meddler Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 The subject of ratings does seem to get people quite emotive. Perhaps it would be less so, if we did away with ratings for "Bad" and "Very Bad". After all its not very tactful to tell someone that their photo is bad or very bad. Merely saying someone is below average leaves them with at least a little self respect. Would retaliatory rating have such a big effect if the worst someone could mark was below average? Given that 1s and 2s are pretty rare I imagine it wouldn't make a great deal of difference to the ranking system and besides people are only interested in looking at the top rated photos, not the bottom rated ones. What do you recon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I'll repeat my suggestion to change the current 1-7 rating scheme into the much more "user friendly" 4-10 rating scheme. Everybody will be happy. Those now getting 6s and 7s will get 9s and 10s (obviously much better) and those getting 1s and 2s will get 4s and 5s (who can complain about that). Just add 3 to every rating in the database and you're done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Why stop there? I say the lowest possible rating should be 6 out of 10. Then we can rename it lakewobegon.com, where all the photos are above average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 "We" Paulo? "We" are just the customers. The site's a private company, and this and similar suggestions have been made endlessly, and they have all been rejected. There is no vote, let alone a recount. The thing is, as Brian has said endlessly, the site considers the ratings to be largely for the site's purposes, not the customer's. Comments are for the customers. It is a sad irony that ratings are such an endless topic for debate, as comments by customers on each other's work appear, at least to me, to be less and less. So --I've learned time better spent -- for me -- is to comment on people's pics as much as I can (with or without rating) and make good conections with a wide variety of talented and good-hearted people. The site is worth it just for that. In other words, Paulo, my road to pnet happiness, as fleeting and elusive as that happiness may be, includes trying to ignore ratings altogether as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Do away with rating levels one and two, then three and four will be the "insult" ratings. Then the three and four levels will have to be eliminated. Then fives and sixes. Then everyone get get only sevens and still be unhappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbb Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I think the best scale would be 6.4 to 7.0 or 9.4 to 10.0. Very seriously. Not only user friendly but also a medicine for those who need high ratings to feel good. 6.994 to 7.000 might be even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbb Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 But boring indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meddler Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Nice answer Bob :) But I think you miss the point. The ratings are not just numbers out of 7, in the drop down the ratings have meanings and emotional weight. I could have suggested just three ratings. Below Average, Average and Better than Average, but that wouldn't be useful to PN for deciding which photos are the best of the best. So if your answer had been to change the words behind the rates to Below Average, Average, Good, Very Good, Excellent, Outstanding, and Unbelievable, that would have been a better response. Though perhaps less amusing :) Ben, I totally understand why Bob would react that way, people have been whinging about ratings here for years. I wouldn't be surprised if this idea has been suggested a hundred times. As for commenting to get more comments? I have found that the best way to get comments is to take good photographs, to be a woman, photograph nudes, to be a nude woman. None of which I am actually much good at:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Well, its true that you have to comment alot because many don't respond. But you will get comments in return, you will get a sense of who is willing to dialogue. If you write, they will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meddler Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Ben I would Mark you as interesting if some sick little puppy hadn't forced the interesting people functionality out of action. I would find it difficult to leave useful comments on your portfolio beyond great, awesome etc. I really like the toning you do on your black and white photos. Its something I've not got the hang of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 <em>Do away with rating levels one and two, then three and four will be the "insult" ratings</em> <p> I don't think so. There's something psychologically upseting about being given a "1" or a "2". Being given a "4" or "5", even though objectively they may still be the lowest two ratings, just doesn't seem so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Perhaps Bob. Many feel that $499.99 is somehow less than $500.00. Yet, somehow, we know they will be unhappy anyway that others are rated higher than themselves. Pessimistic but realistic based on the history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Paulo, thanks for the comments, but this is not about me. You imply that general feedback is not that worthwhile (like "awesome" -- well, you're wrong, i'll take awesome:), and, conversely, that the more specific the better. So just say what you see, what you like (about subject matter, colors, contrast, tones, depth of field, point of view, perspective, focal length, the emotions evoked or not evoked, the mood of the work, special techniques employed, etc.), what you might think could be improved. My experience is that many, many people appreciate any kind of specific comment along these lines. You can also ask questions and many will share info. I learned what I know about toning in photoshop largely from people at pnet over time, for example. leaving numbers won't do that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdpics Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I've gotten nasty emails from Pnet members because I gave them a 5, yes, a 5! These swollen egos won't be appeased by changing the ratings scale IMHO. What WILL change their attitude is for them to get REAL, HONEST feedback and ratings from Pnet members at large--not just their mate-rating friends. All the more reason to end the ratings system altogether and to substitute it with say a monthly photo contest with limited entries (say 10-20 entries per mo.) per (PAID) member per month that are then judged by an impartial jury. No more venge-rating, no more mate-rating, no more nasty emails from disgruntled egomaniacs---ahhhhh, wouldn't that be nice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 How about this, Bob...? We almost do what you suggest. We shall have the following ratings: 2s (which we call "below average"), 4s ("average"), 5s (good), 6s (very good), 8s (excellent), 9s (fantastic), 10s (overly outstanding). Notice the trap ? The 2s are 2 points away from the next step: so, it means people should really hate what they see to use a 2 - no midgrounds and no details given as to how bad it was. (That way, abusers shouldbe easier to trace, by the way.) But there's a second trap: I suggest users can use the "10" rating for only 20 pictures on the entire site, 10 for Originality, and 10 for Aesthetics - and this rating can be modified any time. 3rd trap: Users can use the "9" rating for only 50 pictures on the entire site (25 in Originality and 25 in Aesthetics - and this rating can be modified any time. And then there are 2 other final traps: - You may choose to keep the old system exactly as it is today, and then you can't give nor receive anything higher than 7s - while other have loads of 8s + a couple of 9s and 10s in their pocket...:-) - Since 7s do not exist anymore in the new system I'm here proposing, then if you decide to go for it, all the 7s you gave and received in the past are retroactively deleted ! Now, how's that for a brilliant solution, hmmm...?! Think about it...:-))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I think people should just accept the ratings as unscientific and unreliable ad hoc responses from people who choose to rate the photos. That is what they are after all. The crank rates are usually easy to spot. Just ignore them and consider what most of the rates for your pictues are. That being said, I wonder what the ratings for my picture Crazy "Curves" mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn traver Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I think what your seeing on this site is 30 % Rate , the other 70 % vote. So if your worried about ratings , then become anonymous and rate, make the difference yourself instead of wanting someone else to fix it for you,if enough people start to rate you might turn the tide ......~ GT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_tso Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Hello, Dear Photographers! Once again it's bla-bla-bla ratings...bla-bla-bla... The rating system based on marks in anonymous huge internet society is absolutly DEAD! And the best indication of it is all these postings...and You can find it in lot of forums over the internet. The only system that works nowdays is the one based on recommendations - for example recs that devided into three categorias : technical, creativity and articism. If You like the image you see, recommend it for other members by the category You feel it deserves and that's it. So the bad images will recieve a minimal number of recs and the best ones - a lot of recs. No harm You can get from this system, no revange... Just one short fact - as I started to post (ans my pictures was much worser then today), I gave no bad ratings and wrote no negative comments - and I've been rated much higher. Nowdays, when I wrote for the authors that their pictures can be improved and give a low ratings - every new image I post receive a couple of 1 and 2 ratings, altogether with positive comment of really good photographers...You can call me paranoid....:) The administration of this site failed to manage this issue and it's sad, because this is really great community, and I mean it. ...this time I suggest posting for critics only - no bl**dy ratings! With a great respect for members and administration, Mark Tso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Why not simply rename :<br> "below average" into "improvable",<br> "bad" into "awkward",<br> and "very bad" into "inadequate"<br> or something in the same way? (also for the others higher ratings)<br> I still believe than words are more constructive than numbers, and I understand that some can find unpleasant to receive "bad" and "very bad" values.<br> The book doesn't seem to be closed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Oh a rating we will go<br> A rating we will go<br> Ee, O! Change the scale,<br> A rating we will go<br> <br> Old English folk song.......<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byronlawrence Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 the idea of sensitivity is always nice.. it should always be considered but when it comes to mildly celebrating mediocrity or not being honest about how poor something is we are not fooling anybody. I prefer to get a bad and very bad if something I do is as such. It isn't nice but it is necessary. or else how could I be happy with my 4s and 5s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afs760bf Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Celebrating mediocrity is a full-time passion. Otherwise, how could we exist? We could change the rating system to "less than mediocre," "mediocre," "Somewhat better than mediocre," and "escaped mediocrity." Or we could just ignore it like we do now. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 "There's something psychologically upseting about being given a "1" or a "2"." <p> Agreed! The solution is to abandon the numbers and adopt the horserace system, " Win, Place, Show, & Also ran. In the Iditarod Sled Dog Race in Alaska there are winners and finishers but no losers. Eliminate the pejorative and everybody is complimented for competing. It's as easy as that. (:^] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meddler Posted September 29, 2005 Author Share Posted September 29, 2005 The only problem with abandoning the numbers and replacing it with words that the Top Photos Gallery uses numbers and IIRC the site organisers feel that those pages are important for luring people onto the site. <br><br> Mind you, there is no reason why those numbers couldn't sit invisibly in the background and drive the rankings.<br><br>Then on the member pages instead of showing numbers show the nearest rating something like this:<br><br><i>This member has rated 682 photos on this site, with average ratings of Average for Aesthetics and Average for Originality. The ratings went to 595 distinct photographers. You can browse some of the photos rated highest by this member. </i><br><br><i>This member has received 861 ratings, on 94 distinct photos, rated Average for Aesthetics, and Average for Originality.<i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 I prefer to critique/comment than to rate, I do have the courage to back up my critiques with ratings however. It's a double edged sword.<BR><BR> I've already seen instances where people have removed pictures and reposted them purely because they did not like my comments, never mind for poor ratings, and in these instances the comments were pretty innocuous eg 'I think the horizon looks a little tilted, maybe it would look better straightened' etc.<BR><BR> Some people will only accept high praise. Where's the education in that? 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