Rating -update

[igla]

I see that more and more members are fed up with low ratings. It is

very easy to press a button and give somebody 1/1 or 2/2. I have

seen some photos with those low ratings, and I can say that whoever

is doing it has no sense of aesthetics or creativity whatsoever. Who

like who but Brian knows the best who is doing it and how it is done,

because He is the one that can extract this data.

 

Maybe by adding a necessary opinion to the rating (with a choice of

either anonymous or not) could slow this annoying trend down. And

also if the opinion is not constructive or does not make sense the

member can have a chance to present it in the forum and have it voted

officially and if any discard that unreasonable rate.

 

This is only my suggestion. I don?t know how much effort is needed to

implement such a change.

 

So far I like this site. The way it is organize and presented. Maybe

just few things that?s bother me the most:

By which criteria the pics are sorted or submitted to;

RR

CBC

 

And

 

Why in CR pics are sorted by the date of posting in the portfolio and

not the date of submitting for critique? The reason I ask, is if your

photo is a week old and you request a critique now, there is very

slim chance that anybody can see your photo displayed because browser

shows just 500 pics and they average over 5.5/5.5. Your only chance

is if they go directly to your portfolio.

 

Is there any place on the site that explains ?how, what, and where?

[johncrosley]

Derek, you make many points and have several questions.

 

I'll only addresss one -- the question about how to learn about the site. While there are some explanations, when I first joined the site, I had literally no clear idea of how it worked, and some parts of the 'rules' are written nowhere.

 

For instance, I have a photo that got 32 or so comments a week or so ago, but when I look in the 'top photo' engine and sort by comment and 'three months' my photo doesn't appear. The last photo I had that didn't make it into a 'sort' based on comments, I queried, and was told there is minimum number of rates necessary to make it into the larger sort. Well, it was not written anywhere I could find.

 

I urged at that time that the rules for such things be written down, so that anybody could find out what the criteria are--some things just are not explained and it's a mystery that invites queries to this site feedback forum.

 

But in that time, over a year, there has been no followup on that -- perhaps some of the lesser known rules are being kept close to the vest to keep others from 'gaming the sytem' which one might do if one knows there's a 'breaking point' to make it from one 'sort' to the next 'sort'.

 

Otherwise, it's just something that should be fixed, but it's probably a large burden for the Administration which is overwhelmed by ratings gripes, keeping bots from chewing up the rating system, dealing with gripes about thieves on the classifieds, and a thousand other things that overburden Administration.

 

So, it's one of those things that probably should be addressed, as I think it would be invaluable for new members.

 

Maybe your post will help bring it about. I endorse your request, as I still am confused about some of the criteria for this or that.

 

John (Crosley)

[h._p.]

"I have seen some photos with those low ratings, and I can say that whoever is doing it has no sense of aesthetics or creativity whatsoever"

 

Or perhaps they just don't agree with you.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I see that more and more members are fed up with low ratings. </

blockquote> </i><p>

 

Either you haven't been around long, or you haven't been paying attention. <p>

[Coho]

This is my own anecdotal observation but it may have validity:

 

Anonymous rates are generally lower that those whose names are listed.

There are fewer bot attacks now.

There appear to be more undeserved 2 and 3 ratings for many photographers and they are (at least on my images) all anonymous.

There is still an unappreciated understanding of the "originality" category.

[h._p.]

"There appear to be more undeserved 2 and 3 ratings for many photographers"

 

Define 'undeserved' in this context.

[Coho]

Undeserved= blanket 2/2 or 3/3 ratings on images that should have higher scores when, without those ratings, the averages are 5 or higher and a majority of the ratings (90%) are greater than 5/5. Just because someone doesn't like an image doesn't mean it isn't original and visaversa. A lot of times, I do not feel there is a lot of thought going into the ratings as it is too easy to push buttons.

[mottershead]

David, I don't agree with your definition at all.

 

I would not hesitate for a second to rate a photo with a 2 or 3, if that was how I saw it -- even if the average without my rating was a 5, and even in the very unlikely instance that there were a hundred ratings on the photo already, all 5's. In that situation, my opinion would be that the photo had a hundred "undeserved" 5 ratings, and one "deserved" 3 rating -- namely, mine. Also in that situation, photo.net would give the photo an average of 4.99 and would consider it to be probably not quite as good as a photo with a 5.00 rating, meaning that my opinion would count.

[root]

Everyone keeps forgetting that the consensus selections for TRP visibility and ratings average in general compel us to conclude that people are telling us what they like and don't like, not what is good or isn't. You can take them to task for being wrong on the latter, but not the former. This is why we've decided to interpret the data the way we have so that everyone can be right by definition.

[jimknowles]

Okay then - since I (as in ME ME ME) want to know what others think of my images AND i

(as in ME ME ME) want to TRY to get MY images as HIGH UP as possible in the top pages, I

therefore wish ALL of my images to be ANONYMOUS. In other words - I (as in ME ME ME)

do NOT want ANYONE to know WHO I AM but ME!.

This way - NO ONE can give me low ratings based on not liking ME! They have to rate my

pictures based on the merit of the pictures i submit. Period.

 

Make THIS option available to ME and I will be VERY HAPPY!

 

In fact - since when I rate other's photos in rate recent I remain anonymous, why not just

allow ME ME ME to be anonymous when submitting pictures for critque and rating?

Thanks,

Signed ME ME ME

[Coho]

Brian, I know I wasn't as clear as I tried to be in my earlier explanation. Yes, for whoever gives that rating, regardless of the number, it has legitimacy. I understand your POV. But I do think that there are those who just don't like an image for the reasons of aesthetics and automatically give the same number for originality. The same applies to high ratings. So if there are seven nearly identical, well exposed, excellently composed, perfect exposures of a birds head, all posted on the same day, do you give the first one a 7 and the last one a 1 for originality even if you give the first one a 7 for asthetics and feel each of the next six images also deserves a 7? Bottom line, it is just to easy to react to an image and give it the same asthetics and originality ratings.

[nirakara]

I agree (with the previous post) that the poster should also remain anonymous for 2 reasons 1. To avoid low ratings based on dislike or being new/unknown and more importantly 2. To avoid high ratings based on the person's photos being well-liked which adds to a bias. Sometimes even when someone is trying to be truly unbiased there is a possibility of rating a person's photo high if you like a person's portfolio and viceversa. And the name of the person is shown at the bottom of the photo.

Although I am here mostly for the critiques, sometimes it might be good to know the pulse if it is a true reflection.

[enigmaphotography]

Taking ratings seriously on photo.net is like asking McDonalds employees to critique a fine 5-star meal. There is the odd one who actually can, but there are also a great many who would ask for their filet mignon well done and with catsup.

[root]

Good analogy. . . .

 

In our bell curve scenario, I wonder how we might describe an "average" meal?

[igla]

Hi, I was having a problem with RR. I tried few things to get around it, and i noticed that; you can rate or skip a photo until you get to the new photo posted with no rate on it yet. When you try to skip that photo you get server error. Other words you are forced to rate this photo or you can't go any farther. Obviously people try to skip a photo they don't want to rate, but after few tries ( ANGRY!!! ) rate it with 1/1 or 2/2 just to be able to go ahead

[igla]

HARVEY PLATTER and .[.Z . I went to see your portfolios and what i see- there is no portfolio. You have no pictures posted of your own, but you are first to opininion other members for they hard work. You answer to questions usually in one line of text-The great thinkers of this world had problems with expressing them self in one line - you have a lot to learn in this field yet. Another thing is WHY you hide behind this false names. If you can't stand and express your opinion openly, don't even bother to open your mouth ot rate someones pictures.This world i full of cowards that hidden try to implement haos among others, but there are good people there to that try to live peaceful and honest life.

Or maybe somebody alse under a false name is trying to control the rating on this site.

But still this is only my opinion.

[._._z]

Yes, it's all your opinion. And not many people, including the owner of this site (who

replied in this thread) agrees with you.

 

My initial point to you stands -- you obviously haven't been around here very long, or

you havenb't been paying attention, if you think your first, um, opinion, is correct.

[h._p.]

"You have no pictures posted of your own,"

 

Which is relevant because?

[jimknowles]

it's always been my contention that if one does not have images on the site, one should

not be allowed to rate or critique other's photos.

 

i believe this should be simple enough to understand for anyone who is coming from a

good place.

[currents_serene]

If I go ahead and post a picture, will you listen to my critiques, trust my ratings, and like me?

[igla]

"If I go ahead and post a picture, will you listen to my critiques, trust my ratings, and like me?"

 

 

I believe the purpose of this site is to share photos. Opinions and rating are just helpful tools, that expend ones views on some subjects.

 

 

-I always listen to critiques.

-Yes I would feel more secured with you ratings.

-If you were a woman and good looking maybe, but I am here for pictures not for dating.

 

On other similar sites a member can not post a critique until he or she has posted 10 to 20 pictures of their own. I think this is a good approach.

[constance_cook]

The purpose of the site is learning and sharing photographic information and solutions. There are many different methods and combinations of learning and posting photos doesn't nearly cover those methods. That's just your chosen way of learning.

Conni

[igla]

Yes Carl in theory you are right, but practically if you place your rate based on liking or disliking the pic, you shoud have only two choices:

 

like=1

 

dislike=0

 

 

If you look at our rating tabel it ask you to rate aesthetics of the picture and creativity of the photographer in the scale from very bad to excellent, therefor lets rate it according to this parameters and create another rating system of liking and disliking for does less enlightened members

[currents_serene]

<i>On other similar sites a member can not post a critique until he or she has posted 10 to 20 pictures of their own. I think this is a good approach.</i><p>

Oh, no! I would need to dig up 9 more pictures just to get accepted? You're right -- some of us just don't have what it takes. I guess I would have to go play somewhere else.

[root]

Derek, you've misunderstood my post. Rating for "like" and "dislike" is what we have, not what I'm recommending.