive raters to do their thing with impunity, and 8) elminates the accessibility to each other that makes this site unique and particularly valuable.

 

My experience is that I receive about a third less comments on my photos overall, and my ratings are probably down half a point or so (based on posting perhaps 25 since the change).

 

Was I ever a mate rater? Well, i suppose yes, in the sense that we all were and are, but I don't think anyone would say I was abusive or insincere in my ratings. Has the new system stopped me? Only in that when I visit a photo of a photo buddy of mine, I now hesitate to rate it because I do not know if they care about being in the top photos of the default trp, and I know even a high rating will bump them down.

 

So anonymous ratings and the new TRP make this a more competitive and lonely place for me than it has ever been. My reason for being here is to learn through dialogue. The new changes have had a substantial negative impact on my ability that so far.

 

I'm a booster for the site. But I think lately its headed down a roac that emphasizes competition more than community. Hope it changes course soon.

[bens]

btw, when i infer i visit a photo buddy to leave a high rating, i am thinking of people whose work i admire, and who i have developed a relationship with in part because i find their work interesting and of quality.

[cappoldt]

Ben, agreed on most all points. Mate rating hasn't stopped in the least. What's been curtailed is some of the "glory" of the practice of it by the change in default TRP view. Too I wonder if the "Ten +" ratings rule is still in effect, dumping the image from the default Gallery view if it gets a lot of direct rates? Anyhoo.

 

I'm not surprised the comments are down, and not surprised the overall average rating score has dropped. Agreed, the thoughts going into it are diminished.

 

What I am in disagreement about is the "contest" factor. At least from my perspective, it now is NO LONGER a contest as a result of the default TRP page - and I think that's good - especially for new arrivals to the site's fold. The ones that still WANT it to be a contest, though, can still switch views to a sort by "Average," and view all the over-rated, still-mate-rated pics of the Usual Suspects - as well as a lot of beauties.

 

I'm also a firm-believer in leave a lot of constructive critcism, get it back. Don't do it on the Glory Hounds, though - they're not interested in what you think if it ain't "SUPER! Nice colors! 7/7!". If I had a nickel for every time I tried to politely critique an over-rated image only to be barked at or revenge-rated, I'd have...well...in this economy...a six-pack of Pepsi.

 

 

I think the best and healthiest mindset to embrace is the one that reminds you that the Photo.net itself doesn't consider it a contest, and refuses to monitor/regulate it like one (unless there's great evidence of abusive practices). Get that into your head, and the Gallery sits safely on your screen like a coffee table picture book (with an opportunity, but no guarantee, that you'll learn something while reading it).

[bens]

"Get that into your head, and the Gallery sits safely on your screen like a coffee table picture book (with an opportunity, but no guarantee, that you'll learn something while reading it)."

 

Chris we as usual agree more than disagree. But I don't want so much to view other's work like a coffee book as to dialogue with people about the work. What a shame that perhaps 9 out of 10 rate without commenting. What a shame that now, I've got no idea who even rates so I can't even start the process of getting to know them.

[cappoldt]

Right. But, that's not the way the administration views it as there are no regs to enforce mandatory/useful comments. And there are many who participate in it that don't view it as that - nor care for it to BE that - so it remains a passive tool "with potential."

 

Meanwhile? Picture book that increases site traffic... which is good for advertising, which keeps the site running, which is good all around, I guess - right?

[bens]

self-perpetuates. this is a ratings site primarily, which may help the site attract people, which is suppose is a good thing if numbers help it survive. but to take such an arbitrary ratings system -- i would argue to numerically rate at all -- too seriously at all is, well, silly, and cannot lead to much that is really useful for those here to learn.

[mottershead]

Ben, you keep harping away on the problem that people rate and don't comment. Obviously true since there are many more ratings than comments. Yesterday for example there were 10300 ratings given and only 1800 comments.

 

But if your interest is discussion of photos there is no shortage of photos with active discussions. Look at the "Comments" ranking on Top Photos. Look at the Critique Only section. How many photos per day do you want to discuss? How does the fact that a lot of people only rate stop you from discussing, if that is your interest? In the "golden age" of photo.net when the site was supposedly focusing on discussion, there were many FEWER comments on photos than now. For example, on May 28, 2002 (three years ago) there were only 448 comments written on photos. Nobody was complaining all the time the way you do that there wasn't enough discussion going on. As a matter of fact, the NUMBER OF COMMENTS PER DAY has actually increased faster over the last 3 years than the NUMBER OF RATINGS PER DAY.

 

So, how about giving it a rest?

[root]

The meaningful statistic would be the ratio of daily comments to uploads, then and now.

[bartbies]

I agree with Maria, i have seen a lot of low rate at very good photos. It's looks sometomes as somebody had a bad day and go to PN in order to give a few unnice rate;-). Anymous rating would be great if members would be more clever.

[mottershead]

Carl, my point is that the behaviour of other people should not be relevant. If tens times as many people rate photos as comment upon them, what room do the commenters have to complain -- as long as there are photos where there are photo discussions going on. Why insist that everybody have the same aims from their participation in the site as you have, and keep insisting that the site prompt everybody and "encourage" them to be like you? If you aren't finding photos worth discussion, or people willing to discuss them, then complain.

[bdpics]

I agree with Maria! I don't see how anon ratings stop mate-rating or vindictive-rating at all--indeed I think remaining "hidden" actually ENCOURAGES this bad behavior!! PN users are smart enough to see if Bob, Sarah, Kent, et al ALWAYS rate Jim's photo's highly--at least we could if we could see who was rating the images.......same thing for those who venge-rate........

[bens]

Brian, if the subject comes up, I'd like to continue to voice my perspective, particularly as newer members make inquiries. I could turn it on you I suppose. Why NOT encourage and incentivize comments if it does not take away from ratings -- since the site's GOAL is to be a learning community? I would also venture that some of the increased comments in the last year are related to mate rating, when ratings went semi-anonymous.

 

But you know, I do appreciate your response. For a long time you made none to my queries. I understand from your recent comments that you do not have an interest in incentivizing comments. You understand that I think this is a strategic error that is altering the character of the site away from community and more towards compeition. I do not understand why you've chosen this direction, and would be glad to hear further thoughts from you. But you've got no obligation to make them, and I understand that. In that respect, you are absolutely right, there's really not much more to be said.

 

I am sure that there is much for you to do besides incentivize comments to keep the site going, and you are doing the best you can with what you have. I have great respect for that. I don't mean to beat a dead horse with you, you have afforded me respect for my view by responding at all, and I appreciate it.

[bens]

Its hard Brian, it can be a grind, i am sure you don't get rewarded anywhere near enough for the stress and strain of managing the site. So it pains me if I've become a "harper" to you because I am offering a perspective I don't see voiced as much as those concerned about ratings, in the hope that I share with you a belief in the big vision of this place as a valuable site furthering the art of photography around the world. If the site survives by throwing a part of the baby (an international learning community of people dialoguing about their photographs in a meaningful way) with the bathwater (mate rating for example) then what is left? I leave it at that. Consider my a loyal patron, if a pain the side sometimes. But a burr once in awhile can prod one to better things sometimes, no?

 

Your efforts are much appreciated. Thanks for listening. Ben S out.

[root]

Brian,

 

' -- as long as there are photos where there are photo discussions going on'

 

The TRP "comments" sort and the more recent "comments only" section don't don't offer me much in the way of stimulating conversations, but that's admittedly subjective. Maybe while browsing through those sorts you've come to a different conclusion.

 

I don't understand what you think I would like to see more of on this site that the majority don't want as well. I agree you can't get blood from a stone, but the number and type of images that are featured on this site are essentially your choice. They, in turn, attract viewers and critics with a certain style and frequency of comments. I think it's harder to extract critiques from digicam users compared to the older scanner culture that you alluded to recently. I understand you're going with the flow, and maybe there really is nothing you or I can do about it.

 

. . . . but where did the old scanner users go? Many have bought DSLRs, but they didn't lose their interest or ability to talk about images.

 

Did they?

[paula grenside]

I'd like to go back to the main point of Maria's thread: anonymity.

Anonymity favours cowardice, period.

The new system to select the images to appear on the TRP is all right in some respects:

it does offer more exposure to more photographers and offers a greater variety of names

and images. This said, however, the main question remains: why concealing the names

of those who rate through Critique Recent?

I read it's done to avoid vengeance rating. Come on, this is childish. 90% of very low raters

are imaginary people or subscribers who don't exhibit any portfolio; people who enjoy

giving 1/1 or 2/2 just for the sake of a game whose purpose I miss.

Besides, in case a low rating is given by someone who has got undeniable talent

this can be useful and indeed can favour a constructive exchange and a learning process.

Certainly if the low rating is accompanied by a comment, this is by far more valid.

Comments, in fact, are more valuable than the rating itself either when positive or negative.

If an image works, I like hearing why; the same is true in case it doesn't work.

[maria conversano]

I think that a really not conditioned rate sistem, in anonimus way, could be done if the name of the photoghapher is anonimuos too. I other words. If I rate, in anonimous way and anonimous picture, without the name of the photographer, I will consider only the picture, not the fillings about the photographer. But, on the other side, if peoples works together, for sure thay know befor ratings whoo is the autor of the picture.

Another thing. Try to see, with this anonumous way, all the pages of the best photos in all the time. Tell to me if the picture that you can see are the best you ever seen.

[maria conversano]

Please, look at this pages. Nothing against the photographers or the photos, but are all of the same subject, for all the pages. Look at

http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter

[john falkenstine]

Post more images with greater variety....complain less....

[webfeet]

I really don't like the new anonymous rating system. I'm not sure why this added, but I am sure that the organizers of the site thought long and hard before adding this.

 

I know that I will always put my name beside my rating. I have started to comment more on pictures instead of leaving a score that quite frankly doesn't help the person determin what they could do better. I am here to learn and hopefully improve my photography and I would like to think that is why others are here too.

[hansdans]

In addition to Maria's comment I would like the PN to consider defining the

1,2,3, etc in O&E categories. 1 could mean that there is obvious technical fault

in the photo 2. there is minor technical fault in the photo. I do not mean that

the above would be the just how it should be done but as longs as there are

no definiton for the score it is very difficult to rate anything. The headache is

less if the criteria is known to everybody.Now the obscure system of 1-7 has

undergone the anonymous campaign mostly because of the "top" photos,

which is just a loop or consequence to the lack of definition. I suggest that the

clear definition of both O and E values should be done in co-operation with

professional people who would preferrably be outsiders of the PN.