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

[romu]

OK Mike, check your e-mail.

 

Now lets keep on topic, shall we?

[gmw w]

"A 3/3 is a little below average--that's not a very strong feeling about an image." I understand that has been said. However, since 1,2's have been disabled 3's are now the lowest someone can rate. So when a 3 is depicted you have to wonder did that person mean 3 as in a little below average or 1,2?

 

As far as past problems, that's really unfortunate. The internet is a great tool. Unfortunately, it has also created a climate where otherwise decent people can now be rude because they don't have accountability. We see it here and on other forums be it photography or what have you.

[mottershead]

Its a 1 to 7 scale, and 3 is somewhat below average. The intent is that 4 is average, and 3 a bit below. The vast majority of photos should be in the 3 to 5 range, and 3's should be as common as 5's. 1's and 2's should be rare, as should be 6's and 7's. That is how it is supposed to be.

 

There is no indication anywhere on the rating pages that 1 and 2 ratings don't currently count. You have to read the Site Feedback forum to know this. Nothing stops you from giving 1 and 2 ratings. Because of the bizarre way people have been using the scale, we chose to discard 1 and 2 ratings for the time being. This is because there were so few of these ratings, and they were so prone to abuse, that they ended up just being noise and more hurtful to the photographers than they were worth. There is no great need for resolution in the rating scale on the low end. We need resolution in the high end. However, if you are thinking of it as five point scale that is just shifted up 2 points, making "5" average, you haven't got it right. IF we wanted people to think it was a five point scale, it would be number 1 to 5.

[tholte]

Romualdo, contrary to what you think, I am actually trying to help you. Do some better scans and/or post processing and you wont get so many 3/3's. If you do continue to be bombarded by the low rates, don't worry about it and move on with your life.

[darrell_m]

Brian, people think it's a 5 point scale. They really do. They do. They really do. Maybe they always have but it is common knowledge that 1's and 2's are disabled. It doesn't matter how often you say otherwise 3=1 in most eyes. 5=average. You are right-6's and 7's get used too frequently but the reason for this might be that 6=a bit above average. It really doesn't matter how many times you insist to the contrary-there is nobody using PN, except yourself, who believes or behaves as if it's a 7 point scale. Ask around.

[will king]

I would have to agree with Darrell. 3 is the new 1.

[mike dixon]

<i>It really doesn't matter how many times you insist to the contrary-there is nobody using PN, except yourself, who believes or behaves as if it's a 7 point scale.</i><P>

Do you base this on a large numver of opinions gathered from a representative sample of all participants in the rating system, or do you base it on the beliefs of that small fraction of a percentage of users who come to the feedback forum to complain about those horribly-low 3/3 ratings that someone has dared to give to them or a photo that they like?

[will king]

Mike, with all due respect, what vested interest do you have to participate in this thread, considering you haven't submitted a photo for critique in how long? When was the last time you rated a photo?

 

The real scale is 3-7. Come one, nobody's fooled by the 1s and 2s. A rater would actually do a better service to a photo by rating it a 1/1 vs 3/3. The 1/1 rating wouldn't bring the average down, however, the 3/3 rating definitely will. So let's be real here. It's a 3-7 scale.

[mike dixon]

One might argue that, not having a vested interest in the rating system, I'm better able to offer an objective and rational perspective. [And for what it's worth, I stopped participating in the ratings system because I have other, more-useful means of getting feedback on my images. Even though I sometimes got ratings of 1 or 2 back in old days when it was scale of 1 to 10 (you know, when we used to march through a foot of snow, uphill [both ways!] to get to school), I never got worked up like people do now over a 3/3.] <P>

 

Again, what's the basis for concluding that <i>everyone</i> thinks it's a five-point scale and that a rating of 3 means they hate the photo? Just saying it over and over doesn't actually support your claim.

[mottershead]

Well, Darrell, now that I've set you straight, I'm sure you'll go forward and start using the 1-7 scale as a seven point scale, right?

[darrell_m]

Absolutely. I've always liked being unique and different. To be honest Brian, I've practically stopped rating photos and am critiquing much more instead. When I do rate it's with my own little idiosyncratic criteria-like everyone else, I guess. And never never through the rate recent queue. BTW-I love your new critique forum layout. Has it produced any beneficial results vis-a-vis an increase in critiques given?

[root]

All you have do is look at the rating breakdown of a few images to realize that there aren't any 1s and 2s . . . . ever. You don't have to read this forum.

 

Mike, if you and Brian actually uploaded images into the RFC forum then you'd know that rating patterns do change according to changes in TRP rules. Neither of you would ever upload an image to this site that deserved a 3/3, yet I guarantee you that you would get them regularly.

 

Brian: "There is no great need for resolution in the rating scale on the low end. We need resolution in the high end."

 

Nearly all of my uploads get a few 3s. Anyone want to critique one of my images and try to defend them as being an accurate reflection of their photographic value on this site rather than genre preference? Because if you can't, then they're invalid. (Sixes, deserved or not, don't balance them because a 4.5 will still bury the image.) The same is true for all the sixes handed out to undeserving images to the point where you say that "we need resolution". Isn't it obvious that if the purpose of the system is to select the top ten percent and if the 6s and a lot of the 5s don't reflect the images' value, then by definition, the system doesn't work. I would argue that actually 6s shouldn't be that rare. We see camera club winners uploaded every day. The problem is that instead, many 6s are being given to unoriginal, kitschy, overprocessed shots that wouldn't win any kind of contest . . . . except here.

[romu]

I think that it would be a 7-point scale IF and ONLY IF the people who give an image a 3, do so because they really believe it deserves a 3, a "below average", not because maybe they think it's bad and deserves a 2 or a 1, but since those ratings are essentially invalid choices, they give 3's because its the lowest they can rate that will have an impact in the image's score.

 

We will never know.

[root]

Either that or the lighting, composition, and subject matter are below average for this site.

 

Have you seen the thousands of concert shots on this site? Do you know what makes one better than another?

[will king]

This is a perfect <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4337137" >example</a> of why anonymous 3/3 ratings are annoying. Here's a photo taken by one of the best landscape photographers (Marc Adamus) who participates on this site only to be disrepected with an anonymous 3/3 rating. Marc has even mentioned that someone has been clever enough to rate all of his photos 3/3 anonymously, even the ones that he has not requested critiques for.

<br>

<br>

This is what I have an issue with, and I think others have issues with this too. There's no accountability. Everybody knows that a 3/3 ratings is the lowest rating that counts, having said that, a 3/3 ratings is an extreme rating. It bascially says "Out of the ratings scale (numbers that actually count), I will rate this the lowest possible score." Now, I don't deny the fact that there are some horrible photos that get submitted for critique that really do deserve a 3/3 or lower, however, too many really good photos get these undeserved ratings. Looking at Marc's photo, I cannot help but think that some bozo rated it a 3/3 out of jealously or whatever other idiotic motive.

<br>

<br>

So the question remains, how can the site allow anonymous ratings so people can still rate low on the really horrible photos, yet have a checks and balances system to protect serious photographers who produce really good photos? I don't know if there is a way. This might be a case of the system not failiing the people, rather, the people or a small handful of people failing the system.

[darrell_m]

Nice post Will. I think we can all find countless examples of this type of absurd

rating. It's laughable. The 3 for originality could perhaps be reasoned, but the aesthetics rate?

I know it's not possible but it would be great to have a 'Dumb Rate' of the week,

alongside pic of the week. The 'winner' would have his anonymity stripped for

a month. Perhaps retrospectively. My current favorite is on this one <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4330400">HERE

</a> but yours just about beats it.

[keimae]

Hi Brian, I have to disagree with the 1s and 2s should be rare 4s and 5s the vast majority and

6s and 7s also rare, We are dealing with peoples opinions and there are no set rules on

opinions. I mainly rate in the 6 & 7 bracket because as the site sets out 6 = very good and 7

= excellent, I only stop on the photos that catch my eye which is my choice. The issue being

seen is that although we can't prove it, being petty is also a human trait and people coming

on to deliberately give a 3 is definitely happening. How to stop it?... I don't have an answer

but I know it goes on so I'm in the mindset that I won't let it bothar me for my photos. It's the

critiques that I really take note of but still like to see what the majority think by entering my

photos for rating.

[will king]

Darrell, Excellent idea! Really, that is a great idea.

[lightwait]

I'm just curious, how do you two feel about elvis paintings on black velvet?

 

High art? Not art? Somewhere in the muddle?

[will king]

I really don't see how that's relevant, but no, I'm not a big fan of Elvis on velvet, pink flamingos, or dogs playing poker.

[darrell_m]

Who you been talking to, Tom? I thought nobody knew about the velvet Elvis carpet hanging on my bedroom wall. Can you keep quiet about the Mona Lisa reproduction in the hallway?

[will king]

Can we all face the fact that a lot of 3/3 ratings are bogus and idiotic. Yet another sad <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4339078" >EXAMPLE</a> .

<br>

<br>

Brian, come on. Even you can't deny that this is a case of ratings abuse. This is the kind of stuff that goes on everyday. Anonymous 3/3 ratings on great photographs.

[tholte]

I finally get it after all these years, Ian's photo had one 3/3 rating out of 45, it is truly the end of the world.

[will king]

Tim, it's precisely the fact that the photo has one 3/3 that makes it odd. It's a great photo that otherwise got rated high. I can see your sarcastic point if it was a crappy photo that received low ratings all together, but that's not the case is it?

[gmw w]

"There is no indication anywhere on the rating pages that 1 and 2 ratings don't currently count. " I don't know if you consider the details page a rating page. It was there that I first thought it was odd that the scale did not show 1,2.

 

GMWW