3/3s and 4/4s--the inferior methods of skipping

[mike dixon]

A boat in the foreground with a "dramatic" sky in the background and a moss-covered log with milky waterfall are <b>great</b> photos? An originality score of 3 is perfectly reasonable, even generous. An aesthetics score of 3 isn't that hard to believe either if you take into account that the person who gave it might be comparing those shots to the dozens (or hundreds) of other similar shots that were done better. Should there be some test to guarantee that <b>everyone</b> giving ratings (rather than just the vast majority) is easily impressed?

[will king]

Compared to <i> most </i> of the snapshots that get posted here, I would say the 3 example photos posted on this thread are all <b> great </b> photos.

[mike dixon]

<b>You</b> would say that they're great photos. You have that opportunity. People who don't share your opinion are also invited to express their opinions. Just because some people are not as impressed as you are by those shots <b>doesn't</b> mean that they're abusing the system, or even that they have bad taste. See my post above about the fundamental reasons underlying most of the current complaints about ratings . . .

[will king]

Mike, why do you have to constantly play devil's advocate? You and I both know all three photos used as examples here on this thread are very good shots, undeserving of a 3/3 rating. No, they're not perfect aesthetically and no they're not original, but what is these days? You're not that naive not to think that some people on this site rate photos for self agenda, are you? Why is it that in the past year, I have only seen one person be brave enough to leave a comment with a 1/1, 2/2, or 3/3 rating? Yes, some do it anonymously as an honest rate and fear retaliation, but don't doubt the fact that some people do it out of less honorable motives.

[emwalker]

Hmmm....maybe someone out there is bored with wide angles of boats, rocky shore sunsets, and didn't find the composition (or originality) of the forty seven thousandth mossy rocky waterfall to be quite average? Who cares, seriously? Lots of other people like them, and rated them accordingly high. Personally, I don't know if any of these would rate too high in my book- they are technically proficient, yes, but their content is a bit stale. How many versions of the same picture really deserve a clean line of 7/7 ratings? There's something about slick shots as these that just looks contrived after a while... yeah, the first hundred or so I saw impressed me and I wondered ooh, how'd they do that? Then the next hundred, then the next, until finally... 3/3. Not original. Not aesthetically pleasing, compared to the other 46,999 shots I've seen that look JUST LIKE THAT. But hey, they'll still make the TRP anyway.

 

I get at least a single 3/3 on every shot I post. I used to wonder if it was some BODY or some BOT that was harrowing me just to get my goat, to steal my hard-won and divinely appointed right to 7/7 ratings on all my work. Then, I started looking very critically at all my work that I liked, but that other people rated "sucks". What I found is this: even my good shots aren't really all that excellent. If you post mediocre work, you better expect mediocre ratings. Even if you post work that's 'pretty strong', you better expect slightly-better-than-mediocre ratings. And if you post stunning, flawless images, you've got a pretty good chance at getting the highest ratings. It makes sense if you think about what 'average' means- again, think bell curve. Yes, theoretically it works even with a seven point scale, or a five-point scale for that matter. Now, some people really like shots that other people think rate as trash, so even a junk shot might get the occasional 6/6. Likewise, some people have no use for cookie-cutter formula shots of boats and sunsets, no matter how oversaturated the colors are or how proficiently the author has used teir grad NDs and photoshop wizardry to suss unnatural, neon colors out of an otherwise lovely sunset.

 

Nobody's getting paid to make the TRP. At least no one I've heard of. Likewise, nobody has an inalienable right to make the TRP, no matter how much you like your own stuff. And hey, if you're not on the front page, then page through for a few minutes, and you'll find the 4.2/4.3 photos right there, in the TRP.

 

For what it's worth, don't get your panties in a wad, I have given up rating photos. I didn't give your slick sunset that 3/3. But for the record, I might have if I did still rate. Whatever.

 

Show us a curve, Brian. And give those whiners a couple 7/7's, maybe they'll simmer down. Or, better yet, why not let the paying members take a bye on 3/3s? Their work may not merit it, but they deserve it, right?

 

; o)

 

-e-

[will king]

First of all, none of the photos linked as examples were my photos so be careful who you call a whiner. And you're missing the whole point. It's not the low rating that people mind. It's the fact that every frickin 3/3 rating these days is anonymous. Okay, not every 3/3, just 99% of them are. Why is that? Why is it that a good 99% of 3/3 ratings are anonymous? Yeah, there are a lot of crappy photos out there that deserve the 3/3 rating, but far too many times it's ratings abuse. How do I know? Because I see 3/3 ratings get deleted by the ratings cops all the time. There are a lot of good photographers on this site who are getting fed up with this nonsense. I personally don't think it's Brian's fault or the site's fault. It's like me going into Sears and having a jerk steal my wallet. It's not Sears' fault that someone stole my wallet. People are going to be people. It's like this with anything in life. All I want is, first that the site at least recognize that there is a ratings issue. Secondly, at least entertain some ideas as far as improving the ratings system. Is that really too much to ask?

[mike dixon]

<i>You and I both know all three photos used as examples here on this thread are very good shots, undeserving of a 3/3 rating.</i><P>

No, <b>you</b> have decided what ratings they deserve, and <b>you</b> have decided that anyone who gives a rating that you disagree with must have malicious motives. You refuse to accept any reasonable explanations why that isn't the case. As I explained earlier, that's why there will always be complaints about ratings.

[mike dixon]

<i>It's not the low rating that people mind. It's the fact that every frickin 3/3 rating these days is anonymous.</i><P>

Nonsense. When the ratings weren't anonymous, it was common for people to post threads here saying, "look at the low ratings this idiot gave my picture/a picture I like," and it was common for people who had submitted their images for ratings to insult and harrass people (in public forums and through email) who dared to give them a rating they didn't like (this would happen with ratings as high as 5s!). Back when people were required to give comments with their low ratings, the comments generated even more fights than the low ratings themselves. Ratings are anonymous for a good reason.

[will king]

I can certainly understand the dynamics that go into ratings; culture, morals, geographical location, and just plain personal taste. But I ask AGAIN, why is it always anonymous? You're the one that is blind to the fact that ratings abuse happens everyday. I'm not saying all 3/3s are ratings abuse, but some of them are. Why do you refuse to see that?

[root]

Will, you're wrong about this. There is no way that most people would be inclined to give below average rates to below average images if they weren't anonymous.

[will king]

Carl, you may be right, but still you can't deny the fact that there are also far below avg ratings on great images because of dishonorable motives. Some people refuse to see that fact.

[emwalker]

Another interesting figure, Brian- what percentage of total ratings are anonymous, and what's the breakdown among categories? I suspect there are quite a few more 6/6 ratings given manually than 3/3s. People are probably more apt to go out of their way to rate something they really like than to rate something'below average.' This makes sense, since people rating manually were somehow intrigued by a thumbnail of a shot enough to open it up and view the larger version. The ones that looked like 3/3s from the thumbnail got skipped over, and likely have fewer ratings overall. Asfor the anonymous ratings, well, people will look at a shot for five seconds, like it or not like it, and rate it according to their first reaction. Pretty simple, really, and it makes sense that a number of those will rate 'below average.' Most should be average (see <A href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=average">average</A>, definition 2). Few should be far from the average (ie, very good or very bad). Am I talking to myself here? Why is this concept so hard to stomach? And again, not everybody has the same tastes, so one person's 7/7 just might be someone else's 3/3. That's also represented in normal distribution and variance, if you dig a bit. Since the link to the mathematical theory didn't seem to answer anyone's question earlier, I'll try to explain. Basically, in a population (ie all photos on PN) if you look at a characteristic (ie quality rating), many times you will find that there is an average around which MOST of the population falls. Near the average (4/4), a lot of the population will be found. That's because most of the population is pretty average. Now, as you deviate farther from the average, say 6/6 or 2/2, for example, you will find fewer and fewer members of the population. At the extremes, we expect to find very few members of the population. Therefore, most photos on PN should get a rating somewhere near 4/4, and very few photos should have ratings of 1/1 or 7/7. To say that rating an image, ny image, even the best image you've ever seen, as 3/3 is abuse is absurd. It simply means that the person that rated it didn't like it, for whatever reason. Now, there may be some element of someone rating e bunch of images 3/3 randomly, or worse, abusing the system and rating 3/3 because they think the image is otherwise going to rate higher than they would like... but we can't assume that, and there is no basis to call 3/3 ratings abuse. I suspect that Brian's curve will center somewhere above average (ie>4), despite the expectation of normal distribution in an idealized rating system where every photo is rated objectively in relation to every other photo with 4 being average. If that doesn't make you feel better, go two days without looking at your ratings. If that doesn't help, send Brian an email and whine, and maybe he'll add a couple 7/7 rates to your shots to balance out those unfair, abusive 3/3s from someone who didn't like your work. Or better yet, get out your camera and shoot something.

 

-e-

[emwalker]

And on the other hand, what of the abuse of the system through mate-rating, and through I-like-lighthouse-pistures-so-they-all-get-5+-ratings, unless they're particularly mediocre, in which case they get 4/5? Nobody crying over how their mediocre shot got a bunch of 5/5s and 6/6s from non-anonymous people who've rated a bunch of their other shots too, is there? Why do the ratings matter again? Does the photofairy leave a quarter under your lenscap every time you get a 7/7? Cmon kids, let's take some pretty pictures and forget about all this rating-schmating mumbo-jumbo, ok? I'll save you a place in the TRP, I promise.

[mmmee]

There is a photo fairy?

 

Is that like the pixies who chose the POW? I am so confused. My grandmother would disown me. And she would probably squash my faerie membership. Oh dear.

[tholte]

"Just because some people are not as impressed as you are by those shots doesn't mean that they're abusing the system." Will, memorise these cogent words from Mike Dixon and you will lower your blood pressure by at least 20%.

[arnulf]

I'm relatively new here, and I don't feel as confident with my images as many others here

seem to be. Hence, I'm one of those who are happy with an average around 4,60. But,

being a musician, I'm very used to the discussion about ratings, grades and all that.

<P>

The problem on this site is not that the system is bad. This simply because no rating

system <i>can</i> be perfect. The problem is always the <i>raters</i>. Although

there's a lot of competent people out there, not everybody is competent within every area

of photography. And I think some of the problem lies here. When I look at the images on

this site, I think that the average rating seems fine. However, I always feel sorry for those

who work with less obviously beautiful photography, especially street photography and

experimental stuff. There are so many fine photographers within these fields who deserve

higher ratings than what they get. It seems like it's a lot easier to get a good grade when

you're shooting a beautiful landscape at sunset (not to mention how much you'll get for

free if your motif is a hot naked chick!). So even if the <i>average</i> rating might be

fair, I don't think it's always evenly disturbed on all fields.

<p>

This is why I think the original post has a good point: Why not point out that you don't

have to rate if you're not into the style? I think it's a great idea to magnify the "skip"-

button a little.

[mmmee]

Hey, how does anyone get ratings unless they submit for the critique?

 

oh gawd, my faery grandmother will hate me for this post.

 

Is there some kind of a mantra or spell I can repeat to make these magic ratings appear?

[mmmee]

Alexis, the Neel, do you know? Look at this through your bi-focals, and tell us all wherein there is truth. Otherwise, we will have to call upon the great poster, or is that posteur, of the naked Latin beauties to devine the present truth of the situtation.

[ghiga]

I'm sorry if I repeat some concepts, but my english is not so good and I couldn't read ALL the previous comments. I believe to have understood the sense.

 

I have a question for you all. I made a little control on my recent photos. From 31 March to 12 April I submitted to ratings AND comments 9 photos. ALL of them received in the first 1 or 2 minuts from 1 to 3 ratings, of value 3 or 4. And after, nothing or almost. The average of the all ratings to my 9 photos is O-4,19 and A-4,18.

 

But, my problem is not for these 3-4 ratings, the REAL PROBLEM for me is the number of COMMENTS 5 (FIVE) for 9 photos.

So, my problem is: are really my photos becomed suddendly so bad? So unworthy of a little comment? How can I know the level of my works if NOBODY (especially the 3-4 raters) gives to me a comment? An explanation?

 

Every time I give a rating, I give a comment too, and often, now, only a comment, becose the lost of value of the ratings.

 

In this case, maybe I must to leave the photography, and Photo.net for first.

 

I believe that the ONLY WAY to resolve the question of the 3/3 4/4 disturbing ratings is to make ALL THE RATINGS NOT ANONYMOUS!

 

Why not? So all will be more sensibilized and responsibilized on their actions.

Thanks for you kind attenction.

[mottershead]

Many people writing in the Site Feedback forum seem to want to know who is rating them low and why. When photographers knew this in the past, they used that information to write nasty comments on the raters photos, to send them nasty emails, and to retaliate in other ways, such as by rating the raters photos low. Other people gave out high ratings as an invitation to the recipient to reciprocate. So, while it is a natural tendency to want to know who gave you a low rating, you don't get to know.

 

I think the anonymous rating system is working great. I am glad I made that change, and I have no intention of changing it back. The statistics related to numbers of photos being submitted and rated seem to indicate that this approach is more popular. Every time someone says he wants to know who is rating his photos low, I am reminded of what the consequences of that can be, and it redoubles my determination to keep it the way it is.

[emwalker]

Brian- Can you give us some numbers so we can get an idea of the distribution of total ratings given, and total anonymous vs non-anonymous ratings and the value breakdowns for those? Perhaps if people could see these they could grasp what's going on here.

 

And again, mediocre work=mediocre ratings. If you're only getting a few mediocre ratings, it means that people viewing your photos are not compelled enough by them to give a high rating, and many people don't bother giving 3/3 or 4/4 ratings because they feel it's not worth the click cycles on their mouse buttons. The solution? Take more pictures. Take better pictures. Work harder on your pictures. And if you want great ratings, look at the TRP and emulate what you see there. Get yourself a wide lens and a few grad-ND filters and take wide angle shots of boats under angry skies, rocky shores just after sunset, and mossy rocky silky long exposure waterfalls. Photoshop the hell out of them until the colors are next to unnatural, but pretty, and when they look just like every other shot on the TRP, go ahead and post them. Only then can you guarantee yourself high ratings, but even then you might get a couple 3/3s from people who are bored with all that. Or save your soul, shoot what you love, make it look just like YOU want it to, and understand that in the end of it all ratings don't amount to squat.

[cbc_ccc]

I think Carl Root's repeated point above about the biases of the rating system deserves a response from Brian.

 

The reason we see so many kitschy flamingos and other over-processed "photos" in the TRP is because the photos are all selected through the sound-bite-driven "rate recent" conveyor belt. If your image doesn't grab the viewer by the throat in 2 seconds or less, it doesn't survive. All made worse by management's recent efforts to modify the rating interface to facilitate even more rapid fire rating.

 

This is not to say there are no excellent images in the TRP - far from it. There is, of course, great stuff there, but there's also a decided lack of diversity. No room for subtlety in the TRP.

 

I don't have a suggestion for improving the rating system. Perhaps there's no better way to do it. But I do think that photographers who wish to bypass the inherent biases of the system should have a viable and visible alternative for doing so. Right now, members who submit photos for critique only no longer have a central location where their images are on display. Sure, critique only images can still be found at the old url, but after the recent changes to the system, you can no longer find a link to the site on PN. If you don't have it bookmarked already, you'll never find it.

 

Brian, can you please add a link to "critique only" in the photo critique forum. I know you've been saying you plan to do it, but when? Let me respectfully suggest that in the time you spent crunching M.H.'s ratings above, you could have added the link.

[ghiga]

Please, see the ratings to this photo: http://www.photo.net/photo/4342224

If You don't go, i say the resume: 3/3 3/4 4/4 7/7 ...

 

Wich meaning could I draw from that? In case like this the ratings are only an annoyance. Yes, I can ignore completely the ratings, but, then, why give the possibility to ratings? It is only a great loss of time.

I understand perfectly that a photo can like to one and not to another: but WITHOUT an explanation this is completely USELESS. This is the real problem.

 

I have another proposal:

 

Make THE COMMENTS OBLIGATORY: do You want to rate a photo? OK: You MUST LEAVE A COMMENT. Anonymous, too, but a comment. And it will be duty of the administrators to control that the anonymous comments are not offensive.

Thanks to all.

[root]

Charles, while I appreciate your support of my observations, I have to disagree with your explanation. Most of the images that are rated highly from the anonymous queue would continue to be rated high if people were encouraged (required?) to take a longer look. Snap judgments are part of the process, but it's also a matter of tastes, and it's very clear that black backgrounds, oversaturation, cute (hot!) subjects, etc, appeal to a lot of inexperienced unsophisticated users. The site defines success as appealing to the largest number of people - casual browsers, contributing members, and financial supporters, in that order. The TRP that produces the equivalent of McDonalds, reality TV, and bubble gum music is self reinforcing and since the site volume has been described as quite good, there is no need to encourage uploading and selection of a different style of "excellent" images.

 

 

Ghiga, if you require a comment to every uploaded image, including those that are average or worse, you will get virtually no ratings or comments, at least from people whose opinions you might find useful. Marc left a thorough analysis on your recent upload because you posted on this forum.

 

It doesn't seem to occur to people that there is no motivation whatsoever to leave a comment on an image that doesn't interest them in some way - at least not on this site.

[keimae]

This may already have been said but I believe the 'originality 'rating should not be there!

Why? because as someone said earlier almost no photograph is original anymore. What to

use instead, Maybe try-out 'Technicality' for a pilot run. As for 'aesthetics', I believe we

should most definitely keep it as I'm usually stopped in my tracks when scrolling down the

listings by that shot that awakens emotions in me, the way a shot makes me feel - THAT IS

AESTHETICS. The aesthetics might be a direct result of technical aspects of a photo but

you can only study technical aspects if you STUDY the photo and THEN rate it accordingly.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand P.net's MEMBERS already make comments about

technical aspects of photos but if I were to rate Originality on this site totally honestly I'd

mostly rate low but I rate really good photos highly on Originality because I don't want to

take away from a very good aesthetic shot. AM I LOSING ANYONE YET?

 

Please can we go for a trial Technicality run, This would make anonymous raters think a

little bit more about the composition, focal point etc. HOPEFULLY!