ratings

[inkadinka]

In general,it appears that photos that contain nudity receive higher

ratings (6's & 7's )regardless of the aesthetics,technique, etc....

Which gives question to the merit of ratings....

[antonrussell]

Well spotted. It's probably best not to worry about it.

[marshall]

It's a website visited by mostly men (guessing, but seems reasonable), and men like looking at naked women. Stunning, really. Not ideal from a rating perspective? Probably not, no. But there are other behaviors that give question to the merits of ratings, too.

[r_e]

"receive higher ratings (6's & 7's )regardless of the aesthetics, technique, etc...." and if not, we often get to know a strange sensitive side of the spoiled.

[h._p.]

At this moment, the top rated page shows 12 images, only 2 of which are nudes (unless you count the little boy on the beach). I think your use of the phrase 'in general' is rather questionable given the evidence.

[mottershead]

That isn't actually true. Nudes are one of the higher-rated categories, but on the average, Insects and Birds are higher-rated. So are Landscapes. I don't remember exactly where Nudes was in the list of average ratings by category, but there were several categories that were higher-rated. All this shows is that raters on photo.net have subject preferences, and that how much they like a photo depends to some degree on the subject. Does this surprise anyone?

 

What is true, however, is that Nudes get numerically more ratings and views than other categories. That the number of views is higher doesn't surprise me. But I don't really understand why they get more ratings. And the fact that they do tends to make nudes dominant in TRP ranking methods which are sensitive to the number of ratings rather than to the overall averages. This also affects the rankings that involve the "sum" or total of ratings. This is a problem, because otherwise number and sum of ratings could be quite a useful measures.

[james_oneill]

As someone who posts nudes, I am convinced that there are people who both "up-score" and "down-Score" nudes based on the fact that they ARE nudes. If I post a picture which deserves a 5.0 there will be a couple of downraters who pull it down to 4.0. If I post a picture that deserves a 4 there will be a couple of upraters who boost it to 4.5.

 

Both sets of people annoy me, because I'd like to know which of my pictures are better or worse and allowing both sets to hide behind anonymity seems to have made things worse. Of course they both believe that their actions are needed to cancel out the behaviour of the other group.

[bread shutter]

in responce to Kenneth Stuart-Anderson , i joint photo.net 1 month ago and have had some great c & r from alot of members and what your saying about nudity is kind of true but my shot (see "HOW DEEP IS YOUR LOVE") has been very highly rated, which contains no nudity . I think its horses for courses and you always will get some idiots that rate unfairly .

[Coho]

Actually, Brian, et al, it is the nudes category which draws the increased number of ratings. I have always been quite amused by this, as a follower of this forum. On several occasions, I have posted images of nude animals, more as a joke, and each time, without fail, I have received far more ratings (and a few complaints) thanI would if I had posted in another category. Most recently, this image: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00DM0d&photo_id=3671229&photo_sel_index=0

clearly received more ratings than it would have in another category. Yet it actually caused some viewers to think, as evidenced by a 3 for asthetics and a 7 for originality.

[h._p.]

"Actually, Brian, et al, it is the nudes category which draws the increased number of ratings"

 

Given that Brian is the administrator for photo.net, and can therefor run the stats, I rather think his pronouncements are correct and yours, well, nonsense.

[mottershead]

I think what David was saying that the higher number of ratings on Nudes are from people using the "Rate Category" feature. His evidence is that he submitted some joke non-nudes in this category, and they got a lot of ratings. I think this is probably right, although I've not compared categories according to what percentage of their ratings they get from the different sources, and whether the advantage that the Nudes category has in number of ratings overall can be attributed entirely to an increased number of Rate Category ratings.

[chicodovale]

Kenneth,

I didn't see your question concerned nude photos rating and I post another question, with the samen observation, at the Lighting Forum. I couldn't find a place to post my question and I decided to post that question in the lighting forum because most of the problems are concerned with lighting. Could you please have a look on my question at that forum and give your oppinion (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DOFU). Thanks. I agree totaly with you and as I told in my question: something intrigues me for long time. Probably some ratings are given to the models and not for the photos.

[mcgarity]

David I posted a "nude" today. In some ways its off topic but in some its not. You would have to see it to know what I mean. In about 4 hours its garnered more ratings than most of my images ever get and they range from 1/1 to 7/7 with everything in between, including a 1/7. A few months back I had the same image in my portfolio under pets or some such. In the entire 4 months or so it was in my portfolio it got a grand total of 9 ratings. (None of them a 1/1 or a 7/7 by the way.) The nude category most definately steal the show. No doubt about it.