kathywilson Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Jay - I don't get that from rating at all. I do it because it's useful for some, and I like to make some small contribution even if I haven't left a comment. But I don't learn much from rating because the numbers 1 - 7 don't make me think. They're blank subjectivity and don't engage either the technical or creative aspect of the art. A comment makes me think either on what I want to say, or on what's been said which involves me more directly. But then I'm a word freak, so what do I know? :) I see the ratings as a very vague, generalized, view of what a handful of ppl at a given moment think about my stuff. At the moment, that's "good.3"/A, and ".87 above average"/O. <g> Neither of which will make me rush out faster to take more pictures, or stay home sulking not taking pictures. But then I'm in a nicely blase mood today. Tomorrow I might throw a fit. <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_patel Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 HI Kathy,<br><br> I think Brian was referring to rating others people photos. We all look at the photos and then decide to rate them based on some criteria we have in mind i.e. ratings by you to others are not always random meaningless? (I am not talking about mate/hate rating phenomena). If that is the case then studing and rating photographs of people who are truely talented should also make you look at your work rather objectively. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Jay, I think Brian was referring specifically to "commenting", not "rating". Of course, viewing photos even without rating or commenting is a terrific thing to do to learn. Rating, for me tends to be a more "knee jerk" subjective response. That's why I don't often rate without comment (though sometimes I do through RR). When commenting, it forces the critic to try and express, in objective terms (not just a number), their reaction to an image. It's much more challenging than just rating. Critiquing is a skill all by itself. Some people are excellent at breaking down the technical and aesthetic elements of a photo and commenting. I still often struggle with accurately expressing my thoughts. It certainly offers the photographer more worthwhile feedback. I do agree that there is some value in rating. It's nice to know, in general, the "knee jerk" reaction experienced by a random group of people. As long as the photographer understands that the raters are likely very diverse in their own skill, experience, and subject matter preference(and some may not even be human)then rates can be somewhat helpful to receive. I think the only real value in giving rates (for the rater) is that it's an excuse to hop on the RR queue and look at some images and at least take the necessary time to make a basic value judgement. This exercise alone can improve the rater's eye when out shooting (if the rater really considers the rates before making them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I've said this before, but when a photographer rates a number of images from any given photographer over a period of time, they actually do have a good measure of value in my mind. While it's true the RR queues are anonymous (I'd personally prefer all raters be accountable) I don't think there is any real problem with keeping those names anonymous, if it helps people to give honest rates. Plus these ratings would only make up a few of the ratings for somebody like you and I, Jay. You can also choose to post without going through the Rate Recent since the fact is you and I and many others with experience are not about to get any decent visibility at all. I noticed Dave N. is not running any through that queue with his latest uploads. The problem I have with that situation though, is it's not a fair system at all. If somebody like Dave or Jay, (you have some very nice work too Lori) or anybody else with experience decides to post an image on Photo.net, they should at least have the opportunity to get some type of decent visibility, so people other than their friends can appreciate these fine images as well. As it is now, it won't happen, and that's just not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I should add since I've yet to post an image and run it through the RR, I have yet to experience the lowballing, dive bombers that many are actually complaining about. Perhaps I'd then feel like you Jay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_patel Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Hmm...You raise an interesting point Vincent. Care to guess who else does not run their photos through RR que? Check out first few pages of TRP by Average...you will be stunned as to who is not running their photo through RR. For me the reason is simple...I want to know who rated me and what their portfolio looks like. If you can discriminate between talent and mate raters (it is easy for me to tell), this is a superb tool to learn. <br><br> So, you can argue that I don't get objective ratings if I don't run through RR que...and I can arque that it is easy to abuse RR que. In fact it is so easy to abuse RR que that it can be automated as evident from the fact the robot program was able to do it from couple of weeks ago.<br><br> The bottom line is that the culture on photo.net have changed...Lot of us don't want to learn, they are just looking for instant gratification, a pat on the back, recognition. So, a good question would be: How did we get here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_patel Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Laurie, Kathy, <br><br> In my opinion critiques have the same problems as the ratings....What makes you think that you are always getting an honest critique? Perhaps some of us refrain from honest critiques for the very same reason as we refrain from giving honest ratings....fear of having their heads bitten off. <br><br> If the culture for the ratings system is to lean towards instant gratification, then why should that not hold true for comments? You can certainly see the evidence of that in the comments left on lot of the photos.<br><br> Perhaps we should rate people on their ability to accept honest critiques and rates. Perhaps I would flunk at that...But, then again it would be another growth opportunity for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Jay, I don't think anyone suggested that all critiques are honest. The difference between a critique and a rate is that it's much easier to guage the value a critique by it's very nature. Posting a critique requires the same backbone as posting a photo. That's why it's a good idea to make sure your critiques are well considered, intelligent, and of some value to the photographer. You never know when you'll be asked to explain yourself further. Although I appreciate anyone taking the time to comment on my photos, I will question a critiqe that I don't understand, or that seems out of left field, especially if I think the commenter is a skilled photographer. An ongoing dialogue, even if a bit heated, can often result in better photographic AND critique skills. Why should it be OK to post a critical comment on a photo but not one on a critique? What one person may see as "getting their head bit off", others may see as a healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas. What sets some people apart from others is the ability to see it for what it is and move forward without holding grudges or losing sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathywilson Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Jay - Not all comments are going to be useful, not everyone is going to take critical comments well. But most people can spot a comment that's useful to them, and one that's honest - be it useful or not. A comment is not entirely meant to be a tutorial. It's often a suggestion, an impression, a general feeling. I want to know all sorts of things about what I'm doing, so all sorts of comments are of value from me, from all sorts of ppl. Now, those who can take a good picture themselves (imo) tend to get heavier weight in my analysis of their comment, but even the raw beginner can make an insightful judgement. Thing is - it's up to *me* to determine the value/usefulness of the comment to me, not the person offering the comment. They may be completely, utterly sincere and convinced of their opinion, but if it rings wrong or just further from the center than I'm looking for, I'm not obliged to follow. That doesn't detract from the comment, or from me. You chalk it up to the varied tastes of the Muse and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_patel Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Hi Kathy, <br><br> "That doesn't detract from the comment, or from me. You chalk it up to the varied tastes of the Muse and move on." - Well said...Something I should remember when I get a bad comment. :-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_patel Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Laurie - My point was that critiques suffer from the same phoenomena as ratings do and for the same reasons. People don't like "nasty emails", "revenge ratings", "having their heads bitten off" or "healthy exchange of ideas" however one may describe it. <br><br> Perhaps I should phrase my idea a little differently...Would one get more honest comments/critiques if the critiques were anonnymous? My guess would be definately!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Jay, If there was an anonymous forum or critique gallery here, I would participate wholeheartedly. I didn't disagree with you that comments suffer some of the same challenges as rates. My point was that because a comment is...well...a comment, anonymous or not, it's value can be assesed more easily than a rate. Where we seem to differ is that I believe critiques should also be open for discussion, not just photos. If a photographer disagrees with a critique or finds it confusing, why shouldn't they question it. If the critique was well considered, the commenter should have no issue with this and shouldn't take it as having his/her "head bit off". Of course, there are times when critiques are so out of line, they NEED to be challenged. The Irish in me compels me push for clarification. Especially if I feel the commenter is a good photographer and may, in fact, have some valuable insight that simply wasn't apparent in the original critique. If the critique is written by someone I've exchanged many critiques with, I'll feel even more compelled to challenge, knowing that the mutual respect that exists will outweigh any individual disagreement. Of course, sometimes I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orensztajn Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 The thing is who can give a critics? Are we all qualified to give a critic to a beginner? I am not, I am a begineer myself. I apreciate all comments and critics that I get because I wanna to learn but should I give critics? I did it but my comments may be not too much help, I can just say "I did not like the shadow there" or the picture lack of contrast or whatever but, Am I qualify to say that? May be many people feel in that way and that is why we do not get too much comments here in PN besides the wow! that you experts get. So should we wait until the experts looks at our photos and comment or should we accept any kind of critics? And I mean from people lke me that are begineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 You two sound like you're married or something. I can't even tell what the argument points are. What exactly are you in disagreement about?? Most comments on the site are more or less cream puffs. And we can all use a few of those anyway. Occasionally we get the constructive critiques as well. These do not necessarily have to point out what's wrong with an image, or what can be improved about it, but can also simply explain WHY the image works. Very few people have that ability or desire from my own experience. Sometimes I know it "looks good", but when I can find out why it looks good, then I have improved in my craft, and will build on that knowledge later on. When I see a mistake pointed out, or a suggestion to improve the image, this is also very helpful. Often I don't have the time or even feel like commenting, so a rating will just suffice. It tells the photographer that I have not only viewed the image, but based on past ratings, what I thought about it compared to his other work. The problem here is that what I have just wasted five minutes of my evening typing out here is already well known by everybody, and again I cannot see what this discussion is even about, so I'll just go somewhere else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orensztajn Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 Vincent, it is not an argument it was just a thought to finish this thread like, that is why the ?, if I am married or not does your comment more valuable? Mmmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathywilson Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Gustavo - I don't think he meant you :) But to address your concern about "who is qualified" to give a critique -- EVERYONE! You are not an expert - neither am I. There are a great many technical and artistic aspects of this art that I do not know about, or don't know enough about, but that doesn't disqualify me from an opinion. :) You know - expert or not - when looking at a photograph if it's in focus, if there's too much/little contrast, if it's washed out, etc. You generally know if it's composed in a pleasing way, if the light was really nice, or if the subject is uniquely displayed. Maybe you don't know the WHY of these things (good or bad) but it's ok to say so. The photographer can take your comments or ignore them as they see fit - no matter if you're an expert or beginner. I think what I find interesting about commenting on photos is, like Laurie - it helps me define for myself what it is I like in any photo, but also in my own. I can look at a photo from X and dislike the angle... and go back to my own photos and ask "Do I do that?" or I *like* something X has done, so look at my own work and ask "Should I try that?" Commenting works for both the person receiving the comments and the one giving them, and is one of the best aspects of PN -- which, to bring it all back to your original comment that started this thread -- makes the *lack* of a comment, particularly on a low rate, so annoying to me. But - I prefer no comment to the sorts of useless comments one would receive if making them was mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Yeah, I don't run anything through the RR any more. I have no chance of getting into the default TRP because of those that have me marked as interesting. Brian, is it possible to have the ratings that people get outside of the RR not count in the total rate count? As it is now, I get 5 from the RR and then 5-7 from outside people. That throws my image to the back of the queue in the RR with 10-12 rates. Can the RR only see that as 5 rates? That is the only way I can think of that can level the field for those of us that have some history on p.net. Our contributions to the site shouldn't work for us in the TRP but it shouldn't work against us either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbrown Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Dave, your idea has been suggested before but it has not, as of yet, been implemented. I hope this change is made at some point--the default TRP will improve dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 He could easily make the photographers that go through the RR get a minimum of ten ratings, so the playing field is at least level. He could also easily change the default TRP view to rate-recent average. Neither of these ideas have been implemented because Brian does not want experienced photographers on those pages at this time. Newer photographers whose mediocre images are now on the TRP are more inclined to subscribe. It's a numbers game. As has been stated on another recent thread, those that have been around with experience on the site, have basically been thrown into the ditch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Hey Vince, if you are right, I would be pretty pissed off. I didn't pay money for 3 years just to have no shot at people seeing my images, or to be penalized for coughing up the money. I am all for P.net increasing it's money base, but not at the expense to those of us that have paid. I don't want to feel like a sucker. Another interesting thing. The first image I have had in the TRP (by average mind you) in a long time get's hit with a 1/1 from a poster who just was created today. Seems like the Average TRP has become a personal playground for some. Maybe I just invaded their turf? - LOL http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=3416344 From what Brian says this guy should have his ratings removed (all 1's and 2's) by his script today. We shall see. I hope you are wrong Vince, but the evidence certainly leans in your direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 If you are upset Dave, imagine the reaction if Brian changes things back again. Then all these newbies with their images on the TRP now, who've just subscribed, will be in for a little surprise... "How come my new post is on page 36 now??" ... heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyscrivner Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 This is addressed to all the senior, professional photographer members that are contributing to this thread. I do not mean to beat a dead horse but I am very frustrated in my ability to communicate via this forum the need for a change in the rating system and the way the top photos are selected for display. This is a continual frustration for new and senior members alike and I am sure a problem for Brian as well. This is evidenced by the frequent complaints by members and the many adjustments that Brian makes to the technical aspects of this site. It is for that reason that I would like to address these two issues. (1) First the RR queue and the ranking system that results in exposure for the photographer. According to Brian,when a member posts their photo for a critique it drops in the queue according to how many ratings it gets. He says there is no timeout after 10 ratings. Photos that get rated immediately drop down fast and weaker photos get stuck near the front. That is what makes it appear to be timing out. Now who is this helping? With bad pics in the front of the que members are forced to wade through numerous pics untill they get to the good photos. Brian said on May 27 that currently a photo gets an average of 25 to 30 exposures in the que (we all know about averages) but all those exposure do not result in a rating. Well how about that, you work your tail off to get a good photo, upload it and maybe a maximum of 25-30 people get to rate it. Their ratings determine how it ranks in the TRP / Rate Recent Sum that appears to the public. Thw worst web site in the world would get you more exposure that that. Don't forget, if you are a good photographer, you will get even less exposure because your photo is rated quicker and goes to the back of the line. If you are unfortunate enough to have some yahoo rate your image a 1/1, as in Daves flamingo picture, you don't even stand a chance of getting ranked high in the TRP! The bottom line is that, as Carl Root once said, your image exposure and where it fits in the TRP, is in the hands of the first FIVE individuals who rate your photo. If they rate it low you will stand no chance rating high in the RR Sum. Beacause they rated it quickly it will be thrown to the rear of the que (Brian says there are 30,000 photos in the RR que) and will stand no chance of others rating it higher to move it up. Your exposure goes down a s well. Of course, we could go back to the Rate Recent Average and deal with mate rating again. That of course would mean that all ratings would have to be counted for TRP rankings and I can't see Brian letting that happen. (2) That brings me to the rating system itself. I can agree with a 1-7 rating for aesthetics and expressing that rating in terms of Bad to Excellent but I do not understand how anyone can apply this to Originality. This rating system needs to be changed. In fact, Dave,Vincent, Laurie, Ben, Brian, Kathy, Jay and any others, please tell me why this photo could in any way be considered original. http://www.photo.net/photo/3122992 It is a cliche as was discussed when it was posted yet I can understand why those who rated it did not go below a 4. They did not want to penalize the photo because they thought it was pretty good. In addition, if you take a look at the seperation between A/O ratings you will find they are mostly seperated by no more than one point. How can that be? If a photo is original is it automatically aesthetically pleasing and vice versa. Gimme a break. It is no wonder that we all get frustrated with the ratings on this site. With all these things in mind doesn't it all spell a need for change in the right direction? I know that it does and I do not claim to have all the answers. Collectively, all of you probably do. So I appeal to you all to take a closer look at these two issues. Your voices will count because of your senority and your experience. I am very much in favor of a Top Favorite system as Brian is now considering. I am in favor of this because: (a) It encourages members to explore other members portfolios rather than scroll through endless numbers of photos to place numeric ratings that most consider not very meaningful. (b) It permits a meaningful selection of any members phots without numeric or verbal attachment. That helps both the rating and the comment camps. © It provides maximum exposure for professional photographers. (d) It is not effected by mate rating. (e) It is a more meaningful representation of quality work. (f) It fairly ranks photos in a competitive environment. (g) It levels the playing field for both seniors and new members but those who develop meaningful relationships and participating in forums should increaase their exposure. (h) It exposes those who would attempt to manipulate the system. (i) It improves each members portfolio by displaying their favorite images. It surte would be nice to know when I visited each of your portfolios what your favorites were. I know I can see images you rate high but that is not the same a a favorite. Seldom ever does any change revert back to previous conditions so we are forced to look for new ideas. Below are links to forums that are worth reviewing. Thanks for listening. As always, I look forward to your thoughts. How the Rate Recent Que works: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CKOW An arguement for selecting Favorite images: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CNCL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_patel Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Gustavo, I agree about your point about originality...What is orignal? It is highly subjective. Very rarely I penailze someone on originality because lets face it there are lot of photographs that look like others. This is specially true for Landscapes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Guy, I took this from another post I made on the same subject regarding rating the originality of a photograph. At least this is my view, hope it adds some light. By the way the default view has been changed to rate recent average rather than sum which is a huge improvement. Time will tell. Regarding the originality rating: "If I rate one of Richard Van H. seascapes a 7/7, it is not because I believe seascapes in general are that totally original or unique. It is instead because I believe THAT particular seascape perhaps itself, is in itself, so good, that in a world full of seascapes its greatness makes it original and stand out from that of the others. Same applies to Stephen Rohner's portraits. There certainly are millions of those as we all see daily. However, it is when a truly great one comes along that makes his (or whomever's) image unique enough to give it the 7/7 based on its uniqueness when COMPARED to all the other gazillion portraits. That is how I personally look at it and I hope that answers your question." Vincent K. Tylor Feb. 2nd 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyscrivner Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Vincent and Jay, Take a minute and compare your thoughts on rating Originality. You are two of my favorite and highly respected professionals on this site and yet you have such different methods for rating originality. I certainly understand your thoughts on the way you rate Vincent but I am more like Jay when I rate. The reason I think I have clearly stated. But it is because when two well trained, skilled photographers such as yourselves give one of my photos a rating in originality I walk away confused and most often just mentally tie that rating in with how I think you feel about the image overall. If you two cannot agree on the way you should rate then how to you expect less experienced members to understand. If you guys want to really help this site out I think you have to join in on a call for a better rating system first. When the rating system is taken care of, I think we should then pursue a better photo ranking system. Vincent you have been calling for the Rate Recent Average to return as the default. Brian has responded to your wishes but I see no real difference. I think that is because the photos are ranked now from ratings given in the RR queue as discussed above. When the RR Avg included Direct ratings the avg was affected. But that of course resulted in mate rating manipulation. I looked at Patrick Frucia's Driftwood phot under both RR Sum and RR Avg for the month and they both had the same score, A 5.75 / O 5.92. This system is meningless to me now in terms of photo rankings. It is very broken and needs to be fixed. Will either of you care to comment on Brians idea for a Top Favorites? I have tried to point out the many benfits that I see in his idea and there have been others who agree. I would like to know what the pros think. I comment here with all due respect. Regards, Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now