Critique Only Forum URL

[jeremy freeland]

Can you remind me of the Critique Only Forum URL? It isn't apparent in

the forums list or at the critique forum, and a search of the critique

and forum threads doesn't help me.

Thanks.

[minicucci]

Jeremy:

 

here 'tis:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-recent-requests?topic_id=1481&critique_p=1

[jeremy freeland]

Thanks Patricia

[sarahunderhill]

So, to get to 'Request critque only' you have to book mark it, because here is no option to click anywhere on Pnet now? Wasn't Brian going to put this back ?

[wingell]

Sarah, it is not a good idea to raise this issue with Brian. When I did so, he made it plain that Critique Only is anathema to the P.N administrators. I expect him to elaborate now.

[sarahunderhill]

Well- I did bookmark it!

[c.r._hips]

In my opinion, 'critique only' is what this site should be about. Not ratings. 'Rate recent, is a shooting gallery that appeals to those with little insight, much cunning and hints of aggression. To actually want someone to respond to your work with their thoughts is a greater respect given by Artist to viewer. Hopefully the base drives of this site will give way to better communication between members. Ratings is not the cow that produces the cream. Intelligent review is. Hips

[gungajim]

In an ideal world you are right. However, in the real world factors like these come into consideration:

 

1. Composing a decent critique requires some master of a written language. Unfortunately, all too many people make it through our educational systems without acquiring this skill.

 

2. Likewise, composing an intelligent critique requires some level of knowledge of the more techical aspects of photography. I do know that I have some sort of reaction to nearly every image I look at and I am able to quantify this on 1 to 7 scale. I am gradually accumulating a little knowledge of the technicalities but for 9 out of 10 images I review, I have no idea what to tell the photographer to do differently. Should this prevent me from rating photos. Perhaps, but then all critiquing would fall in the laps of some relatively small percentage of photography gurus who use the site.

 

3. Time & Pleasure - I figure I can rate 20 photos in the time it takes to do one carefully thought out verbal critique. People love to rate and judge photos quickly and copiously. They like to rate a lot more than they like to write. And, most of us enjoy annonimity when we rate an image average or below. Likewise, I think the majority of posters love the instant gratification of speedy numerically ratings unless, of course, we get slammed with a few 3's.

 

4. I really appreciate it when someone takes the time to provide a written critique of one of my images but, I also find it helpful to have 20 numerical ratings from "guys on the street". There will always be a few creeps that give absurd numerical ratings. However, now that you frequently get 15 to 20 numerical rating per photo, there is usually some helpful pattern that emerges in the ratings.

 

5. I consider myself somewhere between a beginner and a journeyman photographer though some would label me a sub-beginner! For a while I was ignoring photos I would rate 3/3 or even 4/4. However, I came to realize that most of the 3/3 photos are done by beginners. Thus, I have begun rating 3/3's but whenever I do, I try to accompany it with a written comment that might help the photographer rise above the "beginner" level just as more advanced photographers will hopefully help me rise to "journeyman" over the years.

 

6. Like it or not, the economics of the internet lie in traffic and activity. If my 20 to 1 estimate of numerical to written critiques is anywhere near accurate, the survival of PN forces them to move in this direction.

 

Hmmm....has this gotten a little off topic?

[c.r._hips]

Instead of listing 6 excuses for not wanting to give critiques, why not give 6 critiques. I only

wish you might have listed 100 excuses. Obviously you have the time, and judging the length

of your biography you posess a decent gift of written gab. Why would you feel it necessary to

tell people what is wrong with their work? Why not just respond to the pictures that grab you.

This site, I believe is as much about learning to look at pictures, as anything else. Use the site

to sharpen your perceptable abilities. Learn how Art makes YOU feel. Try to communicate

your personal insights to the Artist. It can only hope to be a perfect world if we try to make it

one. Dont give up. Hips

[afterthoughts]

I said this before and I'll say it again. It's nice to have choices.

[gungajim]

Dear Hips,

 

Sorry to be so slow in responding. I've been been busy posting critiques!

 

I agree with you that written critiques are preferable to numerical ratings. I was just trying to express my "feelings" as a sometime businessman and observer of the human condition why PN will ultimately and necessarily slant the site to facilitate numerical ratings rather than critiques.

 

For the last six weeks I've tried to post at least five verbal critiques every day along with additional numerical ratings. I would guess that well over half of my critiques are of the "Atta Boy" type where I simply express my delight with the photo to the photographer. I usually try to mention a couple elements of the photo that inspired my delight.

 

However, if a give if I give a photo a below average rating (or a "for critique only" photo, that I would have given a below average rating), I feel a certain obligation (compulsion, maybe) to offer a reason other than "This sucks" or "This image makes me want to puke".

 

Deep down I am an idealist and respect people like you who exhibit this trait. I've simply seen too many admirable artistic ventures go down the tubes because they ignore the "invisible hand" that ultimately governs the use of economic resources. I think we need to cut PN a little slack when the they make decisions that insure the survival of the site (and their economic well-being) even if it is at the expense artistic purity. As Howard put it, "It's nice to have choices."

 

Thanks for listening. If I am missing the point of what you are saying, just let me know.

 

Jim

[c.r._hips]

I wish someone would explain how the ratings scheme promotes the financial security of PN.

This site is operated much like a non-profit venture. I mean most of the "members" dont

even pay the $25 because it isn't required. The $25 is accepted as more a donation so that it

can be seen that way at tax time. So how do ratings generate income? I would like to know.

[mottershead]

We don't see the $25 subscription as something that is not "required", or as a "donation". photo.net is a subscription site. Trial/Guest members receive an a open-ended period in which to acquaint themselves with the site. But if/when they reach the point of being regular participants, they are obliged to subscribe. We make an exception for students, retired people, and others who can't afford it, but most photographers should be able to afford a $25 subscription fee, if they can afford photography at all.

 

In one sense only is the payment voluntary, and that is that people are trusted to decide on their own when their participation has become frequent -- at which point they ought to subscribe. But in another sense it is not voluntary or optional, since someone who persists in using the site frequently without subscribing is willfully disregarding the terms of the site.

 

I realize that a lot of people do see the $25 as optional, but to do so you basically have to ignore everything the site actually says about the subscription fee, and make up your own rules.

[c.r._hips]

Hi Brian, I hope I didnt get you up too early with my question. Actually I would really like to know how ratings generate financial well being at PN. I have heard this numerous times from contributors and I just don't get it. This is all in relation to putting more importance on the written word than knee jerk numerical reactions to photos. Some people on this site feel you are reluctant to diminish the ratings scheme as the future of PN somehow depends on it.How is that true. Also when signing up the site does not require payment.$ 25 just gets you more space etc. Pick any common name, go to member directory, type in, and it is apparent that paid "members" are a small fraction of the 'community'. It seems that requiring payment would generate considerable income, unless it is the goal to not show income. Please answer question about ratings. Thanks

[mottershead]

The ratings system is the essence of the photo.net Gallery for two reasons:

 

(1) The ratings are the basis for the Top Rated Photos pages which is the core of the site. The TRP pages account for about 35% of the traffic of the site on their own. And the TRP pages are the point at which most visitors enter the Gallery in order to click open and comment on particular photos. The Gallery traffic ends up being about 60% to 70% of the traffic of the site. All those pages have advertising on them and those ads account for about 60% of the revenue of the site. Most of the rest of the advertising revenue comes from people doing Google searches and reading forum threads and articles that came up as Google results.

 

(2) People come to the site to see the TRP and/or portfolios of friends, and decide that they would like to participate themselves by uploading, rating, and critiquing photos. About 15% to 20% of people who upload 10 photos or more become subscribers. Subscriptions account for the other 40% of the revenue of the site that is not generated by advertising. The site's regular visitors are divided between people who are Gallery participants and those who are Forum participants. Most subscribers are participants in the Gallery, or in both the Gallery and the Forums. There are very few subscribers who participate only in the Forums and have no Gallery portfolio (and most of the Forum-only people are involved in the Leica forum.) On the other hand, there are many subscribers who are Gallery-only; that is, they never or rarely post in the forums (including the Site Feedback forum). So the Gallery, the TRP, and therefore the rating system are the bedrock of the site from a traffic and revenue point of view.

[c.r._hips]

Brian, I understand that you can site numbers that will support the system. I think the system (ratings) is flawed. It is also not conclusive that revenue would diminish by increasing comment potential. Ratings more than comments , I think can be artificially juiced. What if 15 photographers from Spain, forinstance, banded together in hopes of making a big impression on PN. What if they decided to post photos at alternate times and each photographer was supported by 14 6/6's. The TRP would be loaded with Spanish Photographers, probably getting a lot of attention. Friends could do the same thing. Mutual support groups are what make ratings so easy to manipulate.It can also work in reverse, where pictures by unpopular members are deflated in value, without regard to the merits of the image. Manipulation is the heart of TRP, and everyone knows it. I am just one voice (not always listened to) who thinks there is much potential for this site, on a higher road. As an Artist I find ratings, in general, insulting. They doumb down the process of perception and visual thinking. I hope that insightful comments from members will eventually prove to be as financially rewarding and percieved as the true backbone of this site by advertisers. Efforts such as 5 prove there is a need for genuine interaction here. I,for one ,hope that you, Brian, share these views and hopes.