Ratings System Still Being Abused

[bdpics]

I know it's been discussed ad nauseum, but IMHO the ratings system

continues to be one of the most frustrating problems here on Pnet.

 

I'm proud of the fact that my "ratings given" averages are about

4.6/4.6 I take my time to carefully study an image, and then rate

it as I see it. However, if you don't hand out 6's and 7's like

candy and you HONESTLY rate and critique, then you're targeted for

retaliatory ratings by the "mate-rating clubs."

 

So, you either play along and dole out the 6's and 7's, or you just

don't rate at all for fear of reprisal and/or nasty emails wondering

how on God's green earth you could have possibly given their

pulitzer-prize winning photo a measeley 5/5.....

 

I can't imagine that either of those options are reflective of what

Pnet is SUPPOSED to be about--i.e. photographers sharing their

images with each other looking for HONEST feedback about their work.

 

Clearly, the mate-rating continues (especially by the so-

called "Spanish Photo-Mafia" and others) and they've obviously

managed to coordinate their Rate Recent critique request's so as to

allow the mate-rating to manipulate that category as well.

 

Yes, the mate-raters are in most cases very obvious, and sensible

people can look at the portfolios in question and readily ascertain

that the plethora of "WOW's" and 7/7 ratings are rarely earned, but

the bottom line is that the abuser's make the whole process tedious

and frustrating for the rest of us. I'd make the following

suggestions:

 

ONLY paid members would be allowed to request numerical ratings, and

limit the number of requests to say 1-2 per week per member which

are then numerically rated by a panel/jury of 10 volunteer judges

from Pnet. This will not only stop the mate-rating, but should

increase paid memberships as well. Perhaps trial members should be

allowed to have 3 images rated as a test of the system.

 

Unpaid members can still write and received unlimited written

critiques, but no numerical ratings except as noted above.

 

Mate-rating and venge-rating plague many of the other photo websites

as well as there will always be selfish, manipulative, insecure

users who collude with others to work the system (they think) to

their benefit. The only way to stop these folks is to have the

images impartially rated by honest judges. Other sites are moving to

similar systems as complaints over ratings, and especially

mate/venge ratings, make up the vast majority of member complaints.

 

Pnet should be a fun place to visit where members can expect an

honest evaluation of their work. Eliminating the mate/venge raters

is the only way to ensure this.

[cappoldt]

The way the site is set up, this is what happens, man. I'm guessing that due to the flood of site traffic unchecked ratings systems like this one generates, this allows profitability via ad revenue - so mate rating is permitted its corner to flourish. The gallery is the largest-used portion of the site. To silence mate rating, or to up-end the rating system like that, would likely be too costly. From some perspectives, in other words, the Gallery is working just fine.

 

If you voice an opinion about it, eventually some phantom piece of sh** with a fake account(s), who has since been banned from the site for poor behavior, or is tired of knowing they're guilty and being earmarked for it, slams you in the forum under your post about it. You might slam back. . .after all, you didn't start that nonsense, so all's fair.

 

Then, with no other outlet, and carrying lots of weird psychiatric baggage from a parent who likely didn't recognize their achievements often enough, and obviously feeling intimidated and insecure, the cowardly phantom pays a visit to your portfolio wreaking all sorts of mayhem.

 

Admins, unable to prove in a cyber court of law that so-and-so did such-and-such, reply to you that they can't define it as actual abuse. "Sorry son, nice to have you here and all, but you're gonna have to eat that and swallow."

 

In the end, essentially, you're punished for not being a

sheep, bah-ing quietly with the rest. In fact, you may even be a thorn, an irritating repetitive noise, to the folks who run an otherwise awesome website. You'll be considered at the very least...annoying.

 

If ratings don't matter that much to you, and you're just mentioning this for the principle of the thing, well, the Gallery isn't a contest, either - so what principle are you defending? The principle of "Giant Egos allowed to Flourish and Beat on You are Disgusting?" I'm guessing most people already know that, and just ignore it. After all, a new CSI episode is on tonight, and hey, the Sox are up by three runs, and no worries, oil prices should level out as soon as we strike a pocket in that Alaskan Wildlife Refuge we just started drilling in. Shhhhhhh. Sleep. Lean back, and sleep. Nothing to really worry about.

 

B Diamond, your frustrations are shared - but alas, this forum isn't a town council meeting, and the Internet is sometimes a jungle. My advice is to save it, and bah like a sheep. I started practicing just the other day (I still stammer at the end, though - it's tough to pronounce with authenticity. Also, there's nothing at all tasty about heather and hay, lemme tell ya). Best wishes and luck regardless.

[phongkim]

There is an old Vietnamese saying "when you love someone, everything about that person is perfect; when you dislike someone, everything about that person is imperfect". I don't really see how you can prevent people from falling in love and/or to prevent people from taking revenge on one another. I'm slowly giving up on my interest in justice and world peace.

[nomade]

Look at this one then:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=3593838

[bdpics]

Exactly what I was talking about Nestor. It's a nice image, I'd probably give it a 5/5, but notice the disparity between the rate recent ratings and the direct ratings.

 

Also notice that many of the raters of this image seem to rate each other's image quite regularly and favorably.........

[bens]

B, this is an old, dead and buried topic. i hope you figure out how to get the most out of the site that you can. complaining about ratings in my opinion is the wrong way to do it. try commenting more and rating less, or at least commenting more. it works, and mate commenting is a great thing to be a part of in order to learn.

[._._z]

I don't know what you're talking about. Who *wouldn't* give a sunset photo a '7' for

originality?

[ronbudway]

isi seems to like your work.

[potok]

Phong, in western world, Freud called that Splitting, imature Ego self-defense mechanism,

that is core to the Opsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

 

Anyhow, giving 7 for originality for sunset, sure it is one in the million opportuniy, ok

maybe one in 365. I would say you have two options, first one is form your own mafia, and

let them vote endlessly for you, secondly to me at least, ratings gives number that doesnt

tell me much, what i like to see are comments. So quys kill me, comment and i will

comment back. or even rate you....scary...

 

By the way i dont care, if i dont like it i give it bad ratings, i am placed under federal

witness protection plan.

[phongkim]

"I don't know what you're talking about. Who *wouldn't* give a sunset photo a '7' for originality?"

 

If there is a beautiful sunset that I haven't seen before, I probably give 7 for originality. Anyway, I rarely see any nice sunset where I live; otherwise, I would have posted some sunset photos by now.

 

Btw, if anyone would like chance to score a 7 from me, take some beautiful photos of nature, sunsets or landscapes. If you would like a chance to score a 7 from Tinna, take a beautiful portrait of a pet or people. If you would like chance to score a 7 from Kristy, take a beautiful close up photo of a fly. If you want a chance to score 7 from .Z, go for the busy documentary abtract type (the type of photos that most people won't give more than 5/5). Personally, I'm very happy if I get 5/5 from .Z. That's just my observation from the short time I have been here; I could be wrong about that.

[orensztajn]

Well I think that photo is pretty good and I would have given a 6/5.

 

Now B:

Can you explain what you mean with "Spanish Photo-Mafia" ?

The photographer of the POW speaks spanish is she part of this too?

I would like to know what you mean by this if there is some coherent explanation for it.

 

About ratings you could complain all day but if you think what you do is right and your rate is rigth then what is the problem you should be proud of your 4.6 average "rate given".

Your idea doesn't sound too bad but 1-2 photos per week is not much in comparision of the 28 (4 per day) that we can send now to RR.

We as begineers, need a lot of input to get better, and I post a lot per week to the RR.

 

But we could have some kind of category contest where members can put a photo (1 or 2) and then a jury will decide the 1 to 500:th place position. It could be a contest once per month, two per month or whatever amount it could be. Of course the category will not be the same all the time.

Rgds

[ransford]

I'm new to PNet and it took me awhile to realize how useless the ratings system is. I get relatively few ratings so that the sample is statistically unreliable, anyway. But maybe it's best to leave the ratings system alone. A jury would be biased and slight some people. How would you like place 500 out of 500, believing the system a good one. I am inclined only to consider the people who go to the trouble to comment. Admittedly, these people are generous and I feel good about it. Hopefully, in time, I will get constructive criticism. So far I have had no problem with negative comments, usually following an underlying approval. I agree with .].Z about giving a sunset a 7 for originality, although I saw one recently that deserved it. But where are .].Z's photos?

[orensztajn]

Hi Ransford,

I always wanted to ask you, it is you on that camel? ;-)

[mg]

No, the rating system is not entirely useless: it helps promoting the works of

the photo mafias. :-)

[gidge41055aol.com]

Its a real awful shame people just cant play fair and rate with total honesty!

[orensztajn]

Yes but I still the majority of the people play correctly.

[kai_griffin]

<i>...the ratings system continues to be one of the most frustrating problems here on Pnet</i><p>

It's only a problem if you let it be a problem. Recognise the rating system for what it is, and you'll be fine. It's not broken - it just reflects the reality of what happens when you fling open the doors of the whole world to a voting system. You'll get well-considered votes, retaliatory votes, nasty votes, donkey votes, larrikin votes, schoolboy votes, votes from elderly citizens, votes from communists, votes from fascists, votes from the corn belt, industrial tycoon votes, pauper's votes, cobblers votes, votes from the pathologically insane, Symbionese Liberation Army votes, a vote from Miss Marple, votes from dead pets, and perhaps some day, if I ever get around to it, you might even get a comment (but not a rating) from me. <p>If people who are toying with the idea of complaining about the rating system were to pause and consider the above for a moment before disinterring this corpse of an "issue", a lot less steam and rant will be wasted upon it. For better or for worse, the rating "system" is just a sorting mechanism. For genuine feedback on your photographs, look not to the numbers, but to the comments many people leave for you.<p>

Before someone inevitably brings it up - no, I do not post or rate images here on this site - I just don't have the time to go through the images and take the time I think that process deserves. I'd never give a numerical rating to a photograph, though - I just think it's plain wrong to reduce an artistic effort to a raw number.

[._._z]

I *only* give '7's to photos of sunsets and kittens.

[minicucci]

"I *only* give '7's to photos of sunsets and kittens."

 

ROTFLMAO

[ned1]

Take a look at THIS one:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=3519537

 

please don't tell me the 1/1 is legit.

 

I've been noticing a pattern which this one exemplifies. The first two ratings on it were 6/6's, then WHAM in came the 1/1. This has happened to me several times, two or three high ratings followed by an obvious (and single) down-rating. Is somebody monitoring the high scores?

[lauriee]

Hi!

I just wanted to share my prespectives of the rating system as a fairly new person here at photo.net. Firstly...when I made the decision to join an online gallery I knew I would have to check my ego at the "cyber door"! One of the reasons I liked it here was the fact that there are critiques and ratings. However I don't always rely on the numbers as to the worth of my photo. When possible I like to look at the portfolios of those who rate me...to me that is the biggest determination as to wheather the rating was legit or not. If the person's own work is similar to mine in style it might explain why they liked it enough to give it a six or seven and someone else gave it a three. Or maybe they are brand new to photograpy and easily impressed so they gave me a six or seven when a more experienced photographer would have given me a four. One of the most exciting things for me is when I recieve a higher score and I'm able to look at the raters portfolio and see that they have AWESOME photos of their own and they had looked at mine with an appreciative eye! That is better than any drug!! LOL

 

So maybe a suggestion might be that members who rate must be willing to have their "single shots" available for viewing when they rate.

 

Other than that..My suggestion would be to realize we are all different and our ratings will be too and that there will ALWAYS be some doofus that finds fun in screwing up someones ratings with a one...and he should just be recognized as a doofus and move on! LOL

 

Laurie

[mottershead]

THe photo.net Critique Forum is like a huge world-wide camera club. People submit their photos to be judged. Many clubs have a 'popular choice' in their competitions, but the main winners are selected by judges. This supposedly makes the results more 'objective' and, therefore, more acceptable to the participants.

 

But as with every other competitive activity where judges determine the winners, in camera clubs only the winners are ever very satisfied with the objectivity of the judges. Everybody complains about the biases and errors of the judges all the time. Being a camera club judge is pretty thankless.

 

At photo.net, we dispense with judges and just have popular choice. I happen to think democracy is a pretty good system. In politics, the only system that I can think of that would be better than democracy would be monarchy, provided everybody agrees to let me be the king. In the photo.net Gallery, I am in fact the king, but I still prefer democracy because making all the decisions myself would be too much work, and besides, who cares what I think?

[davcamsud]

As far as I've seen (I wasn't much into Pnet until last month), I completely agree with you, B Diamond, but it's the first time I hear about "Spanish Photo-Mafia". I don't know if really mate-rating is practised especially among Spaniards, but take into account that we are not all mate-raters.