Censored ratings?

[darius.tulbure]

I really don`t understand a thing: why the ratings from the new members are

not counted in the overall averages and totals until the moderators have had

an opportunity to review them? I mean <b>when</b> is that? My <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4659275">Railway (sepia)</a>

photo didn`t make it to the TRP because of 2 "censored" anonymous ratings.

<br>How do the moderators review them? Aren`t they suppose to be anonymous for

all of us anyway? And then, if the moderators have the power to "see" the

persons which rated anonymously, how can they decide if the rating is good or

not?<p>I think this is just a way to forbid the photos which are rated by the

very new members (who can be your family and/or friends) to get in the TRP. Am

I wrong?

[amul]

I think you're half-right. There are a lot of known cases of people who create dozens of new accounts in order to give their own photos good ratings, and various other ways in which people have tried to abuse the system.

 

In other words, some jerk ruined it for you.

[johncrosley]

Yes, you are wrong.

 

There were numerous instances of people interfering with the ratings through various means. At least one person was responsible for planting a ratings robot, apparently numerous times, and no one has said how many 'bots' have been placed on Photo.net to screw with the ratings engine and manipulate it.

 

Other members have tried to manipulate the top-rated photo sorting engine by creating multiple accounts, then rating photos from each account, and they often did so from relatively 'new' accounts, so those account rates later were forced to be scrutinized (along with all new accounts as they made all new accounts 'suspect') You are paying for the bad behavior of a few.

 

Other members, apparently telephoned or e-mailed each other both to up-rate their own photos (and down-rate other competing photos), and that also was a manipulation that the Administration has had to battle. Some members have been banned for such behavior or related other 'bad behavior' one infers, since those who engage in one instance of 'bad behavior' are likely also to have engaged in other instances of different 'bad behavior'.

 

Some of Photo.net's finest photographers (a few) who screwed around with the system no longer are members, and are not expected to return; others presumably now are on notice that site director BRIAN MOTTERSHEAD is not stupid; whether he acts promptly or not when he encounters bad behavior (one would have to get up very early, I think, to outthink Mr. Motterhead, but he does not show his hand easily, like a good poker player.)

 

The result is that sometimes it takes this site a while to 'vet' the ratings of new members, as it is handicapped by lack of personnel, and members ratings depend on a pattern of rating, and maybe it takes a while to evaluate a 'pattern', especally if a pattern goes dormant for a while before being re-activated.

 

The inevitable result is that some unhappiness will result to all members, (including me) who will be excluded from the TRP sorting engine for the 24-hour or three-day views while those views are vetted, but that is not the Administration's fault -- they lack manpower to accomplish the task faster, and sometimes circumstances suggest that the task could not be accomplished faster because rating patterns are not yet clear.

 

It's one good reason for engaging and encouraging 'good behavior' among Photo.net members, and for keeping 'in line'.

 

And, before you accuse the Adminstration of misbehavior, as it appears you have suggested, I suggest you leave the way open for a more innocent explanation -- it's just fair, don't you think?

 

John (Crosley)

[giovannis]

A photo of mine, submitted 27th february 06, is still pending approval of one "new" member :-) Cheers

[tholte]

In this particular case, in my opinion, the system is working quite nicely. Railway (sepia) is a 4/4 at best, the 7/7 and 7/6 rates are way too high and are suspect because they did come from new members.

[darius.tulbure]

Tim, you are invited to rate the picture directly! Did I said that the photo deserves 4/4 or 7/7? What bothers me is that due to the "censored" (I know it isn`t the best word) ratings, my photo didn`t reached the TRP, on the first page or on the last one - I didn`t mentioned. <p>However, 4/4 is your opinion and only the 7/7 and a 5/5 are censored. 6/7 was the first rating. Anyway, even without the 2 ratings, the photo has 5,25/5. However Tim, they are not suspect because are high - I have a bunch of pending ratings of 3/3 or 4/4... <p>John, I appreciate the time you spent to clear a bit the things up. Now I understand better what`s happening. You are right, maybe I`ve exagerated with my theory.

[gungajim]

There is a non-paying member who joined on 6/26/05 and has rated only three photos. I had the good fortune to receive the only 3/3 he has bestowed. The system did not recognize him as a "new member who is undergoing moderator review" and included his rating in the computation of the photo's averages.

[imageplay]

Its intersting how the system doesn't work,there are always way people find to beat the system. I get 3's for most of my photos as the very first rating yet after a while the rating goes to a average of 5+. Maybe we need a place to post photos that got 3 rating I will bet 80% should have higher rating and most times much higher.Some people rate everthing a three,it a game.With some I think it can be people with very high ratings and they will rate a photo low to bring there photo up in standing.I have decided to stop putting my photos up for rating since I don't think it means anything when people abuse the system.<div></div>

[stephen hazelton]

Darius, one of the lessons from all of this is, don't get too concerned about the ratings. The average photographer on photo.net is concerned because he/she got "average" ratings, but then again, the average photographer SHOULD get average ratings. Some categories of pictures get somewhat underappreciated due to being so common (flowers, landscapes, pets), others get overappreciated for whatever reasons (nudes). There really aren't any standards for judging quality of pictures, and the people judging have all different tastes and abilities as well. The opinions of other people can be informative, but aren't the last word on quality either.

[tholte]

Mark, "I have decided to stop putting my photos up for rating since I don't think it means anything when people abuse the system." The scoundrels that had the temerity to rate some of your photos a 3/3 are having a good chuckle. "The guy has been on PN for less than a month and we got to him already, he was easy"! Toughen up me lad, a few 3/3's are good for the ego. Don't put your work up for critique, especially if you are new to the site, and no one will see your work. Another helpfull hint, bird images have to be pretty darn good not to get trashed.

[mottershead]

There is currently a bug in the system, where a "new member" rating might be through its suspension period and would be counted, but the photo averages and totals haven't been recomputed. Currently, the averages and totals are recomputed in real-time whenever someone adds a rating to the photo. That includes "new" members adding a rating, even though their rating might not end up counting. But the software isn't going regularly through all the photos and automatically recomputing the totals for photos that were rated by members previously regarded as new who are now eligible to be counted. Those suspended ratings remain suspended, in effect, until another rating on a photo unsuspends them, or something else occurs which causes the totals and averages for the photo to be recalculated.

 

Occasionally, there is a batch job that goes through and recalculates all the ratings. So, at those points all the "new" ratings that are not "new" will also get counted.

 

If someone else rates a photo, all the ratings are counted, including any suspended new member ratings that now shouldn't be suspended. But there are probably a lot of suspended "new" ratings on photos that never got another rating after the last suspended "new member" rating, and those suspended ratings have effectively remained suspended. This is why sometimes people say there are new member ratings on their photos that don't seem ever to have been counted. They are right.

 

Actually, I don't know whether this is a bug or a feature. Its main down-side is that it is confusing and makes the system look broken to anybody who notices it. Usually people don't notice. (People who do notice are probably paying far too close attention to their ratings.) I could probably make an argument that it was part of some well-thought-out master plan. But the truth is that it falls into the category of "unintended consequences which useful side-effects".

[darius.tulbure]

Well, Brian, I think you`re right here! I have photos with ratings suspended since April for example!...<p>However, this system can be enhanced. Yes, they try to eliminate frauds, but I`m not sure how actively they do that. I think they do not have enough personnel to check every new member`s rating. If they did, everything would be more operative. <br>More than that, since I didn`t frauded the system not even a single time, why they still suspend some ratings on my photos? I`ll tell you why - because they <u>do not</u> know this kind of things! I relly do not think they verify facts like that. It would be a monstruosly hard job to do that! <p>One last thing to mention, <b>the ratings from the new members are ratings like any other member`s ratings</b>... I`ve got 3/3s and I`ve got 7/7s from the new members. For instance, on my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00HF9Q&photo_id=4665698&photo_sel_index=0">Red Sunset</a> photo, I have 4 ratings suspended. Without them I have 4,43/4,43 and with them I have 4,60/4,30. Not much difference, huh? So, why suspend them? Because they do not know a thing about the quality of these ratings. It is just so comfortable to suspend all the new member`s ratings and release them after a period of time... when anybody no longer cares about TRP.

[c.r._hips]

It seems to me that the ratings game is spiked from top to bottom. Why blame new members

for the problem. The established 'relationships' with older members can be just as deceptive.

Friends help friends, right. Is'nt that why so many members spend soo much time working

the system like politicians hoping for your vote. As Brian knows, the more controversy there

is about ratings... the more interset there is in rating... the more hits on the site..... which is

good for advertising dollars.....which get preferential trreatment over our membership dues.

[mike dixon]

<i>As Brian knows, the more controversy there is about ratings... the more interset there is in rating... the more hits on the site..... which is good for advertising dollars......</i><P>

The only "controversy" is among the very tiny fraction of photo.net users who participate in the Feedback forum. The overwhelming majority of raters never venture here.

[root]

Actually, Mike, I think that a significant number of raters who stick around game the system in some way and probably lurk in this forum from time to time. Anyone who thinks that mate rating was killed off by the anonymous ratings is naive.

 

Of course you don't actually participate in the photo critique forum, so you wouldn't know.

[zlm]

I couldn't agree with Carl more, mate rating is alive and well....

[elsen]

I think the question is still there: how do the moderators review these new member ratings? What are the criteria for an honest and unbiased rater? Should the rater rate with an average close to the predetermined average 4/4 or other targeted numbers? Should the rater rate with a discrepancy? Should the rater rate with consistency in his rating behavior throughout most of the categories he is involved?

[mottershead]

We don't particularly review the new member ratings. We review all the ratings by everybody daily during the week, and sporadically also on weekends. Anyone whose ratings look questionable is going to come under attention. But the problems tend to be from new members. People don't usually suddenly start misbehaving. So suspending ratings is one easy way to reduce the impact of rating misconduct. But there is no process to look specifically at new members and bless them.

[elsen]

This process of daily review on people's abnormal rating appears to be very laborious and problem-oriented. I admire this because of my personal experience of running a community website, but, among those examples I proposed, I hope the last one--a consistency in his rating behavior throughout most of the categories--will be adequately addressed. Discussion in this and other threads have indicated that photos in some categories are receiving higher ratings while photos of some other categories are not and that once in a while the TRPs might be crammed with photos of some particular categories. Both occurrences are in general not only bad for the user's image of Photo.net but also unfair to photographers devoted to the neglected categories. After all, not every rater acknowledges the existence of [>>] button.