jim kerr Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Has it been discussed or considered to not show the name of the maker of the photo entry for say maybe the first week. Seems to me, it would lead to alot more acurrate and fair results, or has it already been decided that to leave well enough alone....Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Yes: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CHrR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gahspidy Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Jim, interesting idea. Patrick, I read the thread from the link you posted and it all sounds interesting, but I think the real problem is . . .people. Giving someone a poor rating because they gave one to me is ridiculous. From my experience with different sites and forums, I have to say that the ratings system is just not a good idea. In my opinion, it is far more valuable and effective to only allow comments, from non-anonymous users.Anyone looking to win a "prize" like having a TRP, should enter contests instead. Photo-Critique is about learning and getting a feel for how effective ones work is according to proper feedback, and ratings should not be part of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gahspidy Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 At least anonymous ratings should not be part of it . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim kerr Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 Patrick & Gary, Thank you for your responses. Well, I've gotten a lot of food for thought, not that my opinion should have anything to do with how this part of PN is run. I really wasn't trying to open a can of worms, mostly the photos and people are so very good,and I certainly appreciate being a part of Photo Net....Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acearle Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Realistically, the problem is that there used to be these mythological things called "Ratings Guidelines." I remember seing them at one point, and I read them...and I tried to follow them to the best of my ability. Maybe they've disapeared, maybe Mr. Atkins dog ate them to get his new computer, maybe the tooth fairy used 'em for toilet paper, but the current way the natives seem to rate is: "If it is differn't that whut I wooda shot, I'm givin' it uh 2 or uh 3. If it is eggzactly the same as I wooda shot, it gets uh 7. If I have no idea whut I'm lookin' at, it gets somewhere between a 2 and a 6, depending on which number is closest to muh finger." and that's for aesthetics. Creativity is simple, with the caveat that "If it has had thuh saturation increased by 30 in photoshop, it gets an extra point over the isthetic ratin'" Sorry for the lampooning, but I think whatever guidelines were dreamed up and posted need to be replaced with the above, if you can't beat 'em (or get 'em to read), join 'em... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 The Rating Guidelines haven't disappeared, and they are where they always were. Every page of "Rate Recent" has a link to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 With regards to above mentioned link... I wonder if it might be an idea to replace the word "Tutorial" with "Rating Guidelines"?<br>All the usual reservations about 'leading horses to water' taken into account, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now