Ratings 'bot'

[johncrosley]

I recently posted (at about 12:23 a.m. Sunday) a photo (the chapeau -- the

hat) and could not get it to display on the queue, but although even now it

will not display on the queue, it somehow has two ratings a 3/3 and a 4/4.

 

It seems probably that someone has done some 'bot' rating, or is there another

explanation?

 

I did spend some time trying to 'refresh' the page on which the queue was

appearing, and it had not shown before I went to make this post.

 

I'm open to any explanations; such behavior (if bot-based) seems detrimental

to the rating experience, and seems all-too-common.

 

I'm interested in any ideas.

 

John (Crosley)

[Jeremy Stein]

Photo.net lists this photo as having been posted at 0241; the first rating is shown as having been posted at 0255. Remember that this item in the database is not updated in real time, so what you see as 2 or 3 ratings may actually be several more not yet shown in the database. In any case, there is no evidence that any of these ratings are from "bots."

[mottershead]

When you submit a photo, it goes to the front of the rating queue. If *anybody* is currently in the Rate Recent feature, the next photo they see will be that photo. Since there are generally a lot of people in the Rate Recent feature, a photo will get quite a lot of ratings quite soon after being submitted. The majority of anonymous ratings will be "instantanous".

 

On many, even most, photos some of these early ratings will be 3 ratings, since there is a range of opinions, tastes, and tempers. More of them will be higher ratings. People notice the early low ratings, remember them, and start to think "bots", especially with all the clamour about bots in this forum. When the early ratings are high, people reckon that is normal, and think nothing more about it. They don't remember those cases.

 

Even if they did remember all the "instantaneous" high ratings, nobody considers then as evidence of bots, although there are many more of them than "instantaneous" 3 ratings. Indeed, 3's represent about only 10% of the early ratings, just as they represent only about 10% of all ratings. But the 90% of early ratings that are non-3's don't seem to be considered "proof" by anyone that there is a non-3 robot out there lying in wait to hit their photos with an instantanous non-3.

 

Despite the fact that there is about 9 times more evidence for an instantanous non-3 robot than there is for an instantaneous 3 robot, we only ever here about the 3's and the 3/3 robot waiting under the bed to hit photos with instantaneous low ratings. Ever wondered how people came to believe in ghosts and monsters?

[johncrosley]

Jeremy and Brian

 

Thanks for the early Sunday morning answers.

 

I couldn't get the photo to show on the queue at all, but got ratings. I was not concerned at all about 3/3/ or 4/4 ratings; I get them all the times. I probably am least affected by low ratings of any member and withdraw low-rated photos less than any member, as I 'believe' in my posted photos.

 

I was not posting a 'screed' against low ratings at all. It's just that I couldn't force a view of my photo, yet it was accumulating ratings, and those are the only ratings it ever received, though later it did show on the queue.

 

(Very rare for a photo of mine, but that is an aside.)

 

I was solely concerned by the fact that on the long list of photo thumbnails, the list seemed 'stuck' despite my numerous attempts to 'refresh' the list with the requests for critique, yet my photo was somehow getting critiques.

 

I guess, the answer seems to be it was also on the 'rate a photo' list, or some such. (I cannot see the menus as I write this.)

 

In any case, when I see what appears to e bot-like behavior, I write something about it, as I think it may make your jobs better; otherwise I'm not interested in complaining about 'low' ratings.

 

Manhy Photo.netters do not undertand what I consider my very best photos, and I post 'em anyway and continue to keep them posted. After all, my folders are for me and represent me and my taste.

 

I do hope to publishs some day and the ratings/view numbers are valuable to me as a sort of 'test market' which may help guide preparation of any book/publication for judging popularity of individual photos.

 

Thanks again for taking early Sunday morning time to address my concerns (and I hope you do not misuderstand them.)

 

John (Crosley)

[sarahunderhill]

I think the rating system is rigged.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"I think the rating system is some how rigged." -- Sarah Underhill</i><P>

 

Yep. And the Apollo moon landings never actually happened. It's all part of the same big conspiracy ...

[sarahunderhill]

It's rigged- just like they couldn't include a filter for the nudes...that is until Apple came along...but that's all about money...heheheh... don't beleive anything, ever!

[wade_rose]

If they put a filter on nudes . wow that would make this site boring.:D

[gungajim]

I can't remember who said this but here is one man's experience on his posts over the last few days.

 

Number of posts with a critique request: 19

 

Total # of ratings a/o 1 AM EST on 7/10: 118

 

# of 3/3 ratings within first 10 minutes of a post: 8

 

# of 3/3 ratings after first 10 minutes of a post: 1

 

Conclusions: None, other than the amount of traffic in the last two weeks seems to be lower than at any other point since the new rating system was introduced.

[afs760bf]

Perhaps. I submitted a photo this morning, maybe 45 minutes to an hour ago. It has two ratings. I looked at the next several photos after mine. They all either have two ratings or one rating. I'm not sure where all those people in the rate recent queue are spending their time.

 

Please don't think I'm concerned about the ratings. Mediocrity can have no complaints. But I do think more people have stopped rating, although I'm sure I will be told otherwise. Enjoy your friends - be happy. See if you can get one of those accounts that only rates one person's photos and rates them all 7/7. There have been a few pointed out in the last few days.

 

And John, I had the same issue as you on Friday.

 

It's all good.

[johncrosley]

Barry F.

 

I think somehow Friday the Rate Recent queue got 'hung up' and the display was somehow incomplete; photos were not getting a proper showing.

 

The queue did not seem to move for almost an hour or more, it seemed when I was posting and even after I posted (though I got those two ratings). It seems like we were both aware of some anomaly in the system, but being anomalous, it's just something that will pass, and so long as the system works now, no big deal. I have almost 700 photos on display now, and if one photo doesn't get a full critique view now, so what? It was an unusual photo anyway, and maybe the two critiques it did get were all it deserved.

 

I recently had a photo (Hello Mr. Death) with two 4.70 ratings recently which got just under 15,000 views for the opposite effect -- and only 10 rates (not on highest rated photo list, but with beaucoup comments). That photo will be one of the lower-rated 'evergreens' I think, that outdraws by far 'clicks' compared to predictions according to its ratings (which I posted about recently).

 

The rating system is anomalous sometimes and so what? Generally it works, and if I make a note to Administration in this forum, it doesn't mean I'm complaining (or at least not meaning anything seriously like some posters who 'really mean to complain' like their life's happiness depends on it).

 

And I use ratings as a general indicator of popularity of a photo, not as a guide to 'what's good' but only 'what's popular' I have two photos posted in my 'best' portfolios that are completely 'unpopular' and struggling for viewers and ratings, but they'll stay in those folders, because they 'fit' in those folders and with my vision -- and in their way, they're good, though they may never be 'popular'.

 

'Popular' vs. 'Good' is the classic case of case of two categories where one may overlap another and one may not overlap another or the two may partially overlap (a cup b, a cap b, etc.), and I know the difference, I think, and have my own views about which of my photos is 'good', or at least by my own criteria.

 

John (Crosley)