Has anyone e ver said they like the new rating system

[scott_lewis3]

With so many people posting they don't like the rating system why is

it still there. I don't come into this forum that often but when I do

all i see is people that don't like the photo.net rating system.

[jhenry]

That's one way of looking at it Scott! <br>... you can also imagine that the people who don't complain are either happy with it or just don't care anymore... and this makes a far bigger number of people I presume!<p>]:@*

[ivan_dzo]

you are looking at it in one slice of time. If you followed the history of it, you would know that the old system was 1000 times worse. There are problems with the present system but it's hugely better than what preceded it. We're dealing with human beings here who aren't always rational and considerate. The present system is the lesser of all the evils. The management does listen when a change is appropriate - I personally haven't seen any evidence that a change would be beneficial.

[h._p.]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I like the new system.

[mottershead]

Basically, this forum is about complaints. When the ratings were not anonymous in the Rate Recent queue, people complained all the time about receiving retaliatiatory ratings for "low" 4 and 5 ratings they had given photos. And they complained about the domination of the Top Rated Photos by gangs of "mate-raters". We changed the system in part because we got fed up with all the complaints.

 

Now people complain because they can't figure out who gave them a "low" 3, 4, or 5 rating in the RR queue which "spoiled" the nice 6 average they would otherwise have had on their photo. People say that it is important to them to be able to "validate" these low ratings by looking at the portfolios of the people who gave them; it doesn't seem to occur to them that the ratings might be valid just because the rater was a human being with functioning eyes. And, strangely they never complain about how the non-anonymous 6 or 7 ratings they've been getting "spoil" the 4 to 5 average that their fairly average photo would otherwise have. And they haven't stopped complaining about the gangs of mate-raters, because of course we haven't made all ratings anonymous.

 

So, the measure of success isn't how many people we have singing the praises of the system in this forum. It isn't really the number of complaints, either. Still, one might ask have the changes reduced the number of complaints? I guess we have. But I have more or less come to the view that human nature being what it is (or perhaps it is American nature, the preponderence of site members being of that nationality), the only way to really eliminate complaints entirely would be to switch off our email and close the Site Feedback forum.

[cappoldt]

Scott, I'd personally echo what Ivan said, followed by a submissive nod to Brian's reply as well.

 

They've taken steps, undoubtedly in response to feedback in this forum, to remedy the problem that was. That doesn't mean there aren't issues with the problem that IS, now, but they sure are less.

 

If you still want to see who's winning the "contest" of biased favorites, you can just switch the Gallery view to "Average," and see whose pics are considered best of the best there. . . and even there, the old club has issues as they cannot trade 7s as easily anymore, making it more diversified. . .so really that view has improved, too.

 

I think if a member doesn't like it, they should state why, and offer an alternative, truly taking advantage of a feedback forum...at least giving food for thought. Re-inventing the wheel happens from time to time, but it's got to be revolutionary:)

[jhenry]

'Interesting' numbers to see, would be the difference in average between non-anonymous ratings and the others, my guess is +1 at least? Do you have this in your stats Brian?<p> to be honnest I am quite happy with the new system, best so far (because every member/uploader can find his own way to select the Gallery and the ranking is very different depending the sorting way you use), except that I would like the option openned for the rater of being anonymous or not;... as I don't mind my ratings being known...

[mottershead]

The Rate Recent ratings were about 1 point lower than the other ratings before becoming anonymous, and making them anonymous has only had a small effect on this difference, increasing it a bit. The main effect of making the RR anonymous is that more people are rating through the RR queue now.

[jhenry]

CQFD ("Ce Qu'il Fallait Dire") in french, Brian.. sorry THBS ("That Had to Be Said")!!

[johncrosley]

Nothing's perfect, as we've seen, but despite somewhat lower ratings, I don't mind at all the Rate Recent anonymity and the new system. It was much worse before.

 

John (Crosley)

[johncrosley]

It is not surprising that the 'rate recent' averages are lower than the non-anonymous ratings.

 

Those who rate photos as a group often are newer members, plus some older members who rate quite often, as well as those who have just posted a Request for Critique and decide to rate when they're in the forum -- I think for the most part this comprises the substantial number of raters.

 

And, Rate Recent may indeed be dominated by newer members (Brian probably knows) whose abilities often are more rudimentary and whose tastes are not yet so well-formed (mine was less consistent when I first joined, than now)

 

Since I have made it clear I don't either 'mate rate' or 'revenge rate' my experience might be instructive.

 

I find the non-anomymous raters tend to be those who follow one's work, and as one would expect, those who follow a particular photographer's work tend to appreciate it more than the average run-of-the mill rater, and thus will rate only the best or most intriguing photos posted by a particular photographer. As a consequence, those rated photos will tend to be rated higher than those non-anonymous raters might rate the remainder of a particular photographer's folders or portfolio. (And many, like myself, restrict their ratings only to photos that strike them as particularly unusual or skillful).

 

I hope this helps.

 

John (Crosley)

[lauriee]

I read these posts and I am amazed that everyone takes the ratings so seriously to begin with! I get really low ratings and I get high ones sometimes too...I am not crestfallen if I get a low rating on a photo and I am not "over the moon" when someone gives me a higher rating. The reason being is that I love each and every photo I post and I also realize that everyone has different taste...come from the heart and no one can judge that.

 

Even if someone did retaliate and give me a three because I gave them one...I'd figure they had the maturity issue and post another PIC!! LOL

 

Laurie

[james_oneill]

<i>Now people complain because they can't figure out who gave them a "low" 3, 4, or 5 rating in the RR queue which "spoiled" the nice 6 average they would otherwise have had on their photo.</I><br>

Courtesy of their mates... Though frankly if I mark someone as interesting because I like most of their past work, then I'm likely to give good scores to their future work <p>

 

 

<i> People say that it is important to them to be able to "validate" these low ratings by looking at the portfolios of the people who gave them; it doesn't seem to occur to them that the ratings might be valid just because the rater was a human being with functioning eyes.</i><br>

Humph. I didn't care about the pictures someone has posted. But if I look at their top rated and find it's all "Raindrops on roses and Whiskers on kittens" and they give some moody art-nude of mine a 2, well I can understand it - they just don't like my kind of picture. <p>

<i> And, strangely they never complain about how the non-anonymous 6 or 7 ratings they've been getting "spoil" the 4 to 5 average that their fairly average photo would otherwise have.</i>

Actually anonymous 6 or 7s annoy me just as much. Again if I can see someone's top rated and they're all nudes then I can see if they belong to the "add a point for each visible nipple" school of marking. I'm not interested in their scores - flattering as they are to my ego.

Now before I could track people who had scored more than one picture of mine - I had every score in a database and I could say "taking the scores of people who have rated more than 4 of my pictures, which are the best and worst". Who constantly rates my pictures higher or lower than the average ? And so on. <p>

 

<i>So, the measure of success isn't how many people we have singing the praises of the system in this forum.</i><br>

It might be worth having a whole other forum for the rating system. That would make it easier to filter it out. However the less useful rating system was the main reason I haven't renewed my subscription, and why I use the site a lot less now than in the past.

[seven]

I like the current system.

[w. roger keagle]

Well, at least one person has...me...well, I am very old and hate change...joking, but at times it seems like that to me. Yes, I really liked how it was when I first started on PN, the work had personality and charm, and when I first posted, I was met with indifference and a bit of flack...the nature of the beast it to ask, "Who IS this upstart...?"

 

This system, though as admited by Brian is the work of evoloution, complex as it is, has cut down on the many complaints about low "hits" by people that are not here to learn, only for the odd jab at their fellow exibitors. Hey, the way to not get shot down, is simple, don't FLY...but since the nature of the beast is to seek the sunshine, well, here we are. Here we are with a very complex system to cut down on the abuses, and make life better for all of us, or so it would seem.

 

Improvments in quality...over all, not really...when I first clicked on PN, I was transfixed, spent the day looking at one amazing photo after another...now, well....more hit and miss.

 

Max Hynes used to go to the posting form and start at the back, where he found gems in the rough to help and give suggestions...God how I miss Max here ! Full of humor and wit, his goal was to make us come to terms with the fact that we will be shot at, when we fly.

 

Like the system...not really sure I LIKE any system that is so complex that now we do not know how other than comment to respond to a persons flight toward perfection...I for one miss the odd 1's that would find me looking for the "mongrul" to blast them with the odd comment on there less than perfect work...or Max posting one to "hit" with 1's so we could qualify for the "hit team" that used to rate low to try and "fix" mate rating...God how I miss those days...at the time I asked, as did all of us that were here...What the hell ?

 

What ever the "system" there will be the odd sot that will hang out for negative...but over all, this is still one hell of a place to learn, and if this system makes it better for those that are starting, then, Amen to that... !

 

Off the box now, hey, lets get out there and learn to FLY !